213

The intrusive from which the iron solutions emanated is believed to
be the diorite rather than the granite, since in places the granite may be
observed to intrude the diorite and to be present in dyke-like stringers in
the magnetite. In addition, comparative regional evidence points to the
diorite rather than the granite as the source of the iron.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Extent of Deposit

The deposit extends for 75 feet along the hill-side and has a maximum
width of exposure (measured on the horizontal) of 40 feet. If the blanket
or nearly flat-lying structure suggested above is correct, and there is no
ore in the tunnel, the depth would not be greater than 15 or 20 feet. There
is very little opportunity for any noteworthy longitudinal extension of the
deposit, on account of the granite exposures close to both ends.

Development

A tunnel reported by Brewer to be 72 feet long, with a 45-foot drift
at its face, and some old stripping, now obliterated by subsequent growth,
constitute the development.

Analyses

No representative analyses from this deposit are available. The two
analyses quoted below are manifestly taken from selected samples of the
best grade of magnetite.

59-37 60-7
0-716] Trace
0-006! Trace

13-6

A. Lindeman, E.: Bibliography, No. 16, ‘‘Average sample of the exposure above the drift.”
B. Brewer, W. M.: Bibliography, No. 21, ‘‘A sample from the bluff.’

Tonnage Estimate

Since no magnetite of commercial grade was found in the deposit, no
estimate of tonnage is offered.

Value of the Deposit
The deposit is of no value as a source of iron ore.

Bibliography

See page 158 for further details

6. Carmichael, H., p. 212.

16. Lindeman, Re p. ee Aa

8. Thompson, N., pp. -201.

Di ‘indersan E., and Bolton, L. L., pp. 11-12.
21. Brewer, W. M., pp. 26-27.

22. Whittier, W. H., pp. 52-55.

29, Ann. Rept., 1901, p. 1095.