ECONOMIC GEOLOGY

Alq'D

BULLETIN OF THE SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGISTS

VOL. 66 JANUARY--FEBRUARY,
1971 No. 1

A Paleohydrologic
Modelfor Mineralization
of theWhitePine
CopperDeposit,NorthernMichigan
WALTER S. WHITE

Abstract

Pertinent physicalpropertiesof the upper Keweenawanrocks can be measuredor

in{erredwithin a sufficiently
narrowrangeto makethe quantitativeevaluationof various
paleohydrologic modelsfor the origin of the White Pine copperdepositfeasible. The
approachis illustrated-hereby calculationsfor modelsthat involvelateral migration of
fluidsthroughthe subjacentCopperHarbor Conglomerate to the site of the depositand
stripping of copper from these solutionswhere they percolatedupward through the
Nonesuch Shale. The calculationsreveal limitations to theories of origin that would
not be evidentfrom purely qualitativeconsideration;someof theselimitationscouldbe
useful to exploration. For example, if the water was yielded by compactionof the
CopperHarbor Conglomerate and contained50 ppm Cu, there musthavebeensignificant
convergence-ofsolutionpathstoward White Pine. Surface water entering the Copper
Harbor Conglomerateon the north limb of the Lake Superior syncline is an adequate
sourceif it couldbe shownthat the point of entry was oncesignificantlyhigher in alti-
tude than the water table at White Pine; this model implies a major copperdepositat
great depth north of the axis of the syncline. Ground water entering the Nonesuch
Shale up dip from White Pine is not a possiblesourceof mineralizing solutions.

Symbols Used the volume of water flowingpast a vertical strip

be= thicknessof CopperHarbor Conglomerate(cm).
b = thicknessof NonesuchShale (cm).
h' = excesshead (cm) at baseof NonesuchShale.
zh'= difference o excess head at base of Nonesuch
Shale between two specifiedlocalities (cm). zh
divided by the distance (cm) between the two
localities is the average hydraulic gradient be-
tween the localities.
K = hydraulic conductivity of Copper Harbor Con-
glomerate (cm/sec).
K = hydraulic conductivity of Nonesuch Shale (cm/
sec).
qh= rate of lateral movement of fluid in the Copper
Harbor Conglomerate(cm/sec).
{/, = rate of movement of fluid upward acrossthe base
of the NonesuchShale (cm/sec).
x Publicationauthorizedby the Director, U.S. Geological
Survey.
1 cm wide and extendingfrom top to bottom of
the Copper Harbor Conglomeratein 1 second
(cc/sec). Where that formation is essentially
horizontal, Vh = q X
the volume of water flowing upward past a strip
1 cm wide parallel to the baseof the Nonesuch
Shalebetweentwo specifiedlocalitiesin 1 second
(cc/sec).It is the productof the averagerate of
upward movementof fluid (q0 and the distance
between the localities.
Introduction
THE amount of water needed to form the White
Pine copper-shale
deposit,in the upperpeninsulaof
Michigan, can be roughly estimatedby making a
singleassumptionabout the concentrationof copper
in the water. The mechanicsof getting this amount
of water from a sourcearea to the depositdepends
 WALTER $. WHITE

\ CA N'ADA
EXPLANATION
" i 0 JKobville SndMoM

I I''/ IAr.,o
./'-/F'I 13 1 Freda
SendstoM
and
. . .

. -- .. t ....... ,' =
$ ..............................
'.........................
..7'"':""
.... ' ' r Ha

.-"'
........
..-"'
,-- ... '.
,:
., .--,: ,., .
rhi

Contact
Dottl e inferrl

Fult
Dished where conc#led
...... c:: :':: :'.:* ::.. ,:.:.' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: end iferred
.:.:.::07::.....
::.':
}3;(-2q::..::::::. ..
'. =======================================
-.,- .'<':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
: ---:
0 -'.?.:::::::.
'2':':::::':'
::::::::
::::::: ..&
..
,'"
, ::::::::::::::::::::::
.
. .- -.:-:::2:::::::2::::
--:. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.:.::::::::::::
% ::::::::::::::::-:
....
::........
-3"'.
,
: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.:.
Approximate
Whe
(fr u.I
r
det
Re

Rn ., 1)
.1i:..;'-:"-". ........ -..... .....' :::.' - : -...:::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... -...:;.,:.::.:::2:::.:...-:'
e a dip s

'

Fro. 1. Geologicmap,vicinity of ite Pine copperdepit.

ultimately on the physicalcharacter,thickness,and Copper,mostlyas chalcocite,occursin the basa

dispositionof the formationsinvolved,on a source beds of the middle formation, the Nonesuch Shale
of driving energy,and on the time available. Enough over an areaof morethan 500 squarekm in northen
is known about the variables involved to make an Michigan. The basalcupriferous
zonerangesfron
quantificationfeasible, less than 0.1 m to more than 20 m in thicknes
attemptat order-of-magnitude
and becauseof the interdependency of many varia- (White and Wright, 1966, Fig. 2). Pyrite is th.
bles,the resultinghydrologicmodelshelp definethe only sulfideof quantitativeimportancein the 200 n
conditionsthat any completetheory of origin of the of NonesuchShaleabovethe cupriferouszone. Thi
copperdepositsmust satisfy. The paleohydrologic copperis believedto be epigenetic,introducedint
studydescribedhere, part of a larger studyevalu.- the basal beds of the Nonesuch Shale from the under
atinga varietyof possiblesources and pathwaysfor lying CopperHarbor Conglomerate(White, 1960
the mineralizingsolutions,
is presented
as an example White and Wright, 1966; Ensignand others,1968
to showhow muchinsightinto processcanbe gained Brown, 1965, 1968, 1970). A thin zone containinl
from even a singleset of suchcalculations. borniteand chalcopyriteinsteadof chalcocitemark
GeologicSetting of the White Pine the top of the cupriferouszone; it transgressesstra
Copper Deposit tigraphy and suggests that the deposit was formel
by upwardmigrationof a copperfront, alongwhicl
The geologyof the White Pine copperdeposit coppersulfidewasprecipitatedprimarilyby reactio
(Fig. 1) and of the area in which it occurshas been with iron sulfide. At least two mechanismsrequir,
describedin a numberof papers(White andWright,
consideration: copperwas suppliedto this front b'
1954,1960,1966; Ensignand others,1968). Three
solutions moving upward through the Nonesucl
formations,of upperKeweenawanage,are involved:
the Copper Harbor Conglomerate(100-2,000 m Shale that were completelystrippedof their coppe'
thick), NonesuchShale (200 m), and Freda Sand- at the front 2; or the copperdiffusedupward fron
stone(3,000-4,000m), in order of decreasing age. a reservoir in the underlying Copper Harbor Con
Though exposedprimarily on the southflank of the glomerate. The present paper is concernedonl,
Lake Superior basin in Michigan, theseformations 2 The assumptionof completestripping of copperis base,
presumably have great extent beneath the lake. on the fact that the rocks above the front contain the sam
The rocks now dip gently northwardtoward the likely precipitants (syngenetic iron sulfide, organic matte]
and possiblyphyllosilicates)as the rocks below, but contail
axis of Lake Superiorexceptwherethey havebeen only trace amountsof copper (White and Wright, 1966
disturbedby foldsand faults. Brown, 1968).
 ,4 P.4LEOHYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR MINER`4LIZATION 3

SOUTH 0 10 20 30 NORTH

- -
(a)
EXCESS

....................
............
- ,
--4

-- 3 'COPPER
CONTENT --
(m-percent)

-2 ' ":'" )

-- COPPE
HARBOR
CONGLOM
RATE
,
--3 m'DUUC coxJcnvY K) -

I- --5 ................... OMERA

TE
Z

.............
--_7 SANDSTONE .............
,<

,. 0I 10
I
.........
20
............
I ............................
, I
DISTANCE FROM WHITE PINE ,(KM)

Fro. 2. :Excess
headat the baseof the Nonesuch
Shale(diagram(a)) calculated'from
coppercontet(b), forma-
tion thicknesses
(c), and variousassumed
hydraulicconductivities
(d) and sourcesof water. The differentcurvesfor
h', the excesshead (labeledA, B, C, D'), and the dottedand dashed
linesrepresent
differenthydrologic
modelsdis-
cussed in the text.

with the consequences of assumingthat the solutions thousandsof metersof overlyingFreda Sandstone,
percolatedup through the NonesuchShale. is not clear from geologicevidence;as will be seen,
The depositwas dearly formed after deposition paleohydro10gic analysissuggeststhat the deposit
of the lower bedsof the NonesuchShale,but whether was formed below a relatively thick cover. The
mineralization occurred while these beds were still deposit was clearly formed before the rocks were
relativelycloseto the surfaceof depositionor much tectonicallydeformed (White and Wright, 1954;
later, after the Nonesuch Shale was buried beneath Carpenter,1963), so it may be assumedthat at the
 WALTER S. WHITE

TaBle 1. Assumedthickness and hydraulic conductivity of [pper Keeenawanformations at various

distmaces south (-) ud north (+) of White Pne

:Distance(kin) -10 0 +10 +20 - +30

hickness (m)

Fred& Sandstone 2500 33oo 2oo 0oo ooo 0oo

Nonesuch SlOe 150 2OO o o 31o 330

Copper Harbor 150 30 19o )oo z)o zo

Conglomerate

Hdrauleeonductivity (cu/sec)
Freda Sandstone 3.16x 10-5 1.00x 10-5 3.16x 10-6 1.00x 10-6 3.16x 10-7 1.00x 10-7
Nonesuch
Shale 3.16x 10-7 1.00x 10-7 3.16x 10-8 1.00x 10-8 3.16x 10-9 1.00x 10-9
CopperHarbor 5.30x10- 3.55x10- 2.16x10- 6.83x10-5 2.16x10-5 6.83x10-6
Conglomerate

time of mineralization the Nonesuch Shale was rela.-
tively flat lying and that its stateof compaction
was operativewhile the NonesuchShale and Copper
due solelyto loadingby sedimentation. Harbor Conglomeratewere being compactedby
The sourceof the mineralizing solutionsand the deposition of about3,000m of overlyingFreda Sand-
nature of the driving mechanismthat broughtthem
to the siteof deposition
are alsoquestions that hydro-
logic analysiscan help to answer. In this paper,
we shall briefly examinesomeconsequences of the
propositionsthat (1) the source of mineralizing
solutionslay somewhere north of the axis of the Lake
Superiorsyncline,or that (2) the mineralizingsolu-
tionswere salineporewater drivenfrom the Copper
Harbor Conglomerate by compaction as the load of
sedimentaryrocksaboveit was increased.
The Assumptions
Copper Concentration.--'For purposesof calcula-
tion, it will be assumedthat the mineralizingsolu-
tionshad a concentration of 50 ppm of copperwhen
they reachedthe site of copperdeposition.This is
half the concentration of 100 ppm that D. E. White
(968, p. 324) suggestsis "perhapstoo high, but
intermediatewithin the likely total range of 1 to
1000ppm of copper."
Tirne.--There is no goodmeasureof the lengthof
time that was requiredto form the White Pine de-
posit, but, as will be seen,the time can be varied
within rather wide limits without critically affecting
the reasonableness of a given hydrologicmodel; the
most critical ratio, the ratio of water moving hori-
zontallyin the CopperHarbor Conglomerate at any
placeto water leakingupward throughthe Nonesuch
Shale,is independentof time. The modelthat will
be most closely scrutinizedhere would have been
stone. An interval of 100 million years, more than
the lengthof the Tertiary, is probablya reasonable
maximum; 1 million years would imply rates of
sedimentation and basin subsidence substantially
greater than those prevailing in such regionsof
rapid sedimentation
as the Gulf Coast. An interval
of 10 million years,half way betweentheseextremes
on a logarithmic scale, will therefore be assumed
here.
Thickness oI Formations.---Assumedvalues for
the thickness of the three formations involved at
10-kin intervals north (positive) and south (nega-
tive) of White Pine (zero kin) are presentedin
Table 1, and thicknesses
of the CopperHarbor Con-
glomerateandNonesuchShaleare showngraphically
in Figure 2(c). The pointat 40 km north is some-
where near the long axis of the basinin which the
upperKeweenawanrockswere deposited(White,
1966, Fig. 1).
The thicknesses of the Nonesuch Shale are known
from drillingfor a distance
of about10 km northand
south of White Pine. Farther north, the formation
is assumed to thicken at a lesser rate than at White
Pine and to attain a thicknessof 330 m (about 1,000
feet) in the centerof the basin. The thickness
of the
CopperHarbor Conglomerate for 10 km north and
south of White Pine is basedon the geologicpro-
jectionportrayedby White andWright (1966, gig.
2). The rapid southwardthinningof the Copper
 .4 P.4LEOHYDROLOGIC MODEL .FOR MINER.4LIZ.4TION 5

Harbor Conglomeratein the vicinity of White Pine Bredehoeft(1964,Fig. 1) founda rangein K from
is due to onlap againsta volcanicpile surmounting about10-4to 10-7cm/secfor theTensleepSandstone
the older rocksbeneath(White and Wright, 1960, (Pennsylvanian age) of the BighornBasin,Wyo.;
1966); this pile thus acts like a buried hill. The the rangeis due primarilyto burial and cementation
formation is assigneda constantthicknessof 2,000 rather than to differencesin grain size, the lower
m north of this pile; hydrologicmodelsare not much
valuescorrespondingto depthsof 12,000to 15,000
affected if, instead, the thickness is assumedto in-
feet and porositiesof 5 percentcomparedwith
creasegradually between 10 and 40 km north of porosities
of 20 percentnear the outcrop. Archie
White Pine.
(1950,Figs.1 and2) shows
valuesfor K ranging
The top of the Freda Sandstoneis not exposedin from 10-7 to morethan 10- cm/secfor a numberof
Michigan, so its original thicknessnear White Pine formationsof the Gulf Coast. In both coarse-and
is not known. The formation is 3,000-4,000 m thick fine-grained
formations,
a change
in porosity
of 3 to
near the Wisconsin State line, and the 1,500 m of 4 percentcorresponds
to a changeof an order of
Freda Sandstonethat locally overliesthe Nonesuch magnitudein permeability;
thereductionof hydraulic
Shale near White Pine today is a minimum. The conductivityfrom 10-4 to 10-7 cm/seccorresponds
original thicknessof the formation before erosionis to a reduction
in porosity
fromabout15to 5 percent
assumedto be roughly 3,300 m (10,000 feet) at in hiscoarsest
grained
sediments
and36 to 24 per-
White Pine, the amountincreasingtoward the cen- cent in the finest.
ter of the basin. Table 1 and Figure 2(d) showthe valuesfor K
Hydraulic Conductivityol Formations.--The hy- assignedto the three formations. These are not
draulic conductivity,K (Bredehoeftand Hanshaw, present values, but mean values estimated from the
1968, p. 1,100), is a measureof the permeabilityof dataofthepreceding
paragraphfor theearlystageof
the rocks to water under in situ conditions. One compaction
with whichwe are probablyconcerned
cannotmeasure,directly, what the hydraulic conduc- here. (The figuresfollowing
the decimalpointsin
tivity of the rocks consideredhere may have been Table1 are,of course,meaningless,
andarepresented
at various stagesof compaction.There are many only becausethey are useful when one needsto
pitfalls in reasoningfrom analogywith rockswhose interpolatebetweenlogarithmsof the numbersfor
hydraulicconductivityhasbeenmeasured,as we shall the calculations
that follow.) The NonesuchShale
do here, becauseof the large number of variables is, like muchso-called
"shale,"primarilysiltstone
involved. Data compiledby Bredehoeftand Hah- (median grainsize0.02mm). Manyof thesamples
shaw (1968) suggestthat clay permeabilitiescan from Californiameasured by Johnson, Moston,and
vary by sevenorders of magnitude,and the values Morris(1968,Table5) fall withinthe samerange
for a variety of slightlyconsolidatedsandstones and of grain size and sortingindex as the rocksof the
siltstonesmeasuredby Johnson,Moston,and Morris Nonesuch ShalenearWhite Pine (mediangrainsize
(1968, Table 5) suggestrangesof 3 to 5 orders of 0.01-0.06mm; sortingindex(ratioof quartiles)less
magnitudefor sampleswith similar grain size and than 2.2); thesesamples, testedin an unloadedcon-
sorting. The pitfallsare probablyleasttreacherous dition,commonly havevaluesfor K that lie between
where averagevalues are applied to thick strati- 10-4 and 10-e cm/sec.The valueof 10-7 cm/sec
graphicunits, as here, but the basicjustificationfor taken for the NonesuchShale at White Pine assumes
using analogyas a guide must remain the lack, at modest compaction (a reduction in porosity of only
present,of a more firmly groundedmethod. 6 to 7 percentaccording to the curvesof Archie,
Values for K for a numberof days tabulatedby 1950). Thenorthward decrease in permeabilityat a
BredehoeftandHanshaw(1968,p. 1101) rangefrom rate of oneorderof magnitude per 20 km allowsfor
2 x 10- cm/secfor a kaolinite under dight load to the combined effectsof increasing depthof burial
less than I(Y2 cm/sec in a natural shale from a andcompaction towardthe centerof thebasin,com-
depth of 3690 m. Johnson,Moston, and Morris bined with a decreasein grain size due to facies
(1968, Table 5) presentlaboratorydataon a large change. A similarchangeis assumed for the other
numberof samplesof relativelyunconsolidated Ter- formations for the same reason.
tiary sediments from California,rangingfrom gravel The valuesfor thehydraulicconductivity
assigned
to clay,andhavingporosities that commonly exceed to the CopperHarbor Conglomerate
in the areafrom
40 percent. Their data for fairly well sortedmate- 10 km south to 10 km north of White Pine are
rial (sortingindex--ratioof quartiles---less
than 4), dependenton the value assignedto the Nonesuch
comparable to the upper Keweenawansedimentary Shale andwereobtained in thecourse
ofthecompu-
rocks,suggesta range in averageK from about 10- tations describedbelow. The values are reasonable
crn/sec for well-sorted fine sand to about 10-7 to for a medium-
to coarse-grained
sandstone
notyet
10-9 cm/secfor siltscloseto the silt-clayboundary. choked
by cementation
andcompaction.
Therange
 WALTER ,.,c.WHITE

Table 2. Calculation of ecess head at the base of the Nonesuch Shae

the more copper-richparts of /he deposit,and the
at 2-m tntervs south (-) and north (+) of hite Pne copperdistributionthat they define,therefore,repre-
sentsthe most stringentconditionsthat a hydrologic
Distance Tota
fro}/!l.
te eOler qv KN modelneedsatisfyto be acceptable.
e () (mx', () ira) (,) ()
The excess head at the base of the Nonesuch
-5 1.6 .8x 10-9 173 1.78x 10-7 175
Shale, under conditionsof steady-stateflow, is di-
-3 . .e . 678
- 6. 7-o
rectly proportionalto the rate of verticalflow (qv)
+ 6. r.o . 3
and the thickness(b) of the NonesuchShale and
+3 .5 6.3 inverselyproportionalto the hydraulicconductivity
+ .6 5.3 e .56e 38 (K) of the formation. The excesshead at any
+7 3.8 .3 point, therefore,can be calculateddirectlyfrom:
3.0 3.5
h!
q,= Kr
of valuesis comparableto the upper range of those
for the TensleepSandstone(Bredehoeft,1964), cor- where h'/b is the hydraulic gradient acrossthe
NonesuchShale. The resultsare presentedin Table
responding to porosities
of 10 to 25 percent.
The Freda Sandstone contains coarse siltstone and
2, column6, togetherwith the valuesused for the
thicknessand hydraulicconductivityof the Nonesuch
fine-grained sandstone in the vicinityof White Pine. Shale; theselast are interpolatedfrom the valuesin
It is intermediate in coarseness between the None-
Table 1. These data are also showngraphicallyin
suchShaleand CopperHarbor Conglomerate and is
Figure 2; valuesfor h' (Fig. 2(a)) are givenby the
assignedan intermediatehydraulicconductivity. curve labtied "A."

Vertical Flow of Water Through

the Nonesuch Shale Horizontal Flow in the Copper Harbor
Conglomerate
The amountof water containing50 ppm copper
In the hydrologicmodelsconsidered
here,copper-
that is requiredto mineralize
any givencolumnof
NonesuchShale can be estimateddirectly from the bearingwater is broughtto the site of the deposit
by lateral (horizontalor subhorizontal)
flow in the
total amountof copperin the column. One meter relatively permeableCopper Harbor Conglomerate.
of shalecontaining
1 percentcoppercontains
2.72gm If a hydrologicmodelis to be internallyconsistent,
copperovereachcm2 of area. This amountof cop- the rate of this flow and the amount of water in-
per is containedin 5.44x 10 cc of waterwith a volvedare quantitiesthat mustbe consistentwith the
concentration
of 50 ppm,or a columnof water5.44 hydraulicgradientrepresentedby the southwardde-
X 10 cm long (high) overeachcm2 of area. In creasein the value of h' (Fig. 2(a)) and with the
rockwith a porosityof 15 percent,
theactuallength hydraulic conductivityand thicknessof the Copper
of the columnof water that passeseachpoint is
Harbor Conglomerate. The total amount of water
5.44X 10+0.15, or 3.626x 10 cm. The rate of
brought to the depositmust be at least as large as
flowrequiredto introduce 1 percentof copperinto the total amount that seeps upward through the
1 meter of rock in 10 million years,therefore,is
Nonesuch Shale, but as it turns out, this is not a
3.626x 10 cm-'. 3.15 x 10 sec, or 1.15X 10- constraint.
cm/sec.Theactualrateof flowpastanypointat the
zone(qv) canbe determined An internally consistentmodel is derivedby (1)
baseof the mineralized
simplyby multiplying the productof mineralizedcalculatingthe minimumamountof water that must
thicknessin meters times average grade (percent be broughtto variouspointsto satisfythe demands
Cu) of the rocksabovethat pointby 1.15X 10- of upward flow through the NonesuchShale, and
cm/sec.
a The resultsfor an idealized ori- (2) findingout what constantamountof water must
section
be added to this minimum amount at all points to
ented more or lessnorth-southacrossthe White Pine
deposit 3. The prod- make the volumeof horizontallyflowingwater con-
are givenin Table2, column
uctsof gradetimesthickness
usedfor thesecalcula- The excesshead, h', will be taken here as the amount,
tions(Table2, column2, and'Fig.2(b)) are gen- in cm of height of a column of water, by which the head at
eralizedfrom data of White and Wright (1954, any point at the base of the Nonesuch Shale exceeds the
head that would exist there under hydrostatic conditions.
Fig. 10), Ensignand others(1968,Figs.7-10), This excesshead is ultimately a transient and variable com-
Brown (1968), and Jost (1968). They represent ponentof the total head, but for simplicity, it is assignedthe
average value that it would have to have at any given locality
to drive a specifiedamount of water past a reference plane
8 Where data are given in ft X percentcopper,the flow
rate (cm/sec) underthe assumptions usedhere is forrod in the 10 million years assumed for the mineralization
by taking3.5X 10-cm/secas the multiplier. process. This permits the assumptionof steady-stateflow.
 A PALEOHYDROLOGIC
MODEL FOR MINERALIZATION 7

sistent with known or reasonable values for the other cm/se

propertiesof the system. 10-s

I I I
The minimumvolumeof water flowingsouthward
in the CopperHarbor is equal to the amountslost
by percolationupward throughthe NonesuchShale.
The volumelost upward (V) in eachof the 2 km
intervalsconsideredin Table 2 can be represented
by the productof q x 2 km (Table 3, column2).
This is the amountof water in cc/secthat crosses a
north-southstrip 1 cm wide and 2 km long parallel
to beddingat the baseof the NonesuchShale. Start- 5.0 X 10 -3
ing with the limitingassumption that there is essen-
tially no water left over at the southend of the ore '10-3 r----
deposit,the amount of water flowing southward
throughthe CopperHarbor Conglomerate at any
givenpointis the sumof the volumeslostupwardin
the distance
fromthe givenpointto the pointwhere
h' approacheszero near the left side of Figure 2.
The numbersrepresentingthese volumesare given
in the third column of Table 3. The volume at -5
km (0.09 x 10-a cc/sec) is basedon the simplifying
assumption that the flow rate (q) at -6 km is zerO. L'2' 0 +2 +4 +6 KM
The volumeat -3 km is obtainedby addingto this I I I I

0.09 x 10-" cc/secthe averageamountbetween-3 'DISTANCENORTH (+) OR

km and -5 km (0.70 x 10-a cc/sec),and soon. SOUTH(-) OF WHITEPINE
The volume of water flowing southwardthrough FIO.3. Valuesof hydraulicconductivity
of CopperHar-
the CopperHarbor at any point must also satisfy bor Conglomerate(Ko) for variousassumedvaluesfor the
volume of water flowing past the southend of the White
conditionsdefined by the hydraulic gradient, hy- Pine deposit (cc/sec).
draulic conductivity(K), and thicknessof that
formation. The volume (Va) at any point may be This volumeis the amountof waterin cc/secthat
representedby the product of the flow rate (q) crosses
a verticalstrip1 cmwideandequalin length
times the thicknessof the CopperHarbor Conglom- to the thickness of the formation. The flow rate
erate (bo); that is: (qa) is givenby:
Vh = qhbc. Ah'
q = Kc
2 X 105
Table. Volesof wateflowinsolltheard
2e Cr r andthevolume,therefore,by
Co at 2- s (-) d (+) of ite
,h'
Pi, col ws e uu t of ter ness V = Kb-
2 X 10-5
to fo e idiz i Pe copr sit. In the foh
col, se u ts c by e t (2. x 10'R where Xh' is the difference in excesshead between
cc/s) eetim flow out of the st at u e. two stations 2 km apart,andthe averagehydraulic
gradientis Xh'/2x 105. (The valuesfor Xh'at each
station(Table4, column 2) weredetermined graphi-
Distance Vv -- Cumulative Vh
callyfroma curveof h' (Table2) plottedagainst
fromhite
Pne (kin) 2x 105xqv Vv (cc/e) (cc/s) distance.)
Wherethethickness
(Table4, column
3)
-5 0.36x10'3 0.x 10'3 R.61x10'R
,

andhydraulic
gradient
areclosely
fixed,astheyare
-3 1. o.79 .o8. here,a givenvolumeof waterflowingsouthward at
anypointrequiresa specific
valuefor hydraulic
con-
ductivity. Figure3 showsgraphically the values
of K, requiredwhen selectedvolumesof water are
+5 z. 5. .59 addedto the volumesgivenin the third columnof
+7 o. 6. . Table 3. The amountaddedis the amountof water
o.7o 7.65 .
that flowsout of the systemat the southend--what
for qv from table , colu is left of the original amount that enteredat the
8 WALTER S. WHITE

Table. DatarelatLu to rate of southward

flow (qh) n the actuallydoespinch out or lens rather abruptly into
CopperIrBor Conglomeratefor 2-kin intervals south (-) and coarse-grained
sedimentssomewherenear this point;
the geometryof its basal contact suggeststhat it
north (+) of hite Pne
laps up againstan alluvial fan in this general area
Distance/x h' I (Ensignand others,1968,p. 472-475, and Fig. 6).
from White bc Kc
Pine (!m) (c,./2km) (,.) (c.m/sec) As will be shownbelow,the assumedpermeabilityof
the Freda Sandstoneis such that near-hydrostatic
-5 o 193 4.33xlO
'4 1.O-xlO
conditionswould persistin it with flow rates of the
-3 520 4.00 1.o
magnitudeconsideredhere, so it is necessaryonly
-1 3 9 3.69 .817
to find or infer some geologica}lyreasonableper-
+1 359 382 3.$1 .612 meablelink betweenCopper Harbor Conglomerate
.+3 25 69 3.14 .399 and Freda Sandstonethrough or around the south-
+5 195 915 2.9o .83 ern edgeof the NonesuchShale. This problemwill
+7 15o 1338 2.68 be consideredfurther in a more comprehensive pub-
+9 122 183 2.7 lication.

Extrapolations Toward the Axis o

north end after part of the water has been pro- the Lake Superior Basin
gressivelydirectedupward through the Nonesuch The hydrologic model describedabove can be
Shale.
readily extrapolatedtoward the axis of the Lake
'Figure3 indicatesthe necessity
of assuming
that Superior basin using the assumptionsabout thick-
somewater flowspastthe deposit. The curverepre- ness and hydraulic conductivitygiven in Table 1.
sentingthe situationin whichno water flowsout at For any given assumptionabout the sourceof the
the southendof the system(bottomcurve) showsa water, only one set of valuesfor excesshead (h'),
markedsouthwarddecreasein hydraulicconductivity plottedagainstdistancefrom White Pine, will simul-
of the CopperHarbor Conglomerate;
this situation taneouslysatisfythe equationsfor southwardflow
seemsmost unlikelyin view of the observednorth- in the Copper Harbor Conglomerateand vertical
ward increasein the amountof finer grainedrock in percolationthroughthe NonesuchShaleat all points.
the formation. Of the curves that show a marked These values for h' and other characteristics of the
southwardincreasein hydraulicconductivity,the one systemcan be obtainedby the followingprocedure,
that requiresthe smallestvolumeof water flowing taking the interval from 10 to 12km north of White
out at the south end is the one that calls for a volume Pine as the example. We shall considerfirst the
at the southend equalto about2.5 timesthe mini- simplestpossiblemodel, in which all the water in
mum neededto form the deposit,or 2.00 x 10-3 the systemcomesfrom more than 40 km north of
cc/sec.This volumeof wateris addedto eachof White Pine.
the volumesin column3 of table 3 to give the values For a first approximation,the volume of water
for Vn listed in column4. The valuesfor Ko and flowingsouthwardthroughthe CopperHarbor Con-
q that are consistentwith thesepreferredvalues glomerateat 11 km north of White Pine is assumed
for Vnaregivenin Table4 (columns 4 and5). The to be a little larger than the volumeat 9 km (Table
valuesfor Ko in Table 1 and Figure 2 (d) are taken 3, last column). Let us assumea value of 2.91
from Table 4. x 10-2 cc/sec,a valuepurposelychosento be higher
At this point,we havedefineda complete hy- than one wouldexpectto get by extrapolatingfrom
draulicsystem,
with all thevariables
assigned
values Table 3. Given a thickness of 2 x 105 cm for the
that are internallyconsistent
with one anotherover Copper Harbor Conglomerate(Table 1), the flow
the intervalextendingfrom 6 km southof White rate (q) must be 2.91 x 10-2 + 2 x 105, or 1.455
Pine to 10 km north. The amount of water flowing x 10-7. With a hydraulicconductivityof 1.93 x 10-4
upwardthroughthe Nonesuch Shaleat any point cmfsec (by interpolationfrom the data in Table 1),
is the amountneededto introducethe copperat that the relation
point,givena concentration
of 50ppmcopper
in the zXh'
water. The principal
geologic
uncertainty
connected
--

q= Kc2X 105
with this model is the meaningof the volume of
water that flowsout of the systemat the southend givesa differencein excesshead (Xh') of 151 cm
at a pointwherethe excessheadapproaches zero. over the interval from 10 to 12 km. The difference
The water mustpass,at this point,into a domain in excess head between 9 and 11 km from White
so permeable that essentially conditionsPine is roughlythe averageof this 151 cm and 122
hydrostatic
prevail.It is notinconceivablethattheNonesuch cm (Table 4, column2, last figure), or 137 cm.
 dl PdILEOHYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR MINERALIZATION 9

Addingthisamountto theexcess head(/') at 9 km ateoverburden

loads(Meade,1964,p. B5), it might
head(h') of be more logicalto assumethat the logarithmof the
(Table2, lastcolumn)givesan excess
2,582 cm at 11 km. hydraulic conductivitydecreasesnorthward at the
The rate of flow of water up throughthe None- lower rate derived for the interval of the White Pine
suchis given, as before,by copper deposit (dashedline, Fig. 2(d)). If the
calculations
just describedare carriedout with these
higher valuesfor the hydraulicconductivityof the
q,= Ks-. CopperHarbor Conglomerate, at 40 km, h' is about
Usingthevaluefor h' just derivedandvaluesfor K2v 60 m, and the basal beds of the Nonesuch Shale
andb2v(hydraulicconductivity andthickness, respec- would contain about 0.21 meter-percentof copper.
tively, of the NonesuchShale) interpolatedfrom Values for /,' for the interval 10 to 30 km north of
Table 1, qvat 11 km is foundto be 2.81 X 10-9 cm/ White Pine are given by the curve labeled"B" in
sec, which means a volume of 5.62 x 10- cc/sec Figure 2(a).
flowingupwarddyer the intervalfrom 10 to 12 km We may alsoexplorethe consequence of assuming
from White Pine. The volumelost upward between that the hydraulic conductivityof the Nonesuch
9 and 11 km from White Pine is roughlythe average Shaledecreases morerapidly toward the axis of Lake
of this 5.62 x 10- cc/secand the 7.00 x 10- cc/sec Superior than in the modelsjust described. When
lost upward between8 and 10 km from White Pine the hydraulicconductivity(K2v) is assumedto de-
(secondcolumn, Table 3), or 6.31 x 10- cc/sec. creasefrom 10-7 at White Pine to 10- at 40 km, the
This last is added to the volume of water flowing values for excesshead and the hydraulic gradient
southwardat 9 km from White Pine (2.77 X 10-2 requiredto form the ore depositare greatlyincreased.
cc/sec; last column,Table 3) to give the amount The bestvaluesfor the hydraulicconductivityof the
flowing southwardat 11 km (2.83 x 10-3 cc/sec). Copper Harbor Conglomerate(Kc), determinedin
For the secondapproximation,the whole compu- the sameway as for the model just described,are
tationis repeatedusingthisnewvaluefor the volume foundto be appreciablylower than for the preceding
of water flowing southwardat 11 km. This results model; the amountof water flowingsouthwardpast
in the samevalue of 2.83 x 10- cc/secat 11 km as the southend of the depositis about half as much,
the first approximationbecausethe value of h' is so and the excess head at 40 km is about an order of
little changed,percentagewise,by the small adjust- magnitudelarger. For this model, the excesshead,
ment in the amount of southward flow. This second
and the hydraulic conductivitiesof the Nonesuch
approximation,therefore,gives the unique solution
that was sought. (assumed)and CopperHarbor Conglomerate(de-
In this way, the valuesfor h' and for horizontal rived) are shownby dottedlines in Figure 2.
and vertical flow can be determineduniquelyfor as
Effect of a SuperjacentLayer of Freda Sandstone
far as one caresto extrapolatehis initial assumptions
for thickness, hydraulic conductivity, and so on. The situationrepresentedby curveA (Fig. 2(a))
The curve labeled"A" in 'Figure 2 showsh' extrapo- is basedon the assumptionthat essentiallyhydro-
lated to a distance of 40 km north of White Pine, static conditionsexist at the top of the Nonesuch
roughly at the axis of the Lake Superior basin. Shale,as they would beforedepositionof the 'Freda
At 40 km, the calculatedvalue of h' is 220 m. Sandstoneor ithe permeabilityof the Freda were
The values for vertical flow rate can be converted very high. If the permeabilityof the Freda were
directlyto amountsof copperin the NonesuchShale not very high, however,the Freda would offer added
from the relationship(derivedat the beginningof resistanceto upward flow and changethe relation-
these.calculations) that a flow rate (qv) of 1.15 ships describedin the foregoingparagraphs. The
x 10-9 cm/sec will introduce1 percent of copper volumeof water requiredto form the depositis not
into 1 meter of rock in 10 million years. The curve changed,but the excesshead required to drive this
showingcoppercontentof the NonesuchShale in water up through the Freda must be added to the
meter.-percent(Fig. 2) is extrapolatedto 40 km excesshead required to drive it through the None-
north of White Pine usingthis relationship. such alone. Curve "C" of Figure 2(a) showsthe
In the calculations just described,the logarithmof excesshead required throughoutthe systemwhere
the hydraulicconductivityof the Copper Harbor the thicknessand hydraulicconductivityof the Freda
Conglomeratebetween10 and 40 km north of White Sandstoneat variouspoints are as listed in Table 1.
Pine was assumedto decreaselinearly northwardat This curve was obtainedby repeatingthe computa-
the same rate as those for the other formations tions described for the Nonesuch Shale alone with
(Fig. 2(d)). Becausefine-grainedsedimentstend appropriatemodificationOf the valuesfor excess
to compactmore rapidlythan coarserundermoder- head. In this new set of computations,a balance
10 WALTER S. WHITE

betweenall the variablesis obtainedwhen (1) the however,is only 2 percentlessthan that required by
hydraulic of the CopperHarborCon- the first model considered, because the water lost
conductivity
glomerate
is reduced of thevalue upward through the Nonesuch Shale between 10
to about87percent
derivedin the first set of computations(Tables 1 and 40 km is such a small fraction of the total in all
and4); (2) the valuesfor southward-flow rateare models.
the samethroughout, andthosefor verticalflow are When the volume of rock from which the water is
onlyslightlyreduced nearthenorthendof thepro- derivedis specified,as it is here, we are in a posi-
file; (3) thevalues
forh' (Fig.2, curveC) areabout tion to test the adequacyof the model in terms of
115percentof thosefor the Nonesuch alone;and its ability to furnish the volumeof water required.
(4) othervariablesthicknesses of formationsand For the cross sectiondefined here, the total volume
hydraulic conductivity
of the Nonesuch Shalesre- of water involvedis the amountflowing southward
main the same. throughthe CopperHarbor Conglomerateat 10 km
These calculationsshow that, as far as vertical north of White Pine plus the amountlost upward
transmissivity
of the systemis concerned,
the effect through the NonesuchShale between10 and 40 km.
of the whole thicknessof ,Freda Sandstoneis small The first amountmay be represented by the number
comparedwith the effectof the Nonesuch Shaleif of cc of water that flow past a vertical strip 1 c'm
the hydraulicconductivitiesdiffer by about two wide and 2 X 10* cm long (the thicknessof the
orders of magnitude. Copper Harbor) in 10 million years. At 10 km
from White Pine, this amountsto 2.81 x 10-3 cc/sec
Water of Compaction (extrapolatedfrom column4, Table 3) times3.15 X
The sourceof water in all the foregoingcalcula- 104 secor 8.85 X l0 TMcc. This last is not, strictly,
tionsis not specified.It is assumed to comefrom the volume of water, but the volume of water-soaked
somewhere northof the axis (f the Lake Superior rock. In our initial derivation of flow rate from the
basin,about40 km northof WhitePine. Someof amount of copper in the deposit, we assumed,for
thequantitiesarechanged substantially
byassuming, purposesof calculation,that the averageporosityof
instead,that the water is whollyderivedby com- the rockswas 15 percent,representingan intermedi-
paction
oftherocks 10and40kmnorthof ate stateof compaction.Usingthis figure,the actual
between
White Pine. The computations are similarto those volumeof water flowingsouthwardis 1.33 X 10 cc.
in the initial set,exceptthat the amountof water The amount lost upward through the Nonesuch
flowingoutpastthesouth endof anygiveninterval Shalecan be representedby the sumof the product
must consistof the amountenteringthe north end, qv times width of interval times 3.15 X 104 sec for
all the intervals from 10 to 40 km north of White
plustheamount
contributed
by compaction
of the
rocks within the interval, less the amount lost up- Pine. For the compaction
model,this addsto 1.0 X
ward. The amountcontributedby each1-km inter- 10TMcc of water-soaked rock, or 1.5 x 10 cc of
water.
val is 1/30thof the totalamountassumed, in the
firstsetof computations,
to beflowingsouthwardat The total amount of water to be accountedfor is,
10 km from White Pine, plus 1/30th of the amount therefore, 1.33 x 10TM+ 1.5 X 10n, or 1.48 X 10 cc.
lostupward between 10 and40 km. No wateris The volume of Copper Harbor Conglomeratein
our cross section between 10 and 40 km from White
flowing
southward
at 40 kmfromWhitePine. It is
obviousthat, otherthingsbeingequal,the smaller Pine, taking the thicknessof the sectionas unity (1
amountof waterflowingsouthward at variouspoints cm), is lx (2X105 ) X (3x 106) cc, or 6x10
in the northernpart of our profilerequiresa lower cc. If the water drivenout by compaction
represents
hydraulic thanthatof thefirstsetof com- 15 percentof the originalvolume (17.6 percentof
gradient
andthis,in turn,meansa lowerexcesspresent volume), this amount of rock would yield
putations,
headat the baseof the NonesuchShale,and thusless about1 x 10 cc of water, or 1/15th of the amount
waterlostupward throughtheNonesuch Shale.As to be accounted for.
shown graphically
in Figure2(a), at 40 kmtheex- This fraction(1/15) may well be too smallfor a
cess head(curveD) isonly77 m, or abouta third numberof reasons:(1) the amountof water flowing
of thatrequired
bytheassumption thatall thewater pastthe southend of the depositcan be madeappre-
comesfrom more than 40 km north of White Pine. ciablysmallerby making differentassumptions about
Inasmuchas the vertical flow of water is smaller, the hydraulic conductivitiesof the Nonesuchand
theamountof copperin the basalbedsof the None- Copper Harbor (for example, the dotted lines of
suchShale is also smallerthan that derived in the Fig. 2); (2) no allowanceis madefor water derived
compared from the Copper Harbor Conglomeratebeneaththe
first set of calculations--0.2meter-percent
to about0.6 meter-percent at 40 km. The total deposititself; (3) no allowanceis made for strati-
amountof waterrequiredby thiscompaction model, graphicunits of low permeabilitywithin the Copper
 ,,'1P,,'ILEOHYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR MINERALIZ,,'ITION ' 11

Harbor, which would reduce its effectivethickness; Conglomerate

on the north flank of the Lake Superior
(4) the sourcearea may extend 20 km or more basin. This model,unlikethe compaction model,is
beyondthe limit of 40 km assumedhere; (5) the not critically constrainedby the volume of water
thicknessof Copper Harbor in the center of the available. The southernhalves of somepossible
basinmay be significantly greaterthan 2,000 m. The modelsin this categoryhave alreadybeendescribed
total effectof all theseadjustmentscouldreadilyin- above as models in which all the water comes from
creasethe amountof water yieldedby a 15-percent more than 40 km north of White Pine.
compactionof the Copper Harbor to 1/5 of the If the variouscurvesof Figure 2 were to be ex-
amount to be accounted for. This means that if the trapolatedto the northern edge of the basin, those
compactionmodel is correct,the averagewidth of for thicknessand hydraulicconductivityshouldmore
the area supplyingthe water is at least 5 timesthe or less mirror the curves to the south. The curves
8-km width of the deposit,or 40 km, whichis not for h', on the otherhand,wouldhaveto keeprising
unreasonable.Assuminga copperconcentration of towarda high point in the area wherewater enters
50 ppm in the water,therefore,the amountof water the CopperHarbor Conglomerate.The mostperti-
availablefrom compaction of the CopperHarbor nent curveis labeled"C" in Figure 2(a); it repre-
Conglomerate is just barelyadequate
to accountfor sents the excess head beneath Freda and Nonesuch
the White Pine deposit,andthe modelrequiresthat combined when the source of water is north of the
water be funneled toward White Pine from a wide axis of the basin. At the north side of the basin,
areaalongthe axisof the LakeSuperiorbasin. where permeabilitieswould increasenorthward, this
In all other respects,the compactionmodel pro- curvewouldgraduallyleveloff and approacha value
vides a reasonableexplanationfor the White Pine closeto 500 m.5 This 500 m represents the actual
deposit. A load of 3,000-5,000 m of Freda Sand- difference of elevation between the infiltration area
stoneshouldbe adequateto compactthe sandstones at the north end of the profile and the water table
and siltstonesof the CopperHarbor Conglomerate at the south end, and inasmuchas the geological
in the area now overlainby Lake Superior. Given situationit representsis not at all extraordinary,it
a time intervalof 10 millionyearsfor this compac- meansthat this model, with inflow on the north side
tion, as assumedin the calculations,the excesshead of the basin and outflow on the south, must be enter-
at the base of the Nonesuch Shale at the center of tained as a reasonable possibility.
the basin would have been about 80 to 100 m, a This model is of particular interestbecausenorth
small fraction of the difference between the lithostatic
of the axis of the basin,the relativelyhigh valuesfor
andhydrostatic headsat that depth. An excesshead the excess head imply very large values for the
of this magnitudeis, however,muchlarger than can flow of water upwardthroughthe NonesuchShale--
reasonablybe attributed to the load of the Nonesuch valuesan order of magnitudeor more larger than
Shale alone before depositionof the Freda Sand- those at White Pine. Close to the area of inflow,
stone; the differencebetweenthe hydrostatichead thesewaters would, of course,be fairly fresh, with
and the lithostatic head attributable to the Nonesuch
little or no copper,but the possibilityexists that
Shale alone would be of the order of 300-450 m of
farther down the dip, 30 km or so north of the axis
water, and it is not reasonable
to expectoverpres- of the basin,wherethe chanceof their dissolving
suresof 25 percentof this amount,dueto sedimenta- evaporitebeds is greater (Davidson,1965), more
tion alone,in relativelyuncompacted sediments
at salineand cupriferous watersgeneratedan areally
suchshallowdepth. (The graphsof Bredehoeftand and stratigraphically extensivecopperdeposit.
Hanshaw,1968, Fig. 3, indicatethat in the most The validityof this model,unfortunately,
depends
unlikelyeventthat a lithostaticload equivalent
to completelyon a factorthat is probablyimpossibleto
300 m of NonesuchShale,with a hydrauliccon- evaluate,namely,whetheror not the CopperHarbor
ductivityof I0-9 cm/sec,were imposedinstantane- Conglomerateon the north limb of the basin ever
ously,andno watermovedlaterally,the excesshead croppedout significantlyhigher than exposureson
would decayto 30 percentof its originalvalue in the southlimb. The presentasymmetryof the basin,
only 1 millionyears.) If the compaction modelis with its steeperdips on the southlimb, makesthe
valid,therefore, mineralization
occurred duringor oppositesituationmore likdy. This samecondition
after depositionof thousandsof feet of 'Freda Sand-
stone. As describedon an earlier page,the.curve labeled"B"
in Figure 2 representsthe values for h' when all the water
Inflow of Surface Water on the Northern comes from more than 40 km north of White Pine and the
values for specificconductivityof the Copper Harbor Con-
Flank of the Lake SuperiorBasin glomerate (Fig. 2, dashedline) are higher than those used
modelinvolvesinflowof to
An alternativehydrologic calculatecurve "A." If this alternativemodel is extrapo-
lated toward the north, curve "B" levelsoff to a v.a.
lg.e.ge.ar
-surface
waterat the outcrop
of the CopperHarbor 100 m.
 12 WALTER S. WHITE

appliesto any model that combinesinflow on the of wateravailable providesthe moststringentlimita-

north limb and compactionin the centerof the basin. tions. Shouldotherlinesof reasoning makethe
Discussion and Conclusions
compaction modeldescribed here the most likely
explanationfor the copperdeposits,the limitation
The calculations described here show that some imposedby the availablevolumeof water makesit
assumptions one might make about the origin of a necessary
to assumeconsiderablefunnelingof solu-
depositlike White Pine are not particularlyrestric- tionstowardthe White Pine deposit.If meansare
tive, whereasothersset boundaryconditionsthat can foundto refinethe calculations,
the volumelimitation
usefully discriminatebetween the possibleand the canultimatelyhelpdefinethe exploration potential
impossible. The time available,for example,is not ofvariouspartsof theregionawayfromWhitePine,
inasmuch
particularlycritical. If the time is increased(or re- as funnelingtowardone point near the
duced) by a factor of 10 and the excesshead simul- surfaceconnotes funnelingawayfrom others.
taneously reduced (or increased) by the same Modelsinvolvinginflowon the northlimb of the
amount, the volumesof water and copper involved Lake Superiorbasinare hydrologically feasible,but
at various points are unchanged. Increasing the their validityis clouded primarilyby the geologic
time by a factor of 10 can also be compensated likelihood
by thatoutcrops of CopperHarborConglom-
decreasingall the values for hydraulic conductivityerateon the northlimb stoodlower,not higher,than
outcrops
by a factor of 10, in which casethe valuesfor excess on the southlimbasthebasinwasevolving.
head are unchanged. Values for time greater than The modelsexamined herehelpto limit specula-
108 years or lessthan 10 yearsare probablyunrea- tionaboutotherpossible mechanisms. For example,
sonable,as are valuesfor excesshead that approach the southward slopeof thehydraulic gradientat the
the difference between lithostatic and hydrostatic baseof the Nonesuch Shale (Fig. 2(a)) shows
pressure. But within these limits, a considerable clearlythat waterin the CopperHarborConglom-
rangeof valueswill satisfythe requirementsfor in- erate had to be movingsouthwardat the southern
ternal consistency
in the modelsconsideredhere. boundary of thedeposit, andthatgroundwatermov-
The hydraulicconductivityof the CopperHarbor ing northward, downdip, is not a possible source
Conglomerateis found to be fairly closelyfixed by of mineralizingsolutions.
that of the Nonesuch Shale, given the thicknessof To sum up, pertinentphysicalpropertiesof the
the CopperHarbor Conglomerate at variouspoints upper Keweenawan rocks can be measured or in-
andthe hydraulicgradientcalculated from the distri- ferred within a sufficientlynarrow rangeto make
butionof copperin the deposit;if the hydrauliccon- the quantitative
evaluationof variouspaleohydrologic
ductivityof oneformationis changedto accommodate models feasible,
and the calculationsprovidenovel
insightsinto possiblemechanisms for the mineraliza-
a changein someother variable,like time, that of
tion process.This paperillustratesthis approach
the other formation must be changedby the same
factor. The Freda Sandstone is of intermediate
withmodels
thatinvolvepercolation
of solutions
up
through the NonesuchShale at the site of the White
coarseness, so it, too, presumablyshouldbe changed Pine copperdeposit.'The calculations
indicatethat
by this factor. the amountof waterproduced by compaction of the
The same calculations that serve to define the CopperHarbor Conglomerate in the centerof the
ratio betweenthe hydraulic conductivitiesof the Lake Superiorbasinis adequate, but just barelyso,
NonesuchShaleand the CopperHarbor Conglomer- to form the depositin this way if the solutions con-
ate also fix a minimum value of water that must tainedasmuchas 50 ppmof copper. Surfacewater
flow pastthe depositinto somereservoirwith more enteringthe CopperHarbor Conglomerate on the
or less open connection to the surface;a smaller northlimboftheLakeSuperior
syncline
(or perhaps
volumeof water will not sustainthe hydraulicgradi- in areasremote
fromWhitePineonthesouthlimb)
ent requiredby the distributionof copper in the is an adequate
source
if thepointof entrywassig-
deposit. For the basicmodelexaminedhere, this nificantly higher, in altitude, than the water table
minimumvalueof water essentiallylost to the system that existed at that time near White Pine. One
is about 2.5 times the volume required to mineralize unexpected
requirementof the percolation
modelsis
the deposit. This ratio of 2.5 is independent
of time the largeamountof waterthat mustflowpastthe
and concentration of solution. For a model with
southendof the White Pinedeposit
to satisfythe
more rapid northward decreasein hydraulic con- requirements
ofthehydraulicgradient
in theCopper
ductivity of the Nonesuch Shale (dotted lines of Harbor Conglomerate.
Fig. 2), the ratio .is roughly 1.3. When the limits of thesepercolation
modelshave
'For modelsthat dependon water of compaction beenmorefully exploredand quantitatively
com-
as a sourceof the mineralizing solution,the volume paredwiththoserepresenting
othermechanisms(for
 A PALEOHYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR MINERALIZATION 13

example,modelsinvolvingmineralizationby diffusion Bredehoeft, J. D., 1964, Variation of permeability in the

Tensleep Sandstonein the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming, as
upwardfrom a slowlymovingreservoirof cuprifer- interpretedfrom core analysesand geophysicallogs: U.S.
ous solutionjust belowthe NonesuchShale,or in- Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 501-D, p. D166-D170.
volving a sourceof solutionsin the rocksbelow the --., and Hanshaw, B. B., 1968, On the maintenanceof
anomalousfluid pressures:I. Thick sedimentarysequences:
Copper Harbor Conglomerate),the results should Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 79, p. 1097-1106.
have practicalimportanceto explorationfor similar Brown, A. C., 1965, Mineralogy at the top of the cupriferous
depositsin this and other basins. Accordingto these zone, White Pine mine, Ontonagon Count35_, Michigan:
unpub. M.S. thesis, Univ. Michigan, 81 p.
percolationmodels, the White Pine deposit exists , 1968, Zoning in the White Pine copper deposit, On-
becausethe Copper Harbor Conglomeratethins tonagon County, Michigan: unpub. PhD. dissertation,
rapidly in the area of the deposit. Diffusionmodels, Univ. Michigan, 199 p.
, 1970, Environments of generation of some base-metal
on the other hand, are particularly sensitiveto the ore deposits [discussionof White, D. E., 1968]: Ecoa.
distributionof permeabilityvariationsin the Copper GEox..,v. 65, p. 60-61.
Harbor Conglomerate. The guiding principlesfor Carpenter, R. H., 1963, Some vein-wall rock relationships
in the White Pine mine, Ontonagon County, Michigan:
exploration,therefore,would be quite different, de- Ecoa. GEoz., v. 58, p. 643-666.
pendingon which modelappearedto be most satis- Davidson, C. F., 1965, A possiblemode of origin of strata-
bound copper ores: Ecoa. GEOL.,v. 60, p. 942-954.
factory. Ensign, C. O., Jr., White, W. S., Wright, J. C., Patrick, J.
L., Leone, R. J., Hathaway, D. J., Trammel, J. W., Fritts,
Acknowledgments J. J., and Wright, T. L., 1968, Copper deposits in the
Nonesuch Shale, White Pine, Michigan, in Ridge, J. D.,
The studyrepresented by this papergrew out of ed., Ore Depositsof the United States, 1933-1967 (Graton-
informal debates with D. E. White when he was Sales Volume), v. 1: New York, Am. Inst. Mining,
Metall., and Petroleum Engineers, p. 460-488.
preparing his 1967 S.E.G. DistinguishedLecture. Johnson, A. I., Moston, R. P., and Morris, D. A., 1968,
His exemplary discussionof density-stratification Physical and hydrologic properties of water-bearing de-
modelsfor oredeposits in sedimentary rocksdemands positsin subsidingareas in central California: U.S. Geol.
Survey Prof. Paper 497-A, 71 p.
quantitativetreatmentby those who would propose Jost, Manfred, 1968, The White Pine copper deposit, Michi-
othermodels. My greatestdebtis to B. B. Hanshaw gan, U.S.A., Mineralogical investigation and genetic in-
who, with J. D. Bredehoeft,has given invaluable terpretation: unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, Johannes Guten-
berg Universitat, Mainz, Germany. [English translation
guidanceand encouragement to this attemptto apply by author, 78 p.]
elementaryprinciplesof ground-waterhydro!ogyto Meade, R. H., 1964, Removal of water and rearrangement of
the formationof an ore depositin sedimentaryrocks. particles during the compactionof clayey sediments--re-
view: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 497-B, 23 p.
I also owe much to the Copper Range Company, White, D. E., 1968, Environments of generation of some
whosehospitalityto visiting scientistshas made the base-metalore deposits: EcoN. GEox..,v. 63, p. 301-335.
White Pine deposit a very attractive subject for White, W. S., 1960, The White Pine copper deposit [dis-
cussion]: Ecoa. GEoL, v. 55, p. 402-410.
research. The presentationhas had the benefit of --., 1966,Geologicevidencefor crustal structure in the
very constructivereviewsby Roger G. Wolff and western Lake Superior basin, in Steinhart, J. S., and
Helmuth Wedow, Jr. Smith, T. J., eds., The earth beneaththe continents:Am.
Geophys.Union, Geophys.Mon. 10 (Natl. Acad. Sci.-Natl.
U.S. GEOLOGICALSURVEY, Research Council Pub. 1467), p. 28-41.
BELTSVILLEMARYLAND, White, W. S., and Wright, J. C., 1954, The White Pine
August21, 1970 copperdeposit,OntonagonCounty,Michigan: EcoN. GEox..,
v. 49, p. 675-716.
REFERENCES , 1960, Lithofaciesof the Copper Harbor Conglomerate,
northern Michigan: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 400-B,
Archie, G. E., 1950, Introduction to the petrophysics of p. B5-BS.
reservoir rocks: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., , 1966, Sulfide-mineral zoning in the basal Nonesuch
v. 34, p. 943-961. S.hale,northernMichigan:Ecoa. GEoL,v. 61, p. 1171-1190.