Janet Villarreal-Fuentes, Gilles Levresse, Angel Nieto-Samaniego, Paul Alexandre, Rodolfo Corona-Esquivel 185

Geochemistry and geochronology of Sierra de Gomez

U-mineralization, Chihuahua

Janet Villarreal-Fuentes1, Gilles Levresse1*, Angel Nieto-Samaniego1, Paul Alexandre2, Rodolfo Corona-Esquivel3

1
Centro de Geociencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Blvd. Juriquilla No. 3001, Querétaro, 76230, México.
2
Queens University Ontario, Canada
3
Instituto de Geología, UNAM, Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico
*
Email: glevresse@gmail.com

Abstract
The Sierra de Gomez is a redistributed uranium deposit of 1.8 Ma in age. It is contemporaneous
of the Peña Blanca U-deposits, Santa Eulalia Jarosite alteration, RGR deposits in southern New
Mexico and Chihuahua, and with the Paloma, Potrillo and Camargo intraplate volcanic fields.
Detailled petrography and stable isotope study point out two main events in the Sierra de Gomez
redistributed U-deposit formation. The first correspond to the metals trap preparation and is
illustrated by calcite and fluorite karst filling. The second event is marked by U-mineralization
precipitation induced by the mixing of meteoric and hydrothermal waters channeling long deep
normal structures.

Introduction as a pair of west verging, fault propagation folds, each with

Mineral deposits are heterogeneously distributed in both
space and time. They are formed by a variety of natural
processes that concentrate elements in economic grade. Their
type, character and abundance reflect the geodynamic envi-
ronment in which they formed (Cawood and Hawkesworth,
2013). Mineral deposits are considered as key evidence for the
evolution of magmatic, hydrothermal and tectonic processes
over geological time. In addition to direct generation of
magmas, astenosphere upwelling constitutes a powerful heat
source in the crust. These phenomenon induce crustal scale
hydrothermal circulation, which may result in a wide range
of ore deposits in intra-cratonic rift systems including the Rio
Grande Rift (McLemore and North, 1984; McLemore et al.,
1998; Lueth et al., 2005 and references therein). Uranium (U)
deposits form in a variety of settings in part controlled by
secular evolution of Earth processes (Cuney, 2010) including
deposits in extension-related settings as intra-cratonic Rio
Grande Rift (McLemore and North, 1984; McLemore et al.,
2002; McLemore, 2011).
Sierra De Gomez, Central Chihuahua Geological
Setting
The Sierra de Gomez (SG) is a range located 70 km North-
East from the Chihuahua city. The outcrouping sedimentary
strata are Albian to Cenomanian in age. In the south of
the Sierra de Gomez range the Mesozoic folded column is
unconformably covered by Cenozoic volcanism (the Sierra
del Infierno range; Figure 1) dated ca. 45 to 34 Ma (Oviedo-
Patron et al., 2010). The Sierra de Gomez range is interpreted
approximately 1.6 km of structural relief (Haenggi, 2002).
These folds coalesce to the north into a single anticlinal struc-
ture, forming the main body of Sierra de Gomez. There are
many west-verging contractional structures along the road
cuts through Sierra de Gomez (Figure 1). Both eastern and
western borders of the Sierra de Gomez range are limited by
N-S normal fault recognized as a Basin and Range structures
(Lara-Zavala, 1960; Mitchel et al., 1981). The entire range
is crosscut by E-W sub-vertical fractures (Figure 1; Lara-
Zavala, 1960; Mitchel et al., 1981). Uranium mineralization
occurs as coating along fold plane, fractures and breccias,
and filling up the karst porosity.
The U-mineralization in the Sierra de Gomez pres-
ents a very simple mineralogy. Mineral paragenesis is
formed by a succession of many varieties of calcite, fluorite,
few pyrite, Fe-oxide and at the end of the sequence some
hexavalent uranium minerals (carnotite (K2(UO2)2(VO4)2
1-3 H2O), metattyutanite (Ca(UO2)2(VO4)2 3-5 H2O), tyuy-
amunita (Ca(UO2)2(VO4)2 5H2O) and mainly uranophane
(Ca(UO2)2(HSiO4)2 5 H2O)). Calcite could be dividing in
two groups, the early diagenetic banded-cement, and the
hydrothermal calcite (Figure 1). Diagenetic cement calcites
are represented by dogtooth calcite and by latter white and
yellowish-banded coarse calcite (Figure 1). Locally purple
fluorite is interbedded with banded coarse calcite and is
observed filling fractures (Figure 2). Mitchell et al (1981)
describe three generation of purple fluorite interbedded
with calcites. The hydrothermal calcites are represented
by greenish coarse calcite due to uranophane inclusions

Memorias Rogelio Monreal Saavedra, Leobardo Valenzuela García y Francisco Cendejas Cruz, Eds.
186 Geochemistry and geochronology of Sierra de Gomez, U-mineralization, Chihuahua

Figure 1. (A) Simplified geologic map of Sierra de Gomez range. (B) Underground work photography from (1) diagenetic cement
filling up karst space; ca: Calcite; F: Fluorite, (2) Uranophane mineralization coated in diagenetic cement fracture (C) Simplified
geologic cross-section of the Sierra de Gomez U-deposit.

AIMMGM, XXXI Convención Internacional de Minería, Acapulco, Gro., México, Octubre 7-10, 2015
 Janet Villarreal-Fuentes, Gilles Levresse, Angel Nieto-Samaniego, Paul Alexandre, Rodolfo Corona-Esquivel 187

Figure 2. Carbon and oxygen isotope measurements of calcite from Sierra de Gomez U-deposit area. The field of standard hydrothermal
calcite composition is from Ray et al., (1999). a, b, c, d, are the sequential micro sampling from bottom to top of each sample.

and white microcrystalline calcite events (Figure 2) Pyrite
is generally oxidized in reddish ferric oxide. MO-rich
limestone areas are in close relationship with Uranium
precipitation (Figure 1B), and breccia. Carnotite, metattyu-
tanite and mainly uranophane presence were confirmed by
DRX analysis. A late uranium alteration event is represented
by malachite (Cu2CO3(OH)2), smithsonite (ZnCO3), cerussite
(PbCO3), auricalcite ((Zn,Cu)5 (CO3)2 (OH)8), and zaratite
(Ni3CO3 (OH)4 4H2O).
C-O isotopic study
Host rock limestone and calcites were sampled from the
Sierra de Gomez mineralizing area and were analyzed
following their own paragenetic sequence based on petro-
graphic and cathodoluminescence observations (a, b, c, d;
Figure 3). Data are grouped by sample and according to their
paragenetic stages in a barren early diagenetic and U-miner-
alizing late hydrothermal events (Figure 3).
δ13CPDB and δ18OPDB values determined from host rock
limestone present a restricted distribution from 2.6±0.1‰
to 3.7±0.1‰, and from -8.6±0.1‰ to -7.9±0.1, respectively.
Early diagenetic cements present a large δ18OPDB variation
from -6.9±0.1‰ to -1.9±0.1‰, with a δ13CPDB distribution
from -9.4±0.1‰ to -7.7±0.1‰.
Finally the late calcite shown different distribution with
comparable δ13CPDB and δ18OPDB variation from -12.0±0.1‰ to
-9.1±0.1‰ and -1.9±0.1‰ to 1.9±0.1‰ respectively (Figure 3).
The Figure 3 shows that δ18OSMOW and δ13CPDB values of early
diagenetic concretion and late hydrothermal calcite have two
different patterns corresponding to two different formation
processes. The vertical isotopic evolution of the early diage-
netic concretion suggests a shallow startigraphic position
allowing the interaction of the karstic host rock limestone
and a fresh-water meteoric phreatic system (Goldstein et al.,
2010). The trend of marked depletion in δ13CPDB at the bottom
of the diagenetic filling (Figure 3) and enrichment in δ13CPDB
with time (Figure 3) represents an initial input of δ13CPDB-
poor bicarbonate from soil organic processes and progressive
addition of δ13CPDB-rich bicarbonate from interaction with the
limestones host rock. The late hydrothermal calcite isotopic
values drew an imaginary line from the local limestone host
rocks to the “Standard hydrothermal calcite” isotopic fields

Memorias Rogelio Monreal Saavedra, Leobardo Valenzuela García y Francisco Cendejas Cruz, Eds.
188 Geochemistry and geochronology of Sierra
as a possible mixing line. This chemical evolution suggests
the existence of a water/rock interaction process between
the U-mineralizing hydrothermal fluids and the limestone
host-rocks. The depletion in δ18OPDB through the paragenetic
evolution (see sample 3 and 4 evolution) indicates that the
water/rock process is progressively dominated by mineral-
izing hydrothermal fluids.
U mineralization geochronology
U-Pb dating on uranophane was performed in Sierra de
Gomez U-deposit to state the chronology of the extensional
event(s) related to Uranium transport and deposition. The
disseminated uranophane grains sampled from the Sierra
de Gomez deposit rarely exceed millimeters across. All
grains are subhedral to euhedral. In-situ U/Pb dating of
uraninite was performed on polished thin sections by laser
ablation–inductively coupled plasma–multi collector mass
spectrometry (LA-MC-ICP-MS) at Queen’s University,
Canada. Nineteen analyses were carried out on disseminates
uranophane grains from “Sierra de Gomez” U-mineralizing
area, provided 206Pb/238U ages ranging from 3.0±0.5Ma to
1.1±0.2Ma, and 207Pb/235U ages ranging from 3.1±1.1Ma
to 0.9±0.7Ma. All results are concordant ages (Figure 3). All
the analysis forms a single group if the errors are considered.
Statistic distribution allows identifying three main events
of crystallization. The most recorded event is formed by a
tight cluster of concordant ages (n=16) indicating a weighted
mean 207Pb/206Pb age of 1.8±0.1 Ma (n=16; MSWD of 0.52;
Figure 3). The second event (n=2) indicates an older weighted
mean 207Pb/206Pb age of 3.1±1.5Ma (n=2; MSWD of 0.005;
Figure 3). Finally the most discrete event is represented by
only one result at 1.1±0.2Ma.
Discussion
The Sierra de Gomez U-deposits is contemporaneous with
Peña Blanca, RGR-type deposits in Chihuahua and intraplate
volcanism (Aranda et al., 2003; Lueth et al., 2005; Casey,
2011; Angiboust et al., 2012). However, contemporary do not
imply they are genetically related, or respond to a common
source, transport and mineral precipitation processes. The
RGR-type and redistributed U-deposits formation respond
to very different transport and precipitation chemical condi-
tions and processes. The metallogenic model of RGR-type
deposits is based on the circulation of deep basinal brines,
formed from the dissolution of Jurassic evaporites by
meteoric water, possibly with the addition of magmatic
components (McLemore et al., 1998; Lueth et al., 2005).
The reduced basinal brine migrated up to favorable litho-
logic horizons. On the way they dissolved and altered the
wallrock, and precipitated the minerals commonly observed
AIMMGM, XXXI Convención Internacional de Minería, Acapulco, Gro., México, Octubre 7-10, 2015
de Gomez, U-mineralization, Chihuahua
in RGR-type deposits, in oxidizing conditions (McLemore
et al., 1998; Lueth et al., 2005 and references therein). On
the other hand U dilution and transport could occur in a
wide pH range but is greatly favor in high oxidizing shallow
brine (Ragnarsdottir and Charlet, 2000). Uranophane is a
product of supergene weathering processes of close primary
uranium deposits and no transport over great distances took
place (Göb et al., 2012). Uranium precipitation is generally
related with a fluid redox reaction. Fluid reduction occurs for
interaction with organic matter, reduced sulfur, ferrous iron,
and or another fluid with low fO2. For the reasons mentioned
above, U-deposits are the expression of shallow extension
and could not be directly related to RGR-type deposits. In
spite to present very different formation models, a secondary
U-deposit formation model can be developed in the context
of current ore-genesis models for along rift-valley basins
(Figure 5). In the first place the C-O stable isotope evolution
of the calcite cement illustrates the existence of two events
of calcite precipitation under shallow meteoric water and
hydrothermal fluids related to U mineralization. Previous
to mineralizing events, the host rock formed of limestone
interacts at shallow level with meteoric water recharged
in upland margins. The product of this water/rock interac-
tion is the filling up of the karst spaces with diagenetic
calcite cement (Figure 3). The C-O isotopic values of the
calcite cement supporting the U-mineralization show an
increasing water/rock the interaction process between hydro-
thermal fluids and cretaceous limestone. Hydrothermal fluid
could be meteoric in source but flowing deep enough to
interact with a heat source, and possibly magmatic compo-
nents. The occurrence of Cu, Zn, Pb, and Ni oxidizing
Figure 3. Concordia diagrams for the U-Pb isotopes of uraninite from the
Sierra de Gomez U-deposit area. Diagrams, ages, and errors (1s) were
generated using the Isoplot 3.71 program (Ludwig, 2008).
 Janet Villarreal-Fuentes, Gilles Levresse, Angel Nieto-Samaniego, Paul Alexandre, Rodolfo Corona-Esquivel
Figure 4. Schematic model of the Chihuahua central valley illustrating the formation of Sierra de Gomez U-deposit, Peña
Blanca U-supergene mineralization and RGR deposit formation.
minerals within the paragenesis of the Sierra de Gomez
U-deposit point out the participation of deep hydrothermal
fluids potentially related to the contemporaneous RGR-type
deposits, which are rich in these particular metals (Megaw
et al., 1988; McLemore et al., 1998; Lueth et al., 2005). The
primary source of the uranium Sierra de Gomez deposits, as
in the Oligocene uranium and REE deposits in Chihuahua
is not well constrained. The uranium could be derived
from alteration of primary uranium deposit, Peña Blanca
and Placer de Guadalupe uranium districts are close; from
Cenozoic volcanic formation (Mitchell et al., 1981; Goodell,
1981; Angiboust, 2012) or Permian/Jurassic and Greenvilian
continental granite (Krieger 1932) or from groundwater
derived from a volcanic highland (Burillo-Montufar, et al.,
2012, Reyes-Cortes et al., 2012). Limestone is typically an
unfavorable host rock for uranium because of relatively low
Memorias Rogelio Monreal Saavedra, Leobardo Valenzuela García
189
permeability and porosity, and lack of precipitation agents
such as organic material. However, a set of unusual geolog-
ical circumstances allowed the formation of uranium deposits
in the Sierra de Gomez limestone. Meteoric U-rich waters
derived from highland migrated trough sediments filling
the Eocene to present basins and main reactivated fractures.
Hydrothermal groundwater migrated into the Cretaceous
limestone by pumping. Uranium precipitates in the present
of organic material within the Laramide Folds and associated
fractures (see figure 5). Such leaching, transport and precipi-
tation processes were already proposed for the limestone and
redistributed fault-related uranium deposits in the Grants
uranium district, northern New Mexico (McLemore, 2011
and references therein). If the primary Uranium deposits
in Grant uranium district are significantly older (Jurassic in
age), the Sierra de Gomez U-deposit is comparable in age
y Francisco Cendejas Cruz, Eds.
190 Geochemistry and geochronology of Sierra
and forming processes with redistributed uranium deposits in
the district, (ca 3-12 Ma, Finch and McLemore, 1989). The
chronologic relationship between RGR-type and U-deposits,
the structural control of their emplacement, the wide heat
anomaly and hydrothermal cell generated during first steps
of RGR formation strongly suggest that secondary or redis-
tributed U-deposits should be considered as a near surface
expression of the Rio Grand Rift activity.
Conclusion
The Sierra de Gomez is a redistributed uranium deposit of
1.8 Ma in age. It is contemporaneous of the Peña Blanca
U-deposits, Santa Eulalia Jarosite alteration, RGR deposits in
southern New Mexico and Chihuahua, and with the Paloma,
Potrillo and Camargo intraplate volcanic fields. The Sierra
de Gomez redistributed U-deposit is formed by the mixing
of meteoric and hydrothermal waters channeling a long deep
normal structures.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Marina Vega and Teresa Soledad Medina
Malagón for their assistance at the CGEO laboratory. This
study was financed by the UNAM-PAPIIT project IN110912
and CONACyT projects 81584 and 80142.
References
Angiboust, S., Fayek, M., Power, I., Camacho, A., Calas, G., Southam, G.,
2012. Structural and biological control of the Cenozoic epithermal
uranium concentrations from the Sierra Peña Blanca, Mexico.
Mineralium deposita, 47, 859-874.
Aranda-Gomez, J.J., Luhr, J.H., Housh, T.B., Connor, C.B., 2003.
Synextensional Pliocene-Pleistocene eruptive activity in the
Camargo volcanic field, Chihuahua, Mexico. Geological Society of
America, Bulletin, 115, 298-313.
Averil, M.G., Miller, K.C., 2013. Upper crustal structure of the southern
Rio Grande rift: a composite record of the rift and pre rift tectonic.
Geological Society of America, Special paper 494, 463-474.
Bartolino, J.R., 1992. Modified basin and range topography in
the Bolson de Mapimi, Durango and Chihuahua, Mexico.
The Texas Journal of Science. , 27, 1111-1122.
Cameron, K.L., Nimz, G.J., Niemeyer, S., and Gunn, S., 1989, Southern
Cordilleran basaltic andesite suite, southern Chihuahua, Mexico: A
link between Tertiary continental arc and flood basalt magmatism in
North America: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 94, no. B6, p.
7817–7840.
Casey, H., 2011. Geochemistry of manganese oxides and age of mineralization
at Santa Eulalia mining district, Mexico. PhD dissertation New
Mexico Institute of Minning and Technology. p. 137.
Cawood, P.A., Hawkesworth, C., 2013. Temporal relations between mineral
deposits and global tectonic cycles. In Jenkin, G.R.T., Lusty, P.A.J.,
McDonald, I., Smith, M.P., Boyce, A.J., Wilkinson, A.J., (eds),
Ore Deposits in an Evolving Earth . Geological Society Special
Publications , 393 , Geological Society , London.
Fayek, M., Ren, M., Goodell, P., Dobson, P., Saucedo, A.L., Kelts, A.,
Utsunomiya, S., Ewing, R.C., Riciputi, L.R., Reyes, I., 2006.
Paragenesis and geochronology of the Nopal I uranium deposit,
AIMMGM, XXXI Convención Internacional de Minería, Acapulco, Gro., México, Octubre 7-10, 2015
de Gomez, U-mineralization, Chihuahua
Mexico. 11th International High Level Radioactive Waste
Management Conference Proc., Las Vegas, NV, 55–62.
Ferrari, L., Valencia-Moreno, M., Bryan, S., 2005. Magmatismo y tectónica
en la Sierra Madre Occidental y su relación con la evolución de
la margen occidental de Norteamérica: Boletin de la Sociedad
Geológica Mexicana, Tomo LVII, n. 3.
Göb, S., Gühring J.E., Bau, M., Berner, Z, Markl, G., 2012. Oxidation of
hydrothermal U deposits: influence of primary mineralization on type
and appearance of secondary U minerals. European Mineralogical
Conference, Vol. 1, EMC2012-357.
Goodell, P.C., 1981. Geology of the Peña Blanca uranium deposits,
Chihuahua, Mexico. In: Goodell PC, Waters A (eds) Uranium in
volcanic and volcanoclastic rocks, vol 13. AAPG, El Paso, pp
275–291.
Haenggi, W.T., 2002. Tectonic history of the Chihauhua trough, Mexico
and adjacent USA, Part II: Mesozoic and Cenozoic; Boletín de la
Sociedad Geológica Mexicana, Tomo LV, n. 1, p. 38-94.
Haenggi, W.T., 2001. Tectonic history of the Chihuahua trough, Mexico
and adjacent USA, Part I: the pre-Mesozoic setting: Boletín de la
Sociedad Geológica Mexicana, LIV, 28–66.
Hennings, P.H., 1994. Structural transect of the southern Chihuahua fold
belt Between Ojinaga and Aldama, Chihuahua, Mexico: Tectonics,
13, p. 1445-1460.
Lara-Zavala, J., 1960. Estudio sobre los yacimientos de minerales
radioactivos de la sierra de Gómez, Municipio de Aldama, Estado de
Chihuahua. U.N.A.M., Facultad de Ingeniería, inedited, p 61.
Lueth, V. W., Rye, R. O., Peters, L., 2005. “Sour gas” hydrothermal jarosite:
ancient to modern acid-sulfate mineralization in the southern Rio
Grande Rift: Chemical Geology, 215, 339-360.
Mauger, R.L., McDowell, F.W., Blount J.G., 1983. Grenville-age
Precambrian rocks of the Los Filtros area near Aldama, Chihuahua,
Mexico: In Geology and mineral resources of north-central Mexico,
K.F. Clark and P.C. Goodell, eds.: El Paso Geological Society,Field
Conference Guidebook, 165-168.
McDowell, F.W., Roldán-Quintana, J., Amaya-Martínez, 1997.
Interrelationship of sedimentary and volcanic deposits associated
with Tertiary extension in Sonora, Mexico: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 109, 1349-1360.
McLemore, V.T., 2011. The Grants Uranium District, New Mexico: Update
on Source, Deposition, and Exploration. the Mountain Geologist, v.
48, no. 1, p. 23-44.
McLemore, V.T., Giordano, T.H., Lueth, V.W., Witcher, J.C., 1998. Origin of
barite–fluorite–galena deposits in the southern Rio Grande Rift, New
Mexico. Guideb.-New Mexico Geol. Soc. 49, 251–263.
McLemore, V.T., North, R.M., 1984, Occurrences of precious metals and
uranium along the Rio Grande rift in northern New Mexico in: Rio
Grande Rift (Northern New Mexico), Baldridge, W.S., Dickerson,
P.W., Riecker, R.E., Zidek, J., [eds.], New Mexico Geological
Society 35th Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook, 205-212.
Megaw, P.K.M., Ruiz, J., Titley, S.R., 1988. High-temperature, carbonate-
hosted Ag-Pb-Zn(Cu) deposits of northern Mexico: Economic
Geology, 83, 1856-1885.
Mitchell, S., P.C. Goodell, D.V. LeMone, and N.E. Pingitore, 1981. The
geology of the Sierra Gomez, Chihuahua, Mexico; in Studies in
Geology #13: Amer Assoc. Petrol. Geol., 293-310.
Nandigam, R., Clark, K.F., Anthony, E.Y., Comaduran-Ahumada, O.,
2009. Características geológicas y geoquímicas de un complejo
carbonatitico enriquecido en Zn y LREE del Terciario de Chihuahua
septentrional, México in Kenneth F. Clark, Guillermo A. Salas-
Pizá, and Rodolfo Cubillas-Estrada (eds.), Geologia Económica de
Mexico, 2 Ed., Asociación de Ingenieros de Minas, Metalurgistas y
Geólogos de México, Servicio Geológico Mexicano, 506-516.
 Janet Villarreal-Fuentes, Gilles Levresse, Angel Nieto-Samaniego, Paul Alexandre, Rodolfo Corona-Esquivel
Oviedo-Patron E.G., Aranda-Gomez, J.J., Chavez-Cabello, G., Milona-
Garza, R.S., Iriondo, A., Gonzalez-Becerra P.C., Cervantes-Corona,
J.A., Solorio-Munguia, J.G., 2010. Tectónica de la sierra Cuesta
El Infierno y su posible relación con fallas reactivadas cerca del
levantamiento de Plomosas, Chihuahua, México. Revista Mexicana
de Ciencias Geológicas, 27, 3, 389-411.
Ragnarsdottir, K.V., Charlet, L., 2000. Uranium behaviour in natural
environments. In: Environmental Mineralogy: Microbial
Memorias Rogelio Monreal Saavedra, Leobardo Valenzuela García
191
Interactions, Antropogenic Influences, Contaminated Lands and
Waste Management, pp. 333–377.
Stern R.J., Dickinson, W.R., 2010. The Gulf of Mexico is a Jurassic backarc
basin. Geosphere, 6, 739-754.
Villarreal, J., Levresse, G., Nieto-Samaniego, A., Corona-Esquivel, R.,
2014. New geological and geochronological data of the Placer de
Guadalupe uplift, Mexico: a new piece of the Late Triassic early
Jurassic Nazas Arc? International Geology Review, 56, 2000-2014.
y Francisco Cendejas Cruz, Eds.