A Field Guide to Leached Capping Interpretation
PAULGILMOUR Consulting mining geologist, Tucson, Arizona
ABSTRACT
The goal of leached outcrop or capping interpretation is
estimation of the amount and type of copper minerals in
primary and/or secondary sulfides present below the zone of
weathering and oxidation. Among the methods developed by
major copper companies only that devised by the Exploration
Services of Kennecott Copper Corporation is known to have
been described in a publication. This approach can be divided
into two phases: (1) megascopic and (2) geochemical.
The object of the megascopic approach is semi-quantita-
tive estimation of the proportion of acid-forming sulfides
(AFS) in unoxidized material and qualitative estimation of the
type and amount of copper sulfides present. Semi-quantitative
estimation af the AFS content is achieved through (1) direct
visual estimation of limonite-filled cavities, (2) the relative
proportions of goethite and jarosite in limonite, and (3) the
"grade" or "rank" of supergene alteration of outcrops. Quali-
tative evaluation of copper sulfides is obtained through the
identification of oxidized copper minerals in capping. Taken
together, these approaches can be used to classify leached cap-
ping as one of five major types which in turn enables estimates
to be made of probable minimum and maximum copper
grades in primary and/or secondary sulfides.
Geochemical refinement builds on the basic megascopic
approach. The analyzed copper content of chip samples of
weathered outcrops and composition of limonite (specifically
proportions of goethite and hematite) are related to empiri-
cally derived graphs or histograms which allow the user to
derive semi-quantitative estimates of the amount of copper
in primary sulfides and/or secondary sulfide enrichment.
Some of the implications of leached capping interpreta-
tion besides estimating type and tenor of mineralization in-
clude distinguishing between cycles and ratios of enrichment
and analyzing the probable history of uplift and weathering.
INTRODUCTION
The majority of the first generation of porphyry copper
deposits exploited were profitable because of the presence of
secondary (chalcocite) enrichment. This in turn implied the
existence of leached cappings. In these circumstances it was not
surprising that exploration geologists studied such cappings in
order to try to determine the nature and grade of underlying cop-
per sulfides. That effort gave rise to the science or ait of leached
capping interpretation. It should be emphasized that interpreta-
tion of leached cappings is only one of several methods used in
evaluating porphyry copper prospects. Others include study of
(1) history of past production; (2) land-forms or geomorphology;
(3) host rock lithology including "alteration;" (4) presence of min-
eralized intrusive breccias; (5) development, intensity, and ori-
entation of structural and textural features such as fractures
including stockwork quartz-veining; (6) geochemical expres-
169
sion; (7) geophysical expression; and (8) regional or general
considerations such as the clustering observed in many districts.
Leached outcrop interpretation is applicable only where signifi-
cant chemical weathering has occurred. For the most part this
consideration excludes regions exposed to exceptionally rapid
mechanical erosion such as results from recent glaciation. How-
ever, this qualification should not be applied blindly. Deposits of
primary and secondary copper sulfides and appropriate surface
expressions can co-exist in the same region, as for example the
chafcocite blanket at Casino, Yukon, Canada (Godwin, 1976).
Anyone engaged in the search for porphyry copper deposits
should have at least a superficial knowledge of ttib methods and
capabilities of leached capping studies.
During the peak of modern porphyry exploration in the
1960s and 1970s every major copper company exploiting por-
phyry deposits developed its own techniques of leached capping
interpretation. To the writer's knowledge, only that devised by
geologists with Kennecott's Bear Creek subsidiary has been
described in public (Anderson, 1982; Nielsen, 1984). As nearly
as one not closely familiar with the techniques used by every
company can judge, the methods of Kennecott researchers
appear to be most comprehensive and to best integrate the larg-
est number of observations. The techniques of the Bear Creek
school of capping interpretation also throw useful light on
another aspect of porphyry geology, namely alteration. Appre-
ciation of differences in techniques used to interpret leached
cappings derived from disseminated sulfides and other caprocks
or gossans can be gained from two excellent reviews with color
plates by Blain and Andrew (1977) and Andrew (1980).
This discussion is predicated on some familiarity with the
work of Bear Creek researchers as described in the publications
by Anderson (1982) and Neilsen (1984) just cited. A confiden-
tial Kennecott report by Wilson (1965) at one time widely circu-
lated among geologists engaged in porphyry exploration may
still be available from professional contacts.
The following nbtes refer to comparatively unreactive
rocks, mostly intrusive and extrusive igneous varieties. In highly
reactive rocks, such as calcareous sediments and metamor-
phosed derivatives, leaching and secondary enrichment are
minimal to absent. Besides the variations in tenor normally
found in any mineral occurrence, grades present in outcrops of
skarn or tactile are as a general rule similar to those likely to be
encountered at depth.
After describing the theory and experience behind the
methods employed by Bear Creek geologists, Anderson (1982,
p. 290) began summarizing the objectives of capping studies by
noting:
Field estimates of the limonite and copper mineralogy
of a capping provide sufficient evidence for capping
classification and for estimates of the maximum and
minimum copper grades of the former sulfide zone
[what here is called the megascopic phase of interpre-
tation]. Semi-quantitative prediction of the primary
170
grade and chalcociie enrichment grade of the sulfide zone
below the capping require geochemical analyses for cop-
per in rock and detailed mapping of the limonite and cop-
per mineralogy [geochemical phase of interpretation].
Anderson went on to explain that zones of differing limo-
nite types and copper minerals should be mapped in detail and
what features should be studied. The present paper is intended
as a practical manual or guide to supplement Anderson's advice
and to help field geologists achieve the goals he described.
The objective of studies of weathered or leached outcrops
over large low-grade disseminated and/or stockwork copper de-
posits is to learn as much as possible about the distribution, type,
and grade of copper-bearing minerals concealed beneath the
zone of weathering and oxidation. The classical approach to
leached capping interpretation as exemplified by the work of
pioneers such as Locke (1926) and Blanchard (1939 and 1968)
was largely based on the study of boxworks after copper and
associated minerals. By contrast, the Bear Creek school chiefly
relies on investigations of "limonite]" oxidized copper minerals,
and "supergene" alteration.
It is perhaps worth making a distinction between the prob-
lems confronting early and modern workers. The former were
dealing with chalcocite grades of around 2 to 3 percent or more
copper, such as those preserved in the downfaulted eastern seg-
ment of the former Miami orebody, Arizona: 6 million short tons
of 3.14 percent copper (Beard, 1992) which, if combined with
various proportions of primary sulfides, gave average grades in
the range of I to 2 percent copper (Parsons, 1933, table 3). In the
modem period, geologists work with chalcocite grades that typi-
cally fall below 1.5 or 1.25 percent copper and average grades
that generally lie under 1.0 percent copper. These lower grades
provide much less margin for error.
As the cited paragraph from Anderson reveals, the work of
the Bear Creek researchers can be viewed as comprising megas-
copic and geochemical phases. The first relies on megascopic
observations of outcrops and hand specimens and attempts to
make quantitative estimates of the proportion of acid-forming
sulfides such as pyrite, chalcopyrite, and bornite in fresh rock
and qualitative estimates of the type and amount of primary and
secondary copper minerals present beneath the zone of oxida-
tion. Building upon megascopic techniques, the geochemical
approach employs geochemical analyses of chip samples and
x-ray analyses of limonite specimens to enable semi-quantitative
estimates to be made of primary and/or secondary copper grades.
MEGASCOPIC PHASE
This phase aims to achieve limited qualitative results only.
It connects a quantitative estimate of the volume per cent of pri-
mary acid-forming sulfides (AFS) present below the zone of
weathering and oxidation to a qualitative study of copper and
other minerals in outcrops. These are used to classify the cap-
ping, and the various attributes are then combined to achieve the
desired result.
Estimation of Volume Percent of Primary Acid-forming
Sulfide (AFS)
Volume percent of primary acid-forming sulfides (AFS) may
R GILMOUR
be estimated from (1) the original proportion of sulfides present,
(2) the composition of limonite, or (3) the grade or rank of
supergene alteration.
Direct visual estimation of the original sulfide content is
based on the volume percent of cavities occupied by limonite or
mixtures of common iron oxides believed to represent former
sulfide grains. Estimation is facilitated by the use of visual aids
such as "Comparison charts for the visual estimation of percent-
age composition" devised by Terry and Chilingar (1955) and re-
printed by the American Geological Institute (AGI). A portion
of one such chart is shown in figure 1.
AGI
COMPARISON CHART FOR 6
ESTIMATING PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION
by Richard D. Terry and George V. Chillngar,
Allen Hancock Foundation, Los Angeles
Reprinted from Jour. Sed. Pet., v. 25, no. 3,
p. 229-234, Sept. 1955
\% 7%
Figure 1. Portion of chart to assist visual estimation of voiume-percenL
Bottom half covers range 2-10%; obverse, 15%-50%. After Terry and
Chiiingar (1955). Re-printed by American Geological Institute. Sheet may
be perforated for standard 3.75-in x 6.75-in, 6-hole, ring-back notebook or
similar.
Three special problems arise when attempting visual esti-
mation of sulfides in porphyry systems. First, porphyry copper
deposits commonly include disseminated and stockwork miner-
alization in proportions that differ both within and among de-
posits. Since the charts printed by AGI were chiefly designed for
estimating the proportions of mixtures of discrete particles such
as mineral grains in sedimentary or igneous rocks, they are
better suited to studying disseminated mineralization than
stockworks. Where they encounter the latter, field geologists
must refer to the other two methods of estimating volume per-
cent AFS. Second, the field geologist must attempt to distin-
guish between "indigenous" (formed in place) and "transported"
limonite, a distinction which is not everywhere easy to make. If
 A FIELD GUIDE TO LEACHED CAPPING INTERPRETATION
limonite occurs in cavities (especially after recognizable crystals
such as pyrite) or in veins and veinlets intimately associated
with quartz and the like, it is probably indigenous. If, on the
other hand, limonite occurs superficially in the form of coatings
on weathered surfaces and joints ("paint") as in stockworks, it
may well represent transported material.
Third, weathered outcrops of rock containing a small pro-
portion of primary sulfides say, less than 1.5 to 2 percent by vol-
ume, exhibit very little limonite and appear "fresh" and hard
with respect to alteration. This is well illustrated by material
from the low-sulfide occurrence of North Silver Bell, Arizona
(Graybeal, 1982).
Simple visual estimation of volume of sulfides is therefore
fraught with some difficulties.
The second approach to estimating AFS content devised by
the Bear Creek school involves limonite composition. "Limo-
nite" is an inexact term which refers to mixtures of three com-
mon iron oxides: hematite (Fe,O3), goethite (HFeCX), and
jarosite (K Fe,[SOJ.2[OH]e). Bear Creek workers believed that
since the original content of acid-forming sulfides (AFS) fol-
lowing weathering determines pH, which in turn dictates the
relative proportions of goethite to jarosite formed, the relative
proportions of these two iron oxides reflect the amount of AFS
in fresh rock and can be utilized as a basis for volume-percent
estimates. The rationale is that solutions of sufficiently low pH
break down orthoclase and micas and supply the potassium
present in jarosite. The numerical relationships among these
variables are illustrated in table 1.
Table 1. Relationship between limonite composition and original volume
percent of acid-forming sulfides. (AFS)
Composition of Limonite Volume percent
Proportion goethite : jarosite AFS
1007c goethite results from oxidation of =£0.5
50:50 goeth: jarosite do ±2.5
100% jarosite do 2*5.0
To assist the visual estimation of limonite composition,
Bear Creek workers developed field aids alternatively known as
"limonite pencils" and "limonite triangles." The former were
plastic tubes with partitions separating pulverized minerals
mixed in differing but known proportions of goethite and
jarosite. Limonite triangles are constructed like three-compo-
nent diagrams with corners signifying 100 percent goethite,
jarosite, and hematite. Intermediate mixtures of these compo-
nents are then represented in the usual manner. Some of these
triangles were made using mixtures of actual minerals, whereas
others conveyed colors of pulverized minerals and mixtures of
minerals by means of color printing. The general layout of one
form of triangle is illustrated in figure 2.
The third method of estimating volume percent AFS re-
quires consideration of supergene alteration. This subject raises
one of the aspects of the Bear Creek school of leached capping
interpretation which differs from others: the integration of stud-
ies of limonite and supergene alteration.
171
In normal conversation and even in writing many porphyry
geologists refer to "alteration" without differentiating between
hypogene and supergene alteration, suggesting that virtually all
visible alteration is a product of the former. One of many ex-
amples which could be cited is presented by Silver Bell, Ari-
zona, where Richard and Courtright (1954, 1966) characterized
a zone of bleached and altered minerals visible on surface as the
"Outline of hydrothermal alteration and disseminated pyrite"
(emphasis added). By contrast, Kennecott researchers held that
much of the alteration visible on the surface is of supergene ori-
gin and that visible mineralogical changes have been brought
about by acids produced by oxidation of acid-forming sulfides.
According to this interpretation, the "alteration" whose outline
is indicated on geologic maps of Silver Bell is probably super-
gene, a product of acids produced by oxidation of the "dissemi-
nated pyrite" reported by the authors.
Alteration assemblages visible over most weathered por-
phyry systems no doubt reflect a combination of origi nal lithology
and hypogene and supergene effects developed in proportions that
differ according to the interplay of a number of variables. Notable
about the work of the Bear Creek school is the importance as-
signed to supergene processes and that studies of supergene alter-
ation and limonite are reconciled. This feature of the work of the
Bear Creek group appeals to the writer, who believes that many
workers make too much of the distinction between sulfide copper
mineralization and hypogene alteration and not enough of the dif-
ference between hypogene and supergene alteration. A superior
discussion of this problem may be found in Beane (1982).
Regarding estimates of volume-percent AFS, the nub of the
Bear Creek view of supergene alteration is that mineral assem-
blages ("grade" or "rank" of supergene alteration, in the same
sense as grade of metamorphism or rank of coal) reflect pH
which, like the composition of limonite, is a function of AFS
content. If true, mapping supergene alteration may provide an
independent indication of the amount and distribution of AFS
present in unweathered rock. Numerical relationships are sum-
marized in table 2, and some of the consequences of these rela-
tionships are graphically illustrated in figure 3.
Comparing tables 1 and 2, the reader will notice that the
ranges of acid-forming sulfide contents reflected by limonite
composition (0.5 to 5 volume percent) and supergene alteration
(1.5 to 10 volume percent) differ. In the range the two ap-
proaches have in common (1.5 to 5.0 volume percent AFS) both
may be employed to derive independent estimates, but above
and below these limits (less than 1.5 and from 5.0 to 10.0 vol-
ume percent) only one approach is available to enable field
geologists to estimate AFS contents. In such cases direct visual
estimation of the volume of limonite-filled cavities, which is
valid throughout the range of values encountered, may be
capable of providing an independent check. In some cases it
may be possible to estimate the volume-percent of AFS in fresh
rock using all three of the approaches described.
Kennecott researchers believed that at sufficiently high
acidities iron oxides in cavities after sulfides could be removed
and silica mobilized. If some of this silica had been deposited in
cavities after former sulfides, two consequences might follow:
(1) the silica-filled cavities might resemble quartz phenocrysts,
and (2) direct visual estimation of volume percent AFS would
be greatly complicated. If not forewarned, such effects of high
172 R GSLMOUR
LIMONITE COLOUR CHART - MK. 2
Goethite
100% g
2g: 1 h
1:1 9:
100% j
Jarosits 2j: 1 h Haematite as re-
lief or live HmonUo
Mixtures with small pro-
portions o! haematite in-
cluded to show potency of
mineral as pigment.
Figure 2. Representation of front and back of "limonite triangle" for visual
estimation of composition of limonite as modified by writer. Actual triangle
was colored using powered pastel crayons matched to mixtures of pulverized
AFS content could present field geologists dependent solely on
megascopic inspection with a demanding problem. This factor
also might help to account for the intense leaching observed in
some porphyry copper deposits such as La Escondida in north-
ern Chile (Lowell, 1991).
Since the relationships between AFS content and mineral-
ogy shown in table 2 and figure 3 are believed to be approxi-
mately linear, the development of sericite at Silver Bell implies
an acid-forming sulfide content in fresh rock of some 5.5 to 6.0
volume percent, a fairly high but not unreasonable figure.
It may be noted that widespread jarosite reflecting more
than 5.0 volume percent AFS should exist in association with a
grade or rank of supergene alteration which is approximately
equivalent to sericite, pyrophyllite, and perhaps even silica alter-
ation. This accords with general experience: outcrops which
exhibit abundant jarosite typically are white to light ocher. Ear-
lier it was noted that at North Silver Bell where high-goethite li-
monites reveal a low sulfide content of around 1.5 to 2.0 volume
percent the rocks are fresh and hard and show little or no evi-
dence of supergene alteration.
EXPLANATION
100% 9
100% jar
Nolesr 1. - Diagram designed to assist estimation of
vol-9o original acid-forming sulphides (py, cpy, bo,
etc.). 2. - Haem as live or relief limonite denotes former
presence cc and also may be used, in conjunction with
nomograph and geochem Cu, to estimate ft.ft Cu as cc.
Based on the Bear Clc. method leached capping
interpretation, cf., Wilson (1965) tuid Anderson (i982).
P. Gilmour. Ph: (602) 326-5450.
minerals. Original examples loaned by J.W. Hammitt and L.T. Keating,
Kennccott Corp. Companion card was made by writer summarizing relevant
information in accompanying text, specifically the two tables.
Conventional wisdom seems to hold that visible changes
in country rocks exposed over porphyry copper deposits re-
flect chiefly hypogene alteration. Andesites exposed to the
southeast of Silver Bell, Arizona, are said to show evidence of
propylitic alteration. The outcrops may well be propylitically
altered, but field geologists can be forgiven for suspecting that
neither the chemical nor the mineralogical composition of the
andesites has changed much. The work of the Bear Creek school
suggests that visible Iithologies are largely products of super-
gene alteration. It is probable that in most cases weathered out-
crops reflect original lithology with successive overprints of
hypogene and supergene alteration in proportions that differ
from place to place depending on the relative importance of
numerous variables.
Relatively stable hypogene alteration assemblages such as
quartz-sericite-pyrite are not likely to be much influenced by su-
pergene processes. On the other hand, both biotite-potash feld-
spar and epidote-chlorite-carbonate (propylitic) alteration might
exhibit apparently conflicting features where overprinted by su-
pergene alteration.
 A FIELD GUIDE TO LEACHED CAPPING INTERPRETATION
Table2. Relationship of supergene mineral assemblage and volume per-
cent of acid-forming sulfides (AFS) in fresh or unwealhered rock.
Supergene(?) Relative Acidity Volume percent AFS
Minerals Observed in Fresh Rock
biotite low «1.5
chlorite variation
sericite approximately
kaolinite linear
pyrophyllite (silica) high S=10.0
When mapping alteration, geologists should try to compare
phenomena of the same nature: hypogene with hypogene and
supergene with supergene. Those mapping alteration should
either attempt to avoid comparing "apples and oranges" or else
acknowledge that mappable units may represent a combination
of the two as where quartz-sericite-pyrite hypogene alteration
may have been reinforced by quartz-pyrophyllite-kaolinite
supergene alteration. Failure to differentiate the relationships
may account for the apparently unintelligible alteration zones
seen in some publications on porphyry copper systems, but the
possibility that unexpected patterns really do exist should also
be acknowledged.
Identification of Oxidized Copper Minerals
The second step in the megascopic stage of leached capping
interpretation involves an attempt to identify copper minerals
present beneath the zone of weathering and oxidation. Neglect-
ing for the moment the case of sulfides exposed at surface (out-
crops not weathered and leached), the logical first step involves
the recognition of minerals which have resulted directly from
the oxidation of primary copper-bearing sulfides. This is another
area where the work of the Bear Creek school departs from con-
ventional wisdom. Most porphyry geologists indicate that they
believe goethitic-jarositic outcrops result from the oxidation of
pyrite. Not so, argue Bear Creek geologists: Such outcrops re-
flect the oxidation of primary acid-forming sulfides, and these
can and in many cases do include chalcopyrite and potentially
bornite (Anderson, 1982, figs. 12.2, 12.14). The importance of
this distinction can scarcely be exaggerated. If correct, it means
that commercially significant primary sulfides and even
chalcocite blankets and not merely pyrite can underlie jarositic
outcrops. The Berkeley Orebody at Butte, Montana (Anderson,
1982). parts of La Caridad, Sonora, Mexico (Saegart and others,
1974). and Toquepala, Pern (Anderson, 1982) provide ex-
amples. The work of the Bear Creek school is more expansive
than others and better able to account for more observations
such as the presence of ore-grade secondary chalcocite or pri-
mary sulfides beneath jarositic outcrops.
Since a chalcocite blanket beneath a jarositic surface ex-
pression probably reflects only one cycle of oxidation, leaching,
and enrichment, it follows that such a blanket beneath jarosite is
liable to reach economic grades only if one or both of the fol-
lowing conditions obtain: (1) the primary copper grade is high
or (2) the ratio of enrichment (relative heights of the columns of
leached to enriched material) is high. Given the 1.0 to 1.5 per-
cent primary copper grades being encountered in such places as
173
Indonesia (Van Nort and others, 1991) and Papua New Guinea,
failure to explore a jarosite capping after primary sulfides could
be an error. Although the highest volume percent sulfides typi-
cally occur in pyritic haloes and jarositic cappings tend to occur
over pyrite, jarositic cappings do not invariably indicate pyrite
alone.
Bear Creek researchers recognized that copper sulfides,
specifically chalcopyrite, can oxidize to black materials some of
which might be mistaken for oxides of common metals such as
iron and manganese. Every mining geologist has seen grains of
chalcopyrite partly oxidized to the mineraloid "copper pitch" or
"pitch limonite," the composition of which according to Ander-
son (1982 p. 293) is [H(Fe, Cu)02] (?), with or without small
proportions of familiar oxidized copper minerals such as mala-
chite. Pitch limonite is characterized by a resinous luster, colors
ranging from brown to black, and conchoidal fracture with red
internal reflections visible under a hand lens. It has-been estab-
lished empirically that copper pitch forms where the ratio of
chalcopyrite to pyrite exceeds 9 to 1, which is one reason why
pitch commonly occurs in visible grains of chalcopyrite.
Other nondescript black or brown oxidized copper minerals
include neotocite and tenorite, also known as "melaconite" or "cop-
per wad." Like copper pitch, these may actually be mineraloids
or mixtures. Neotocite [(Cu, Mn, Fe) SiOJ is among the more
significant of these black copper mineraloids. The material is
vitreous to drab-black, soft, and exhibits a black to dark olive-
black greasy streak and luster. Typically neotocite crystallizes as
very distinctive black spots which contrast with the dendritic or
feathery habit of manganese oxides. Neotocite can contain up to
21 percent copper and wetted with 10 percent dilute sulfuric
acid will deposit copper on metallic iron such as a common nail,
the point of a geologic pick, or a knife blade (non-stainless). In
common with copper pitch or pitch limonite, neotocite is be-
lieved to result directly from oxidation of chalcopyrite.
If outcrops exhibiting jarositic-goethitic limonite after a siz-
able proportion of primary sulfides contain significant amounts
of copper oxides after chalcopyrite, the possibility exists that
primary grades are economic or only marginally sub-economic
or an enrichment blanket which could reach economic tenor
may be present. As was shown at North Silver Bell, this can be
so even where the total AFS content is quite low. It has already
been estimated that the content of AFS at North Silver Bell is
probably in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 volume percent, and an abun-
dance of neotocite with minor malachite and azurite implies that
the bulk of the primary sulfides were chalcopyrite. These obser-
vations are in accord with the reported grade of reserves of 0.47
percent copper (Beard, 1992, p. 65).
Thus far the discussion has centered on primary sulfides
which have been exposed, weathered, and oxidized so that any
copper present has been liberated to percolate downward and be
deposited on underlying primary sulfide grains, thereby giving
rise to a secondary chalcocite enrichment blanket (cf., Ander-
son, 1982, figs. 12.2 and 12.14). If such a system is further
elevated, the primary jarositic leached capping may be removed
by erosion, the secondary chalcocite blanket oxidized, and the
copper formerly held captive once again freed to move down-
ward to form a new second-cycle chalcocite blanket. In such
cases the highly distinctive capping results not from oxidation of
primary sulfides alone but also from oxidation of secondary
174 P. GILMOUR

EPI-CHL-CARB •- - - i y i . QIZ.SEfl ^i- 8IOTITE - K-SPAR ~\~. OTZ-SBR EPI-CHL-CAHB U

•••'/I"/'//'/
/ y 7 ' Bass o/ Oxidation
/ (irregular/gradationt)

10

MINERALISATION "ALTERATION"

Leached capping - "limonites " (± oxidised Cu Pyropti

minerals) SI Pyrophyllite - silica

Gradarional contact - mixed 'oxide " - sulphide zone

Chalcocite enrichment zone for secondary Kao Kaoliniie
sulphide blanket)
Contacts with the following gradational and
irregular
Ser Sericite
("Barren") core zone - ± 0.2% Cu; < 2% (vol)
py

Ore zone - 0.4 - 0.8% Cu: ±1.5% (vol) py Chi Chlorite

Marginal zone - 0.3 - 0.4% Cu; 1.5% (vo!) py

BIOT Biottte • K-fe!dspar ("potassic")
Pyrite zone - ±0.1% Cu; 10.0% (vol) py K-SPAR

Outer pyrite zone - negligable Cu. Volume

%age py grades from ±4.0 to < 1.0: Quartz- sericite ("phyllic" & "argillic" )
significant only for effect on supergene
alteration zoning.

10 Country rocks - negligable Cu; negligable py Epidote-chiorite-carbonate ("propylitic")

Supergene iiltemtimi typically extends helow supervene sulficle mineriilisittinn

Figure 3. Cross section through hypothetical porphyry copper deposit percent hypogene acid-forming sulfides (AFS) summarized in table 2,
showing hypogene and supergene mineralization and alteration and modified after Anderson, 1969.
graphically displaying numerical relationship between latter and volume
 A FIELD GUIDE TO LEACHED CAPPING INTERPRETATION 175

MINERAL ABBREVIATIONS
A -ANTLERITE
+ CUPRITE,NATIVE COPPER
6 -BROCHANT1TE
± CUPRITE, NATIVE COPPER
G -GOETHITE
H - HEMATITE
J - JAROSITE
N - NEOTOCITE
P - PITCH UMONITE
T ~ TENORITE

PITCH LIMONITE ANTLERITE-

NEOTOCITE BROCHANTITE

JAROSITE HEMATITE

Figure 4. Classification of leached capping, based on megascopic examina- estimation of composition and approximate upper and tower limits of
tion of outcrops and hand specimens. Combining visual estimate of AFS grade of primary and/or secondary copper sulfides. Reproduced from
content and copper minerals in capping may permit general qualitative Anderson (1982,fig.12.8).
176 P. GILMOUR

chalcocite. Primary mineral grains typically are not completely
replaced in such circumstances.
Portions of weathered porphyry copper occurrences com-
monly exhibit examples of so-called "relief or "live" limonite,
widely recognized as an oxidation product of chalcocite in the
presence of acid-forming primary sulfides. This combination
occurs where chalcocite coats or only partially replaces pyrite
and/or chalcopyrite. The expressions "relief and "live" limonite
refer to a soft, very fine grained, powdery ("pulverulent") vari-
ety of hematite. Typically, relief limonite has a shiny, glistening
luster. It generally is so soft and light that some can be removed
with a puff of breath. The characteristic color has been described
as brick red or seal brown but may be more accurately described
as dark crimson. Although a little too brown (insufficiently red),
the color in U.S. Federal Standard 595B (1989) identified as
10049 is close. Crimson, No. 540, and Dark Crimson, No. 452,
in British Standard 381C (1964) are extremely good matches.
Relief limonite is invariably accompanied by other forms of
hematite, and in most cases all gradations from convincing relief
limonite through problematical examples to normal hematite are
present. It is obvious from many publications on porphyry cop-
per deposits and conversations with porphyry geologists that the
significance of relief limonite is universally recognized.
The presence of relief limonite generally implies fairly
thorough leaching over more than one cycle so that the chances
tion. Anderson (1982, p. 281) explained that the relationship
between limonite and residual copper in leached outcrops and
actual grades derived by this means were determined empiri-
cally from the study of 4,500 drill core and surface samples col-
lected from 85 different porphyry copper occurrences.
Bear Creek workers pursued the goal of using studies of
leached cappings to make semi-quantitative estimates of the cop-
per content of both primary and secondary copper mineralization.
Goethite in capping limonite was related to copper in rocks in
order to determine the copper content of primary mineralization.
Similarly, hematite in capping and copper in rocks were combined
to estimate the amount of enrichment (enriched grade minus pri-
mary grade) expressed as thickness in feet times percent copper. In
both instances the relationships linking the relevant factors can be
conveyed either by means of graphs (Anderson, 1982, figs. 12.12
and 12.13) or nomograms (nomographs). Examples of the latter
are reproduced as figures 5 and 6.
PRIMARY GRADE PREDICTION NOMOGRAPH
Goethite in Primary Grade Cu in rock
limonite "h ppm % ppm
150 -j
100

of finding associated oxidized copper minerals in outcrops nor- 00 200- 002

mally are fairly small. Nevertheless, brochantite (antlerite) is ao • 200-

commonly developed especially where protected from solution 300-

70
and removal by rainwater in cliff overhangs, crevices, prospect Z50 •
400-
drifts, and other old mine workings. 60
500- 300-
The immediate objective of the steps described to this point 600-
is to permit the leached outcrops or the capping studied to be so 700- 350
800-
classified according to the scheme shown in figure 4. Achieve- 900- 400-

ment of this step permits the field geologist to estimate the 40

1000 -
450 •

approximate maximum and minimum copper grades of the 500-

1500
former sulfide zone. Combinations of leached capping and their
implications were discussed by Anderson (1982, see especially •30
2000- 600-

figs. 12.9 and 12.10). It should by now be clear why the megas- 2500 700-
copic approach to capping interpretation was said to be capable 3000-
800-
of providing estimates which are semi-quantitative as regards 3500
4000- 900-
AFS and only qualitative for copper content.
• so 6000' OS IOOO-

GOOD'
GEOCHEMICAL PHASE 7000
8000-
90O0
Discovery of capping with hematite (including relief limo- 10.000- i.oo 1500

nite) or jarosite (with copper pitch, neotocite, or tenorite) com-

bined with a record of nearby small-scale mining normally is
sufficient to justify ground acquisition and detailed exploration.
However, early adoption of these kinds of measures may be pre-
cluded in some instances by extraneous factors such as difficult
or time-consuming negotiations over mineral rights, exorbitant
initial lease and option payments, or difficult access. In such
cases management may request more quantitative information
before undertaking large financial commitments.
Use of the geochemical method of leached capping inter-
pretation may be warranted in such instances. This approach dif-
fers from the megascopic phase by combining with inspection
of outcrops and hand specimens both geochemical analyses of
chip samples and x-ray analyses to quantify limonite composi-
20O0
Given % goettiite and ppm Cu in rock, lay straighi-
• 10
edge between points; centre line indicates primary
grade in ppm (%)
GEOLOGIC RESEARCH DIVISION, KENNECOTT COPPER CORP.
Initials 1 legible
Figure 5. Nomogram for primary grade prediction, cf, "prediction chart...
original grade of primary mineralization" presented by Anderson (1982,
fig. 12.12). Instructions accompanying the Jatter diagram should be con-
sulted. This figure is designed to be enlarged and perforated for a standard
3.75 x 6.75.6-hole ring-back notebook.
 A FIELD GUIDE TO LEACHED CAPPING INTERPRETATION 177

containing manganese and iron oxide minerals. Jarositic

cappings are known to overlie both enriched and pri-
ENRICHED GRADE PREDICTION NOMOGRAM mary ore but are commonly considered to represent
deposits of barren pyritic mineralization. This knowl-
He ma lite in
iimonite %
edge provides the unique opportunity to reevaluate
many outcrop areas for porphyry copper targets.
Cu in chalcocite
zone Fl.%
enriched • primary grade
These "outcrop areas" could include both new prospects
o .so x thickness (ft) and extensions or repetitions of orebodies being mined.
Reference has been made at two or three points to Silver Bell
Cu in leached and North Silver Bell. It might be useful to summar-
capping ppm
-400 ize these observations as an example of how the principles
-300

o BOO
1100- -600
1200 500
400
-aso
-300
-260
-200
•175
-iso
-125
-00
o -BO
o The low sulfide content means relatively low acidity whereby mo-
Given Va hematite and ppm Cu in capping, iay straight-
edge between points; centre line gives value of enrich-
ment (ie, total grade - primary) of chalcocite zone
expressed in ft x % Cu
GEOLOGIC RESEARCH DIVISION, KENNECOTT COPPER CORPORATION
Initials June 1967
Figure 6. Nomogram for prediction of copper enrichment grade, cf,
"chalcocite-enrichment prediction chart" in Anderson (1982, fig. 12.13).
Instructions accompanying the latter should be consulted. The diagram is
designed to be enlarged and perforated in the same manner asfigure5.
Since estimation of the goethite and hematite contents of
Iimonite is basic to this approach, Iimonite triangles are indispens-
able. As indicated above, Anderson (1982, p. 293) also recom-
mended supplementing visual estimation of limonite composition
by means of x-ray analyses of representative samples.
DISCUSSION
Wilson (1965) succinctly stated two of the most impor-
tant implications of the Bear Creek school of leached capping
interpretation:
In applying capping appraisal techniques, the ge-
ologist should be particularly aware of the less obvious
potential of jarositic and neotocite cappings. Neotocite
cappings containing over 1.0% copper without visible
green oxides are easily mistaken for unaltered rocks
described can be applied. The Silver Bell porphyry (as distinct
from skarns) is a comparatively small, fairly conventional deposit
(Richard and Courtright, 1954 and 1966; Graybeal, 1982). The
bulk of ore mined in the Oxide and El Tiro pits occurred in sec-
ondary chalcocite blankets overlain by mature secondary leached
cappings exhibiting abundant relief or live limonite after chal-
cocite. By contrast, the surface expression of North Silver Bell is
marked by a paucity of Iimonite, most of which has a high goet-
hite to jarosite ratio. Supergene alteration is minimal, supporting
the diagnosis of low sulfide content indicated by limonite. These
observations suggest that beneath the zone of weathering AFS
comprise only about 1.5 to 2.0 percent by volume. Oxidized cop-
per minerals are neotocite and copper pitch (known to be oxida-
tion products of chalcopyrite) with sparse malachite and azurite.
One-and-a-half to 2.0 volume percent sulfides (mostly chalcopy-
rite) suggests a primary copper content on the order of 0.5 percent.
bilized copper is precipitated without much concentration as hy-
droxides, oxides, carbonates, sulfates, and silicates. Another way
to express the same observations is to note that North Silver Bell
is overlain by leached capping with combined characteristics of
goethite and pitch limonite-neotocite (see fig. 4). The estimated
grade of reserves at North Silver Bell is 0.47 percent copper
(Beard, 1992). Preparations reportedly are being made by the
owners (ASARCO Inc.) to exploit the deposit using heap leaching
and solvent ex traction-electro winning (SX/EW), which implies
that copper minerals must be leachable in dilute acid (copper
oxides or secondary sulfides).
Among the notable features of Graybeal's (1982) paper on
the El Tiro and Silver Bell North area is a discussion of ratios
and rates of enrichment. When attempting to interpret the sig-
nificance of cappings it is important to distinguish between the
two. Ratio of enrichment refers to the ratio of primary to en-
riched grades and other things being equal, refers to the relative
heights of the column of primary sulfides which was leached
and supplied copper to groundwater and the column which re-
ceived copper and was enriched. Cycles of enrichment refers to
the number of times host rocks have been elevated, exposed to
weathering and oxidation, leached, and enriched. Cycles and ra-
tios are not unrelated: The more often a given block of ground
containing hypogene mineralization has been elevated, leached,
and enriched, the greater the ratio of enrichment is likely to be.
But the relationship is not one-to-one. In theory at least, a single
uplift of considerable magnitude could give rise to 'a jarosite
capping after primary sulfides and a chalcocite blanket which
reflects an enrichment ratio that exceeds one.
It may be possible to infer from leached cappings the tec-
178
tonic history of a given area, especially whether it was continu-
ous or sporadic. Anderson (J982, Fig. 12.15) shows a photo-
graph of the pit-wall atToquepala, Peru. From surface down the
succession reads: jarositic capping after primary sulfides, hema-
titic capping after chalcocite, jarositic capping after primary sul-
fides, chalcocite blanket, and primary sulfides. The presence of
a jarositic capping after primary sulfides between hematitic cap-
ping and a chalcocite blanket implies fairly abrupt, periodic
elevation which in turn suggests the secondary blanket being
mined is a product of at least two cycles of leaching and enrich-
ment. For further discussion of this subject the reader is referred
to Graybeal (1982) and Anderson (1982, specifically figs. 12.2
and 12.14 through 12.17).
The reader may question the wisdom of reviving a technol-
ogy that is at least 30 years old, especially in this time of hand-
held analytical instruments. Five responses come to mind. First,
it always seems unfortunate when a useful ait or skill is lost.
Second, in science as in other disciplines it can be informative to
know what went before when trying to plan ahead. Third, it is
one thing to use field instruments to measure the copper content
of exposures and quite another to employ such equipment to
predict the existence and estimate the tenor of primary and sec-
ondary sulfides underlying leached outcrops; the combination of
capping interpretation and direct measurement in the field of
copper content and limonite composition could prove powerful.
Fourth, study of leached cappings logically complements the
increasingly widespread use in porphyry exploration of color
air-photos and other forms of imaging spectroscopy derived
from instruments carried in satellites (Settle and others, 1984)
and fixed-wing aircraft (Swayze and others, 1993). Fifth is the
very important point made by Wilson (1965) at the outset of this
discussion regarding reevaluation of outcrop areas for porphyry
copper targets.
The fact that these notes focus on the methods of the
Kennecott school is not intended to diminish the value of other re-
search. To the best of the writer's knowledge, the results of investi-
gations conducted by other major copper companies has not been
directly placed in the public sphere. The writer hopes that omission
will be repaired before the technology is irretrievably lost.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thcwriter would like to express his indebtedness to James A.
Anderson, who in 1968 and 1969 demonstrated Kennecott meth-
ods in the field in Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico; provided numer-
ous examples of field aids employed (including those reproduced
in figs. 5 and 6); and reviewed the manuscript of this paper; to
J.W. Hammitt and L.T. Keating of Kennecott Corporation who
generously supplied different colored versions of "limonite tri-
angles;" to two anonymous reviewers for their intelligent and con-
structive reading of the manuscript which benefited greatly from
their suggestions, and finally to the editors for uniformly sympa-
thetic support and criticism. Besides serial commas, inserted at the
request of the last-named, the writer is of course solely respon-
sible for all errors of fact or interpretation.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.A., 1982, Characteristics of leached capping and techniques of ap-
P. GILMOUR
praisal, in Titley, S.R., ed., Advances in geology of the porphyry
copper deposits, Southwestern North America: Tucson. University
of Arizona Press, p. 275-295.
Anderson, J.A., 1969, Diagrams prepared for presentation at Society of Eco-
nomic Geology Penrose Conference on porphyry copper deposits,
held Tucson, Arizona, Spring, 1969, unpublished.
Andrew, R.L., 1980, Supergene alteration and gossan textures of base-metal
ores in southern Africa: Minerals Science Engineering, v. 12.
p. 193-215.
Beard, R.D., 1992, The primary copper industry of Arizona in 1990: Arizona De-
partment of Mines and Mineral Resources Special ReponNo. 17.70 p.
Beane, R.E., 1982, Hydrothermal alteration in silicate rocks, in Titley, S.R., ed..
Advances in geology of the porphyry copper deposits. Southwestern
North America: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, p. 117-137.
Blain, C.F., and Andrew, R.L., 1977, Sulfide weathering and the evaluation of
gossans in mineral exploration: Minerals Science Engineering, v. 9,
p. 115-150.
Bianchard, Roland, 1939, interpretation of leached outcrops: Chemical, Metal-
lurgical, and Mining Society of South Africa Journal, v. 30, n. 11,
p. 344-372.
Bianchard, Roland, 1968, Interpretation of leached outcrops: Nevada Bureau of
Mines Bulletin 66, 196 p.
British Standards 381C, 1964, Colours for specific purposes: London. British
Standards Institution, !0p. and 10 color plates.
Federal Standard 595B 1968, 1989, etc., Colors used in government procure-
ment: Washington, D.C., General Services Administration, loose-
leaf form (no fixed number of pages).
Graybeal, F.T., 1982, Geology of the El Tiro area, in Titley, S.R., ed.. Advances
in geology of the porphyry copper deposits, Southwestern North
America: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, p. 487-505.
Godwin, C.I., 1976, Casino, in Sutherland Brown, A., ed.. Porphyry deposits of
the Canadian Cordillera: Canadian Institute of Mining and Metal-
lurgy Special Volume 15, p. 344-354.
Locke, Augustus, 1926, Leached outcrops as guides to copper ore: Baltimore,
Williams and Wiikins Co., 166 p.
Lowell, J.D., 1991, The discovery of the La Escondida orebody. in Hutchinson,
R.W., and Grauch, R.I., eds., Historical perspectives of genetic con-
cepts and case histories of famous discoveries: Economic Geology
Monograph 8, p. 300-313.
Nielsen, R.L., 1984, Evolution of porphyry copper ore deposit models: Mining
Engineering, v. 36, p. 1637-1643,
Parsons, A.B., 1933, The porphyry coppers: New York, American Institute of
Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, 581 p. '
Richard, K.E., and Courtright, J.H., 1954, Structure and mineralization at
Silver Bell, Ariz.: Mining Engineering, v. 6, p. 1095-1099.
Richard, K.E., and Courtright, J.H., 1966, Structure and mineralization at
Silver Bell, Arizona, in Titley, S.R., and Hicks, C.L., eds., Geology
of the porphyry copper deposits. Southwestern North America:
Tucson, University of Arizona Press, p. 157-163.
Saegart, W.E., Sell, J.D., and Kilpatrick, B.E., 1974, Geology and copper min-
eralization of La Caridad porphyry copper deposit, Sonora, Mexico:
Economic Geology, v. 69, p. 1060-1077.
Settle, Mark, Abrams, M.J., Conel, J.E., Goetz, Alexander, F.H., and Lang,
H.R., 1984, Sensor assessment report, in Paley, H.N., ed.. The joint
NASA/Geosat test case project final report, pan 2, v. I: Tulsa,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. 2-1 to 6-95-
Swayze, Greg, Clark, Roger, and Gallagher, Andrea, 1993, Imaging spectros-
copy sheds new light on mineral studies: U.S. Geological Survey
Mineral Resources Newsletter, v. 4, n. 3, p. 1 -2.
Terry, R.D., and Chilingar, G.V., 1955, Summary of "Concerning some addi-
tional aids in studying sedimentary formations" by M. S. Shvetsov:
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 25, p. 229-234.
Van Nort, S.D., Atwood, G.W., Collinson, T.B., and Potter, D.R., 1991, Geoi-
,., ogy and mineralization of the Grasberg copper-gold deposit, Irian
Jaya, Indonesia: Mining Engineering, v. 43, p. 300-303.
 A FIELD GUIDE TO LEACHED CAPPING INTERPRETATION 179

Wilson, J.C., 1965, Use of alteration, capping appraisal, and rock geochemistry
in exploration: Kennecott Copper Corporation, Exploration Ser-
vices, Geologic Research Division, Salt Lake City, Utah, unpub-'
lished,50p.