|
|
 |
 
|
Summary Miranda Gold's Iron Point project is located in the Iron Point mining district in southeastern Humboldt County, Nevada, within a series of low hills along the northeast flank of Edna Mountain.
The major mines within a 25 mile radius of Iron Point represent more than 30 million (mined and unmined) ounces of gold. Miranda Gold infers that more gold discoveries are likely to be made in this region. Mining in this area is beginning to evolve from open pit projects into underground operations that mine higher-grade ore. The Iron Point target project occurs at the general intersection of:
Further, the Iron Point district is within the northeast-striking "Humboldt Lineament" which may exert basement or crustal-scale controls to mineralization where it crosses the Independence (Jerrit Canyon district), Carlin, and Battle Mountain-Eureka Trends. Miranda Gold has assembled a land package on the intersection of these trends, through staking and a simple lease. Miranda Gold generated its land position in the Iron Point district while looking for evidence of a west-northwest-trending intrusive "axis" and possible structural (extensional) domain extending from the Lone Tree Mine area. Subsequently, Miranda Gold has begun to resolve other drill targets related to a "terrain bounding" fault between the Comus and Valmy Formations, and extensions of geophysical lineaments that connect the Iron Point district to the Getchell Trend. The Iron Point project occurs within Newmont Mining Corporation fee checkerboard (in reference to Public Land Survey Sections) adjacent and intermixed with Newmont's fee lands currently controlled by Victoria Resource Corporation through a lease. Geology The regional geology of the Iron Point area is dominated by folded and faulted lower Paleozoic (Cambrian) sedimentary rocks which are structurally overlain by upper Paleozoic (Pennsylvanian-Permian) rocks emplaced along the Iron Point thrust of early to middle Permian age and the Golconda thrust of late Permian to early Triassic age. The Iron Point district geology includes rocks of the Ordovician Comus and Cambrian Preble Formations, which are significant host rocks at the Pinson, Getchell and Twin Creeks mines of the Getchell Trend. The Cambrian rocks are in fault contact with Ordovician Valmy Formation. The Iron Point thrust has emplaced Antler Sequence limestone and clastic rocks over older Paleozoic rocks. The Iron Point thrust predates the Golconda thrust and deposition of Permian Edna Mountain Formation. Siliceous and volcanic rocks of the Golconda allochthon are thrust over Antler Sequence and Edna Mountain Formation. Intruding the sedimentary package is an equigranular granodiorite of Cretaceous age and numerous, commonly low quartz, feldspar porphyritic dikes and sills, oriented in distinctive north-northwest-trending and west-northwest-trending patterns through the district. The dikes represent at least two distinct phases and may include a younger intrusive event. Braided strands of the Getchell fault system are inferred to project south directly through the Iron Springs district. This projection is substantiated by United States Geological Survey (USGS) multi-sensor airborne geophysical programs conducted in 1988. Notable alteration at Iron Point includes broad zones of jasperoid in limestone units and clayey, pyrite-rich felsic dikes and sills. USGS quadrangle mapping suggests a distinctive and repeated pattern of west-northwest and north-northwest inflections and intersections of multi-phase dike-filled fault zones that suggest local dilational pull-apart fault blocks created from a lateral component of movement on west-northwest-striking faults. These fault intersections and the margins of intrusive rocks appear to be the favored locus for alteration and metals within the Iron Point district. North-northwest-trending map-scale fold patterns parallel to north-northwest-trending "Getchell Trend" fault extensions are a notable feature in the district. At least locally, some of the north-northwest faults show reverse movement and extensional reactivation. Significant alteration is also observed in Comus rocks related to a reverse fault that is mineralized and trending northwest under young basalt. Tentative Miranda Gold inferences on the Iron Point area Comus stratigraphy, based on work from previous exploration programs, suggest that the Comus Formation at Iron Point may be distinct from Comus in other parts of the Getchell Trend and that parts of the section are lithologically very similar to the Hanson Creek and Roberts Mountain Formations. Provisional age dating by graptolites also suggests that Silurian rocks very similar to the Roberts Mountain Formation have been included in the Ordovician Comus at Iron Point. In any case it appears that the Comus Formation at Iron Point represents a coeval and very similar depositional environment to both the Hanson Creek and Roberts Mountain Formations. Ordovician and Silurian rocks such as the Hanson Creek and Roberts Mountain Formations respectively are productive hosts in the Cortez Trend which is an important component of the larger Battle Mountain-Eureka Trend. This sequence of possible Silurian-Devonian rocks should be drill tested at Iron Point. Target Discussion Previous drilling in the Iron Point district by Santa Fe Mining, Newcrest Resources and Euro Nevada encountered local, thin 1 to 2 g Au/t (0.030-0.060 oz Au/t) gold intercepts and thicker anomalous gold intercepts. These drill intercepts are associated grossly with a large alteration cell and coincident with trace element anomalies within the area and together are indicative that the greater Iron Point area is permissible for discovery of a robust Carlin-style system. The expected target at Iron Point is more likely to be a "structurally controlled end member Carlin type" and possibly intimately related to dike and/or sill margins. At both the Pinson and Preble Mines to the north, dike-filled fault zones were often the principal feeder structures for gold-bearing solutions. By analogy, the intersecting dikes at Iron Point provide a favorable structural locus for gold mineralization. Complex folds, thrusts and unconformities in the district also are considered favorable for structural preparation, channeling and sealing of hydrothermal fluids. At least locally, some folding may be fault-propagated, related to fault inversion. Thus some folds in the district may be within the hanging wall of reactivated faults and act as fluid traps to underlying "feeder zones". Miranda Gold proposes that the Iron Point alteration and gold anomalies and their associated west-northwest- and northwest-trending dike patterns may occur within a broad zone of intrusive axes and interrelated fault and fold patterns extending west-northwest from the Lone Tree Mine area and that other significant gold deposits should occur along this trend, especially where Getchell Trend structures are intersected. A common denominator between gold mines in the Getchell and north Battle Mountain-Eureka Trend is a close association of significant ore with the Ordovician (especially Comus or Valmy) rocks. Further, most gold mineralization occurs within a few hundred feet of fault zones between Ordovician rocks and older Cambrian or younger Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks. This fault contact is a primary target being advanced on Miranda Gold's Iron Point project. In two primary Iron Point project targets (one associated with the Valmy-Cambrian fault contact discussed above and the other in an area of strongly altered Comus along a mineralized reverse fault) Miranda feels that exploration drilling by previous operators was terminated prematurely while drill results were improving target resolution and quality. Joint Venture Exploration Miranda Gold signed a binding letter of intent with White Bear Resources Inc whereby White Bear may earn a joint venture interest in the Iron Point project. In 2008, a three hole, 4,500ft drill program is expected. This disclosure contains information about properties which we have no right to explore or mine. We advise U.S. investors that the SEC's mining operations disclosure guidelines generally preclude disclosing information of this time in documents filed with the SEC as we must focus on properties in which we do have an interest. U.S. investors are cautioned that mineral deposits on adjacent properties are not necessarily indicative of mineral deposits on our properties. |
|||||||||||
|
|
 |
HomeCorporateNewsInvestorsProjectsJoint VentureQwikReportContactDisclaimer |
)
