Laserfiche WebLink
T-4518 <br />Recommendations for Future Research <br />84 <br />During the course of this study, several problems were ident~ed which should be <br />addressed but were beyond the scope of this project. Most of these problems involve the <br />Caribou district, but would shed light upon geological problems at the Cross deposit. <br />The fast problem is the uncleaz relationship between the Cross and Caribou <br />deposits. They contain virtually identical mineral assemblages and thus appeaz to be <br />related, yet the Cross has a Au:Ag ratio of about 1:2 to 1:20 while the Caribou's Au:Ag <br />ratio is closer to about 1:800. Possible explanations might involve: 1) differences in gold <br />and silver deposition due to primary host [rock; 2) lateral distance from a hypotheticrl <br />hydrothermal center, 3) possible post-mineral offset between the two deposits; or 4.) <br />superposition of gold mineralization at the Cross but not the Caribou deposit. <br />The second problem involves a continuation of the structural analysis done in this <br />study. Kinematic indicators on the surface and in other deposits in the district should be <br />sought to confirm, expand upon, or deny the deposit-scale and disaict-scale model:> for <br />structural development presented in this study. <br />Finally, the timing of mineralization could be constrained by dating adulazia or <br />sericite in alteration or veins. The gtanidc dikes could also be dated. Any possible genetic <br />link between the dikes and the mineralization might then be explored. <br />