Discussion of Papers Published Prior to 1956 - Structural and Stratigraphic Control of Ore Deposition in the West Shasta Copper-Zinc District, California

Robert T. Walker and Woodville J. Walker (Walker Engineering Corp., Salt Lake City)—Mr. Kinkel's article embodies, in condensed form, the results of the first detailed and complete geological survey that has ever been made of the long neglected but potentially very important West Shasta Copper-Zinc district, in Shasta County, California. In view of the difficulties of the terrain and the complexity of the geological structure, this represents a notable achievement, and it is with regret, therefore, that the writers find it necessary to differ from Mr. Kinkel's conclusions on two important points. The first has to do with the interpretation of two members of the stratigraphic column of formations in the district; for purposes of comparison, the description of these two members according to Mr. Kinkel is shown parallel to the description of these members according to the writers, see Fig. 14, Mr. Kinkel's nomenclature being used. The first member, which Mr. Kinkel terms the upper unit of the Balaklala rhyolite, consists of a single, massive, homogenous body of very silicious igneous rock, consisting almost wholly of quartz and albite, and averaging about 80 pct silica. Most geologists of the U. S. Geological Survey who have previously inspected the district have called it an alaskite. It is not a pile of several members, but is a single unit, without internal subdivisions. It has the form of a recumbent lens, approximately flat on the bottom and arched on top, several miles in diameter, and attaining a maximum thickness of 1000 to 1200 ft. It varies in texture from porphyritic to holocrystalline, and contains unusually large quartz phenocrysts up to 4 mm diam. Mr. Kinkel considers this formation to be a thick lava flow that is older than the overlying Kennett shale, while the writers interpret it as being intrusive, constituting a domed sill or laccolith that is younger than the Kennett shale. Their reasons are as follows: 1) This formation shows none of the features which within the writers' experience invariably accompany very silicious lava flows. Nowhere is it vesicular; nowhere does it contain any glass or its devitrified equivalent; nowhere does it contain flow breccia; and nowhere has it a ragged top, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of surface erosion, which might have removed such a top.