The past producing Bluebell copper-gold-silver mine is located in the Summit Camp, 1.3 kilometres south of Wilgress Lake and about 13 kilometres north-west of Grand Forks, British Columbia, in the Greenwood Mining Division.
There is a description of the property, including regional geology, on the British Columbia “Minfile” site, current to 2020. This has a summary of the history of the property as well as a capsule description of the geology that is quoted below:
“The area is underlain by greenstones which are interbedded with tuffs, limestone and sharpstone conglomerates of the Triassic Brooklyn Group. These are intruded by granodiorite of the Jurassic Nelson Intusions [sic] and alkaline syenite of the Eocene Coryell Intrusions.”

Giles Peatfield comments:
The Triassic conglomerate/limestone/skarn package has been called the Brooklyn Formation by all workers in the area, up until 1986, when Church (1986), without offering any explanation, changed it to the Brooklyn Group. No justification was offered for this change, and indeed Fyles (1990) declined to accept it and continued to use Brooklyn Formation. Refer to Mindat ‘Cyclops zinc deposit, Summit Camp, Greenwood Mining Division, British Columbia, Canada’ for a more detailed discussion of this point. Note that the Minfile capsule geology quoted above refers to the general area; the rock types in the immediate mine area are somewhat more restricted.
Freeland (1922) described the property as follows: “This old Crown-granted claim is situated about 1,500 feet north-east of the Emma mine and within half a mile of the Greenwood-Grand Forks wagon-road. The old shaft, 110 feet deep, was unwatered and retimbered and a drift driven 25 feet north, 60 feet down from the collar. The mineralized zone occurs in the limestone near its contact with greenstone and contains small lenses of chalcopyrite and pyrite in epidote and garnetite, averaging about 8 feet in width. To the south of the shaft an alkali-syenite dyke cuts the formation and probably disturbs the mineral-zone in that direction. This is a good formation for the deposition of copper ores and further development to the north seems worth while.”
There was very limited production from the claim in 1938-39. Official government records show that 353 tonnes of material were shipped, yielding 259 Troy ounces of gold, 122 Troy ounces of silver, and 422 kilograms of copper. These precious metal contents are anomalously high for skarn copper deposits of the region, and lead to speculation as to the precise nature of the deposit. It is also noteworthy that there has been zinc mineralization, albeit minor, reported in drilling on the property. Clearly, this is not a standard Summit Camp copper-bearing skarn deposit.

Comments on the Minerals Reported:
Chalcopyrite: Reinsbakken (1970), on his thesis map, has a notation reporting minor chalcopyrite, with pyrite and magnetite.
Epidote group: Reported by Freeland (1922) as ‘epidote’, part of the host rock for copper mineralization.
Garnet group: Freeland (1922) reported ‘garnetite’. Copper deposits in this stratigraphy in the Summit Camp typically occur in garnet-bearing skarns. There is little information regarding specific compositions. What there is generally puts the garnets in the andradite-grossular series.
Magnetite: See note above for chalcopyrite. Magnetite is a common constituent of the skarn copper deposits in the Summit Camp.
Pyrite: See note above for chalcopyrite.
Pyroxene group: Rasmussen (1997) described the skarn as “. . . pyroxene-garnet skarn, with surprisingly little epidote.”, but gave no specific data as to the pyroxene composition.
Pyrrhotite: Pyrrhotite was noted by Rasmussen (1997) on a drill section. Kyba and Daughtry (1984) reported that “Massive pyrrhotite and pyrite boulders were found in the till in trenches 600 feet (180 m) south of the old workings.” It seems likely that these boulders were derived from the Bluebell occurrence; I can find no evidence that these boulders were ever assayed.
Sphalerite: Rasmussen (1997) reported that “Skarn intersections [in drilling] were generally sulfide poor, with a 2-foot thick zone of massive sphalerite being a prominent exception.” The reported assay for this intersection was 36,081 parts per million (~ 3.6%) zinc, so hardly ‘massive’ sphalerite; the notation on the drill section mentions pyrite and pyrrhotite in the interval, which explains what was written. The interval also assayed 2,401 parts per million copper and negligible precious metals.

Comments on the rock types Reported:
Andesite: Mapped by Reinsbakken (1970), described as fragmental andesites. These are what Peatfield (1978) regarded as possibly Jurassic rocks; Fyles (1990) considered them to be part of the Triassic Brooklyn package.
Conglomerate: Rasmussen (1997) reported ‘chert conglomerate (sharpstone)’ in diamond drilling.
Diorite: Rasmussen (1997) described an intrusive greenstone as ‘microdiorite’.
Limestone: This is the major lithology exposed in the immediate area of the workings. It is part of the Brooklyn Formation. Rasmussen (1997) reported substantial amounts in drill core.
Skarn: This is what Freeland (1922) described as ‘garnetite’. Rasmussen (1997) encountered skarn in diamond drilling.
Syenite: This is in the form of a major northerly trending dyke of Eocene age syenite porphyry, lying immediately east of the occurrence area. It was also reported by Rasmussen (1997) in drill core.
Details of rock types are taken mostly from mapping by Reinsbakken in Newell (1970), and from Rasmussen (1997).

The past producing Bluebell copper-gold-silver mine is located in the Summit Camp, 1.3 kilometres south of Wilgress Lake and about 13 kilometres north-west of Grand Forks, British Columbia, in the Greenwood Mining Division.
There is a description of the property, including regional geology, on the British Columbia “Minfile” site, current to 2020. This has a summary of the history of the property as well as a capsule description of the geology that is quoted below:
“The area is underlain by greenstones which are interbedded with tuffs, limestone and sharpstone conglomerates of the Triassic Brooklyn Group. These are intruded by granodiorite of the Jurassic Nelson Intusions [sic] and alkaline syenite of the Eocene Coryell Intrusions.”
Giles Peatfield comments:
The Triassic conglomerate/limestone/skarn package has been called the Brooklyn Formation by all workers in the area, up until 1986, when Church (1986), without offering any explanation, changed it to the Brooklyn Group. No justification was offered for this change, and indeed Fyles (1990) declined to accept it and continued to use Brooklyn Formation. Refer to Mindat ‘Cyclops zinc deposit, Summit Camp, Greenwood Mining Division, British Columbia, Canada’ for a more detailed discussion of this point. Note that the Minfile capsule geology quoted above refers to the general area; the rock types in the immediate mine area are somewhat more restricted.
Freeland (1922) described the property as follows: “This old Crown-granted claim is situated about 1,500 feet north-east of the Emma mine and within half a mile of the Greenwood-Grand Forks wagon-road. The old shaft, 110 feet deep, was unwatered and retimbered and a drift driven 25 feet north, 60 feet down from the collar. The mineralized zone occurs in the limestone near its contact with greenstone and contains small lenses of chalcopyrite and pyrite in epidote and garnetite, averaging about 8 feet in width. To the south of the shaft an alkali-syenite dyke cuts the formation and probably disturbs the mineral-zone in that direction. This is a good formation for the deposition of copper ores and further development to the north seems worth while.”
There was very limited production from the claim in 1938-39. Official government records show that 353 tonnes of material were shipped, yielding 259 Troy ounces of gold, 122 Troy ounces of silver, and 422 kilograms of copper. These precious metal contents are anomalously high for skarn copper deposits of the region, and lead to speculation as to the precise nature of the deposit. It is also noteworthy that there has been zinc mineralization, albeit minor, reported in drilling on the property. Clearly, this is not a standard Summit Camp copper-bearing skarn deposit.

Comments on the Minerals Reported:
Chalcopyrite: Reinsbakken (1970), on his thesis map, has a notation reporting minor chalcopyrite, with pyrite and magnetite.
Epidote group: Reported by Freeland (1922) as ‘epidote’, part of the host rock for copper mineralization.
Garnet group: Freeland (1922) reported ‘garnetite’. Copper deposits in this stratigraphy in the Summit Camp typically occur in garnet-bearing skarns. There is little information regarding specific compositions. What there is generally puts the garnets in the andradite-grossular series.
Magnetite: See note above for chalcopyrite. Magnetite is a common constituent of the skarn copper deposits in the Summit Camp.
Pyrite: See note above for chalcopyrite.
Pyroxene group: Rasmussen (1997) described the skarn as “. . . pyroxene-garnet skarn, with surprisingly little epidote.”, but gave no specific data as to the pyroxene composition.
Pyrrhotite: Pyrrhotite was noted by Rasmussen (1997) on a drill section. Kyba and Daughtry (1984) reported that “Massive pyrrhotite and pyrite boulders were found in the till in trenches 600 feet (180 m) south of the old workings.” It seems likely that these boulders were derived from the Bluebell occurrence; I can find no evidence that these boulders were ever assayed.
Sphalerite: Rasmussen (1997) reported that “Skarn intersections [in drilling] were generally sulfide poor, with a 2-foot thick zone of massive sphalerite being a prominent exception.” The reported assay for this intersection was 36,081 parts per million (~ 3.6%) zinc, so hardly ‘massive’ sphalerite; the notation on the drill section mentions pyrite and pyrrhotite in the interval, which explains what was written. The interval also assayed 2,401 parts per million copper and negligible precious metals.

Comments on the rock types Reported:
Andesite: Mapped by Reinsbakken (1970), described as fragmental andesites. These are what Peatfield (1978) regarded as possibly Jurassic rocks; Fyles (1990) considered them to be part of the Triassic Brooklyn package.
Conglomerate: Rasmussen (1997) reported ‘chert conglomerate (sharpstone)’ in diamond drilling.
Diorite: Rasmussen (1997) described an intrusive greenstone as ‘microdiorite’.
Limestone: This is the major lithology exposed in the immediate area of the workings. It is part of the Brooklyn Formation. Rasmussen (1997) reported substantial amounts in drill core.
Skarn: This is what Freeland (1922) described as ‘garnetite’. Rasmussen (1997) encountered skarn in diamond drilling.
Syenite: This is in the form of a major northerly trending dyke of Eocene age syenite porphyry, lying immediately east of the occurrence area. It was also reported by Rasmussen (1997) in drill core.
Details of rock types are taken mostly from mapping by Reinsbakken in Newell (1970), and from Rasmussen (1997).

Giles Peatfield
BASc . (Geological Engineering) University of British Columbia 1966.
ueen's University at Kingston 1978.
Worked for Texas Gulf Sulphur / Texas-gulf Inc. / Kidd Creek Mines - 1966 to 1985.
Consultant 1985 to 2016

Select Mineral List Type

Standard Detailed Gallery Strunz Chemical Elements

Mineral List

ⓘ Chalcopyrite

5 valid minerals.

Rock Types Recorded

Select Rock List Type

Alphabetical List Tree Diagram