Vote for your favorite mineral in #MinCup26! - Sphalerite vs. Anorthite
Both zinc ore Sphalerite and calcium plagioclase feldspar Anorthite have perfect cleavage that will split cleanly if you hit them with a hammer, but only one can claim a larger split of your votes!
Log InRegister
Quick Links : The Mindat ManualThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryMindat Newsletter [Free Download]
Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic TimeExplore Fossils
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryMineral Visual ExplorerAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
Keyword(s):
 
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral QuizTime Machine
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorPhoto Colour ExplorerNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography

Brady Glacier nickel-copper deposit Prospect, Glacier Bay Mining District, Alaska, USAi
Regional Level Types
Brady Glacier nickel-copper deposit ProspectProspect
Glacier Bay Mining DistrictMining District
AlaskaState
USACountry

This page is currently not sponsored. Click here to sponsor this page.
PhotosMapsSearch
Latitude & Longitude (WGS84):
58° 33' 11'' North , 136° 55' 40'' West
Latitude & Longitude (decimal):
Köppen climate type:
Mindat Locality ID:
196652
Long-form identifier:
mindat:1:2:196652:0
GUID (UUID V4):
0


Brady Glacier is the largest or among the largest of nickel-copper deposits in the United States (Ellett, 1975). It also has a substantial resource of PGEs. Extensive metallurgical work done by Newmont and followed up by Czamanski and others (1981) show that resouces are only partly recoverable. Only about 1/2 of the estimated PGE resource is recoverable using the techniques tested. Distinct phases of PGEs have not been identified, but some are liberated after regrinding of the bulk flotation concentrates, and are potentially recoverable by ultrafine gravity or electrodynamic separators. Nickel recovery is about 80 percent. At low nickel concentrations, a considerable amount of the nickel is in the silicate phase and is not recoverable. The work done suggests that recoveries in an industrial-scale operation could be maximized. Inasmuch as the deposit is not yet limited to the west, any increase in reserves could contribute towards process development and scale of operation. Patented claims at the site are now owned by the University of Alaska; they are in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.
Location: The location is approximately the discovery nunatak of the deposit at an elevation of about 3300-feet on Brady Glacier. Except for exposures on nunataks, the deposit is covered by ice. It extends for about 0.4 miles northeast of the location point and about 0.6 miles west-southwest of the location point. The deposit may extend further west, possibly northwest, but the possible extensions were not drilled because of ice thickness. The location of the coordinates is the approximate common corner of sections 23, 24, 25, 26, T. 38 S., R. 51 E., of the Copper River Meridian. (See figure 3, Himmelberg and Loney, 1981, for this location relative to the discovery nunataks, contact of the intrusion, drill holes and cross-sections of the deposit.)
Geology: The Brady Glacier nickel-copper deposit is near the local floor of the Crillon-LaPerouse layered intrusion near an east-pointing embayment of the contact of the intrusive (Himmelberg and Loney, 1981, figs. 2 and 3, p. 4-5; Cornwall, 1971, p. 79-82). The mafic complex was intruded into hornblende schist interfingered with biotite schist. The schistose host rocks were interpreted as Alexander complex by Brew and others (1978, p. B12-13). Berg and others (1972) and Jones and others (1978) have placed the rocks in Wrangellia or Chugach terranes. The Tertiary age of the mafic intrusions (see below) is more consistent with the Chugach-Wrangellia interpretation. The Crillon-LaPerouse host intrusion is the largest of four layered mafic-ultramafic plutons in the Fairweather Range in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (Brew and others, 1978). The intrusion has an exposed thickness of about 6000 feet, and consists mainly of interlayered olivine gabbro and norite. Thin layers of ultramafic rock occur throughout the section, but are most abundant near the base. Layering and other sedimentary-like features suggest the body formed mostly by cumulus processes. The Crillon-LaPerouse pluton, and the other layered plutons of the National Park, are probably underlain by a dike-like feature of north-northwest trend. The structure is indicated by the +30 mGal contour (Barnes, in Brew and others, 1978, p. B51-69, esp. p. 67 and figure B4; Barnes and Watts, 1977). An underlying dike-like feature is also suggested by magnetics (Griscom, in Brew and others, 1978, p. B22-37, figure B1). It appears to be thickest underneath the Crillon-LaPerouse pluton. Its probable existence is consistent with the trend of significant cumulate-type ore deposits along the Fairweather Range. The proposed underlying dike is a megadike like the Great Dyke of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe); the overlying layered intrusions are like the major chromite-bearing mafic-ultramafic funnels that form the upper part of the Great Dyke (Worst, 1960; Bichan, 1969). In the Crillon-LaPerouse body itself, the predominantly mafic host rocks of the deposit consist of magnesian augite and bronzite, plagioclase (An81-63) and olivine (Fo71-86), also accessory chromite, ilmenite, magnetite, and graphite. Local phases are ultramafic in composition. The Brady Glacier nickel-copper deposit consists mainly of stratigraphically continuous disseminated-sulfide zones locally more than 400 feet thick that contain as much as 10 percent sulfide minerals. Massive sulfide zones of up to 10 feet in thickness occur locally, especially near the contacts of gabbroic and ultramafic cumulates. The dominant ore sulfides are hexagonal and monoclinic pyrrhotite, pentlandite and chalcopyrite. Altaite, cubanite and niccolite occur as minor components of the primary ore. Bornite, mackinawite, and violarite appear to have formed by secondary reactions between the primary sulfide phases (Czamanske and others, 1977, p. 14; Czamanske and others, 1981, p. 2001-2010; Himmelberg and Loney, 1981). Thicknesses where Ni + Cu equal or are greater than 0.5 percent exceed 100 feet are common. In drill hole NUC-3, in an apparent keel-like zone, apparent ore thickness exceeds 400 feet (Himmelberg and Loney, 1981, fig. 5). The deposit contains relatively low concentrations of PGEs (Pd, Pt, and Rh). The total PGE content of disseminated or average ore is about 0.18 ppm. Massive sulfide zones contain about 1 ppm total PGEs. Abundant carbon (now graphite), possibly derived from the intruded sedimentary rocks, kept low-valent sulfur stable and allowed the formation of a stable immiscible ore-sulfide phase that separated from the magma (Czamanske and others, 1977). The deposit is Tertiary in age. A mid-Tertiary age of about 30 Ma is consistent with new data reported by Goldfarb (1997) and with Ar-Ar dates reported by Himmelberg and Loney in 1981 (p. 5) The deposit appears to thicken and become richer to the west, suggesting that resources identified to date by drilling are probably minimal.
Workings: The deposit was discovered in a helicopter exploration conducted by Fremont Exploration Co. in 1958. Fremont covered the anticipated area of the deposit with 224 claims. Fremont drilled a total of 32 core holes in the nunataks or through the ice before turning the project over to Newmont Exploration, Ltd. Newmont drilled 14 additional holes and conducted extensive metallurgical tests on the core from the property. An additional 36 holes were drilled after 1961; drill hole total is 82 holes (Kimball and others, 1978, p. C99-101). Twenty claims covering the core of the deposit and, supported by drill discovery data, were patented in 1965. Later Newmont joint ventured the deposit with Cities Service and Union Pacific Resources. Although Richard Ellett of Newmont (1975) considered the deposit the largest nickel-copper deposit in the United States, its location within Glacier Bay National Park and Monument precludes its development. The deposit is now owned by the University of Alaska. Newmont and partners also did considerable project planning. The project could be developed from a ten-mile-long tunnel driven from the Boussole Bay area. An ice-depth survey suggests a deep canyon exists about a mile or two north of the deposit (Watts and England, 1976). This canyon may limit potential of the deposit, but it does not affect currently estimated resources.
Age: Probably mid-Tertiary (Goldfarb, 1997; Himmelberg and Loney,1981).
Reserves: Drill-indicated reserves are about 100 million tons of rock containing 0.5 percent nickel and 0.3 percent copper. PGEs average about 0.18 ppm and exceed 1 ppm in massive sulfide units and in flotation concentrates. About 250,000 ounces of PGEs exist in the drilled Ni-Cu resource area (Czamanske and others, 1981).

Commodities (Major) - Cu, Ni; (Minor) - Cr, Fe, Pb, PGE (Pd, Pt, and Rh), Te, Ti
Development Status: No
Deposit Model: Disseminated to massive sulfide deposit formed from immiscible sulfide fluid in

Select Mineral List Type

Standard Detailed Gallery Strunz Chemical Elements

Commodity List

This is a list of exploitable or exploited mineral commodities recorded at this locality.


Mineral List


12 valid minerals.

Detailed Mineral List:

Altaite
Formula: PbTe
Bornite
Formula: Cu5FeS4
Chalcopyrite
Formula: CuFeS2
Chromite
Formula: Fe2+Cr3+2O4
Cubanite
Formula: CuFe2S3
Ilmenite
Formula: Fe2+TiO3
Mackinawite
Formula: FeS
Magnetite
Formula: Fe2+Fe3+2O4
Nickeline
Formula: NiAs
Pentlandite
Formula: (NixFey)Σ9S8
Pyrite
Formula: FeS2
Violarite
Formula: Fe2+Ni3+2S4

Gallery:

List of minerals arranged by Strunz 10th Edition classification

Group 2 - Sulphides and Sulfosalts
Bornite2.BA.15Cu5FeS4
Pentlandite2.BB.15(NixFey)Σ9S8
Chalcopyrite2.CB.10aCuFeS2
Cubanite2.CB.55aCuFe2S3
Nickeline2.CC.05NiAs
Mackinawite2.CC.25FeS
Altaite2.CD.10PbTe
Violarite2.DA.05Fe2+Ni3+2S4
Pyrite2.EB.05aFeS2
Group 4 - Oxides and Hydroxides
Chromite4.BB.05Fe2+Cr3+2O4
Magnetite4.BB.05Fe2+Fe3+2O4
Ilmenite4.CB.05Fe2+TiO3

List of minerals for each chemical element

OOxygen
O ChromiteFe2+Cr23+O4
O IlmeniteFe2+TiO3
O MagnetiteFe2+Fe23+O4
SSulfur
S BorniteCu5FeS4
S ChalcopyriteCuFeS2
S CubaniteCuFe2S3
S MackinawiteFeS
S Pentlandite(NixFey)Σ9S8
S PyriteFeS2
S ViolariteFe2+Ni23+S4
TiTitanium
Ti IlmeniteFe2+TiO3
CrChromium
Cr ChromiteFe2+Cr23+O4
FeIron
Fe BorniteCu5FeS4
Fe ChalcopyriteCuFeS2
Fe ChromiteFe2+Cr23+O4
Fe CubaniteCuFe2S3
Fe IlmeniteFe2+TiO3
Fe MackinawiteFeS
Fe MagnetiteFe2+Fe23+O4
Fe Pentlandite(NixFey)Σ9S8
Fe PyriteFeS2
Fe ViolariteFe2+Ni23+S4
NiNickel
Ni NickelineNiAs
Ni Pentlandite(NixFey)Σ9S8
Ni ViolariteFe2+Ni23+S4
CuCopper
Cu BorniteCu5FeS4
Cu ChalcopyriteCuFeS2
Cu CubaniteCuFe2S3
AsArsenic
As NickelineNiAs
TeTellurium
Te AltaitePbTe
PbLead
Pb AltaitePbTe

Other Databases

Link to USGS - Alaska:MF003

Other Regions, Features and Areas containing this locality

North AmericaContinent
North America PlateTectonic Plate
USA

This page contains all mineral locality references listed on mindat.org. This does not claim to be a complete list. If you know of more minerals from this site, please register so you can add to our database. This locality information is for reference purposes only. You should never attempt to visit any sites listed in mindat.org without first ensuring that you have the permission of the land and/or mineral rights holders for access and that you are aware of all safety precautions necessary.

References

Barnes, D.F. and Watts, R.D., 1977, Geophysical surveys in Glacier Bay National Monument: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 751-B, p. B93-B94. Berg, H.C., Jones, D.L., and Richter, D.H., 1972, Gravina-Nutzotin Belt--Tectonic significance of an upper Mesozoic sedimentary and volcanic sequence in southern and southeastern Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 800-D, p. D1-D24. Bichan, R., 1969, Chromite seams in the Hartley complex of the Great Dyke of Rhodesia: Economic Geology Monograph 4, p. 95-113. Brew, D.A., Johnson, B.R., Grybeck, D., Griscom, A., Barnes, D.F., Kimball, A.L., Still, J.C., and Rataj, J.L., 1978, Mineral resources of the Glacier Bay National Monument Wilderness Study Area, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-494, 670 p., 7 sheets. Cornwall, H.R., 1971, Brady Glacier Prospect, in MacKevett, E.M., Jr, Brew, D.A., Hawley, C.C., Huff, L.C., and Smith, J.G., Mineral resources of Glacier Bay National Monument, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 632, p. 79-82. Czamanske, G.K., and others, 1977, The Brady Glacier Ni-Cu deposit, southeastern Alaska [abs.]: Geological Association of Canada, Program with abstracts, v. 2, 1977, Annual Meeting, Vancouver, p. 14. Czamanske, G.K., Haffty, Joseph, and Nabbs, S.W., 1981, Pt, Pd, and Rh analyses and beneficiation of mineralized mafic rocks from the LaPerouse layered gabbro, Alaska: Economic Geology, v. 76, p. 2001-2011. Ellett, R.D., 1975, Statement and discussion--Adverse effects of proposed legislation upon Alaska nickel mining, in The regulation of mining activities within areas of the National Park System: U.S. Congressional Senate Committee hearing before the Committee on Internal and Insular Affairs, Oct. 7, 1975, U.S. Congress, 94th, 1st Session, p. 311-316 Foley, J.Y., Light, T.D., Nelson, S.W., and Harris, R.A., 1997, Mineral occurrences associated with mafic-ultramafic and related alkaline complexes in Alaska, in Goldfarb, R.J., and Miller, L.D., eds.
 
and/or  
Mindat.org® is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Mindat® and mindat.org® are registered trademarks of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2026, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph and Ida Chau.
Content on this site may not be used to train, fine-tune, or otherwise develop artificial intelligence or machine learning models without prior written permission - see our Terms & Conditions.
To cite: Ralph, J., Von Bargen, D., Martynov, P., Zhang, J., Que, X., Prabhu, A., Morrison, S. M., Li, W., Chen, W., & Ma, X. (2025). Mindat.org: The open access mineralogy database to accelerate data-intensive geoscience research. American Mineralogist, 110(6), 833–844. doi:10.2138/am-2024-9486.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: September 3, 2026 12:00:55 Page updated: August 12, 2025 04:41:22
Go to top of page