THE QUEENSLAND QUARTZ-CRUSHING AND CYANIDE 
COMPANY’S MINE, ST. ARNAUD. 
By H. S. Whitelaw. 
The reef worked from the main shaft of the Queensland Quartz- 
Crushing and Cyanide Company is probably a continuation of that worked 
from the old shaft 160 feet to the north-west, and known as Whitley’s 
Reef. This being so, it is evident that the cross-cut being driven sou; h will 
be useless for prospecting purposes. As soon as I recognised this. I in¬ 
formed the mine manager, Mr. McRostie, in order to prevent unnecessary 
waste of money which might be spent to advantage in other parts of the 
mine—for instance, in sinking a winze on the reef at a point at about 120 
feet west from the crosscut from the main shaft, where the reef is from 
2 ft. 6in. to 3 ft. wide, and the best gold was seen in driving. This point 
is almost directly under where the richest stone was worked in Whitlev’s 
claim, and is situated in a bed of greenish-coloured slate, striking nearly 
at right angles to the reef. This slate in outward appearance closely 
resembles the olive-green variety referred to in mv report on the St. Ar- 
naud gold-field as the “ ore-carrier ” of the field, and which in several reefs 
has undoubtedly influenced the deposition of gold in the quartz intersect¬ 
ing it. 
Whitley’s reef is a “ cross ” reef formed in a fault which strikes across 
the “country” in a nearly east and westerly direction. The main reef- 
channel varies in width between 1 foot and 3 feet, and underlies to the 
south at between 45 deg. and 70 deg. from the horizontal. The head- 
wall is generally firm and clean, and occasionally slickensided ; the foot- 
wall is often broken by spurs and masses of subcrystalline quartz “making” 
from the north, and which, in places in the old workings, attain a thick¬ 
ness of over 30 feet (see section). It is the occurrence of these large 
bodies of quartz that has led the present holders of the mine to believe 
that the comparatively small reef in the lower workings is not connected 
with that in the upper workings. However, a close examination of the 
reef shows that the stone on the wall in the upper workings is very similar 
to' that between the walls at the lower level, while the large body outside 
the walls has a different appearance—is not so “close.” I am inclined 
to the opinion that the two bodies are not of the same age. 
There is a disposition on the part of the shareholders to spend a certain 
amount of money in searching for and prospecting the larger body at the 
250ft. level. The information gained during the survey all points to the 
probability of that body dying out between the upper and lower levels. 
But even if it exists, as the manager thinks, I know of no reason for 
assuming that it will prove payable. Where cut in Whitley's workings, 
it was poor, and is still standing. Moreover, the “country” in the direction 
indicated is for some distance thick-bedded sandstone, in which, my 
experience teaches me, the St. Arnaud “cross' reefs are generally poor. 
There would, therefore, seem a better chance of success in prospecting the 
smaller but better defined reef by sinking as above suggested. 
\Report sent in 2-j-.2.02.'\ 
a 2 
