Induced polarization and magnetic responses of serpentinized ultramafic rocks from mid‐ocean ridges

Author(s):  
H. Chen ◽  
C. Tao ◽  
A. Revil ◽  
Z. Zhu ◽  
J. Zhou ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (8) ◽  
pp. 958-979 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Acosta-Góngora ◽  
S.J. Pehrsson ◽  
H. Sandeman ◽  
E. Martel ◽  
T. Peterson

The world’s largest Ni–Cu–Platinum group element (PGE) deposits are dominantly hosted by ultramafic rocks within continental extensional settings (e.g., Raglan, Voisey’s Bay), resulting in a focus on exploration in similar geodynamic settings. Consequently, the economic potential of other extensional tectonic environments, such as ocean ridges and back-arc basins, may be underestimated. In the northeastern portion of the ca. 2.7 Ga Yathkyed greenstone belt of the Chesterfield block (western Churchill Province, Canada), the Ni–Cu–Co–PGE Ferguson Lake deposit is hosted by >2.6 Ga hornblenditic to gabbroic rocks of the Ferguson Lake Igneous Complex (FLIC), which is metamorphosed up to amphibolitic facies. The FLIC has a basaltic composition (Mg# = 31–72), flat to slightly negatively sloped normalized trace element patterns (La/YbPM = 0.7–3.5), and negative Zr, Ti, and Nb anomalies. The FLIC rocks are geochemically similar to the 2.7 Ga back-arc basin tholeiitic basalts from the adjacent Yathkyed and MacQuoid greenstone belts (Mg# = 30–67; La/YbPM = 0.3–3.0), but the Ferguson Lake intrusions appear to be more crustally contaminated. We interpret the FLIC to have formed in an equivalent back-arc basin setting. This geodynamic setting is rare for the formation of Ni–Cu–PGE occurrences, and only few examples of this tectonic environment (or variations of it, e.g., rifted back-arc) are found in other Proterozoic and Archean sequences (e.g., Lorraine deposit, Quebec). We suggest that back-arc basin-derived mafic rocks within the Yathkyed and other Neoarchean greenstone belts of the Chesterfield block (MacQuoid and Angikuni) could represent important targets for future mineral exploration.


1983 ◽  
Vol 47 (344) ◽  
pp. 267-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. R. Rollinson

AbstractThe Archaean (c. 2800 Ma) ultramafic rocks in eastern Sierra Leone cut basalt lavas and are mostly olivine-rich cumulates either iron-rich (Fo85–86) and derived from a basaltic or picritic parent, or more magnesian (Fo92–93) derived from an ultramafic melt with c. 18–25 wt. % MgO. In central Sierra Leone the ultramafic rocks are lavas predating tholeiitic basalts.The basalts show a wide variation in Zr/Y, suggesting that garnet was present in the source region of some of these rocks but not others. This implies that melting took place at different depths in the mantle. The REE evidence for basaltic rocks in the upper part of the Nimini belt succession suggests that they were derived from a mantle source region which had already suffered melt extraction. Ti/Zr ratios in the basaltic rocks are also variable and individual belts define different trends on a Ti vs. Zr plot implying that the basaltic rocks evolved in geographically distinct magma chambers. It is likely that the basaltic rocks evolved from a parental liquid with Ti/Zr = 90 via shallow level crystal fractionation. The source region for these rocks therefore had a lower than chondritic Ti/Zr.There are two possible models for the basaltic and ultramafic magmas in the Sierra Leone greenstone belts. First that the ultramafic and basaltic liquids were derived from mantle diapirs of differing size, but originating in the same region of the mantle. Ultramafic liquids were produced in small diapirs, which store large melt fractions, and basaltic liquids in larger diapirs which segregate larger melt fractions. A second model is based upon the double diffusion process suggested for magma chambers at mid-ocean ridges and involves a transient magma chamber from which basalts, derived from parental ultramafic liquids, are erupted, with ultramafic liquids rising directly to the surface when the magma chamber is frozen. The available data does not discriminate between these two models.


Petrology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 569-590
Author(s):  
V. N. Sharapov ◽  
A. A. Tomilenko ◽  
G. V. Kuznetsov ◽  
Yu. V. Perepechko ◽  
K. E. Sorokin ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document