The conjunction of factors that lead to formation of giant gold provinces and deposits in non-arc settings

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    36 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    It is quite evident that it is not anomalous metal transport, nor unique depositional conditions, nor any single factor at the deposit scale, that dictates whether a mineral deposit becomes a giant or not. A hierarchical approach thus is required to progressively examine controlling parameters at successively decreasing scales in the total mineral system to understand the location of giant gold deposits in non-arc environments. For giant orogenic, intrusion-related gold systems (IRGS) and Carlin-type gold deposits and iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG) deposits, there are common factors among all of these at the lithospheric to crustal scale. All are sited in giant gold provinces controlled by complex fundamental fault or shear zones that follow craton margins or, in the case of most Phanerozoic orogenic giants, define the primary suture zones between tectonic terranes. Giant provinces of IRGS, IOCG, and Carlin-type deposits require melting of metasomatized lithosphere beneath craton margins with ascent of hybrid lamprophyric to granitic magmas and associated heat flux to generate the giant province. The IRGS and IOCG deposits require direct exsolution of volatile-rich magmatic-hydrothermal fluids, whereas the association of such melts with Carlin-type ores is more indirect and enigmatic. Giant orogenic gold provinces show no direct relationship to such magmatism, forming from metamorphic fluids, but show an indirect relationship to lamprophyres that reflect the mantle connectivity of controlling first-order structures. In contrast to their province scale similarities, the different giant gold deposit styles show contrasting critical controls at the district to deposit scale. For orogenic gold deposits, the giants appear to have formed by conjunction of a greater number of parameters to those that control smaller deposits, with resultant geometrical and lithostratigraphic complexity as a guide to their location. There are few giant IRGS due to their inferior fluid-flux systems relative to orogenic gold deposits, and those few giants are essentially preservational exceptions. Many Carlin-type deposits are giants due to the exceptional conjunction of both structural and lithological parameters that caused reactive and permeable rocks, enriched in syngenetic gold, to be located below an impermeable cap along antiformal "trends". Hydrocarbons probably played an important role in concentrating metal. The supergiant Post-Betze deposit has additional ore zones in strain heterogeneities surrounding the pre-gold Goldstrike stock. All unequivocal IOCG deposits are giant or near-giant deposits in terms of gold-equivalent resources, partly due to economic factors for this relatively poorly understood, low Cu-Au grade deposit type. The supergiant Olympic Dam deposit, the most shallowly formed deposit among the larger IOCGs, probably owes its origin to eruption of volatile-rich hybrid magma at surface, with formation of a large maar and intense and widespread brecciation, alteration and Cu-Au-U deposition in a huge rock volume. © 2015, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)303-314
    Number of pages12
    JournalGeoscience Frontiers
    Volume7
    Publication statusPublished - 2016

    Fingerprint

    gold
    iron oxide
    Carlin-type deposit
    copper
    province
    craton
    maar
    fluid
    metal
    Olympic Games
    exsolution
    suture zone
    mineral deposit
    Phanerozoic
    hydrothermal fluid
    rock
    heat flux
    shear zone
    connectivity
    fault zone

    Cite this

    @article{bde1959174f949d7af97b838bf315686,
    title = "The conjunction of factors that lead to formation of giant gold provinces and deposits in non-arc settings",
    abstract = "It is quite evident that it is not anomalous metal transport, nor unique depositional conditions, nor any single factor at the deposit scale, that dictates whether a mineral deposit becomes a giant or not. A hierarchical approach thus is required to progressively examine controlling parameters at successively decreasing scales in the total mineral system to understand the location of giant gold deposits in non-arc environments. For giant orogenic, intrusion-related gold systems (IRGS) and Carlin-type gold deposits and iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG) deposits, there are common factors among all of these at the lithospheric to crustal scale. All are sited in giant gold provinces controlled by complex fundamental fault or shear zones that follow craton margins or, in the case of most Phanerozoic orogenic giants, define the primary suture zones between tectonic terranes. Giant provinces of IRGS, IOCG, and Carlin-type deposits require melting of metasomatized lithosphere beneath craton margins with ascent of hybrid lamprophyric to granitic magmas and associated heat flux to generate the giant province. The IRGS and IOCG deposits require direct exsolution of volatile-rich magmatic-hydrothermal fluids, whereas the association of such melts with Carlin-type ores is more indirect and enigmatic. Giant orogenic gold provinces show no direct relationship to such magmatism, forming from metamorphic fluids, but show an indirect relationship to lamprophyres that reflect the mantle connectivity of controlling first-order structures. In contrast to their province scale similarities, the different giant gold deposit styles show contrasting critical controls at the district to deposit scale. For orogenic gold deposits, the giants appear to have formed by conjunction of a greater number of parameters to those that control smaller deposits, with resultant geometrical and lithostratigraphic complexity as a guide to their location. There are few giant IRGS due to their inferior fluid-flux systems relative to orogenic gold deposits, and those few giants are essentially preservational exceptions. Many Carlin-type deposits are giants due to the exceptional conjunction of both structural and lithological parameters that caused reactive and permeable rocks, enriched in syngenetic gold, to be located below an impermeable cap along antiformal {"}trends{"}. Hydrocarbons probably played an important role in concentrating metal. The supergiant Post-Betze deposit has additional ore zones in strain heterogeneities surrounding the pre-gold Goldstrike stock. All unequivocal IOCG deposits are giant or near-giant deposits in terms of gold-equivalent resources, partly due to economic factors for this relatively poorly understood, low Cu-Au grade deposit type. The supergiant Olympic Dam deposit, the most shallowly formed deposit among the larger IOCGs, probably owes its origin to eruption of volatile-rich hybrid magma at surface, with formation of a large maar and intense and widespread brecciation, alteration and Cu-Au-U deposition in a huge rock volume. {\circledC} 2015, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.",
    author = "Groves, {David I.} and Richard Goldfarb and M. Santosh",
    year = "2016",
    language = "English",
    volume = "7",
    pages = "303--314",
    journal = "Geoscience Frontiers",
    issn = "1674-9871",
    publisher = "CHINA UNIV GEOSCIENCES, BEIJING",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The conjunction of factors that lead to formation of giant gold provinces and deposits in non-arc settings

    AU - Groves, David I.

    AU - Goldfarb, Richard

    AU - Santosh, M.

    PY - 2016

    Y1 - 2016

    N2 - It is quite evident that it is not anomalous metal transport, nor unique depositional conditions, nor any single factor at the deposit scale, that dictates whether a mineral deposit becomes a giant or not. A hierarchical approach thus is required to progressively examine controlling parameters at successively decreasing scales in the total mineral system to understand the location of giant gold deposits in non-arc environments. For giant orogenic, intrusion-related gold systems (IRGS) and Carlin-type gold deposits and iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG) deposits, there are common factors among all of these at the lithospheric to crustal scale. All are sited in giant gold provinces controlled by complex fundamental fault or shear zones that follow craton margins or, in the case of most Phanerozoic orogenic giants, define the primary suture zones between tectonic terranes. Giant provinces of IRGS, IOCG, and Carlin-type deposits require melting of metasomatized lithosphere beneath craton margins with ascent of hybrid lamprophyric to granitic magmas and associated heat flux to generate the giant province. The IRGS and IOCG deposits require direct exsolution of volatile-rich magmatic-hydrothermal fluids, whereas the association of such melts with Carlin-type ores is more indirect and enigmatic. Giant orogenic gold provinces show no direct relationship to such magmatism, forming from metamorphic fluids, but show an indirect relationship to lamprophyres that reflect the mantle connectivity of controlling first-order structures. In contrast to their province scale similarities, the different giant gold deposit styles show contrasting critical controls at the district to deposit scale. For orogenic gold deposits, the giants appear to have formed by conjunction of a greater number of parameters to those that control smaller deposits, with resultant geometrical and lithostratigraphic complexity as a guide to their location. There are few giant IRGS due to their inferior fluid-flux systems relative to orogenic gold deposits, and those few giants are essentially preservational exceptions. Many Carlin-type deposits are giants due to the exceptional conjunction of both structural and lithological parameters that caused reactive and permeable rocks, enriched in syngenetic gold, to be located below an impermeable cap along antiformal "trends". Hydrocarbons probably played an important role in concentrating metal. The supergiant Post-Betze deposit has additional ore zones in strain heterogeneities surrounding the pre-gold Goldstrike stock. All unequivocal IOCG deposits are giant or near-giant deposits in terms of gold-equivalent resources, partly due to economic factors for this relatively poorly understood, low Cu-Au grade deposit type. The supergiant Olympic Dam deposit, the most shallowly formed deposit among the larger IOCGs, probably owes its origin to eruption of volatile-rich hybrid magma at surface, with formation of a large maar and intense and widespread brecciation, alteration and Cu-Au-U deposition in a huge rock volume. © 2015, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

    AB - It is quite evident that it is not anomalous metal transport, nor unique depositional conditions, nor any single factor at the deposit scale, that dictates whether a mineral deposit becomes a giant or not. A hierarchical approach thus is required to progressively examine controlling parameters at successively decreasing scales in the total mineral system to understand the location of giant gold deposits in non-arc environments. For giant orogenic, intrusion-related gold systems (IRGS) and Carlin-type gold deposits and iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG) deposits, there are common factors among all of these at the lithospheric to crustal scale. All are sited in giant gold provinces controlled by complex fundamental fault or shear zones that follow craton margins or, in the case of most Phanerozoic orogenic giants, define the primary suture zones between tectonic terranes. Giant provinces of IRGS, IOCG, and Carlin-type deposits require melting of metasomatized lithosphere beneath craton margins with ascent of hybrid lamprophyric to granitic magmas and associated heat flux to generate the giant province. The IRGS and IOCG deposits require direct exsolution of volatile-rich magmatic-hydrothermal fluids, whereas the association of such melts with Carlin-type ores is more indirect and enigmatic. Giant orogenic gold provinces show no direct relationship to such magmatism, forming from metamorphic fluids, but show an indirect relationship to lamprophyres that reflect the mantle connectivity of controlling first-order structures. In contrast to their province scale similarities, the different giant gold deposit styles show contrasting critical controls at the district to deposit scale. For orogenic gold deposits, the giants appear to have formed by conjunction of a greater number of parameters to those that control smaller deposits, with resultant geometrical and lithostratigraphic complexity as a guide to their location. There are few giant IRGS due to their inferior fluid-flux systems relative to orogenic gold deposits, and those few giants are essentially preservational exceptions. Many Carlin-type deposits are giants due to the exceptional conjunction of both structural and lithological parameters that caused reactive and permeable rocks, enriched in syngenetic gold, to be located below an impermeable cap along antiformal "trends". Hydrocarbons probably played an important role in concentrating metal. The supergiant Post-Betze deposit has additional ore zones in strain heterogeneities surrounding the pre-gold Goldstrike stock. All unequivocal IOCG deposits are giant or near-giant deposits in terms of gold-equivalent resources, partly due to economic factors for this relatively poorly understood, low Cu-Au grade deposit type. The supergiant Olympic Dam deposit, the most shallowly formed deposit among the larger IOCGs, probably owes its origin to eruption of volatile-rich hybrid magma at surface, with formation of a large maar and intense and widespread brecciation, alteration and Cu-Au-U deposition in a huge rock volume. © 2015, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

    M3 - Article

    VL - 7

    SP - 303

    EP - 314

    JO - Geoscience Frontiers

    JF - Geoscience Frontiers

    SN - 1674-9871

    ER -