Ore Deposit Models Edited by RG Roberts and PA Sheahan Reprint Series 3‘The Geological Association of Canada The GEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF CANADA\is Canada's national sociaty forthe geosciences. i was established in 1947 to advance geology and its understanding among both professionals and the goneral public. Te GAG membership of 3,000 in- cludes representatives ofall geological dis- ciplines trom across Canada and many parts Of the world employed in government, in- dustry and academia. There are specialist divisions for environmental earth scionces, geophysics, mineral deposits, paleontology, Precambrian, sedimentology, tectonics and voicanology. Regional sections of GAC have been set up in Victoria, Vancouver, Edmon- ton, Winnipeg and St. John’s, and there are atfilated groups in Toronto and the Maritimes, GAC activities include the organization and sponsorship of conferences, seminars, short courses, field trips, lecture tours and student and professional awards and grants. The ‘Association publishes the quarterly journal Geoscience Canada and the quarterly news- letter Geolog, a Special Paper series, a Re- print Series, Short Course Notes, a ‘membership lis; the sections and divisions also publish guidebooks, short course notes and newsletters. GAC also maintains liaison with other Ca radian earth science organizations, names ‘representatives to national and international ‘sciantitic organizations, and provides advice to government and the public on geological issues. The Association was incorporated under the Canada Corporation Act in Janu- ary, 1984. For information contact: Geolog- ical Association of Canada, Department of Earth Sciences, Memorial University of New- foundland, St. John’s, Newfoundiand A1B 3X5, Canada. Telephone: (709) 737-7660 sociation géologique du Canada ASSOCIATION GEOLOGIQUE DU CANADA est la société nationale canadienne pour les sciences do la Terre. Créée en 1947, elle a comme double object de faire progresser la géologie et de sen- sibilser les spécialistes et les membros du grand public aux sciences de la Terre. Ses trois mille ‘membres représentent toutes les disciplines g6o- logiques:is viennent de toutes les régions du Canada ‘et de nombreux autres pays; ls oeuvrent dans le ‘secteur public, dans le secteur industriel et dans le ‘monde universitaire. L’Association comprend des divisions de spécialistes en géophysique, en gise- ments minéraux, en paléontologie, en Précambrien, ‘en sédimentologie, en tectonique, en volcanologie ‘et en sciences de la Terre touchant & lenviron- rnement. Des sections régionales existent a Victoria, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg et St. John's, et des groupes alfiliés se sont constitués & Toronto ot dans les provinces maritimes. Les activites de 'Association géologique du Canada Ccomprennent organisation et le parrainage de conférences, de colloques, de cours de formation de courte durée, de visites sur le terrain et de tour- nées de conférences. Elle déceme des octrois et des bourses aux étudiants et aux personnes qui travailont dans le domaine des sciences de la Terre. Association publie un journal trimestriel, Geo- science Canada, et un bulletin trimestriel dintor- ‘mation, Geolog, une série de mémoires, des notes de cours et diverses autres séries de publications. Elle assure en outrelaliaison avec d'autres societes. ‘en sciences de la Terre et fournit des conseils au ‘gouvernement et au grand public sur des questions ‘gbologiques. L’Association a été constituée en cor- poration en janvier 1984, en vertu de la Loi sur les corporations canadiennes. Pour renseignements: Association géologique du Canada, Department of Earth Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Terre-Newve Canada A1B 3X5. Téléphone: (709) 737-7660.Seles Ore Deposit Models Edited by RG Roberts and PA Sheahan te caneda Reprint Series 3Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: Ore deposit models (Geoscience Canada reprint series; 3) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0.919216-34- 1. Ore deposits. 2. Geological modeling, |. Roberts, R. G. (Robert Gwilym) II. Sheahan, Patricia Ill, Geological Association of Canada. IV. Series. TN263.074 1988 583.4 ©89.004120-2 © 1988 Geological Association of Canada Additional copies may be obtained by writing to: Geological Association of Canada Publications Department of Earth Science Memorial University of Newfoundland ATB 3x5 ISBN 0-919216-34-X Front cover design: Peter Russell Typesetting: Geological Association of Canada and Typeline, Mississauga, Ontario Printing: Love Printing Service Ltd, Ottawa, Ontario First Printing May 1988 Second Printing Jan 1990CONTENTS Preface Archean Lode Gold Deposits R.G. Roberts Disseminated Gold Deposits S.B. Romberger A Canadian Cordilleran Model for Epithermal Gold-Silver Deposits A. Panteleyev Porphyry Copper Deposits WJ. MoMillan and A. Panteleyev ‘A Model for Granophile Mineral Deposits D.F. Strong Sedimentary-Type Stratiform Ore Deposits: Some Models and ‘a New Classification J. Morganti Mississippi Valley-Type Lead-Zinc Deposits G.M. Anderson and R.W. Macqueen Genetic Considerations Relating to Some Uranium Ore Deposits JE. Tilsley Unconformity-Type Uranium Deposits ‘S. Marmont Platinum Group Elements: Genesis and Classification AJ. Macdonald Magmatic Segregation Deposits of Chromite uM. Duke Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide Deposits Part 1: A Descriptive Model J.W. Lydon Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide Deposits Part 2: Genetic Models JW. Lydon Index 24 3 45 59 67 79 1 103 17 133 145, 155 183 SSSOre Deposit Models PREFACE There are two components to an ore deposit model: the empirical model, which consists of an assemblage of data, including observational data, which characterizes the deposit; and aconceptual model that attemptsto interpret the data through a unifying theory of genesis. itis probable that many geologists associate the term “ore deposit model” with the conceptual model, thinking in terms of the magmatic model for nickel deposits, or the syngenetic model for vol- canic-associated massive sulphide deposits. ‘The empirical model is developed from the com- parison of data from a large number of examples of the ore- type in orderto establish the common geological factors. The selection of datacalls forjudgement rom the geologist, but he may also be influenced by his own expertise which may result in emphasis being placed on geochemical data at the expense of field data. This emphasis or bias may become even more pronounced with the development of the concep- tual model, and may result in the development of a “structural model’, or a “geochemical model” for a deposit. The empirical modelisthe database for the concep- tual model, which attempts to provide a coherent interpreta- tion for all the events involved in the formation of the deposit. Itis, in fact, a causal model, a description of the processes that resulted in the observational data. At bestthe conceptual model provides only a partial explanation of the data since such models are continually updated and refined by new information and by the reinterpretation of old information in the light of progress in the science. The sophistication and the level of development of ore type models, particularly the conceptual aspects of the models, is very variable, and is certainly a reflection of the cumulative research effort. For many ore deposit geologists, and particularly for exploration geologists, the most impor- tant aspect of the model is the description of the temporal relationships of the ore type, and its relationship to the host rocks. These general aspects of the geology define the framework within which the refinements to the model must operate. For example, it is now well established from the interpretation of geochemical data and observational data at allscales that chromite deposits in matic and ultramafic rocks formed by magmatic processes; and there is a general con- sensus that volcanic-associated massive sulphide deposits, principally from the evidence of their morphology, the struc- tural relationships to their host rocks, and from comparison with modern analogues, were deposited at and near the sea floor. The refinements to the conceptual model for these deposits are developed within these generally accepted con- straints, But for some deposits, notably Archean lode gold deposits, modal development is still at the stage where such fundamental geological constraints are the subject of debate. Consequently, descriptions of individual deposits of this type, ‘and summaries of the deposits, tend to be directed towards answering these fundamental questions. The form that a model takes may also be influenced by how itis used, The principal value of aconceptual model is that it directs the geologist to questions that would otherwise not be asked, which may result in data that would otherwise remain ignored or unavailable. The danger in a conceptual ‘model is that it provides a convenient explanation which may promote a reluctance to revise or discard the model regard- less of the significance of new data. In effect, the model is used to explain away the data regardless of inconsistencies. This may reflect a bias related to the geologist’s expertise which may be outside that required to evaluate critical data, The recognition of this danger may lead an exploration geolo- gist to mistrust theories of ore genesis. Thus Ridge (1983), while acknowledging that such an idea flies in the face of convention , argues strongly against the use of genetic con- cepts or theories of ore genesis as an aid in exploration. He suggests, for example, that for an exploration geologist, “The fact that many massive sulphide deposits are found in vol- canic rocks is important, but what genetic relationships, if any, may exist between these rocks is not’. On the other hand Valliant (1985), in a discussion of Lac Mineral’: exploration successes, while crediting an empirical model developed from experience of the Bousquet and Doyon deposits in Quebec as a basisforthe assessment of the potential of the Hemlo district, he acknowledges the influence of the conceptual model for syn- genetic stratabound gold deposits developed by Ridler (1970) and Hutchinson (1976) for the interpretation of the Bousquet deposit and the deposits of the Malartic district. JM. Allen stated in his introduction to this series of papers in Geoscience Canada, that their purpose was “to present descriptions of models currently in use”. This has been achieved by the authors with varying degrees of ‘emphasis on the different aspects of the models. With the exception of the papers on uranium deposits and on gra- nophile mineral deposits by Tilsley and Strong, respectively, the authors have summarized the ore-types within the frame- work of empirical and conceptual models. In the two articles referred to, the emphasis is on theoretical aspects of the desposits. Tho content of the articles is aimed at students, and at professional geologists. It is hoped that the reader will Use the articles as a point of view, or a way of perceiving, the deposits here described; and from there he would be advised to create his own models. The series on ore deposit models was initiated by JM, Allen in his capacity as the Chairman of the Publications ‘Committee of the Mineral Deposits Division of the Geological Association of Canada. The publication of this reprint collec- tion was funded by the Geological Association of Canada and the Mineral Deposits Division. We would like to thank Lee Barker for the valuable contributions he made in sustaining the series, and Monica Easton for her support and for her work in the preparation of manuscripts for the publisher. The index was compiled by Patricia Sheahan. Roferonces: Hutchinson, R.W., 1976, Lode gold deposits - the case for voleanogenic dorivation: Pacific Northwest Metals and Mining Conference, State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mining Industries, Fifth Gold and Money Session and Gold Tachnical Session, p. 64-105, Ridler, R.H., 1970, Relationship of mineralization to voleanic stratigraphy in the Kirkland-Larder Lakes area, Ontario: Goological Association of Canada, Proceedings, v. 21, p. 33-42, Valiant, R, 1985, The Lac discoveries: Canadian Mining Journal May, p. 117128. R. Gwilym Roberts Patricia A. Sheahan