Regional distribution of Middle Eocene - Early Oligocene
porphyry copper centers in Northern Chile: second-order
patterns and possible causes
1 2
Andrew J. Tomlinson * and Paula C. Cornejo
1 Servicio Nacional de Geología y Minería, Avda. Santa María 0104, Providencia, Santiago, Chile
2 Antofagasta Minerals S.A., Apoquindo 4001, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile
*E-mail: andrew.tomlinson@sernageomin.cl
Abstract. Eocene-Oligocene porphyry copper deposits in
northern Chile show a clustered latitudinal distribution, and
a positively skewed cross-arc distribution. Similar patterns
are observed in modern arcs, where two commonly
proposed models for explaining volcano distribution have
been the Rayleigh-Taylor diapirism model and a model
calling upon regularly-spaced, crustal-scale structures. The
Eocene-Oligocene magmatic clusters correlate well
spatially with Triassic centers and moderately so with Late
Cretaceous clusters, but not with Late Paleozoic. The
recurrent focusing of magmatism in the same area is
difficult to reconcile with a Rayleigh-Taylor model, but
likewise the crustal-scale structural model has its
shortcomings. We propose a hybrid model which fuses
elements of these two models.
Keywords: Eocene-Oligocene, porphyry copper deposits,
distribution patterns
1 Introduction
The distribution of porphyry copper deposits (PCDs), and
their related magmatic centers, exhibits patterns, the
geometry of which differ for the scale of observation. The
well known first-order pattern is the observation at the
continental scale of their distribution in orogen-parallel
belts; the conceptual framework for which was provided
for by plate tectonic theory in the seminal paper of Sillitoe
(1972). Also well known, and reasonably well understood,
is the observation at the district scale of PCD alignments,
which are generally explained by upper crustal structural
controls (Sillitoe, 2010 and references therein), which we
refer to as the third-order pattern. Here we examine the
well known, but least understood, second-order pattern of
PCD clustering in the Eocene-Oligocene arc in northern
Chile, and we draw from studies in active arc systems to
evaluate different models to explain it.
2 Second-order patterns of PCD distribution
In northern Chile, Eocene-Oligocene PCDs and magmatic
rocks are largely restricted to the Precordillera. The
westernmost exposures of Eocene-Oligocene magmatic
rocks define the Eocene-Oligocene magmatic front (Figure
1a). The position of PCDs with respect to the magmatic
front exhibits a positively skewed distribution (Figure 1b),
40
where the greatest number of deposits approximates the arc
axis, rapidly drops to zero in the amagmatic forearc, and
tapers more gently into the rear arc region, persisting up to
ca. 180 km behind the arc front. The along arc-strike
position of PCDs shows a clear clustering (Figure 1a and
1c), with an apparent regularity of cluster spacing of
approximately 110-120 km, with the notable exception at
25.2ºS, between the Escondida and El Salvador clusters.
The Precordillera of northern Chile also registers
significant magmatic events in the Late Paleozoic, Triassic
and Late Cretaceous; the first two having sub-economic
PCDs associated with them (Cornejo et al., 2006). The
distribution of Late Paleozoic plutons and PCDs shows
little evident correlation with the Eocene-Oligocene
magmatic clusters (Figure1d), however, Triassic centers
correlate well (Figure 1e) and Late Cretaceous plutons
moderately so (Figure 1f).
3 Insights from active magmatic arcs
PCDs are genetically related, with few exceptions, to
subduction-related magmatism (Sillitoe, 2010). Therefore
it should be possible to apply insights acquired from
studies in modern arcs to the problem of PCD distribution.
Two commonly proposed models for explaining the
apparent regularity of volcano spacing have been the
Rayleigh-Taylor diapirism model and a model calling upon
regularly-spaced, crustal-scale structures. Both models,
likewise, have been proposed to explain the distribution of
PCDs in northern Chile by Yáñez and Maksaev (1994) and
Richards (2003), respectively. Although initial arc studies
concerned a perceived regularity in spacing of individual
volcanic centers, a perception which has not been
supported by later statistical analyses of distribution data
(de Bremond d’Ars et al., 1995), clustering of volcanic
centers is evident in some arc segments, such as northern
Japan (Tamura et al., 2002), northern Cascades (Hildreth,
2007) and Central Andes (Trumbull et al., 2007). Each of
these examples also exhibits cross-arc volcanic belts
wherein a trail of volcanic centers leads from the frontal
arc clusters into the rear-arc region.
Seismic tomography studies in the Japan arc have
correlated the volcano distribution pattern with intensity
variations observed in an inclined, tabular zone of low-
velocity and high-attenuation located in the mantle wedge
and oriented subparallel the subducting slab (Figure 1g;
Tamura et al., 2002; Hasegawa et al., 2005) The anomaly
is interpreted to represent an area of ascending flow within
the mantle wedge with slab-derived aqueous fluids and/or
silicate liquids from partial melting. It intercepts the Moho
below the main arc axis and is better developed below the
frontal arc volcano clusters and their corresponding rear-
arc volcanic belts. These studies infer that although slab-
derived fluids and mantle wedge partial melting is
continuous along the strike of the arc, dynamics in the
mantle wedge result in variations in zone thickness and
degree of partial melting that ultimately determines the
broad distribution pattern of arc volcanism. The antithesis
of Japan is illustrated by the modern Central Andean arc,
where a series of more or less regularly spaced,
continental-scale, NW fault zones, striking at high angles
to the main arc trend, coincide with rear-arc volcanic belts
and intersect the main arc axis at areas of frontal arc
volcano clustering (Trumbull et al., 2007), attesting to the
importance of crustal structures in focusing arc volcanism.
4 Discussion
The spatial correlation of magmatic centers in the Triassic,
Eocene-Oligocene and to a lesser extent the Late
Cretaceous, supports the transandean batholith model
proposed by Behn et al. (2001) based on regional
aeromagnetic data. They noted a correlation between
PCDs in the Precordillera and a set of east-west trending,
regional-scale, negative residual magnetic anomalies,
some of which can be traced continuously from the coast
to the modern arc and are more or less regularly spaced
along the margin. They proposed the anomalies track
composite batholithic size intrusive bodies that developed
as the magmatic front migrated across the region. It is
difficult to imagine mantle wedge partial-melting
heterogeneities repeating their location below the
continental margin between distinct geologic periods.
Instead the observations suggest a crustal-scale structural
control. In that this control appears not to have played a
role in focusing Late Paleozoic magmatism, but did for the
Triassic, we infer that the Permian San Rafael orogenic
event, which affected northern Chile (Tomlinson et al., this
congress) and western Argentina, may have been the
formative event for the transandean crustal-scale magma-
focusing structures.
The same continental-scale NW-striking fault zones that
are called upon for focusing volcanism in the modern arc
(Trumbull et al., 2007) are inferred to continue into the
forearc where they intersect the Domeyko fault system
(DFS) and played a role in localizing Eocene-Oligocene
magmatic centers and related PCD clusters (Richards,
2003). The model is attractive in that indeed 4 of the 5
PCD clusters in Figure 1a fall on the proposed
41
prolongations of the NW fault zones (see Richards, 2003),
but uncertainties remain. In difference to their expression
in the modern back-arc, where fault scarps are well
developed, their continuity into the modern forearc is in
many cases highly interpretative, over generalized and in
some cases unsupported. In our view, there is a
considerable need for ground truthing. Also, there is no
NW fault zone that coincides with the Centinela cluster,
which has proved to be another supercluster of PCDs.
Equally significant, the Lípez NW fault system, which
coincides with the Collahuasi cluster, is so wide and
diffuse, if cluster location is controlled only structurally,
why then is the Collahuasi cluster located 130-140 km
north of the Chuquicamata cluster and not at one of the
other intersection points of the Lípez system with the
DFS? Indeed, the PCD clusters are more regularly spaced
than the transandean fault set they are inferred to be
controlled by. And if the aeromagnetic anomalies are
traces of transandean composite batholiths, why are they
E-W trending and not NW-SE, along the NW faults?
We propose a hybrid model which fuses elements of the
Rayleigh-Taylor (R-T) and crustal-scale structural control
models. The Japan tomography studies suggest a ribbon-
shaped, MASH-like zone underlies the full length of the
frontal arc (Hasegawa et al., 2005), which if sufficiently
buoyant would constitute the conditions for an R-T
instability. Numerical simulations indicate that initial
irregularities in the instability interface can influence its
final wavelength and geometry (Schmeling, 1987). We
suggest that following formation of the crustal-scale fault
zones during the Permian San Rafael orogenic event, an R-
T instability process in the MASH zone of the Triassic arc
focused magmatism into more or less regularly spaced
areas, whose separation (wavelength) was influenced by
the fault spacing, but is more regular than the spacing of
the fault zones themselves. In subsequent magmatic
events, either the process was repeated or the conduits
pathed by Triassic magmatism were reutilized.
Acknowledgements
This contribution was supported by the National
Subdirection of Geology of the SERNAGEOMIN.
References
Behn, G.; Camus, F.; Carrasco P.; Ware, H. 2001. Aeromagnetic
signature of porphyry copper systems in northern Chile and its
geologic implications. Economic Geology 96: 239-248.
Cornejo, P., Matthews, S., Marinovic, N., et al., 2006. Alteración
hidrotermal y mineralización recurrente de Cu y Cu-Mo durante
el Pérmico y el Triásico en la Cordillera de Domeyko. XI
Congreso Geológico Chileno, Antofagasta, Actas 2: 219-222.
de Bremond d’Ars, J.; Jaupart, C.; Sparks, R.S.J. 1995. Distribution
of volcanoes in active margins. Journal of Geophysical Research
100: 20,421-20,432.
Hasegawa, A.; Nakajima, J.; Umino, N.; Miura, S. 2005. Deep
structure of the northeastern Japan arc and its implications for
crustal deformation. Tectonophysics 403: 59– 75.
Hildreth, W. 2007. Quaternary magmatism in the Cascades- geologic
 perspectives. USGS Professional Paper 1744: 125 p.
Richards, J.P. 2003. Tectono-magmatic precursors for porphyry Cu-
(Mo-Au) deposit formation. Economic Geology 98: 1515–1533.
Schmeling, H. 1987. On the relation between initial conditions and
late stages of Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities. Tectonophysics 133:
65-80.
Sillitoe, R.H. 1972. A plate tectonic model for the origin of porphyry
copper deposits. Economic Geology 67:184-197.
Sillitoe, R.H. 2010. Porphyry copper systems. Economic Geology
105: 3-41.
Tamura, Y.; Tatsumi, Y.; Zhao, D.; Kido, Y.; Shukuno, H. 2002. Hot
fingers in the mantle wedge: new insights into magma genesis in
subduction zones. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 197: 105–
116.
Trumbull, R.B.; Riller, U.; Oncken, O.; Scheuber, E.; Munier, K.;
Hongn, F. 2006. The time-space distribution of Cenozoic
volcanism in the south-central Andes: a new data compilation
and some tectonic implications. In: The Andes-active subduction
orogeny. (Oncken O. et al. editores) Frontiers in Earth Science
Series 1: Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 29-44.
Yañez, G., Maksaev, V. 1994. Sobre la distribución espacial de
cuerpos intrusivos asociados a diapirismo y la caracterización de
la fuente magmática en pórfidos cupríferos: Inestabilidades
gravitacionales en un medio viscoso. Congreso Geológico
Chileno 7, Actas 2: 1642-1646.

Figure 1. A) Map showing distribution of Eocene-Oligocene magmatic units and porphyry copper deposits (PCDs) in northern Chile, B)
histogram showing distances of PCDs from Eocene-Oligoceno magmatic front, C) histogram showing latitudinal distribution of Eocene-
Oligocene PCDs, D) map of Late Carboniferous-Permian magmatic units and PCDs, with Eocene-Oligocene PCDs also located, E) map
of Triassic magmatic units and PCDs, F) map of Late Cretaceous plutonic units, G) interpretative model of Japan seismic tomography
data showing low-velocity zone in mantle wedge as an inclined, tabular, partially molten zone which is the source region for primitive arc
magmas (modified from Hasegawa et al., 2005).

42