See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323829657

Interpretation of Multi-Element Geochemistry for the classification

and zoning of Intrusion-related mineral systems

Presentation · December 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 275

1 author:

Gregg Morrison

28 PUBLICATIONS   1,350 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tasman Fold Belt metallogeny View project

Intrusion-Related Gold Deposits of northeast Queensland Australia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregg Morrison on 17 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Interpretation of Multi-Element
Geochemistry

Gregg Morrison
&
Terra Search Project Team

December 2017
 Metallogenic classification using ME data
• A lot of 46 element ICP data resides in company files with limited interpretation
• IOGAS and Leapfrog have helped substantially but more for rock type definition
than metal zoning
• We have developed methodology for classifying deposit types geochemically and
for deposit metal zoning using the augmented Explorer 3 database.

CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
• Based on 13 metal set Au Ag As Sb Pb Zn Cu Bi Te Mo W Sn
• Select metals & sort (use Clark to eliminate BLD values)
• Define populations by rock type or favoured metal and calculate an average
• Select background type e.g. granite from Levinson table and normalise the
population.
• List relative enrichment in orders of magnitude
• Compare with reference chart to define system type
• Scheme based on ~100 examples from Charters Towers region
 Typical dataset
rock chip, n=238, no data Ba Sn W

average granod enrich • Table of averages for each element divided

Ag 8.71 0.04 217 by values for typical granodiorite to get
As 102.93 1.5 68 enrichment.
Au 1.97 0.004 491 • Elements listed in bold represent the relative
Ba 0.00 500 0 order of enrichment for this suite.
Bi 17.16 0.1 171 • Au with Ag Pb Bi indicates a magmatic
Cu 338.63 10 33 system with moderate fractionation. Strong
Mo 3.89 2 1 fractionation would have richer base metals.
Pb 3504.27 20 175 • Bi +/- Te rich suggests an intermediate
Sb 2.10 0.2 10 intrusive source like tonalite-granodiorite
Sn 0.00 450
2 0 • Ag-Pb-As imply distal zone is being sampled
Te 0.09 0.01 8 at surface.
W 0.00 2 0 • Overall this sample suite could represent a
Zn 462.66 60 7 mafic magmatic hydrothermal system
emplaced at porphyry level. This is consistent
Au Ag Pb Bi(As Cu) +/-Te Zn
with known geology & presence of euhedral
buck quartz veins and granitic vein dikes.
CT ME geochem: Classification using multi-metal data
• Porphyry level IRGS have AU PM BI TE (polymetallic )
• Bi dominant in felsic and Te dominant in mafic intrusive systems
• Plutonic Cu has Cu-Mo-Bi +/- peripheral As Pb Zn
• Orogenic Gold have Au-basemetals +/- As Te (no Bi)
• Epithermals tend to be Au-As dominated
Element Class Deposit Type Core Age Example
AU PM BI felsic IRGS Mo-W-Bi CARB-PERM Mt Wright
AU PM BI TE intermediate IRGS Cu-Mo CARB-PERM Mt Leyshon
AU PM TE BI int-mafic IRGS Cu-Mo, Cu-Au CARB-PERM Mt Remarkable
AU AS BI TE+/-BM mafic porphyry IRGS Cu-Au LCARB, DEV? Ravenswood
AU AS TE BI mafic plutonic IRGS? Au? CARB, DEV? Mt Clearview
CU MO plutonic IRCS Cu-Mo, Mo SIL Titov
AU BM +/- AS, TE orogenic intrusion hosted EDEV Charters Towers
AU +/- TE AS BM epithermal ECARB, PERM Pajingo
AS=As+/-Sb; AU=Au+/-Ag; BM=Cu+Zn+Pb; PM= Cu+Pb+Zn+As+/-Sb
KIDSTON ME GEOCHEM INTERPRETATION
Au correlates best with basemetals (Pb, Zn) whereas the
enrichment suite has high As overall.
The Pb-Zn association is also more favourable metallurgically
element suite from minerals Au Ag Zn Cu Pb Mo Bi F Te
enrichment in grab samples Au Bi Ag Zn Pb Te As Mo
Enrich DDH n=78346 6 el only Au As Ag Cu Zn Pb
correlation Au Pb Zn As

AU AG CU PB ZN AS MO
Mine Ex
AU 1 late
AG 0.05 1.00 Au Pb Zn As
CU 0.04 0.45 1.00 Ag Cu Pb
PB 0.16 0.37 0.21 1.00 Pb Zn As
ZN 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.42 1.00
AS 0.15 0.27 0.18 0.34 0.32 1.00
MO 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.02 1.00
KIDSTON
Pipe Metal Zoning

Confined in pipe

Overall zoning on a
Thermal gradient

Au only above sill

With Pb-Zn-Cu

Deep Mo-W-Bi

Classify:
IAMX

Exposed distal BM
Core Mo-W- Bi

KLONDIKE
 CT ME geochem: metal zoning model

For detailed zoning do Z-score & PCA analysis

& IOGAS / Leapfrog display on assemblages of metals in thematic map or cross-section or 3D.

With two or three dimensional data sets and a few hundred data points

It is possible to build a metal zoning model

Do Z-score(standard deviation) test on each element to make all elements equal

Plot the Z-scores in plan or section

and manually look for spatial overlap of metal concentrations
Combine and average Z-scores for multiple elements to define zones

Or do a principal component analysis on the Z-scores to define element clusters

Contour zones

KLONDIKE
Ravenswood District: Three Sisters metal zoning
Mo-W in rhyolite breccia whereas Au is related to andesite dikes and underlying diorite

KLONDIKE
IRGS NQ Mt Wright soil and rock metal zoning

Pb-Zn
Zn-Ag-Pb

3km diameter soil anomaly Zn, Bi, 1km tall system, well zoned
Au only 5ppb on hill Au 0.1ppm at surface,
Best Au ore 500-800m below
KLONDIKE
3 element Z-score wireframe Mt Wright

Pb-Zn-Ag (0.1 Au)

Zn-Ag-Au(lo grade)

Au Bi Cu (ore)

inner Au-Cu (ore)

KLONDIKE
 Igneous-metal classification of porphyry hydrothermal systems
CLASSIFICATION & ZONING PATTERNS FOR PORPHYRY-RELATED HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEMS

METAL ASSOCIATION CLASSIFICATION Au Cu-Au Cu-Mo Mo-W-Bi Sn-W Sn-B

EXAMPLE Eastern Australia Fifield Goonumbla Mount Leyshon Kidston Herberton Cooktown

EXAMPLE World Maricunga Chile British Columbia Bingham Climax Erzgebirge NE Tasmania

IGNEOUS CHARACTERISTICS

CHEMICAL TYPE; FRACTIONATION; REDOX M, U-F, O M, U-F, SO-O I, U-F, O I, F, O-R I, F, R S, F, R

IGNEOUS ROCK TYPE ON QAP DI-QD-TN DI-MZD-MZ-QMZ DI-GD-MZG QMZ-MZG-SYG MZG-SYG-AFG SYG-QSY-ASY

METAL ZONING

MARGINAL Hg, S Ca Ca F, U F, Ba, Se, Hg, U F

DISTAL (As) As (Au) Au As Sb (As, Sb, Au) (As Ag Sb Au) As (Au) As

DISTAL (BM) Pb, Zn, Ag, Sb, (Au) Pb Zn Ag Au (Cu Mo Te) Pb Zn Ag (Au, Bi) Zn Cu Pb Bi Au Pb Ag Zn Zn Pb Ag

PROXIMAL (BM) Au Cu Mo (Ag, As) Cu (Zn) Cu Au Ag (Bi Te) Cu (Au Bi Te) Cu Mo Bi Cu Bi Mo (W)

Au, Te, (Pt) Cu Au (Te) Cu Mo W Mo Bi Sn W Sn B (W)

CORE

Klondike Exploration: AMIRA P425, July 1997

• Combining the igneous classification and the zoning pattern

we can work back and forth between when there is limited information.
• With multi-element data we can interpret the most likely position in system
based on the most enriched elements relative to background.
• And define the system type based on key elements like Te, Bi, Mo, Sn
• N.B. different position for Au concentration(shaded) distal/felsic
KLONDIKE
MM data interpretation: Metal Zoning in IRGS model

Overall metal association

distinguishes crustal levels of systems

As-Sb typical epithermal

Basemetals typical porphyry level

Bi-Te without basemetals plutonic

KLONDIKE
 KLONDIKE
View publication stats