Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-r6c6k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T17:37:06.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The trace-element compositions of amphibole, magnetite and ilmenite as potential exploration guides to metamorphosed Proterozoic Cu–Zn±Pb±Au±Ag volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits in Colorado, USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2023

Paul G. Spry*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA
Edward H. Berke
Affiliation:
Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA
Dan Layton-Matthews
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen's University, 36 Union Street, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Alexandre Voinot
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen's University, 36 Union Street, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Adriana Heimann
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, 101 Graham Building, East Carolina University, East 5th Street, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
Graham S. Teale
Affiliation:
Teale & Associates Pty Ltd, PO Box 740, North Adelaide, South Australia 5006, Australia
Anette von der Handt
Affiliation:
Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, 2020–2207 Main Mall, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
*
Corresponding author: Paul G. Spry; Email: pgspry@iastate.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Orthoamphibole, clinoamphibole and magnetite are common minerals in altered rocks associated spatially with Palaeoproterozoic volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits in Colorado, USA and metamorphosed to the amphibolite facies. These altered rocks are dominated by the assemblage orthoamphibole (anthophyllite/gedrite)–cordierite–magnetite±gahnite±sulfides. Magnetite also occurs in granitoids, banded iron formations, quartz garnetite, and in metallic mineralisation consisting of semi-massive pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, and sphalerite with subordinate galena, gahnite and magnetite; amphibole also occurs in amphibolite. The precursor to the anthophyllite/gedrite–cordierite assemblages was probably the assemblage quartz–chlorite formed from hydrothermal ore-bearing fluids (~250° to 400°C) associated with the formation of metallic minerals in the massive sulfide deposits.

Element–element variation diagrams for amphibole, magnetite and ilmenite based on LA-ICP-MS data and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for orthoamphiboles and magnetite show a broad range of compositions which are primarily dependent upon the nature of the host rock associated spatially with the deposits. Although discrimination plots of Al/(Zn+Ca) vs Cu/(Si+Ca) and Sn/Ga vs Al/Co for magnetite do not indicate a VMS origin, the concentration of Al+Mn together with Ti+V and Sn vs Ti support a hydrothermal rather than a magmatic origin for magnetite. Principal Component Analyses also show that magnetite and orthoamphibole in metamorphosed altered rocks and sulfide zones have distinctive eigenvalues that allow them to be used as prospective pathfinders for VMS deposits in Colorado. This, in conjunction with the contents of Zn and Al in magnetite, Zn and Pb in amphibole, ilmenite and magnetite, the Cu content of orthoamphibole and ilmenite, and possibly the Ga and Sn concentrations of magnetite constitute effective exploration vectors.

Information

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Mineralogical Society of the United Kingdom and Ireland
Figure 0

Figure 1. Regional geological map of the southwestern United States. Major crustal provinces, transition zones, inferred boundaries and deformation fronts are delineated (modified after Jones et al., 2010). An inset map showing the study area (see Fig. 2) is also indicated.

Figure 1

Figure 2. General map of southern Colorado, USA, showing the extent of Proterozoic rocks (grey shaded pattern; after Sheridan and Raymond, 1984; Heimann et al., 2005), terrane boundaries (after Shaw and Karlstrom, 1999), and location of metamorphosed massive sulfide deposits: 1 Bon Ton, 2 Cinderella, 3 Sedalia, 4 Ace High/Jackpot, 5 Independence, 6 Betty (Lone Chimney), 7 Cotopaxi, 8 Green Mountain, 9 Dawson-Grape Creek trend (which includes El Plomo and Horseshoe), 10 Wolverine, 11 Swede and 12 Evergreen hydrothermal alteration zone. The location of the Mazatzal Deformation Front is derived from Shaw and Karlstrom (1999).

Figure 2

Table 1. Summary of geological characteristics of the metamorphosed massive sulfide deposits investigated, Colorado, USA.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Polished thin-section photomicrographs of metamorphosed altered rocks and amphibolite associated with massive sulfide deposits in Colorado. (a) Anthophyllite (Ath) intergrown with cordierite (Crd), magnetite (Mag) and gahnite (Ghn) (Dawson, TVD-40B), transmitted light. (b) Same view as image (a) in cross-polarised light. (c) Anthophyllite, phlogopite (Phl) and gahnite intergrown with pyrite (Py) (Wolverine, 99CO-119), transmitted light. (d) Magnetite inclusions in phlogopite (El Plomo, TVD-126), cross-polarised light. (e) Hornblende (Hbl), plagioclase (Pl), magnetite and quartz in amphibolite (Green Mountain, AHCO-28), transmitted light. (f) Quartz–magnetite assemblage in banded quartz-banded-garnet rock; interpreted as an exhalative unit (Green Mountain, GM-20-27), transmitted light. (g) Back-scattered electron image of magnetite showing cross-cutting ilmenite lattice in biotite–gahnite altered rock (Green Mountain, TVD18-89). (h) Back-scattered electron image of ilmenite with fine exsolutions of titaniferous hematite in gedrite–cordierite–garnet gneiss (Evergreen, 99CO-65B). Mineral abbreviations after Warr (2021).

Figure 4

Table 2. Mineralogy of amphibole, magnetite and ilmenite-bearing samples analysed by LA-ICP-MS.

Figure 5

Table 3. Trace-element compositions (in ppm) of magnetite from VMS deposits in Colorado from LA-ICP-MS.

Figure 6

Figure 4. Bivariate trace-element plots (ppm) for magnetite (n = 160) from the Betty, Cotopaxi, Dawson, El Plomo, Green Mountain, Horseshoe, Swede and Wolverine deposits. (a) Mg vs Al; (b) Al vs Ti; (c) V vs Mn; (d) V vs Co; (e) Ga vs Zn; and (f) Zn vs Cu.

Figure 7

Figure 5. Principal component analysis of 15 elements (Al, Ca, Co, Cr, Cu, Ga, Mg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Si, Sn, Ti, V and Zn) in magnetite (n = 160) for all rocks studied here from the Colorado deposits. (a) Score plot of the first two principal components, with the percentage of variance for each component noted in parentheses. (b) Loading plot showing the geometric representation of how data were projected onto the score plot with respect to each element.

Figure 8

Table 4. Trace-element concentrations (in ppm) of ilmenite from LA-ICP-MS.

Figure 9

Figure 6. Bivariate trace-element plots (ppm) for ilmenite (n = 80) from the El Plomo, Evergreen and Green Mountain deposits. (a) V vs Cr; (b) Pb vs Zn; (c) V vs Mn; (d) Al vs Ga; (e) Cu vs Zn; and (f) Nb vs Ta.

Figure 10

Table 5. Major-element compositions* of amphibole from central Colorado massive sulfide deposits.

Figure 11

Table 6. Compositions of orthoamphibole (in ppm) from LA-ICP-MS analysis.

Figure 12

Table 7. Trace-element compositions (in ppm) of calcic amphibole from LA-ICP-MS analysis.

Figure 13

Figure 7. Bivariate trace-element plots (ppm) for orthoamphibole (anthophyllite and gedrite, n = 139) from the Betty, Cinderella, Cotopaxi, Dawson and El Plomo deposits. (a) V vs Cr; (b) Sc vs Ti; (c) Sc vs Co; (d) V vs Zn; (e) Ga vs Zn; (f) Sn vs Zn; (g) Cu vs Zn; and (h) Pb vs Zn.

Figure 14

Figure 8. Principal component analysis of 20 elements (B, Ca, Co, Cr, Cu, Ga, Ge, K, Li, Na, Nb, P, Pb, Sc, Sn, Ti, V, Y, Zn and Zr) in orthoamphibole (n = 139) from the Colorado deposits. (a) Score plot of the first two principal components, with the percentage of variance for each component noted in parentheses. (b) Loading plot showing the geometric representation of how data were projected onto the score plot with respect to each element.

Figure 15

Figure 9. Bivariate trace-element plots (ppm) for clinoamphibole (hornblende, n = 40) from the El Plomo and Green Mountain deposits. (a) V vs Cr; (b) Sc vs Ti; (c) Sc vs Zn; (d) Li vs Zn; (e) Co vs Zn; (f) Sn vs Zn; (g) Cu vs Zn; and (h) Pb vs Zn.

Figure 16

Figure 10. Chondrite-normalised rare earth element patterns of hornblende in the sulfide zone from El Plomo (samples TV19-25 and TVD19-43) and a gahnite-bearing altered rock from Green Mountain (sample TVD19-96). Note the positive Eu anomaly for samples in the sulfide zone and the negative Eu anomaly for the sample in the gahnite-bearing altered rock. The REE data were normalised to chondrite values after McDonough and Sun (1995).

Figure 17

Figure 11. Plot of Al + Mn vs Ti + V for different formation temperatures of magnetite (modified after Nadoll et al.2014; Maghfouri et al., 2021).

Figure 18

Figure 12. Discrimination diagrams for magnetite from the Colorado massive sulfide deposits (Betty, Cotopaxi, Dawson, El Plomo, Green Mountain, Horseshoe, Swede and Wolverine). (a) Sn vs Ti, which shows that compositions fall within the hydrothermal field (modified after Pisiak et al. (2015). (b) Ti vs Ni/Cr, modified after Dare et al. (2014) showing magnetite compositions overlapping the hydrothermal and magmatic fields. (c) Plot of Al/(Zn+Ca) vs Cu/(Si+Ca) from Dupuis and Beaudoin (2011) showing the composition of magnetite from the VMS deposits from Colorado. The complete designated VMS field of Dupuis and Beaudoin (2011) is not shown here, which extends to Cu/(Si+Ca) values >1. No data from the Colorado deposits fit in the VMS field. (d) Discrimination diagram for magnetite from Colorado VMS deposits in terms of Ca+Al+Mn vs Ti+V. Fields for various deposit types (skarn, porphyry, iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG), banded iron formation (BIF), and Kiruna-type Fe are derived from Dupuis and Beaudoin (2011). Note that the compositions of magnetite from Colorado overlap the compositions for all the designated fields of the aforementioned ore types. (e) Compositions of magnetite from Colorado VMS deposits in terms of Sn/Ga vs Al/Co. Showing the IOCG, skarns, BHT and VMS fields of Singoyi et al. (2006) and a Sedex field derived from magnetite compositions reported by Tott et al. (2019) for magnetite in metamorphosed massive Pb–Zn–Ag–(Cu–Au) deposits in the Cambrian Kanmantoo Group, South Australia. Note the overlap between the Sedex and VMS fields.

Supplementary material: File

Spry et al. supplementary material

Spry et al. supplementary material
Download Spry et al. supplementary material(File)
File 10.1 KB