4.5 Article

Linking Olympic Dam and the Cariewerloo Basin: Was a sedimentary basin involved in formation of the world's largest uranium deposit?

Journal

PRECAMBRIAN RESEARCH
Volume 300, Issue -, Pages 168-180

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.precamres.2017.08.002

Keywords

Olympic Dam; Sedimentary basin; Pandurra Formation; Cariewerloo Basin; Uranium

Funding

  1. Australian Postgraduate Award scholarship
  2. Australian Research Council
  3. BHP Billiton Olympic Dam
  4. Society of Economic Geologists Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The supergiant Olympic Dam Cu-U-Au-Ag deposit is hosted by the Olympic Dam Breccia Complex within a ca. 1.59 Ga granite. The breccia complex is largely granite-derived but also includes volcanic clasts and domains of bedded clastic facies. Recently discovered quartz-rich sandstone has a provenance that included Paleoproterozoic and Archean units represented by zircon populations centered at ca. 2.4 Ga and ca. 1.7 Ga. The texture, detrital and cement mineralogy, and distribution of detrital zircon ages in the quartz-rich sandstone closely match those in sandstone of the Pandurra Formation deposited in the regionally extensive intracratonic Cariewerloo Basin (ca. 1.44 Ga). The age of authigenic apatite (1.44 +/- 0.02 Ga) in the brecciated quartz-rich sandstone is equivalent to the minimum depmitional age of the Pandurra Formation. We conclude that the quartz-rich sandstone is a remnant of the Pandurra Formation, that the Pandurra Formation originally extended across the Olympic Dam Breccia Complex, and that it was incorporated by tectonic activity at least 150 myr after initial formation of the breccia complex. Furthermore, we speculate that oxidized U-bearing fluids from the overlying Cariewerloo Basin may have interacted with the Olympic Dam U resource, consistent with mounting evidence for substantial post-1.59 Ga remobilization and probable addition of U.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available