4.6 Article

Re-Os GEOCHRONOLOGY OF QUARTZ-ENCLOSED ULTRAFINE MOLYBDENITE: IMPLICATIONS FOR ORE GEOCHRONOLOGY

Journal

ECONOMIC GEOLOGY
Volume 107, Issue 7, Pages 1499-1505

Publisher

SOC ECONOMIC GEOLOGISTS, INC
DOI: 10.2113/econgeo.107.7.1499

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Durham Doctoral Fellowship at Durham University
  2. SEG
  3. Helio Resource Corp.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Re-Os molybdenite geochronology relies on the aliquant analysis taken from a mineral separate. Although suitable for coarse-grained molybdenite samples, traditional mineral separation techniques are not ideally suited for samples possessing fine-grained molybdenite (<50 mu m) and thus hamper the application of Re-Os geochronology for such samples. Here, we demonstrate a room-temperature hydrofluoric acid (HF) chemical separation technique that is capable of isolating ultrafine molybdenite (i.e., <50 mu m) for Be-Os geochronology. Six Re-Os molybdenite model ages from four molybdenite in-house control and NIST reference material (RM8599) samples exposed to concentrated It HF are indistinguishable from the Re-Os molybdenite model ages for aliquants not exposed to HF. Thus, HF exposure at room temperature has no effect on Re-Os molybdenite systematics. Our H F chemical separation technique was then applied to six ultrafine molybdenite samples from the Lupa goldfield, southwest Tanzania. Three samples from the Kenge deposit provide a weighted average Re-Os molybdenite model age of 1953 +/- 5 Ma (MSWD = 0.6; n = 3), whereas three samples and one repeat analysis from the Porcupine deposit provide a weighted average Re-Os molybdenite model age of 1886 +/- 5 Ma (MSWD = 1.5; n = 4). Our proposed analytical protocol has allowed us to determine reproducible ages from ultrafine molybdenite samples within the Lupa goldfield that were previously unsuitable for molybdenite Re-Os geochronology, using conventional mineral separation techniques.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available