4.4 Article

A revised age, structural model and origin for the North Pennine Orefield in the Alston Block, northern England: intrusion (Whin Sill)-related base metal (Cu-Pb-Zn-F) mineralization

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
卷 178, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

GEOLOGICAL SOC PUBL HOUSE
DOI: 10.1144/jgs2020-226

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mineralization and fluid migration events in the North Pennine Orefield are associated with tectonic activity and magma emplacement, with previous models no longer applicable. The new findings suggest a reevaluation of equivalent base metal sulfide fields worldwide.
Mineralization and associated fluid migration events in the c. 1500 km(2) North Pennine Orefield (NPO) are known to be associated with tectonic activity, but the age of these tectonic events and origins of the base metal sulfide mineralization remain unresolved. New fieldwork in the Alston Block shows that mineralization post-dates a weakly developed phase of north-south shortening consistent with far-field Variscan basin inversion during the late Carboniferous. New observations of field relationships, coupled with microstructural observations and stress inversion analyses, together with Re-Os sulfide geochronology show that the vein-hosted mineralization (apart from barium minerals) was synchronous with a phase of north-south extension and east-west shortening coeval with emplacement of the Whin Sill (c. 297-294 Ma). Thus the development of the NPO was related to an early Permian regional phase of transtensional deformation, mantle-sourced hydrothermal mineralization and magmatism in northern Britain. Previously proposed Mississippi Valley Type models, or alternatives relating mineralization to the influx of Mesozoic brines, can no longer be applied to the development of the NPO in the Alston Block. Our findings also mean that existing models for equivalent base metal sulfide fields worldwide (e.g. Zn-Pb districts of Silesia, Poland and Tennessee, USA) may need to be reassessed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据