4.7 Review

Constraints on the energy and chemical balances of the modern TAG and ancient Cyprus seafloor sulfide deposits

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
卷 105, 期 B12, 页码 28477-28488

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2000JB900289

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The size, chemical composition, energy flux, and fluid composition of the TAG hydrothermal sulfide deposit at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the size, chemical composition and reaction zone characteristics of the Skouriotissa volcanogenic massive sulfide deposit of the Troodos ophiolite in Cyprus are used to examine the energy requirements and chemical balances associated with the generation of a large volcanogenic massive sulfide deposit. We conclude that formation of large sulfide deposits from oceanic hydrothermal systems is a geologically rapid process and occurs on timescales of hundreds of years, with episodes of activity as short as a few tens of years separated by thousands of years of inactivity. About 2x10(19) J of energy supplied at high temperature is required to form a deposit the size of the TAG mound. Metals (up to 4 times the mass of any element present in the sulfide deposit) are leached out of relatively small reaction zones most likely at the base of the sheeted dikes. Chemical balance can be struck for all elements except sulfur with a reaction zone 1-2 km(3) in volume from which a small proportion of iron and large proportions of copper, zinc, and manganese are removed. A sulfur balance requires that a significant fraction of sulfur be derived from reduction of seawater sulfate, as suggested by stable isotope analyses. We argue that the principal source of energy that drives hydrothermal circulation is latent heat of crystallization of magma close to the top of the plutonic section. Furthermore, we speculate that activity of the TAG hydrothermal system is related to periods of more rapid magma supply from the mantle at magma supply rates similar to those observed in volcanoes in Hawaii and Iceland.

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

4.7
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