4.6 Article

Zn-Pb mineralisation in the Silvermines district, Ireland: a product of burial diagenesis

期刊

MINERALIUM DEPOSITA
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 87-102

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00126-003-0384-x

关键词

Irish-type; Mississippi Valley-type; carbonate diagenesis; epigenetic; sulphide mineralisation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbonate-sulphide cement stratigraphic relationships in the host rock and ore have been used to constrain the age of mineralisation at the Silvermines zinc-lead-barium deposit. The base-metal sulphides post-date planar dolomite and replace stylolites. Furthermore, the pre-mineralisation planar dolomites also replace stylolites. These and other diagenctic observations indicate that the base-metal sulphides formed at burial depths greater than 800 m, but probably predate the Variscan deformation (since pressure shadows overgrow base metal sulphides). This indicates that the sulphides are of epigenetic origin, constraining the age of mineralisation to between the late Chadian (approximate to347 Ma) and the late Westphalian (approximate to307 Ma). However, the most likely age for mineralisation, (based on widespread macro-stylolite development) is Asbian (approximate to339 Ma) or younger. No evidence of synsedimentary sulphides (in the form of hydrothermal chimneys, vent faunas, or sulphides intergrown with marine cements) was observed at Silvermines. Mineralised breccias (black matrix breccias), late-stage internal sediments, and dissolution zones within the carbonate cements all appear to be produced by hydrothermal karsting that occurred during the mineralisation process. Fluid inclusion homogenisation temperatures for ore-stage calcites (up to 300 degreesC) approach the peak temperature estimates derived from regional maturation parameters (270 to 310 degreesC from conodont alteration indices and vitrinite reflectance). This suggests that homogenisation temperatures represent maximum heating temperatures (probably during Variscan time) rather than mineralisation temperatures.

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

4.6
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