Affiliation:
1. State Key Laboratory of Ore Deposit Geochemistry, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang, Guizhou Province 550081, China
2. University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154, USA
3. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado 80225, USA
4. Guilin University of Technology, Guilin 541004, China
5. No. 105 Geological Team, Guizhou Bureau of Geology and Mineral Exploration and Development, Guiyang 550018, China
6. Guizhou Institute of Technology, Guiyang 550002, China
Abstract
Abstract
The southwest Guizhou Province, China, contains numerous sediment-hosted Au deposits with Au reserves greater than 700 tonnes. To date, the source of ore fluids that formed the Guizhou sediment-hosted Au deposits is controversial, hampering the formulation of genetic models. In this study, we selected the Shuiyindong and Jinfeng Au deposits, the largest strata-bound and fault-controlled deposits in Guizhou, respectively, for detailed research on pyrite chemistry and S isotope composition using laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) and laser ablation-multicollector-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-MC-ICP-MS), respectively.
Petrography and pyrite chemistry studies distinguished five generations of pyrite. Among these, pre-ore pyrite 2 and ore pyrite are the most abundant types in the deposits. Pre-ore pyrite 2 is anhedral to euhedral and with ~2,639 ppm As and wider ranges of Cu, Sb, and Pb (<~22–4,837 ppm, <~6 to 532 ppm, and <~4 to 1,344 ppm, respectively). Gold in pre-ore pyrite 2 is below the detection limit of LA-ICP-MS (~2 ppm). Pre-ore pyrite 2 is interpreted to have a sedimentary (syngenetic or diagenetic) origin. Ore pyrite commonly rims the four identified pre-ore pyrites or occurs as individual, anhedral to euhedral crystals. Ore pyrite is enriched in Au (~641 ppm), As (~9,147 ppm), Cu (~1,043 ppm), Sb (~188 ppm), Hg (~43 ppm), and Tl (~22 ppm) in both deposits. Ore pyrite formed mainly by sulfidation of Fe in Fe-bearing host rocks, mainly Fe dolomite, and As, Cu, Sb, Hg, and Tl, also in ore fluids, were incorporated into ore pyrite.
In situ δ34S isotope ratios for pre-ore pyrite 2 and ore pyrite were measured by LA-MC-ICP-MS. Pre-ore pyrite 2 from Shuiyindong and Jinfeng deposits resulted in δ34S values ranging from −0.8 to +3.4‰ and from 5.1 to 10.5‰, respectively. Analyses of ore pyrite from the Shuiyindong have δ34S values that vary from −3.3 to +2.5‰, with a median of 0.7‰; analyses of ore pyrite from the Jinfeng range from 8.9 to 11.2‰, with a median at 10.3‰. Available bulk and in situ δ34S data in the literature for pre-ore pyrites 1 and 2 and ore-related sulfide minerals including ore pyrite, arsenopyrite, and late ore-stage stibnite, realgar, orpiment, and cinnabar from several Guizhou sediment-hosted Au deposits were compiled for comparison. Pre-ore-stage pyrites from Guizhou sediment-hosted Au deposits have a broad range of δ34S values, from −33.8 to + 17.9‰ (including in situ and available bulk δ34S data). Ore-related sulfide minerals in all Guizhou sediment-hosted Au deposits, except Jinfeng, have very similar δ34S values, and most data plot between ~−5 and +5‰. In the Jinfeng deposit, the ore-related sulfide minerals exhibit δ34S values ranging from 1.9 to 18.1‰, with most data plotting between 6 and 12‰.
The broad range of S isotope compositions for the sedimentary pyrites (pre-ore pyrites 1 and 2) indicate that S in these pre-ore pyrites was most likely generated by bacterial reduction from marine sulfate. The narrow range of δ34S values (~−5–+5‰) for ore-related sulfide minerals in all Guizhou sediment-hosted Au deposits, excepting the Jinfeng deposit, suggests that the deposits may have formed in response to a single widespread metallogenic event. As the S isotope fractionation between hydrothermal fluids and sulfide minerals in a sulfide-dominated system is small (<2‰) at ~250°C, the initial ore fluids that formed the Guizhou sediment-hosted Au deposits would have had δ34S values similar to the ore-related sulfide minerals, between ~−5 and +5‰. At Jinfeng, initial ore fluids may have mixed with local fluids with heavier δ34S, possibly basin brine (δ34Sbasin brine >18‰), resulting in elevated δ34S values of ore-related sulfide minerals and especially late ore-stage sulfide minerals.
Although few igneous rocks are exposed in the mining area around these deposits, there is evidence of magmatic activity ~20 km away. Furthermore, gravity and magnetic geophysical investigations indicate the presence of a pluton ~5 km below the surface of the Shuiyindong district. Based on in situ S isotope results and recent data indicating proximal intrusions, we interpret a deep magmatic S source for the ore fluids that formed the Guizhou sediment-hosted Au deposits. However, as the age for Au mineralization of Guizhou sediment-hosted Au deposits is still debated, the mineralization-magma connection remains hypothetical. Identifying an ore fluid source and time frame for Guizhou Au mineralization continues to be a critically important research goal for this district.
Publisher
Society of Economic Geologists
Subject
Economic Geology,Geochemistry and Petrology,Geology,Geophysics