Kimberlites and exploration geophysics

Abstract

This paper discusses geophysical prospecting techniques for kimberlite pipes, a major source of diamonds. A simple geologic model based on descriptions by Hawthorne (1975) and Nixon (1973) is given, and the varied geophysical responses obtained over kimberlite pipes are interpreted in terms of this model. The three main factors controlling these responses are the original size and inhomogeneity of the pipe, the depth of erosion, and the degree of weathering. Kimberlite pipes are roughly elliptical in surface exposure in most cases, with a “carrot shaped” extension at depth. The unweathered portion of the pipe generally contains a few percent magnetite, and this in most cases produces a clearly detectable magnetic anomaly. The presence of deep weathering may alter the magnetite in the top of the pipe to nonmagnetic oxides of iron, thus resulting in an increased depth to the magnetic source. If this depth is large, the magnetic response may not be large enough to detect the kimberlite in the presence of noise and the effect of other structures. In addition, if little erosion has taken place since emplacement, kimberlitic sediments known as epiclastic kimberlite will be present to considerable depths in the pipe, and this may also lead to the absence of a clear magnetic anomaly. In one large survey in South Africa, electromagnetic (EM) techniques have proven to be remarkably effective in detecting the presence of weathered clays or epiclastic kimberlite contained within the pipes. All pipes discovered during this survey had unmistakable EM signatures, while five out of eight had very small magnetic anomalies which would not likely have been selected as potential targets on the basis of magnetic data alone. These examples would indicate that in any area where deep weathering is expected, an EM survey is essential in combination with a magnetic survey if reconnaissance is to be based on airborne geophysical techniques. Due to the emplacement mechanism of kimberlite, considerable inhomogeneity within a pipe may be present, leading to significant variation in the response of any geophysical technique to one pipe, with resultant interpretation difficulties. Although this is not a limitation in the discovery of new pipes, it does make their geophysical delimitation difficult.