The Petrography and Mineralogy of The'lac De Gras Kimberlite Field, Slave Province, Northwest Territories: a Comparative Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Petrography and Mineralogy of the'lac de Gras Kimberlite Field, Slave Province, Northwest Territories: A Comparative Study by Katharine Melanie Masun @ Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Supervisor: Dr. Roger H. Mitchell Depanment of Geology Lakehead University Thunder Bay, Ontario Canada November, 1999 National Library BibIiot= nationale 1*1 dcamda du Can Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie S~~VI*CBSservices bibliographiques 385, nm Wdlingtm O(bwaON K1AW CMdi The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une Licence non exclusive licence aüowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothéque nationale du Cana& de reproduce, loan, distn'bute or seii reproduire, prêter, distri'buer ou copies of this thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous papa or electronic formats. la fonne de microfiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantid extracts hmit Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be p~tedor otheNVise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. The kimberlites studied from the Lac de Gras area are composed of two broad textural types: hypabyssal kimberlite and volcaniclastic kimberlite. Hypabyssal kimberlite is present within small isolated dyke segments and in direct contact with'volcaniclastic kimberlite within vent infill. The latter likely represents small. sub-horizontal sills ernplaced subsequent to vent excavation and infiIl. Volcaniclastic kimberlite occurs as well-to-poorly sorted, ofien poorly consolidated vent infiII. Abundant xenoliths of wall rock and xenocrysts of mica, feldspar. and quartz characterize the volcaniclast ic rock, suggesting that most of the volcaniclastic kimberlite has ken subjected to resedimentation processes. Juvenile lapilli (both vesiculated and non- vesiculated) are very common, but are ofken poorly-developed. A conspicuous feature of these kimberlite vents is the presence of wood fragments, discrete xenoliths of non-kimberlitic sedirnent and well-laminated beds of non-kimberlitic mudstone and siltstone. Pyroclastic kimberlite appears to be present within the kimberlites at Lac de Gras, but only accounts for a minor pan of the vent infill. The pyroclastic kimberlite contains abundant juvenile lapilli and may show textures indicative of welding and molding. The Lac de Gras kimberlites are mainly small. steep-sided vents infilled with nsedimented volcaniclastic kirnberlite * pyroclastic kirnberlite non-kimberlitic sediment * smal l hypabyssal sills. No tuffisitic breccias. the haltmark ofdiatreme-facies kimberlite, were recognized within the kimberlite vents and appear to be absent from the Lac de Gras kimberlites* All features observed within the Lac de Gras kimberlites are characteristic of, but not exclusive to, kimberlites. The composition of spinel, phlogopite and monticellite are typical of archetypal kimberlites, although spinels are conspicuously aluminous and phlogopites Ba-rich. The nature of the primary texture, mineralogy and mantle-derived xenocrysts indicates that these rocks are archetypal kimberlites. Comparing the character of kimberlite vents from the Fort à la Corne area (maar-like phreatomagrnatic model) and the Orapa An<! kimberlite (southern African "classic" diaireme model) shows that there are two contrasting end-member emplacement mechanisms which are repeated in time and space. The former is driven by metcoric water in phreatomagmatic processes, while much debate exists whether the later is driven by juvenile gases (fluidization model) or hydrovolunic processes. Near-surface geological setting at the timc of emplacement appears to have played a critical rote in detemining the emplacement process of the kimberlite magma. Kimberlitcs discoveted in the Lac de Gras area do not conform to either end-member emplacement models and serve to highlight that a third, intemediate mode1 will need to be developed to account for the features observed. Clearly, two distinct processes were responsible for the emplacement of the Lac de Gras kim berlites: vent excavation and vent infill. Phreatomagmatic. processes likely contributed significantly to the excavation of the kimberlite vents and a flaring explosion Crater or maar was excavated into the sofi, overlying xdiments. The resultant ejecta was deposited as extra-crater material as a tuff ring or cone. This material was subsequently reworked and redeposited within the evacuated vent by debris flow and mass wasting processes incorporating a large amount of xenolithic material. The thin pyroclastic kimberlite beds within the vents are the result of either minor pyroclastic activity that continued through a central conduit during vent infill. or primary pyroclastic kimberlite initially deposited within the tuff condring, which subsequently fell back into the vent with linle reworking, as a coherent mas preserving the primary textures of the tuff. In the later scenario the "pyroclastic kimberlite" units are in fact resedimented "pseudo- pyroclastic" volcan iclastic kirnberlite. Clearly, more detailed audies need to be undenaken on these enigmatic kimberlites to constrain funher the nature of their infill and emplacement. This can only occur with the creation of better exposures during mining and advanced exploration activities. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Roger Mitchell for supervising this study and for allowing me to pursue my interest in kimberlites. Many people have ossisted me with various aspects of this study, and I wish to acknowledge Anne Hammond for pieparing many sections of these homble rocks, Alan MacKenzie for technical assistance with electron microscopy, and Sam Spivak for drafiing advice and assistance. 1 am indebted to Kennecott Canada Exploration Inc. for allowing me the opponunity to examine their kirnberlites and for their financial support of this study. Lastly, 1 would like to thank my CO-pilot,Craig Geddes, for his countless hours of assistance with drill core logging and his delicious cooking. iii ! TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ......................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................... iv List of Figures ......................................................................................................... x .. List of Tables ......................................................................................................... XIU Chapter 1 Introduction and Regional Geological Setting ............................. 1 1. 1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Regional Geological Setting .................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Characteristics of Kimberlites Within the Slave Structural Province: A Literature Review ....................................................... 5 2.1. Introduction ........................ .... ..................................................................... 5 2.2. Upper Cretaceous-Tertiary Kimberlites of the Lac de Gras Area .............. 7 2.2.1 . Introduction.......... .. ....... .. ......................................................... 7 2.2.2. Tli Kwi Cho.. (DO 27 and DO 18) Kimberlite Complex ........................ 11 2.2.3. The Diavik Kimberlites......................................................................... 13 2.2.4. Ekati Kimberlites ................................. ................................... IS 2.2.5. Summary of he Lac de Gras Kimberlites.............................................. 17 2.3. Pre-Cretaceous Kimberlites or' the Slave Province ..................................... 19 2.3.1 . Introduction ........................................................................................... 19 2.3.2. Drybones Bay Kimberlite ............................... ........ ..................... 20 2.3.3. Rockinghorse Lake ........................................... .....+........................... 20 2.3.4. Ke~edyLake ......*............................. *.................. 22 2.3.5. Camsell Lake Kimberlites ................................................................... 23 2.3.6. Cross Lake and Upper Carp Lake ...................................................... 24 2.3.7. Summary of the Pre-Cretaceous Kimberlites of the Slave Province .... 25 Chapter 3 Kimberlites of the Lac de Gras Area .............................................. 27 3.1. Introduction and Location ...................................................................... 27 3.2. Petrography of the Lac de Gras Kimberlites............................................... 29 3.2.1. Kimberlite A5 ................... .. ........................................................ 29 3.2.1 .1 . Macroscopic Observations............................................................ 29 3.2.1.2. Microscopie Observations .............................................................. 31 3.2.1.2.1. Unit#l .................................................... .. ............................