Gold-In-Calcrete: a Continental to Profile Scale Study of Regolith Carbonates and Their Association with Gold Mineralisation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Gold-in-calcrete: A continental to profile scale study of regolith carbonates and their association with gold mineralisation Robert Charles Dart, B.AppSc (Hons) Geology and Geophysics School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Adelaide Thesis submitted as fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science, University of Adelaide March 2009 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1. Project overview Historically, mineral deposits were located by prospectors and geologists inspecting rock outcrops and recognising signs of visible ore. Today however, with the majority of these “easily” recognised deposits discovered, other methods have to be engaged. The realisation that techniques were required to search for concealed mineralisation beneath a mantle of regolith is not new. Mining and exploration companies had recognised the challenge as far back as the mid 1940s (Hawkes & Webb, 1962; Levinson, 1974). Geochemistry, the study of the distribution and concentration of elements in rocks, minerals, soils, vegetation, water, and atmosphere, is one discipline that has proven useful in locating buried mineral deposits, especially when applied in conjunction with geophysical techniques (e.g. Hawkes & Webb, 1962; Levinson, 1974; Joyce, 1984; Marjoribanks, 1997; Moon, 2006). Since the early 1990s a new geochemical sampling medium has been implemented in Australia by exploration companies in their search for buried Au mineralisation. This medium is regolith carbonates, especially when in the indurated form commonly referred to as calcrete, a material that is abundant over large areas of semi-arid to arid southern Australia. The discovery of the Challenger Au deposit, South Australia, in 1995 was attributed to calcrete sampling (Bonwick, 1997). This initial success, which was possibly fortuitous due to the presence of near surface, in-situ mineralisation (Lintern & Sheard, 1999b), resulted in calcrete sampling becoming widely adopted by exploration companies (e.g. Ferris, 1998; Lintern, 2001; Chen et al., 2002). Unfortunately, the rapid adoption of exploration using calcrete resulted in poorly constrained methodology, because of the lack of accepted procedures and underlying scientific processes. It is clear from ongoing sampling programs that the use and understanding of this medium requires refinement. Discussions on the sampling techniques and analysis of regolith carbonates are limited to only a few scientific papers (Anand et al., 1997; Lintern, 1997; Anand et al., 1998; Ferris, 1998; Hill et al., 1998c; Lintern & Butt, 1998b; McQueen et al., 1999; Morris & Flintoft, 1999; Lintern, 2001). The wide variety of regolith carbonate morphologies and more precise descriptions of what constitutes a “calcrete” requires descriptions of the nature of the sampling medium leading to interpretation of its origin. The lack of established sampling procedure and understanding of the sampling medium has resulted in a large analytical dataset of variable quality. This omission is a vital inconsistency between the above papers and is discussed further in Chapter 2. Beyond these sampling problems there is little understanding as to why Au should be associated with regolith carbonates. Only a limited number of scientific papers discuss the subject (Ypma, 1991; Lintern & Butt, 1993; Gray & Lintern, 1994; Smee, 1998; Okujeni et al., 2005; Lintern et al., 2006). The exploration industry is therefore spending millions of dollars on sampling and geochemical analyses without an understanding of the actual mechanisms responsible for the results. The industry then uses these data to define exploration targets and undertake 1 Introduction Chapter 1 expensive drilling programs. Not surprisingly the results to date have been equivocal, with several identified Au-in-calcrete anomalies proving to not coincide with underlying Au mineralisation (Lintern, 2002; Van Der Stelt et al., 2006). The limited scientific research into the association between Au and regolith carbonates, and the high number of anomalous, and largely false, Au-in-calcrete areas being generated, required urgent attention. These requirements were the driving force for the research undertaken and presented in this thesis. The answers to the following questions are the aims of the work: What methods may be utilised to assist in confirming that a Au-in-calcrete anomaly is representative of underlying mineralisation? Hence, how can a Au-in-calcrete anomaly be interpreted geologically? 1.2. Regolith terminology used in this thesis Regolith is defined as “everything between bedrock to fresh air” and consists of unconsolidated and secondarily cemented material, including weathered bedrock (saprolite), soil, organic material, aeolian deposits, glacial deposits, colluvium and alluvium (Eggleton, 2001). The terminology used in this thesis to describe the components of the regolith profile are summarised in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1: Regolith terminology used in this thesis (adapted from Taylor & Butt, 1998; Eggleton, 2001; Schaetzl & Anderson, 2005). The lower part of the regolith profile typically consists of weathered bedrock that makes up the saprolith. The saprolith may be split into saprock and saprolite, depending on the percentage of altered weatherable minerals. Saprock is defined as slightly weathered rock with < 20% of the weatherable minerals altered, whereas saprolite consists of weathered 2 Introduction Chapter 1 bedrock where > 20% of the weatherable minerals are altered by weathering, but rock structures such as bedding are preserved (Eggleton, 2001). The upper part of the regolith profile is referred to as the pedolith and includes: saprolite material in which the parent fabric as been destroyed and or new fabric formed; and/or material that has been subjected to pedogenic (soil forming) processes (Taylor & Butt, 1998; Eggleton, 2001). This is a very broad descriptive term and its meaning appears to have been influenced by geologists since it differs from the original pedological definition, which was restricted to redeposited lateritic sediments, or more recently for soil derived sediments (Retallack, 2001). Pedolith is used here in reference to the upper part of the regolith profile above the saprolith (Figure 1.1). Its use is mainly limited to Chapter 6 where it is used to refer to the combined A and B soil horizons. The relationship between the pedolith and saprolith with soil horizons is shown in the right hand column of Figure 1.1. The pedolith is composed of the surface A horizon, a mix of minerals and organic material, and the B horizon, characterised by an accumulation of clay, iron, aluminium, organic material or combination of these (McDonald et al., 1990). Underlying this are the C and R horizons, which are equivalent to the saprolith and bedrock respectively. Note that other soil horizon types, such as the O horizon, were not encountered in any of the profiles examined in this project and are omitted from Figure 1.1. The term soil is in common use by many workers for different purposes and therefore has developed several meanings depending on its use (Schaetzl & Anderson, 2005). Solum refers to those parts of the profile that are the most altered by soil-forming processes (Retallack, 2001). Although shown on Figure 1.1, the use of soil and solum in this thesis is limited and the term pedolith is preferred when referring to the upper parts of the regolith profile. Where a specific part of the profile needs to be identified then the soil horizon and/or the sample number is used. Abundant discussions on the terminology and the various morphologies of regolith carbonates exist in the scientific literature (e.g. Lamplugh, 1902; Netterberg, 1967; Goudie, 1972; Watts, 1980; Arakel & McConchie, 1982; Goudie, 1983; Milnes & Hutton, 1983; Netterberg & Caiger, 1983; Wright & Tucker, 1991; Anand et al., 1997; Anand et al., 1998; Hill et al., 1998b; Chen et al., 2002). Regolith carbonate, as defined by Hill et al. (1998b) broadly includes all carbonate materials of indeterminate composition and degree of induration found within the regolith. This definition is preferred in general since it does not infer any interpretation of cation composition such as Ca-rich (calcite) or Mg-rich (dolomite) as part of calcrete and dolocrete respectively, which is often difficult to determine or mixed in the field. Similarly this term places no emphasis on interpreted genetic models, such as “pedogenic carbonate” (e.g. Goudie, 1983; Wright, 2007). The term is also independent of any particular morphology and therefore includes all types of carbonate accumulations typically associated in genetically related profiles. A popular term used in Australia is “calcrete”, which was originally proposed by Lamplugh (1902) for “lime-cemented” gravels. The term calcrete (similar to caliche in the Americas) has historically been used to describe an indurated, high-Ca content form of regolith carbonate. Attempts to include other morphologies within the term (e.g. Goudie, 1983; Milnes & Hutton, 1983; Anand et al., 1997; Wright, 2007) continue to add to the general confusion amongst researchers. In this thesis, “regolith carbonate” is the preferred term unless a specific morphology is observed and easily described without confusion, or is referred to in the scientific literature. 3 Introduction Chapter 1 The term “calcrete” is used in reference only to indurated (hardpan) regolith carbonates dominated by calcium carbonate. Hence calcrete can be considered a type of regolith carbonate,