13.20 Iron Oxide(–Cu–Au–REE–P–Ag–U–Co) Systems MD Barton, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA ã 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 13.20.1 Introduction 515 13.20.1.1 Semantics and Postulated Origins 516 13.20.2 Geologic Context for IOCG Systems 517 13.20.2.1 Distribution in Space and Time 517 13.20.2.2 Geologic Settings 518 13.20.2.2.1 Association with igneous rocks (or lack thereof) 518 13.20.2.2.2 Framework lithologies and paleoclimate 519 13.20.3 Synopsis of Deposit Features 519 13.20.3.1 Deposit Types 519 13.20.3.1.1 Magnetite- and/or hematite-dominated deposits 520 13.20.3.1.2 Fe oxide-poor Cu(–Au/Ag) deposits of proposed affinity to IOCG systems 522 13.20.3.1.3 Possible modern analogues 522 13.20.3.2 Grade, Size, and Form 522 13.20.3.3 Ore Mineralogy and Paragenesis 523 13.20.3.4 Minor Element Contents and Mineralogy: U–Th, REE, Co–Ni–V, Cl–F–Br, B 524 13.20.4 Hydrothermal Alteration and System-scale Zoning 525 13.20.4.1 Types of Hydrothermal Alteration 525 13.20.4.1.1 Sodic to calcic alteration types 525 13.20.4.1.2 Carbonate-hosted alteration: Skarn and Fe oxide replacement 526 13.20.4.1.3 K-rich alteration: High-temperature and low-temperature types 526 13.20.4.1.4 Hydrolytic (acid) alteration 527 13.20.4.2 System- to Regional-Scale Spatial and Temporal Patterns 527 13.20.4.3 Extent of Metasomatism and Comparison with Porphyry/Alkaline Cu Systems 528 13.20.5 Petrologic and Geochemical Characteristics 529 13.20.5.1 Conditions of Formation 529 13.20.5.1.1 Depth 529 13.20.5.1.2 Temperature 530 13.20.5.1.3 Fluid inclusion compositions 530 13.20.5.1.4 Oxidation state, sulfidation state, and total sulfur 531 13.20.5.2 Tracer Studies and Sources of Components 531 13.20.5.2.1 Light stable isotopes: H, O, S, C, and B 532 13.20.5.2.2 Radiogenic isotopes: Sr, Nd, Pb, and Os 533 13.20.5.2.3 Halogens and noble gases: Ratios and isotopes 534 13.20.6 Summary of the IOCG Clan, Likely Origins, and the terrestrial Hydrothermal Environment 534 13.20.6.1 Discussion of Genesis 535 13.20.6.2 IOCG Systems and the Terrestrial Hydrothermal Environment 536 Acknowledgments 536 References 536 13.20.1 Introduction understand what geologic processes and settings lead to this geochemical specialization and, more generally, to see how The bulk composition (i.e., geochemistry) of the mineraliza- this family of deposits fits in the broad spectrum of hydrother- tion defines the iron oxide(–Cu–Au–REE–P–Ag–U–Co) clan. mal systems. The numerous and geologically diverse deposits of this group Although ores of this kind have been known for centuries contain >10% of low-Ti Fe oxides in combination with geo- and mined for iron, copper, and other commodities, it was not chemically elevated contents of Cu, Au, REE, P, U, Ag, and Co. until the 1980s that the fundamental similarities of these dis- They tend to be structurally or stratigraphically controlled and parate deposits were pointed out (e.g., Hauck, 1990; Hitzman they are temporally and spatially associated with intense and et al., 1992; Meyer, 1988). This recognition followed a resur- voluminous Na–Ca–K metasomatism. When considered as a gence of interest in the copper-rich variants motivated by the group, they lack the well-defined tectonic and igneous correla- discovery in 1975 of the Olympic Dam deposit in South tions that are characteristic of well-understood magmatic- Australia, which is currently the world’s largest U resource hydrothermal systems. These distinctive traits challenge us to and one of the largest Cu and Au deposits. Previously, and to Treatise on Geochemistry 2nd Edition http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-095975-7.01123-2 515 516 Iron Oxide(–Cu–Au–REE–P–Ag–U–Co) Systems some extent since then, a variety of names and contrasting this usage does not restrict IOCG to those deposits containing classifications have been applied to these deposits (Cox and economic concentrations of copper and(or) gold (cf. Williams Singer, 2007). Beginning about 2000 (e.g., Porter, 2000), this et al., 2005), economics being a factor that reflects a societal group has been termed iron oxide(–copper–gold) (IOCG) after rather than geologic distinction even within a single hydro- the several possible principal commodities. Divisions within thermal system. the IOCG clan have been proposed by a number of authors based on economic metals, deposit mineralogy, and possible 13.20.1.1 Semantics and Postulated Origins origins (e.g., Williams, 2010a; Williams et al., 2005). This term is useful because it unifies a widespread and Debate arises both from semantics (definitions and what to formerly ill-defined group of deposits that share distinctive include) and from contrasting interpretations of origin. chemical and geologic characteristics (Hitzman et al., 1992). Various workers have included deposits lacking voluminous These include a link to moderate- to high-temperature brines iron oxides, notably magnetite-bearing porphyry Cu(–Au) but which lack globally coherent tectonic or magmatic corre- deposits, Cu(–Ag) deposits hosted in volcanic terranes with lations (Barton and Johnson, 1996). The definition given accessory hematite, and some pyrrhotiteÆpyrite Cu(–Au) above emphasizes a characteristic set of element enrichments deposits that occur in the same areas as the magnetite/hema- (not ore grades) coupled with voluminous hypogene iron tite-dominated deposits (see Haynes, 2000; Williams, 2010a). oxides. This approach is more inclusive than other definitions Connections between these other Fe–Cu–Au-bearing ore types that have specified temporal, tectonic, economic, or magmatic and the IOCG clan as defined here remain the topic of ongoing attributes (e.g., Groves et al., 2010; Hitzman et al., 1992; discussion and reflect uncertainties in both geology and genesis. Meyer, 1988; Williams et al., 2005). Nevertheless, it still serves The geologic diversity (in contrast to the geochemical sim- to distinguish this group from sedimentary iron deposits, ilarity) of IOCG systems has contributed to multiple genetic magmatic iron–titanium oxide deposits, and other iron hypotheses (Figure 1): (1) magmatic-hydrothermal wherein oxide-bearing hydrothermal deposits, such as many members the key aqueous fluids are of magmatic origin, (2) terrestrial of the porphyry copper clan (Chapter 13.14). In particular, hydrothermal wherein key fluids are basinal or surficial Magma-derived Surface- or basin-derived Metamorphic-derived ± Surface or Surface-derived basin-derived brines waters Surface-derived Cu(–Au)– waters Fe-oxide Fe-Oxide ±Cu(–Au) (depends on trap) ± Early, barren Cu(–Au) Fe-oxide Deep basinal Fe oxide fluids Basinal Regional ± Local magmatic fluids Na(Ca) K-silicate alteration Older, ± Magmatic Cl-rich fluids rocks Magmatic Metamorphic fluids fluids (generated from or salinity added by passing through Cl-rich rocks) Specialized magmas Igneous heat ± cation source Tectonic/metamorphic drive (alkaline or otherwise) (other heat sources possible) for fluid production and flow Cu(–Au) mineralization H+ alteration K alteration (type I) Cpy/Bn ± Hm/Mt ± Py Ser(Mu)/Chl + Qz + Hm Biot/Kfsp ± Mt/Hm + Act/Cpx Fe-oxide mineralization Na(Ca) alteration K alteration (type II) Mt(±Ap)/Hm ± Py ± Cpy Na plag/Scap + Cpx/Act/Chl Kfsp + Hm (Biot + Mt) Figure 1 Alternative hydrothermal origins and architectures for IOCG systems illustrating possible fluid sources, paths, and distribution of alteration and ores (modified from Barton MD and Johnson DA (2004) Footprints of Fe-oxide (ÀCu–Au) systems: SEG 2004 Predictive Mineral Discovery Under Cover. Centre for Global Metallogeny, University of Western Australia Special Publication 33: 112–116). Deposits show far more varied geometries that are illustrated here. Multiple fluid sources are possible in all cases. (a) Magmatic source implies distinctive composition and proximity to source; regional Na(–Ca) is coincidental. (b) Evaporitic source implies coeval or older brine source, necessary but indifferent to type of heat source, and available upper crustal plumbing. (c) Metamorphic source implies metaevaporitic (or conceivably mantle) Cl source with regional plumbing. A fourth hypothesis involving immiscible Fe oxide–P-rich liquids is not illustrated (see text) but has some parallels with (a). Iron Oxide(–Cu–Au–REE–P–Ag–U–Co) Systems 517 nonmagmatic brines circulated by igneous or crustal heat, (3) published since the late 1980s. It briefly compares IOCG sys- metamorphic-hydrothermal wherein fluids are derived from tems and related deposits to other hydrothermal ore-forming distinctive crustal sources by metamorphic devolatilization systems and considers alternative origins in light of available and water–rock interaction at depth, and (4) fundamentally evidence. It concludes that IOCG systems comprise a diverse magmatic wherein the key ore-forming fluid is an immiscible family in which many but not all members form as shallow volatile-bearing iron oxide melt. A further possibility, not terrestrial, brine-dominated hydrothermal systems and that developed here, is that some occurrences represent the seren- IOCG systems have compelling analogies in other terrestrial dipitous superposition of Cu–Au mineralization on older, hydrothermal ore-forming environments. (Hydrothermal fluids genetically unrelated ironstones (e.g., Davidson and Large, are derived from magmatic, metamorphic, marine, and a com- 1994; Mark et al., 2006a; Skirrow and Walshe, 2002). In all positionally diverse group of near-surface terrestrial (including hydrothermal models, involvement of a second, near-surface basinal) sources. Dominance by the last group defines terrestrial fluid is likely and may either mix with a deeper-sourced fluid or hydrothermal (i.e., T>200 C) systems as used here.) be a later overprint; in many cases, this second fluid may be necessary to supply sulfur for ore formation and might also introduce some metals (Figure 1; e.g., Gow et al., 1994; Haynes 13.20.2 Geologic Context for IOCG Systems et al., 1995; Williams et al., 2010).