2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2019.103228
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterization of Illite Clays associated with the Sinongduo low sulfidation epithermal deposit, Central Tibet using field SWIR spectrometry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…By comparison, white micas from the Pebble porphyry deposit largely have ISM values <1.0, except for a “sericite (minor pyrophyllite)” sample which reported an ISM value of 3.65 (Harraden et al ., 2013). As well as having generally much higher crystallinity and therefore higher formation temperatures than Pebble porphyry system white micas, MQP white micas have higher crystallinity than all white micas from the Cerro La Mina high sulfidation epithermal deposit whose ISM ratios are all <1.6 (Jansen et al ., 2017: Figure 6), and those reported from other epithermal vein gold deposits with ISM ratios <1.0 (Victoria; Chang et al ., 2011; Sinongduo; Guo et al ., 2020; Shihu; Yao et al ., 2021).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By comparison, white micas from the Pebble porphyry deposit largely have ISM values <1.0, except for a “sericite (minor pyrophyllite)” sample which reported an ISM value of 3.65 (Harraden et al ., 2013). As well as having generally much higher crystallinity and therefore higher formation temperatures than Pebble porphyry system white micas, MQP white micas have higher crystallinity than all white micas from the Cerro La Mina high sulfidation epithermal deposit whose ISM ratios are all <1.6 (Jansen et al ., 2017: Figure 6), and those reported from other epithermal vein gold deposits with ISM ratios <1.0 (Victoria; Chang et al ., 2011; Sinongduo; Guo et al ., 2020; Shihu; Yao et al ., 2021).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1b). The detailed deposit geology of the Sinongduo epithermal deposit was introduced by Li et al (2019), Guo et al (2020) and Yang et al (2020).…”
Section: Deposit Geologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The alteration types in low-sulfidation epithermal deposits are classified as propylitic, argillic, advanced argillic, silicic, and sericitic types, respectively [13]. For example, the alteration mineral association of quartz ± calcite ± adularia ± illite in low-sulfidation deposits, including Au-Ag, or Ag-Pb-Zn ores [18,19]. Globally, the various alteration types occur at different intensities in the silicified vein [20][21][22][23], monzonite [24], diorite porphyry [5,6], granite-granodiorite porphyry [22,25,26], and metamorphic [22,27]-volcanic rocks [8,21,28].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The diagram shows that the vein-veinlet silicification zone in the study area contains mostly illite and smectite; quartz-feldspar porphyries with muscovite, biotite, and smectite; and quartz-mica schists with illite, muscovite, biotite, and smectite (Figure14a). Based on the Al2 O 3 -(Na 2 O + K 2 O)-(Fe 2 O 3 + MgO)-K 2 O triple diagram[18], the vein-veinlet silicification zone and quartz-mica schist samples are classified as falling within the potassium silicate (K-silicate), propylitic, and sericitic categories. The quartz-feldspar porphyry samples, however, are mostly classified as falling within the propylitic category and, to a lesser extent, the potassium silicate category (Figure14b).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%