U-Pb Zircon and Re-Os Isotope Geochronology of Mineralized Ultramafic Intrusions and Associated Nickel Ores from the Thompson Nickel Belt, Manitoba, Canada

Hulbert, L.; Hamilton, Michael A.; Horan, M. F.; Scoates, R F J

doi:10.2113/100.1.0029

Cited by 42 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These are predominantly GIFs and are most common in North America at the margins of the Superior craton (Simonson, 2003), and in Western Australia . They are coeval with emplacement of the $ 1.88 Ga ultramafic LIP (Heaman et al, 1986(Heaman et al, , 2009Hulbert et al, 2005) that is potentially related to a mantle plume breakout event (Hamilton et al, 2009; see for a different view Heaman et al, 2009) during the early stage in the assembly of Laurentia. These IFs are now recognized to be correlative, based on high-precision geochronology Machado et al, 1997;Stott et al, 2010).…”

Section: Ifs Deposited After the Goe And Before $193 Gamentioning

confidence: 97%

Iron Formations: Their Origins and Implications for Ancient Seawater Chemistry

Bekker

Planavsky

Rasmussen

et al. 2014

Treatise on Geochemistry

155

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Ifs Deposited After the Goe And Before $193 Gamentioning

confidence: 97%

Iron Formations: Their Origins and Implications for Ancient Seawater Chemistry

Bekker

Planavsky

Rasmussen

et al. 2014

Treatise on Geochemistry

155

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These GIFs are coeval with emplacement of a ca. 1.88 Ga ultramafic to mafic LIP (Heaman et al, 1986(Heaman et al, , 2009Hulbert et al, 2005) that is potentially related to a mantle plume breakout event during the early assembly of the supercontinent Nuna/Columbia (Hamilton et al, 2009; for an opposing view, see Heaman et al,62 2009). Recognised now to be correlative based on high-precision geochronology (Findlay et al, 1995;Machado et al, 1997;Fralick et al, 2002;Schneider et al, 2002;Stott et al, 2010), the North American GIFs extend discontinuously at the surface for more than 3000 km along the southern and eastern margins of the Superior Craton, from Ontario, through Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, to Québec (Mistassini Basin) and the Labrador Trough.…”

Section: The Ca 188 Ga Resurgence In Iron Formationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iron formations: A global record of Neoarchaean to Palaeoproterozoic environmental history

Konhauser

Planavsky

Hardisty

et al. 2017

Earth-Science Reviews

379

257

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These are predominantly GIFs and are common in North America, at the margins of the Superior craton (Simonson, 2003), and are coeval with a ca. 1.88 Ga ultramafic LIP (Heaman et al, 1986(Heaman et al, , 2009Hulbert et al, 2005), which is potentially related to a mantle plume breakout event (Hamilton et al, 2009; see for a different view Heaman et al, 2009). Recognized now to be correlative based on high-precision geochronology (Findlay et al, 1995;Fralick et al, 2002;Schneider et al, 2002), these iron formations extend discontinuously for more than 3,000 km along the southern and eastern margins of the Superior craton, from Thunder Bay, Ontario, through Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, to Quebec (Mistassini basin) and to the Labrador trough.…”

Section: Ca 193 To 185 Ga Iron Formations Coeval With Large Vms Dementioning

confidence: 99%

Iron Formation: The Sedimentary Product of a Complex Interplay among Mantle, Tectonic, Oceanic, and Biospheric Processes

Bekker¹,

Krapež²,

Slack³

et al. 2010

Economic Geology

849

494

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Iron formations are economically important sedimentary rocks that are most common in Precambrian sedimentary successions. Although many aspects of their origin remain unresolved, it is widely accepted that secular changes in the style of their deposition are linked to environmental and geochemical evolution of Earth. Two types of Precambrian iron formations have been recognized with respect to their depositional setting. Algoma-type iron formations are interlayered with or stratigraphically linked to submarine-emplaced volcanic rocks in greenstone belts and, in some cases, with volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits. In contrast, larger Superior-type iron formations are developed in passive-margin sedimentary rock successions and generally lack direct relationships with volcanic rocks. The early distinction made between these two iron-formation types, although mimimized by later studies, remains a valid first approximation. Texturally, iron formations were also divided into two groups. Banded iron formation (BIF) is dominant in Archean to earliest Paleoproterozoic successions, whereas granular iron formation (GIF) is much more common in Paleoproterozoic successions. Secular changes in the style of iron-formation deposition, identified more than 20 years ago, have been linked to diverse environmental changes. Geochronologic studies emphasize the episodic nature of the deposition of giant iron formations, as they are coeval with, and genetically linked to, time periods when large igneous provinces (LIPs) were emplaced. Superior-type iron formation first appeared at ca. 2.6 Ga, when construction of large continents changed the heat flux at the core-mantle boundary. From ca. 2.6 to ca. 2.4 Ga, global mafic magmatism culminated in the deposition of giant Superior-type BIF in South Africa, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and Ukraine. The younger BIFs in this age range were deposited during the early stage of a shift from reducing to oxidizing conditions in the ocean-atmosphere system. Counterintuitively, enhanced magmatism at 2.50 to 2.45 Ga may have triggered atmospheric oxidation. After the rise of atmospheric oxygen during the GOE at ca. 2.4 Ga, GIF became abundant in the rock record, compared to the predominance of BIF prior to the Great Oxidation Event (GOE). Iron formations generally disappeared at ca. 1.85 Ga, reappearing at the end of the Neoproterozoic, again tied to periods of intense magmatic activity and also, in this case, to global glaciations, the so-called Snowball Earth events. By the Phanerozoic, marine iron deposition was restricted to local areas of closed to semiclosed basins, where volcanic and hydrothermal activity was extensive (e.g., backarc basins), with ironstones additionally being linked to periods of intense magmatic activity and ocean anoxia.Late Paleoproterozoic iron formations and Paleozoic ironstones were deposited at the redoxcline where biological and nonbiological oxidation occurred. In contrast, older iron formations were deposited in anoxic oceans, where ferrous iron oxid...

show abstract

U-Pb Zircon and Re-Os Isotope Geochronology of Mineralized Ultramafic Intrusions and Associated Nickel Ores from the Thompson Nickel Belt, Manitoba, Canada

Cited by 42 publications

References 46 publications

Iron Formations: Their Origins and Implications for Ancient Seawater Chemistry

Iron Formations: Their Origins and Implications for Ancient Seawater Chemistry

Iron formations: A global record of Neoarchaean to Palaeoproterozoic environmental history

Iron Formation: The Sedimentary Product of a Complex Interplay among Mantle, Tectonic, Oceanic, and Biospheric Processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About