T152 Convergent Margin Magmatism and Ore Deposits to Honor the Range of Contributions by John H. Dilles

Tuesday, 11 October 2022
8:00 AM - 12:00 PM
406

METASOMATIZED LITHOSPHERIC MANTLE AN UNLIKELY SOURCE FOR PORPHYRY CU DEPOSITS IN THE SOUTHERN BASIN AND RANGE

Paper number: T152-2
Program: Technical Sessions
Time: 8:05 AM – 8:20 AM

Authors

Abstract

The source of Cu in porphyry copper deposits remains a point of debate, with researchers highlighting roles for the subducting slab, mantle wedge, subcontinental lithospheric mantle and/or continental crust. Based on the Cu-isotope compositions of collision-related, fertile and barren porphyry copper deposits in southern Tibet, Zheng et al. (2019; https:// doi .org /10 .1130 /G45362 .1) proposed that the Cu in fertile porphyries was derived from a re-fertilized subcontinental lithospheric mantle. Their interpretation was based on the observation that fertile porphyries and associated mafic enclaves have both high Cu concentrations and high δ65Cu values relative to barren intrusions from the same region. In their model, oxidizing fluids derived from the subducting oceanic slab permeate and metasomatize the mantle wedge prior to continental collision. Primary sulfides in the mantle wedge peridotite are oxidized and dissolved by these fluids, which then migrate into the overlying subcontinental lithospheric mantle where they precipitate as 65Cu-enriched, sulfide-bearing hydrous veins or metasomes. Partial melting of the refertilized lithosphere then produces hydrous magmas with high δ65Cu as well as the high fO2 required for formation of large porphyry Cu deposits.

We evaluate the relevance of this model to porphyry Cu deposits in the western US based on lithospheric mantle xenoliths from the Geronimo Volcanic Field of SE Arizona, USA. We have analyzed both modally and cryptically metasomatized Type I (Mg- and Cr-rich) lherzolites and Type II Fe-Al-rich pyroxenites, the latter interpreted as the crystallization products of basaltic magmas in the lithospheric mantle, i.e., physical examples of mantle metasomes. We observe that both Type I and Type II lithologies range to isotopically heavier compositions than asthenospheric mantle (i.e., up to +1.12‰ and +1.44‰, respectively, vs. ~0‰ ± 0.2‰). In support of the Zheng et al. model is our observation from the GVF ultramafic xenoliths that the highest Cu contents (up to ~ 80 ppm) are observed in the hydrous Type II assemblages and the Cu-isotope compositions of these rocks are skewed toward higher δ65Cu (i.e., up to +1.44‰). However, the sulfides in these rocks are Cu-poor (98% with <1wt% Cu), suggesting the lithospheric mantle is an unlikely source of Cu for large porphyry copper deposits in this region.

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 54, No. 6

doi: 10.1130/abs/2022AM-377646

© Copyright 2022 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions.