It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The clean energy transition will require a vast increase in metal supply, yet new mineral deposit discoveries are declining, due in part to challenges associated with exploring under sedimentary and volcanic cover. Recently, several case studies have demonstrated links between lithospheric electrical conductors imaged using magnetotelluric (MT) data and mineral deposits, notably Iron Oxide Copper Gold (IOCG). Adoption of MT methods for exploration is therefore growing but the general applicability and relationship with many other deposit types remains untested. Here, we compile a global inventory of MT resistivity models from Australia, North and South America, and China and undertake the first quantitative assessment of the spatial association between conductors and three mineral deposit types commonly formed in convergent margin settings. We find that deposits formed early in an orogenic cycle such as volcanic hosted massive sulfide (VHMS) and copper porphyry deposits show weak to moderate correlations with conductors in the upper mantle. In contrast, deposits formed later in an orogenic cycle, such as orogenic gold, show strong correlations with mid-crustal conductors. These variations in resistivity response likely reflect mineralogical differences in the metal source regions of these mineral systems and suggest a metamorphic-fluid source for orogenic gold is significant. Our results indicate the resistivity structure of mineralized convergent margins strongly reflects late-stage processes and can be preserved for hundreds of millions of years. Discerning use of MT is therefore a powerful tool for mineral exploration.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Mineral Systems Branch, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.452453.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 0606 1752); GNS Science, Wairakei Research Centre, Taupo, New Zealand (GRID:grid.15638.39) (ISNI:0000 0004 0429 3066)
2 Mineral Systems Branch, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.452453.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 0606 1752); Australian National University, Research School of Earth Sciences, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.1001.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 7477)
3 Mineral Systems Branch, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.452453.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 0606 1752)
4 U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Geophysics & Geochemistry Science Center, Denver, USA (GRID:grid.2865.9) (ISNI:0000000121546924)
5 University of Adelaide, Department of Earth Sciences, Adelaide, Australia (GRID:grid.1010.0) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7304)