Magnetic Effects of Alteration in Mineral-Systems
Magnetic Effects of Alteration in Mineral-Systems
Magnetic Effects of Alteration in Mineral-Systems
David A. Clark[1]
_________________________
1. CSIRO Manufacturing, Superconducting Systems and Devices Group, & CSIRO Mineral Resources
ABSTRACT
Magnetic anomaly patterns can be used as a tool for mapping lithology, metamorphic zones and hydrothermal alteration systems, as well
as identifying structures that may control passage of magmas or hydrothermal fluids associated with mineralization. Reliable geological
interpretation of mineralized systems requires an understanding of the magmatic, metamorphic and hydrothermal processes that create,
alter and destroy magnetic minerals in rocks. Predictive magnetic exploration models for porphyry copper and iron oxide copper-gold
(IOCG) deposits can be derived from standard geological models by integrating magnetic petrological principles with petrophysical data,
deposit descriptions, and modelling of observed magnetic signatures of these deposits. Even within a particular geological province, the
magnetic signatures of similar deposits may differ substantially, due to differences in the local geological setting. Searching for “look-
alike” signatures of a known deposit is likely to be unrewarding unless pertinent geological factors are taken into account. These factors
include the tectonic setting and magma type, composition and disposition of host rocks, depth of emplacement and post-emplacement
erosion level, depth of burial beneath younger cover, post-emplacement faulting and tilting, remanence effects contingent on ages of
intrusion and alteration, and metamorphism. Because the effects of these factors on magnetic signatures are reasonably well understood,
theoretical magnetic signatures appropriate for the local geological environment can qualitatively guide exploration and make
semiquantitative predictions of anomaly amplitudes and patterns. The predictive models also allow detectability of deposit signatures to be
assessed, for example when deposits are buried beneath a considerable thickness of nonmagnetic overburden, are covered by highly
magnetic heterogeneous volcanic rocks, or there is a strong regional magnetic gradient. This paper reviews the effects of hydrothermal
alteration on magnetic properties and magnetic signatures of porphyry copper and iron oxide copper-gold systems and presents examples
of predictive magnetic exploration models, and their predicted signatures, in various geological circumstances. This paper also presents a
list of criteria for interpreting magnetic surveys and magnetic petrophysical data, which are aimed at guiding exploration for porphyry,
epithermal and IOCG deposits.
Copper mineralization KF + chlorite + sericite + pyrite Chlorite + epidote + pyrite + Actinolite + epidote + pyrite +
hematite magnetite magnetite
Intermediate Argillic Smectite and kaolinite, commonly replacing plagioclase (e.g. variably developed zone outside sericitic zone in some porphyry
coppers) [magnetite-destructive; decreased k]
Propylitic Albite (or K-feldspar in potassic rocks), chlorite and epidote group minerals; with only minor change in bulk composition (e.g.
outermost alteration zone of porphyry copper deposits) [strong: Partially to totally magnetite-destructive (Fe in pyrite, hematite,
epidote, chlorite, actinolite), decreased k] [weak: magnetite stable, k unchanged]
Albitic Na-rich plagioclase + epidote and other propylitic minerals; with substantial addition of Na [magnetite-destructive, decreased k]
Sodic-calcic Sodic feldspar and epidote actinolite chlorite (e.g. adjacent to intrusion at depth, beneath certain porphyry copper deposits)
[magnetite-destructive, decreased k]
Advanced Argillic Quartz plus one or more of: kaolinite, dickite, pyrophyllite, diaspore, pyrite, alunite, zunyite, topaz (e.g. in epithermal systems that
may overlie porphyry systems) [magnetite-destructive, decreased k]
Carbonate Calcite, dolomite, ankerite, siderite plus sericite, pyrite and/or albite [partially magnetite-destructive, decreased k]
Skarn Ca and Mg silicates (limestone protolith: andradite and grossular, wollastonite, epidote, idocrase, chlorite, actinolite; dolostone
protolith: forsterite, serpentine, talc, brucite, tremolite, chlorite) [see Tables 3 and 4]
Supergene oxidation Alunite, allophane, jarosite, Fe oxides, sulfates [magnetite- and pyrrhotite-destructive; hematite and goethite produced; decreased k]
LITHOLOGY Av. k SE (10-3 SI) Bz (nT)* Average NRM SE [Range] (A/m)
[Range] Average Q SE [Range]
*Bz is the maximum associated magnetic anomaly (steep field, non-magnetic country rocks, diameter >> depth below sensor,
great depth extent), calculated from total magnetization for case where remanence is parallel to induced magnetization. The
effective susceptibility is therefore taken to be k(1+Q). †Averages from P700 Database and from CSIRO Catalogue of Magnetic Properties (Clark, 1988). ‡Inferred
values from data in Einaudi et al. (1981).
Bingham stock > 100 qtz, Kfsp, bio cp, bn, py 0.65 (shallow) 0.1 –1 3.5 – 35
(potassic zone) < 0.1 (deep)
Endoskarn (Bingham < 100 act, ep (0.5 vol %) < 0.1 ~ 0.1 ~ 3.5
stock) mb > cp
Proximal exoskarn 0-50 and > di, cal, qtz, (1-2 vol %) ~0.2 1-2 35 - 70
cp, (bn)
Exoskarn 50 – 100 and (2-5 vol %) ~ 0.6 2-5 70 - 180
cp > py
Exoskarn 100 – 300 and >> di (15 vol %) ~8 5 – 10 180 - 380
cp py
Exoskarn 300 - 350 and di (5 vol %) ~ 0.5 2 70
cp:py = 0.2
Exoskarn 350 – 400 wo (gar, di) (1 vol %) ~ 0.5 < 0.1 < 3.5
bn, cp, sph, (py)
Distal exoskarn 400 - 600 wo-di-qtz; wo-cal; (0.5 vol %) < 0.5 < 0.1 < 3.5
marble bn, cp, sph, gal
Marble, limestone > 600 cal, marble (< 0.1 vol %) 0 0 0
(sph, gal, py)
Ore zone (~120-600 m from contact) average grades: ~2.3 % Cu, 0.6 g/t Au, 12 g/t Ag, 0.03 % Mo.
Mineralogical and chemical data from Einaudi (1982).
*Susceptibilities calculated using equation (3) from petrographically estimated modal magnetite contents.
Table 5. Dimensions and susceptibilities of zones comprising the gold-rich porphyry copper model with maximal development of a magnetite-rich potassic core
Zone Diameter* (m) Width* (m) Depth extent (m) Susceptibility (SI)
Inner potassic 360 360 2400 0.351
* Diameters and widths of zones are maxima (at a depth 2000 m below the top of the phyllic zone for the propylitic and phyllic zones, and 1000 m below the top of the phyllic
zone for the potassic zones).
Table 7. Typical magnetic properties and densities of IOCG-style alteration systems (low metamorphic grade)
ZONE Vol. % magnetite Vol. % hematite Calculated susceptibility* Calculated Density
(10-3 SI) (kg/m3)
Felsic Host 0.15 0 5.2 2650
Outer hematite halo - upper (HSCC) zone 0.2 2 7.7 2710
Inner hematite halo - upper (HSCC) zone 2 4 72 2800
Hematite breccia - upper (HSCC) zone 1 36 49 3590
Hematite-quartz breccia - upper (HSCC) zone 0 37 15 3590
Massive hematite lens 0 60 24 4180
Potassic/Potassic-calcic/sodic/sodic-calcic deep zones 3.5 0 124 2740
Massive magnetite lens 60 0 4110 4180
* Susceptibility calculated from magnetite and hematite contents, using equation (3).
G = assumed gangue density (2650 kg/m3 for felsic host; 2880 kg/m3 for mafic host, except where sericitic alteration is dominant). Density is calculated as
= GANGUE + (OXIDES GANGUE)(fMT + fHM), where OXIDES = 5200 kg/m3.