Geology topics

W.C. Pat Shanks

Publications and source records attributed to W.C. Pat Shanks.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2017

Germanium and indium

Germanium and indium are two important elements used in electronics devices, flat-panel display screens, light-emitting diodes, night vision devices, optical fiber, optical lens systems, and solar power arrays. Germanium and indium are treated together in this chapter because they have similar technological uses and because both are recovered as byproducts, mainly from copper and zinc sulfides. The world’s total production of germanium in 2011 was estimated to be 118 metric tons. This total comprised germanium recovered from zinc concentrates, from fly ash residues from coal burning, and from recycled material. Worldwide, primary germanium was recovered in Canada from zinc concentrates shipped from the United States; in China from zinc residues and coal from multiple sources in China and elsewhere; in Finland from zinc concentrates from the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and in Russia from coal. World production of indium metal was estimated to be about 723 metric tons in 2011; more than one-half of the total was produced in China. Other leading producers included Belgium, Canada, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. These five countries accounted for nearly 95 percent of primary indium production. Deposit types that contain significant amounts of germanium include volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits, sedimentary exhalative (SEDEX) deposits, Mississippi Valley-type (MVT) lead-zinc deposits (including Irish-type zinc-lead deposits), Kipushi-type zinc-lead-copper replacement bodies in carbonate rocks, and coal deposits. More than one-half of the byproduct indium in the world is produced in southern China from VMS and SEDEX deposits, and much of the remainder is produced from zinc concentrates from MVT deposits. The Laochang deposit in Yunnan Province, China, and the VMS deposits of the Murchison greenstone belt in Limpopo Province, South Africa, provide excellent examples of indium-enriched deposits. The SEDEX deposits at Bainiuchang, China (located in southeastern Yunnan Province), and the Dabaoshan SEDEX deposit (located in the Nanling region of China) contain indium-enriched sphalerite. Another major potential source of indium occurs in the polymetallic tin-tungsten belt in the Eastern Cordillera of the Andes Mountains of Bolivia. Deposits there occur as dense arrays of narrow, elongate, indium-enriched tin oxide-polymetallic sulfide veins in volcanic rocks and porphyry stocks. Information about the behavior of germanium and indium in the environment is limited. In surface weathering environments, germanium and indium may dissolve from host minerals and form complexes with chloride, fluoride, hydroxide, organic matter, phosphate, or sulfate compounds. The tendency for germanium and indium to be dissolved and transported largely depends upon the pH and temperature of the weathering solutions. Because both elements are commonly concentrated in sulfide minerals, they can be expected to be relatively mobile in acid mine drainage where oxidative dissolution of sulfide minerals releases metals and sulfuric acid, resulting in acidic pH values that allow higher concentrations of metals to be dissolved into solution.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2014

13.3 – Stable Isotope Geochemistry of Mineral Deposits

In this chapter, the intent is to summarize the results of traditional stable isotope studies (mainly H, B, O, C, and S) that have greatly contributed to the understanding of ore-forming processes over the last 60 years and to provide an up-to-date assessment of the application of new nontraditional isotope systems (Fe, Cu, Zn, Se, Mo, Hg, and Tl).

Book chapter↗

USGS2014

Reconstruction of an early Paleozoic continental margin based on the nature of protoliths in the Nome Complex, Seward Peninsula, Alaska

The Nome Complex is a large metamorphic unit that sits along the southern boundary of the Arctic Alaska–Chukotka terrane, the largest of several micro continental fragments of uncertain origin located between the Siberian and Laurentian cratons. The Arctic Alaska–Chukotka terrane moved into its present position during the Mesozoic; its Mesozoic and older movements are central to reconstruction of Arctic tectonic history. Accurate representation of the Arctic Alaska–Chukotka terrane in reconstructions of Late Proterozoic and early Paleozoic paleogeography is hampered by the paucity of information available. Most of the Late Proterozoic to Paleozoic rocks in the Alaska–Chukotka terrane were penetratively deformed and recrystallized during the Mesozoic deformational events; primary features and relationships have been obliterated, and age control is sparse. We use a variety of geochemical, geochronologic, paleontologic, and geologic tools to read through penetrative deformation and reconstruct the protolith sequence of part of the Arctic Alaska–Chukotka terrane, the Nome Complex. We confirm that the protoliths of the Nome Complex were part of the same Late Proterozoic to Devonian continental margin as weakly deformed rocks in the southern and central part of the terrane, the Brooks Range. We show that the protoliths of the Nome Complex represent a carbonate platform (and related rocks) that underwent incipient rifting, probably during the Ordovician, and that the carbonate platform was overrun by an influx of siliciclastic detritus during the Devonian. During early phases of the transition to siliciclastic deposition, restricted basins formed that were the site of sedimentary exhalative base-metal sulfide deposition. Finally, we propose that most of the basement on which the largely Paleozoic sedimentary protolith was deposited was subducted during the Mesozoic.

Alaska↗

USGS2014

Sulfur and oxygen isotopic study of Paleozoic sediment-hosted Zn-Pb(-Ag-Au-Ba-F) deposits and associated hydrothermal alteration zones in the Nome Complex, Seward Peninsula, Alaska

Results of sulfur and oxygen isotope studies of sedimentary exhalative (SEDEX) Zn-Pb(-Ag-Au-Ba-F) deposits hosted in metamorphosed Paleozoic clastic and carbonate rocks of the Nome Complex, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, are consistent with data for similar deposits worldwide. Stable isotopic studies of the Nome Complex are challenging because the rocks have undergone Mesozoic blueschist- and greenschist-facies metamorphism and deformation at temperatures estimated from 390–490 °C. Studies of sulfur and oxygen isotopes in other areas suggest that, in the absence of chemical and mineralogical evidence for metasomatism, the principal effect of metamorphism is re-equilibration between individual minerals at the temperature of metamorphism, which commonly leads to a narrowing of the overall range of isotope values for a suite of rocks, but generally does not significantly modify the average whole rock value for that suite. Sulfur isotope studies of the stratabound and locally stratiform sulfide lenses at the Aurora Creek-Christophosen deposit, which is of possible Late Devonian-early Carboniferous age, show a large range of δ34Ssulfide values from -9.7 to 39.4‰, suggesting multiple sulfur sources and possibly complex processes of sulfide formation that may include bacterial sulfate reduction, thermochemical sulfate reduction, and Rayleigh distillation. Low δ34S values probably represent bacterial sulfide minerals remobilized from the host metasedimentary rocks either during the original seafloor mineralization or are related to a Cretaceous mineralizing event that produced Au-vein and base-metal replacement deposits; the latter process is supported by Pb isotope data. The Wheeler North deposit is similar to Aurora Creek-Christophosen but does not have negative δ34S values. It also probably formed in an euxinic sub-basin. The stratabound Nelson deposit, and the deformed veins at the Galena and Quarry deposits, may be older than the Aurora Creek-Christophosen and Wheeler North deposits. The Nelson deposit has a lower and narrower range of δ34S values (1.9 to 10.4‰), averaging about 8‰. The Galena and Quarry veins display δ34S values that are similar to those of the stratabound Nelson deposit. Barite samples from the Aurora Creek-Christophosen, Wheeler North, and Quarry deposits have 34S-enriched δ34S values between 25 and 30‰ that are consistent with derivation of the sulfur from coeval (Paleozoic) seawater sulfate. Given their δ34S values, it is likely that the Aurora Creek-Christophosen and Wheeler North deposits formed in closed sub-basins with euxinic conditions that led to extreme Rayleigh distillation to produce the very large range and very high δ34S values. The Nelson deposit probably formed within an anoxic but not euxinic sub-basin. At Nelson, sulfide was likely derived by a subsurface thermochemical sulfate reduction (TSR) reaction, similar to reactions that are inferred to have produced the sulfides in the Galena and Quarry deposits, which are interpreted as feeder veins for the stratabound deposits. Calculations of oxygen isotope temperatures are based on the assumption that evolved seawater with δ18O of 3‰ was the mineralizing and altering fluid related to the formation of the sulfide deposits. Temperatures of aluminous alteration and sulfide mineralization were between 109 and 209 °C, determined on the basis of oxygen isotope fractionations between the mineralizing fluid and proportionate amounts of quartz and muscovite in the rocks. These temperature estimates agree well with known temperatures of SEDEX mineralization worldwide. Sulfur isotope values also are generally consistent with the known ranges in SEDEX deposits worldwide (δ34S ≈ -5 to 25‰).

GSA Special Papers↗

USGS2012

Volcanogenic massive sulfide occurrence model

Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits, also known as volcanic-hosted massive sulfide, volcanic-associated massive sulfide, or seafloor massive sulfide deposits, are important sources of copper, zinc, lead, gold, and silver (Cu, Zn, Pb, Au, and Ag). These deposits form at or near the seafloor where circulating hydrothermal fluids driven by magmatic heat are quenched through mixing with bottom waters or porewaters in near-seafloor lithologies. Massive sulfide lenses vary widely in shape and size and may be podlike or sheetlike. They are generally stratiform and may occur as multiple lenses. Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits range in size from small pods of less than a ton (which are commonly scattered through prospective terrains) to supergiant accumulations like Rio Tinto (Spain), 1.5 billion metric tons; Kholodrina (Russia), 300 million metric tons; Windy Craggy (Canada), 300 million metric tons; Brunswick No. 12 (Canada), 230 million metric tons; and Ducktown (United States), 163 million metric tons. Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits range in age from 3.55 billion years to zero-age deposits that are actively forming in extensional settings on the seafloor, especially mid-ocean ridges, island arcs, and back-arc spreading basins. The widespread recognition of modern seafloor Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits and associated hydrothermal vent fluids and vent fauna has been one of the most astonishing discoveries in the last 50 years, and seafloor exploration and scientific studies have contributed much to our understanding of ore-forming processes and the tectonic framework for volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits in the marine environment. Massive ore in volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits consists of greater than 40 percent sulfides, usually pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, sphalerite, and galena; non-sulfide gangue typically consists of quartz, barite, anhydrite, iron oxides, chlorite, sericite, talc, and their metamorphosed equivalents. Ore composition may be Pb-Zn-, Cu-Zn-, or Pb-Cu-Zn-dominated, and some deposits are zoned vertically and laterally. Many deposits have stringer or feeder zones beneath the massive zone that consist of crosscutting veins and veinlets of sulfides in a matrix of pervasively altered host rock and gangue. Alteration zonation in the host rocks surrounding the deposits are usually well-developed and include advanced argillic (kaolinite, alunite), argillic (illite, sericite), sericitic (sericite, quartz), chloritic (chlorite, quartz), and propylitic (carbonate, epidote, chlorite) types. An unusual feature of VMS deposits is the common association of stratiform "exhalative" deposits precipitated from hydrothermal fluids emanating into bottom waters. These deposits may extend well beyond the margins of massive sulfide and are typically composed of silica, iron, and manganese oxides, carbonates, sulfates, sulfides, and tourmaline.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2011

Gas and isotope chemistry of thermal features in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

This report presents 130 gas analyses and 31 related water analyses on samples collected from thermal features at Yellowstone between 2003 and 2009. An overview of previous studies of gas emissions at Yellowstone is also given. The analytical results from the present study include bulk chemistry of gases and waters and isotope values for water and steam (delta18O, dealtaD), carbon dioxide (delta13C only), methane (delta13C only), helium, neon, and argon. We include appendixes containing photos of sample sites, geographic information system (GIS) files including shape and kml formats, and analytical results in spreadsheets. In addition, we provide a lengthy discussion of previous work on gas chemistry at Yellowstone and a general discussion of the implications of our results. We demonstrate that gases collected from different thermal areas often have distinct chemical signatures, and that differences across the thermal areas are not a simple function of surface temperatures or the type of feature. Instead, gas chemistry and isotopic composition are linked to subsurface lithologies and varying contributions from magmatic, crustal, and meteoric sources.

Wyoming↗

USGS2009

A New Occurrence Model for National Assessment of Undiscovered Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposits

Volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits are very significant current and historical resources of Cu-Pb-Zn-Au-Ag, are active exploration targets in several areas of the United States and potentially have significant environmental effects. This new USGS VMS deposit model provides a comprehensive review of deposit occurrence and ore genesis, and fully integrates recent advances in the understanding of active seafloor VMS-forming environments, and integrates consideration of geoenvironmental consequences of mining VMS deposits. Because VMS deposits exhibit a broad range of geological and geochemical characteristics, a suitable classification system is required to incorporate these variations into the mineral deposit model. We classify VMS deposits based on compositional variations in volcanic and sedimentary host rocks. The advantage of the classification method is that it provides a closer linkage between tectonic setting and lithostratigraphic assemblages, and an increased predictive capability during field-based studies.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1997

Sulfur isotope analyses using the laser microprobe

Since the first studies of sulfur isotope variations in natural materials (Thode, 1949), it has been apparent that there are large and dramatic variations of 34 S/ 32 S ratios and that sulfur isotope studies are a powerful tool for interpreting the origins of sulfur-bearing minerals. However, sulfur is such a common element in the Earth's crust (sixteenth most abundant, averaging 0.03 wt %; Mason, 1966), and is involved in so many igneous, hydrothermal, biological, and surficial processes that a simple measurement of δ 34 S, without constraining geological, biological, and geochemical data, is often unenlightening. In many sedimentary and hydrothermal systems, geologists are confronted with multiple sulfur sources, large fractionations of sulfur isotopes during oxidation-reduction reactions that sometimes produce disequilibrium effects, and strong chemical and physical gradients at the site of mineral deposition. Despite significant advances in the understanding and utilization of sulfur isotopes to characterize ore-forming processes (Ohmoto, 1972; Ohmoto and Rye, 1979; Shanks et al., 1981; Janecky and Shanks, 1988), interpretations may be ambiguous and, in ancient ore deposits, difficult to test. Part of this difficulty has been due to an inability to resolve fine-scale spatial variations in isotopic fractionation between successive zones or between coexisting minerals.

Book chapter↗