Gold Associated With Iron Formation And Related Sediments ? Introduction

"The principal role of the geologist is to recognize the existence of phenomena before trying to explain them" - B.M. Keilau, 1825; A. Holmes, 1965 Some important groups of mineral deposits in the layered rocks of orogenic belts or greenstone belts occur in horizons characterized by the presence of exceptional amounts of silica, iron and carbon, with more or less significant amounts of manganese. Generally, the rocks involved are well banded. In practice, these five physical features - four compositional and one geometric - are found with many lithological guises. Iron formation, in the full, modern sense of the term (James, 1954), quartzite, ferruginous quartzite, chert, jasper, "tetsusekiei" (Horikoshi, 1969), tuffaceous jasper ("purple porphyry" - Anderson and Creasey, 1958, p. 36), ferruginous or graphitic shale, argillite, slate or schist, and hematitic tuff are but a few of the more familiar of the names that have been assigned to these rocks. Widely acknowledged and well-documented examples of metallic deposits found in such sediments include concentrations of iron and manganese and stratabound, polymetallic, massive pyritic sulfides. Less familiar examples include occurrences of asbestos (Miles, 1953; and Coetzee, et al., 1976), antimony (Coetzee, 1976), and perhaps stratabound deposits of Au-Cu-U-W-etc., such as Aitik in Sweden (Mining Magazine, 1975; and Nilsson, 1979) and Olympic Dam in South Australia (Roberts and Hudson, 1983). The case of gold is intriguing. An association between gold and iron formation has been identified at several famous deposits and districts, such as Yellowknife, N.W.T. (Morton, 1979), Homestake, S. Dak. (Sawkins and Rye, 1974), Vubachikwe, Zimbabwe (Fripp, 1976) and the Barberton district, R.S.A. (Hammerbeck, 1976). Yet a critical reading reveals the existence of many other hitherto unsuspected examples. The purpose of this note is to draw attention to that omission and the apparent explanation for it. It is not hard to detect the two most probable reasons for the discrepancy between reality and the record.Most occurrences of gold are associated, not with the familiar banded iron formation or interbedded magnetite and chert (technically, the magnetite-banded variety of the oxide facies), but with the enigmatic carbonate, sulfide and silicate facies of iron formation and/or with rocks evidently related to iron formation. All too commonly, the unfamiliar facies of iron formation have been identified by field and mine geologists and not a few researchers as products of regional metamorphism and hydrothermal alteration, as mafic igneous rocks, or as conventional sediments, ie., without regard to their intrinsically ferruginous nature. The justification for these two complementary assertions is largely to be found in the recognition of a characteristic suite of metals and minerals in gold deposits known to be associated with iron formations. Although, from a geological standpoint, a lithological association is more important than a mineralogical assemblage, the latter is the more likely of the two to be diagnostic. This arises from the different natures of mineral and rock classifications, The identification of a mineral or an element is a matter of fact. Owing to the genetic component inseparable from petrographic nomenclature, viz., "igneous": a rock (believed to have been) derived from a melt, the identification of rocks depends on inferences or conclusions about their mode of formation - conclusions that are commonly debatable and, all too often, involve subjective judgements. This is especially prone to be true, if - as at many of the gold occurrences in question - the host rocks have been metamorphosed and/or "altered". In the notes that follow greater weight has accordingly been assigned to elemental and mineralogical than to host rock composition. In other words, if, in a given gold occurrence, the suite of metals and minerals present conforms to the standards of the subject class, whereas the names assigned to host rocks do not, the latter will be viewed as suspect.