Next Article in Journal
Flocs Properties and Flotation Performance of Fine Diaspore with Energy Input Pretreatment Induced Using Sodium Oleate
Previous Article in Journal
Constraints from Geochemistry and Field Relationships for the Origin of Kornerupine-Bearing Gneiss from the Grenvillian New Jersey Highlands and Implications for the Source of Boron
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Mineral Chemistry of Chlorites and Its Relationship with Uranium Mineralization from Huangsha Uranium Mining Area in the Middle Nanling Range, SE China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 9
Issue 7
10.3390/min9070432
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Insights into B-Mg-Metasomatism at the Ranger U Deposit (NT, Australia) and Comparison with Canadian Unconformity-Related U Deposits

by
Joséphine Gigon
1,*,
Roger G. Skirrow
2,
Matthieu Harlaux
3,
Antonin Richard
1,
Julien Mercadier
1,
Irvine R. Annesley
1 and
Johan Villeneuve
4
1
Université de Lorraine, CNRS, GeoRessources Lab, F-54500 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France
2
Geoscience Australia, Cnr Jerrabomberra Avenue and Hindmarsh Drive Symonston ACT, GPO Box 378, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
3
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Geneva, Rue des Maraîchers 13, CH-1205 Geneva, Switzerland
4
CRPG, UMR 7358 CNRS-UL, 15 rue Notre Dame des Pauvres, F-54501 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2019, 9(7), 432; https://doi.org/10.3390/min9070432
Submission received: 13 June 2019 / Revised: 10 July 2019 / Accepted: 11 July 2019 / Published: 14 July 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Geology and Mineralogy of Uranium Deposits)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Ranger deposit (Northern Territory, Australia) is one of the largest uranium deposits in the world. Uranium mineralisation occurs in crystalline basement rocks and is thought to belong to the unconformity-related category. In order to address the sources of magnesium and boron, and the temperature of the fluids related to boron and magnesium metasomatism that occurred shortly before and during the main uranium stage, in situ analyses of chlorite and tourmaline were carried out. The chemical composition of tourmaline shows an elevated X-site vacancy and a low Fetot/(Fetot + Mg) ratio typical of Mg-foitite. Uranium-related chlorite has relatively low Fe content (0.28–0.83 apfu) and high Mg content (3.08–3.84 apfu), with Si/Al = 1.08−1.22 and Mg/(Mg + Fetot) = 0.80−0.93 indicating a composition lying between the clinochlore and Mg-amesite fields. Chlorite composition indicates crystallisation temperature of 101–163 °C. The boron isotopic composition of tourmaline shows a range of δ11B values of ~1–9‰. A model is proposed involving two boron sources that contribute to a mixed isotopic signature: (i) evaporated seawater, which is typically enriched in magnesium and boron (δ11B ~ 40‰), and (ii) boron from the crystalline basement (δ11B ~ −30 to +10‰), which appears to be the dominant source. Collectively, the data indicate similar tourmaline chemistry but significant differences of tourmaline boron isotopic composition and chlorite chemistry between the Ranger deposit and some of the Canadian unconformity-related uranium deposits. However, lithogeochemical exploration approaches based on identification of boron- and magnesium-enriched zones may be usefully applied to uranium exploration in the Northern Territory.

1. Introduction

Unconformity-related uranium (U) deposits occur mainly in or close to the unmetamorphosed Proterozoic Athabasca and Thelon basins (Saskatchewan and Nunavut, Canada) and the McArthur Basin (Northern Territory, Australia). They are located in the vicinity of the intersection between the basin/basement unconformity and multiply-reactivated basement-rooted faults and are currently accounting for ~25% of the world U production [1,2,3]. Multiple mineralisation/remobilisation episodes have been identified in the three areas spanning over one billion years from ~1780 Ma for the primary diagenetic-hydrothermal mineralisation in Australian deposits [4] to more recent (<300 Ma) low-temperature remobilisation by meteoric fluids in Canadian deposits (e.g., [5]). Based on fluid inclusion and stable isotope studies, the mineralising fluids are widely accepted to be 100–200 °C basinal brines, which underwent significant modification by interaction with basement lithologies [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Halogen geochemistry of fluid inclusions indicates that the basinal brines were produced by evaporation of seawater [9,21,22,23,24]. In addition to basinal brines, a low-salinity fluid of possible meteoric origin was also involved at the time of U deposition in the Australian deposits [9,10].
One typical feature of unconformity-related U deposits is the strong Mg-chlorite alteration and associated magnesium enrichment (i.e., Mg-metasomatism) in the vicinity of the ore zones [4,25,26,27,28,29]. In the Athabasca Basin, another proximal indicator for U mineralisation is Mg-rich tourmaline alteration and the associated boron enrichment (i.e., B-metasomatism) [27,29]. However, to our knowledge, there is no description of tourmaline alteration in U deposits from the Thelon area. Moreover, tourmaline alteration appears to be far less important in Australian deposits when compared to the Athabasca Basin [4,25,30].
Based on lithogeochemical, trace elements and stable isotope investigations, several models have been proposed for the sources of Mg and B enrichment in the ore zones, involving evaporated-seawater, evaporites, detrital tourmaline and basement rocks [4,29,31,32,33]. Thanks to large isotopic fractionation between different reservoirs, B isotopes in tourmaline are well suited for deciphering the source(s) of boron (e.g., seawater, evaporites, magmatic rocks rocks, etc.) in the mineralising fluids and their relative proportions [32,33,34]. Using the world class Ranger deposit, we present a detailed investigation of the conditions for B-Mg-metasomatism in Australian unconformity-related U deposits [4]. In situ analysis of tourmaline and chlorite was used to elucidate the source(s) of B and Mg as well as the temperature of the fluids related to B-Mg-metasomatism that occurred shortly before and during the main U stage. The chemical composition of chlorite and tourmaline was determined by Electron Probe Microanalyses (EPMA) and the B isotopic composition of tourmaline was determined by Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS). The results are discussed in the frame of a systematic comparison with previous data obtained on Canadian and Australian unconformity-related U deposits highlighting the similarities and the differences between these mineral systems, as well as the consequences for U exploration.

2. Geological Setting of the Ranger Uranium Deposit

The Ranger deposit is one of the world’s largest uranium deposits with resources estimated at 155.17 Mt of ore grading 0.09% U3O8 with past production of 49,194 t U3O8 from the Ranger 1 No 3 ore body [35] and 60,961 t of U3O8 from the Ranger 1 No 1 ore body [36]. The Ranger 1 deposit is one of several large unconformity-related uranium deposits in the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field (ARUF, Figure 1), including the Jabiluka, Nabarlek and Koongarra deposits [37]. Most of the known major uranium deposits in the ARUF are hosted by pre-McArthur Basin metasedimentary basement rocks (Figure 1). The oldest basement in the ARUF is composed of ~2670–2510 Ma granite and gneiss, including the Nanambu Complex to the west of the Ranger and Jabiluka deposits [38,39,40,41]. The Neoarchean rocks are unconformably overlain by, or in faulted contact with, ~2020 Ma to ~1870–1860 Ma continental to marine basinal and volcanic rocks of the Woodcutters Supergroup and then by the Cahill Formation and Nourlangie Schist. The Cahill Formation comprises siliciclastic to pelitic schists (including uncommon, thin carbonaceous units), carbonate and calc-silicate rocks and amphibolites, and is the host sequence for the Ranger, Jabiluka and several other uranium deposits in the ARUF. The Nimbuwah orogenic event at ~1865–1855 Ma resulted in metamorphism to medium grade in the ARUF, and was accompanied by deformation and granitoid intrusions of the Nimbuwah Suite [38,40,41]. A tourmaline-bearing pegmatite at the Ranger deposit records zircon U-Pb ages of 1867.0 ± 3.5 Ma and 1862.8 ± 3.4 Ma and a monazite U-Pb age of 1847 ± 1 Ma [42]. The zircon ages are interpreted to represent igneous crystallization during the Nimbuwah event, whereas the monazite age may record a later igneous or hydrothermal event that is also represented by mafic dykelets and veins at Ranger [4]. In the Pine Creek Orogen to the southwest of the ARUF, volcanism and renewed basin formation at ~1829–1825 Ma (Edith River Group, El Sherana Group) was accompanied and outlasted by intrusive magmatism of the Cullen Suite and Jim Jim Suite between ~1835 and ~1818 Ma [38].
At the Ranger 1 deposit, the Cahill Formation comprises variably altered pelitic to psammitic and locally carbonaceous schists of the Upper Mine Sequence (UMS) and Hangingwall Schist (HWS), which overlie the carbonate-rich Lower Mine Sequence (LMS, Figure 2). The spatial distributions of rock types and whole-rock geochemical patterns at the No 3 orebody were described by Potma et al., Fisher et al. and Pevely et al. [26,43,44]. Most uranium mineralisation occurs within the UMS in zones enriched in Mg, Cu, Au and Ni, and depleted in Na, Ba, K and Ca. Mineralisation extends to more than 500 m depth in the eastern Ranger 1 No 3 Deeps Zone where it tends to be more Cu-rich and terminates against a major north-trending fault [26,43]. In the Deeps Zone relatively high-grade uranium mineralisation (e.g., 7 m at 1.3% U3O8 [45]) occurs mainly within brecciated UMS rocks and in zones of complex faulting. Further details of alteration, geochemistry, zoning, mineralisation, and structure at the Ranger Number 1 orebody including the Deeps Zone are given by Skirrow et al., Fisher et al. and Pevely et al. [4,26,44]. Pre-ore silicification and/or quartz veining/infilling is present at most if not all of the major uranium deposits in the ARUF as replacements of carbonate rocks (Ranger, Jabiluka), near the Oenpelli Dolerite (Nabarlek) or as silicified fault zones (Koongarra). The fluids that originated the alteration halo and U mineralisation were highly-saline (>20 wt.% equivalent NaCl) NaCl-rich and CaCl2-rich basinal brines, that mixed at the deposit with a low-salinity fluid, according to fluid inclusion studies [9,30,46]. The NaCl-rich and CaCl2-rich brines are considered to share a common origin, i.e., evaporation of seawater at the surface of the McArthur Basin, but then underwent different physico-chemical modifications due to different percolation pathways and fluid/rock interactions in the basin/basement environments [9]. The temperatures of formation for unconformity-related U deposits of the Pine Creek Orogen range between 100 and 300 °C, based on the illite and chlorite geothermometers and fluid inclusion studies [10,30,46,47].

3. Paragenetic Sequence and Tourmaline Occurrence

A detailed paragenetic sequence for the Ranger 1 deposit is presented in Skirrow et al. [4] and a simplified version, adapted to the focus of the present study (i.e., Mg-tourmaline and Mg-chlorite), is shown in Figure 3. The following descriptions are also taken from Skirrow et al. [4]. The first tourmaline generation in the area is of magmatic origin occurring in tourmaline-bearing pegmatite (not shown in Figure 2; see Skirrow et al. [4] for description). The pegmatite is massive, yet also sericitised and chloritised. Formation of magmatic tourmaline is constrained by zircon U-Pb ages at 1867.0 ± 3.5 Ma and 1862.8 ± 3.4 Ma [4]. Tourmaline-bearing pegmatites cross-cut the main tectonic fabric and are composed of quartz, K-feldspar, muscovite, tourmaline, apatite and zircon.
Two generations of hydrothermal tourmaline are documented, both associated with deformational events (veining and/or brecciation, Figure 4A) postdating the formation of the McArthur Basin. Early hydrothermal tourmaline T1 is coeval with quartz Q2, fine-grained muscovite, pyrite, the earliest uraninite early-U1 (dated at 1688 ± 46 Ma [4], Figure 4B), and the dissolution of carbonate (Figure 3). This hydrothermal mineral assemblage corresponds to the pre-ore silicification event (Figure 3) which is interpreted to have occurred between ~1720 Ma and ~1680 Ma. Tourmaline T1 is acicular, forming fine-grained needles up to 5 µm in width and 100 µm in length, often radiating, intergrown with chlorite Chl2 and quartz Q2 (Figure 5). Tourmaline T2 is coeval with chlorite Chl3, pyrite and uraninite U1. In this study, only tourmaline T1 and chlorite Chl2 were investigated for their chemical and isotopic composition. Tourmaline T2 and chlorite Chl3 are too intimately intergrown and of such small grain size that the tourmaline T2 could not be analysed without contamination, even by in situ methods.

4. Materials and Methods

Analytical work was completed on a single, representative polished thin section (DDH: S3PD759, 402.9 m) collected from the chlorite-dominant Upper Mine Sequence schists and within the uranium mineralised zone, in close proximity to the main fault zone (Figure 2). The distribution of the major elements and B isotope analyses in tourmaline T1 and major elements on chlorite Chl1 and Chl2 is illustrated in Figure 6. For scanning electron microscopy and electron probe microanalyses the entire thin section was carbon coated, and for secondary ion mass spectrometry half of the thin section was cut and gold coated.

4.1. Scanning Electron Microscopy

Tourmaline and chlorite crystals were characterised using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) Hitachi S-4800 equipped with a SDD-type EDS spectrometer at GeoRessources laboratory (Nancy, France). Backscattered electron (BSE) images were acquired on the polished thin section with an acceleration voltage of 15 kV in order to reveal mineral textures prior to the in situ chemical and isotopic analyses.

4.2. Electron Probe Microanalyses

Electron probe microanalyses (EPMA) were carried out at the GeoRessources laboratory (Nancy, France) prior to the in situ isotopic analyses. Tourmaline and chlorite crystals were analysed using a CAMECA SX100 electron probe micro analyser operating with an emission current of 12 nA, an acceleration voltage of 15 kV and a beam diameter of 1 µm. The following elements, monochromators, standards, and limits of detection were used: Na (TAP, albite, 540 ppm), Si (TAP, albite, 450 ppm), Mg (TAP, olivine, 375 ppm), Al (TAP, Al2O3, 350 ppm), K (LPET, orthose, 210 ppm), Ca (PET, andradite, 490 ppm), Ti (LPET, MnTiO3, 290 ppm), Mn (LIF, MnTiO3, 120 ppm) and Fe (LIF, Fe2O3, 1650 ppm).
Structural formulae of tourmaline were calculated with the WinTcac software (version 1.03) [48], normalising to 15 cations in T-, Z- and Y-sites, and assuming stoichiometric three atoms for B and four atoms for OH + F, based on the general formula XY3Z6(T6O18)(BO3)3V3W, where X = Na+, Ca2+, K+, or vacancy site; Y = Fe2+, Mg2+, Mn2+, Al3+, Li+, Fe3+, or Cr3+; Z = Al3+, Fe3+, Ti4+, Mg2+, or Cr3+; T = Si4+, Al3+, or B3+; V = OH−, O2− and W = OH−, F− or O2−. The tourmaline nomenclature follows the classification proposed by Henry et al. [49] according to the different solid solution series. Chemical compositions of tourmaline and chlorite are reported in weight per cent oxides (wt.%) and the structural formulae are expressed in atoms per formula unit (apfu). The temperature of chlorite formation was calculated using the graphical geothermometer of Bourdelle and Cathelineau [50].

4.3. Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry

Boron isotopic compositions of tourmaline were measured by secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) at the CRPG-CNRS laboratory (Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France). Isotopic measurements were made using a Cameca IMS 1280-HR instrument by following the analytical procedure described by Chaussidon and Albarède [51]. Analyses were performed on the same polished thin section previously analysed by SEM and EPMA, using a 20 nA beam of primary ions O− accelerated at 13 kV with an ellipsoid ablation spot (20 micron long axis). For each point, a pre-sputtering of 60 s was set in order to clean the surface of contamination. The secondary ions 10B+ and 11B+ were accelerated at 10 kV and were measured in monocollection with the axial Faraday cup, during 8 s and 4 s per cycle respectively, over 30 cycles for each measurement. A mass resolution power M/ΔM = 2000 was sufficient to separate isobaric interferences on the 10B+ and 11B+ masses. Instrumental mass fractionation (IMF) was determined and corrected using two tourmaline reference materials with different chemical compositions: (1) dravite Harvard #108796, and (2) schorl Harvard #112566 [52,53]. The matrix effect was corrected using the dravite Harvard #108796 standard because tourmaline T1 has a composition that is closer to dravite than schorl. Each standard was measured several times during the analytical SIMS session following a standard-sample-standard bracketing procedure. The measured isotopic ratios 11B/10B were normalised to the NIST SRM 951, whose 11B/10B ratio is 4.04362 [54] and expressed in δ11B notation in ‰:
δ11B = [(11B/10B)sample/(11B/10B)SRM 951] × 103
Internal errors based on the counting statistics range from 0.25 and 1.77‰ (2σ). The external reproducibility (2σ) on standards is 0.13‰ over 28 analyses for the dravite Harvard #108796 and 0.19‰ over 24 analyses for the schorl Harvard #112566 (Table X). The external reproducibility used is that of the relevant reference material (dravite Harvard #108796). The total uncertainty on individual analysis is the quadratic sum of the internal error and the external reproducibility, and ranges between 0.35 and 1.78‰.

5. Results

5.1. Tourmaline Chemistry

The 60 EPMA analyses of hydrothermal tourmaline T1 show relatively homogeneous major element compositions (Table 1) with high Mg (1.9–2.6 apfu) and Al (6.3–6.8 apfu) contents, and low Fe (0–0.7 apfu), Na (0.1–0.2 apfu) and Ca (0–0.07 apfu) contents, with X-site vacancies of 0.74–0.86 (Figure 7A and Table 2 and Table 3). The Ca-Na + K-X-site vacancy ternary diagram showing the X-site occupancy indicates that the tourmaline T1 is alkali-deficient and belongs to the X-vacant group (Figure 7A). The binary diagram showing the Fetot/(Fetot + Mg) versus X-site vacancy/(X-site vacancy + Na + K) ratios highlight the relatively high Mg content of tourmaline T1, corresponding to a Mg-foitite composition (Figure 7B,C). Assuming a stoichiometric content of boron, the average structural formula of tourmaline T1 is □0.811K0.012Na0.145Ca0.032(Mg2.272Fe2+0.046Al0.617)Al6(Si6.055Al0.007)(BO3)3(OH)3.162.

5.2. Chlorite Chemistry and Thermometry

A total of 14 EPMA analyses were obtained on hydrothermal chlorite Chl2 and 16 EPMA analyses on retrometamorphic chlorite Chl1 for comparison. Analyses were carried out on >5 μm size chlorite grains. The chlorite Chl1 is a Fe-Mg chlorite with high Fe contents (2.93–3.40 apfu) and relatively low Mg contents (1.10–1.49 apfu), with Si/Al = 1.04–1.16, and Mg/(Mg + Fetot) = 0.25–0.33 (Table 4 and Table 5). The chlorite Chl2 corresponds to Mg-chlorite with compositions that lie between the clinochlore and Mg-amesite fields (Figure 8A). It has relatively low Fe contents (0.28–0.83 apfu) and high Mg contents (3.08–3.84 apfu), with Si/Al = 1.08–1.22, and Mg/(Mg + Fetot) = 0.80–0.93 consistent with other Mg-chlorite Chl2 (Mg/(Mg + Fetot) = 0.89–0.92) observed elsewhere in the deposit [4]. All Fe is assumed to be ferrous in the calculations of the structural formulae.
The geothermometer of Bourdelle and Cathelineau [50] assumes that quartz and water activities are equal to 1 and is valid for a temperature range of 50 to 350 °C, which makes it applicable to our data based on temperatures estimated from the previously mentioned fluid inclusion studies [10,30,46,47]. This thermometer requires chlorite-quartz equilibrium, and produces estimates of the crystallization temperatures of retrometamorphic chlorite Ch1 between 162 and 332 °C (average ± standard deviation values are 235 ± 50) and diagenetic-hydrothermal chlorite Chl2 between 101 and 163 °C (average ± standard deviation values are 128 ± 28) when plotted in the Si-R2+ diagram of Wiewióra and Weiss (Figure 8B [56]).

5.3. Boron Isotopes in Tourmaline

Due to the large spot size compared to the tourmaline T1 needles width, SIMS analyses are occurring across many different needles leading to a homogenisation of the δ11B values. The tourmaline T1 displays a range of positive δ11B values (0.6–9.4‰, n = 76, Table 6 and Figure 9). The distribution of δ11B values shows a unique mode at ~4.3‰ (average = 3.7 ± 1.8‰ (1σ) and median = 3.4‰). There is no relationship between δ11B value and analytical spot location along the investigated tourmaline T1 fringe, or within a single T1 rosette. Therefore, even though some homogenisation of the data may have occurred due to the large spot size compared to the tourmaline needles size, there is no obvious systematic variation of δ11B value along the c-axis. Moreover, there is no visible relationship between δ11B value and the chemical composition of tourmaline as measured by EPMA since both parameters are relatively constant.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

6.1. Comparison between Unconformity-Related Deposits of the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field (Australia) and the Athabasca and Thelon Basins (Canada)

The retrometamorphic chlorite Chl1 from Ranger has a composition close to retrometamorphic chlorite from the Athabasca and Thelon basins characterized by a relatively low Mg/(Mg + Fetot) ratio (Figure 8). This means that similar retrometamorphic conditions were encountered in the three localities. In the ARUF, the diagenetic-hydrothermal chlorite (including chlorite Chl2 from Ranger) related to the uranium ore-forming systems has a composition intermediate between clinochlore and Mg-amesite, with VIR3+ values between ~1.3 and 1.8 apfu and Mg/(Mg + Fetot) ratio between ~0.8 and 0.95. Some paragenetically equivalent chlorites from uranium deposits of the Athabasca and Thelon basins show composition similar to chlorite from the ARUF while others tend towards a sudoitic composition with higher VIR3+ values up to ~3.0 apfu (Figure 8A). According to Kister et al. [28] the occurrence of sudoite instead of clinochlore might reflect higher K+/H+ and lower Mg2+/H+ activity ratios in the fluids of the Athabasca and Thelon basins compared to the ARUF. However, it remains unclear why those parameters would be specifically different in the ARUF compared to Thelon and Athabasca basins. Another possibility to explain this compositional difference is that more intense fluid–rock alteration occurred in the ARUF, leading to an increase in the Mg-content of the chlorites, from sudoite (~14 wt.% MgO) to clinochlore (~25 wt.% MgO) [58]. Nonetheless, while the presence of sudoite is considered a proximal indicator for uranium mineralisation in the Athabasca and Thelon basins [19,28], it should not be targeted as such during uranium exploration in the ARUF.
The texture and chemical composition of tourmaline T1 at the Ranger U deposit is consistent with that of the U-related tourmaline found in unconformity-related U deposits from the Athabasca Basin (Canada) [31,32,33] (Figure 7). Collectively, U-related tourmaline has typically an alkali-deficient composition with high X-site vacancy contents ranging between 0.66 and 0.85 apfu (except one sample) and low Fetot/(Fetot + Mg) ratio ranging between 0.01 and 0.15, typical of Mg-foitite composition. The δ11B values of tourmaline T1 from Ranger (0.6–9.4‰, this study) are significantly lower than those from four different unconformity-related U deposits the Athabasca Basin (ca. 14 to 35‰; Figure 9 [32,33]). The intrasample variation (9‰ at Ranger) is consistent with the largest ones measured in the Athabasca Basin [32,33]. For the McArthur River deposit, it is noteworthy that the δ11B values of Mercadier et al. [33] are shifted by ~+8‰ from those of Adlakha et al. [32]. A possible explanation for this shift between the two studies on the Athabasca Basin is that Mercadier et al. [33] did not use matrix-match standards (but elbaite standard) while dravite standards were used by Adlakha et al. [32] and in this study. It is now well documented that matrix-dependent mass fractionation during SIMS analysis of boron isotopes in tourmaline could be significant [51,66,67]. Whether the data of Mercadier et al. [33] should be corrected significantly and, if so, determining the magnitude of the correction is beyond the scope of this study. However, under the assumption that the data of Mercadier et al. [33] should be shifted by ~−8‰ (in order to align the results obtained by Mercadier et al. [33] and Adlakha et al. [32] at the McArthur River U deposit), the overall δ11B values of U-related tourmaline from unconformity-related U deposits from the Athabasca basin would be ~12–28‰; still significantly higher than for the Ranger deposit (0.6–9.4‰). Therefore the chemical composition of tourmaline points towards similar physical-chemical conditions for the precipitation of tourmaline in both the Ranger deposit and Canadian deposits of the Athabasca Basin. However, B isotope composition of tourmaline indicates that the sources of B or the relative contribution of different B sources were significantly distinct between the Ranger deposit and some Canadian deposits of the Athabasca Basin.

6.2. Insights into Boron and Magnesium Metasomatism

The Mg-driven geochemical signature of the hydrothermal alteration related to U mineralisation in the unconformity-related U deposits in the ARUF [26,58] is marked for example by the formation of Mg-chlorite Chl2 co-genetic with Mg-tourmaline T1 and early uraninite U1. Tourmaline has been reported at the Jabiluka deposit within alteration halos around mineralisation [25,30,68,69] and in the Kombolgie Sandstones of the McArthur Basin [14] and seems to be always linked in time and space with chlorite which is the main indicator of the Mg-metasomatism. The relatively constant chemical and isotopic composition of tourmaline T1 from Ranger indicates rather steady conditions (temperature, pH, eH and fluid composition) during tourmaline precipitation. Analysis of tourmaline T1 and chlorite Chl2 allows determining some of the characteristics of the U-ore-forming fluid that is also related to B-Mg-metasomatism.
As tourmaline T1 formed after chlorite Chl2 and before quartz Q2, the crystallisation temperature of these two minerals can help bracketing the temperature of formation of the tourmaline T1. Here, the calculated range of temperature for chlorite Chl2 is 101–163 °C (128 ± 18 °C). These estimates should be considered with caution because Chl2 precipitated during the pre-ore B1 breccia episode during which quartz dissolution is also noted (Figure 3), while the geothermometer of Bourdelle and Cathelineau [50] assumes that quartz activity is equal to 1. However, the study of primary fluid inclusions hosted in quartz Q2 at Ranger indicates a trapping temperature of 150 ± 20 °C [10] compatible with the temperature determined for chlorite Chl2 which suggests that there is no significant temperature variation during the precipitation of Chl2, T1 and Q2. The δ11B values for the fluid in equilibrium with tourmaline are calculated with two different methods. Using the tourmaline-water B isotopic fractionation factor of Kowalski et al. [65] at 150 °C (∆11Btourmaline-fluid(150 °C) = −1.7‰) leads δ11B values for the fluid in equilibrium with tourmaline ranging between 2 and 11‰. Using the tourmaline-water B isotopic factor of Meyer et al. [64] extrapolated down to 150 °C (∆11Btourmaline-fluid(150 °C) = −6.4‰) leads to δ11B values estimates for the fluid between 7 and 16‰. The δ11B values for the fluid in equilibrium with tourmaline T1 overlap the δ11B range of fluids equilibrated with carbonates and evaporites and metasedimentary tourmaline and are distinct from heavier isotopic composition typical of seawater and marine brines (δ11B = 40 to 70‰, Figure 9). δ 11B values for tourmaline T1 are compatible with the highest values for magmatic tourmaline from various localities worldwide including the Athabasca crystalline basement (δ11B < 10‰, Figure 9).
Adlakha et al. [32] proposed for the Athabasca Basin a model involving groundwater dissolving carbonate or evaporitic rocks and further 11B enrichment of the fluid through precipitation of illite due to the preferential 10B incorporation into illite [70], as a mechanism to achieve heavy boron (δ11B = 17 to 28‰) and relatively light hydrogen (δD = −15 to −65‰) isotopic compositions for the fluid in equilibrium with tourmaline. Such model is however not supported by the halogen compositions (Cl, Br) of fluid inclusions in Athabasca and ARUF deposits. The latter indicate that the unconformity-related U deposits from the Athabasca Basin and the ARUF were formed by highly-saline basinal brines derived from highly-evaporated seawater (up to epsomite saturation) [9,22,23]. The dissolution of evaporites in the Athabasca Basin is probably very limited as indicated by halogens ratios [22]. In addition, low δD values were also measured in fluid inclusions representative of the U-forming brines in the Athabasca Basin and are consistent with seawater evaporation [71]. Brines derived from evaporation of seawater are typically enriched in B and Mg during evaporation [72] ([Mg] > 2 mol kg−1, [B] > 10−2 mol kg−1).
Therefore, the following alternative model can be proposed. NaCl-rich and/or CaCl2-rich brines, initially enriched in B and Mg during seawater evaporation and showing a highly positive δ11B value (source 1, δ11B > 40‰) leached a light boron reservoir (source 2, neutral to negative δ11B value) in order to reach intermediate δ11B value before precipitating chlorite Chl2 and tourmaline T1. Detrital tourmaline in the basin, magmatic tourmaline from pegmatite and metamorphic tourmaline from graphitic pelitic gneiss in the basement are potential candidates for boron source 2. However, they are not altered in the pegmatite even if the pegmatites are known to be partly chloritised and sericitised as a result of interaction with the ore-forming fluids [4]. Other possible candidates for boron source 2 in crystalline basement rocks; feldspar, and biotite/muscovite that are known to contain up to 10 ppm and 200 ppm B, respectively [73], are more reactive than magmatic or detrital tourmaline and are strongly altered in the alteration halo of unconformity-related U deposits. The isotopic signature of magmatic or metamorphic feldspar and biotite/muscovite is poorly documented but it can be proposed that it is comparable with the values obtained in magmatic or metamorphic tourmaline because of the limited isotopic fractionation at high temperature [64,65]. Considering a possible seawater signature (δ11B ~40‰) for source 1 and δ11B values for the source 2 ranging from −30 to 10‰, and a mean δ11B value of ~8‰ for the fluid in equilibrium with T1 tourmaline, mass balance calculation indicates that source 1 may have contributed between ~0% and 55% and source 2 between ~45% and 100% to the fluid’s total boron budget. This would indicate a significantly higher involvement of source 2 (i.e., basement rocks) in ARUF compared to the Athabasca Basin, where source 1 (seawater) is dominant.
One major difference between U deposits from ARUF and the Athabasca Basin is the involvement of a low-salinity fluid in addition to brines as observed in fluid inclusions [9,10]. However, the absence of low-salinity fluid in the Athabasca Basin indicates that it is not a necessary ingredient for tourmaline precipitation and U deposition and probably did not contribute to the B isotope signature of T1 tourmaline. Considering the similarities of host rocks, fluid composition and temperature between the ARUF and the Athabasca Basin, the present results raise the question of the influence of fluid/rock ratio and the duration of fluid/rock interaction on the respective involvement of various B sources, and therefore on the abundance and isotopic composition of hydrothermal tourmaline in unconformity-related U deposits. However, despite its relatively low abundance, hydrothermal tourmaline (alone or in combination with other hydrothermal minerals) should be worth considering as a valuable proximal indicator for uranium mineralisation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.G., R.G.S., A.R., J.M., and I.R.A.; Methodology, J.G., R.G.S., and J.V.; Validation, all co-authors; Formal Analysis, all co-authors; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.G.; Writing—Review & Editing, all co-authors; Supervision, A.R., I.R.A., J.M., and R.G.S., Funding Acquisition, A.R. and J.M.

Funding

This research was funded by OSU OTELo grants to J.M. Conditions de transport des métaux dans un mégabassin protérozoïque and A.R. Transferts de fluides et métaux dans le bassin de McArthur (Australie) and a CNRS-INSU-CESSUR grant to J.M. Transferts des fluides et métaux dans les méga-bassins paléoprotérozoïques.

Acknowledgments

Energy Resources Australia and in particular Greg Rogers are thanked for support in sampling at the Ranger mine site. Olivier Rouer and Michel Cathelineau (GeoRessources Lab) are greatly acknowledged for support in EPMA analyses and interpretation of chlorite compositions, respectively. Ion Probe Team Nancy are greatly acknowledged for support in SIMS analyses. The comments of two anonymous reviewers greatly helped improving the manuscript. Roger Skirrow publishes with the permission of the CEO, Geoscience Australia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jefferson, C.W.; Thomas, D.J.; Gandhi, S.S.; Ramaekers, P.; Delaney, G.; Brisbin, D.; Cutts, C.; Portella, P.; Olson, R.A. Unconformity-associated uranium deposits of the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Bull. Geol. Surv. Can. 2007, 588, 23. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cuney, M.; Kyser, K. Geology and Geochemistry of Uranium and Thorium Deposits; Mineralogical Association of Canada: Québec, QC, Canada, 2015; Volume 46, ISBN 0-921294-57-3. [Google Scholar]
  3. International Atomic Energy Agency. Unconformity-Related Uranium Deposits; International Atomic Energy: Vienna, Austria, 2018; ISBN 978-92-0-108518-4. [Google Scholar]
  4. Skirrow, R.G.; Mercadier, J.; Armstrong, R.; Kuske, T.; Deloule, E. The Ranger uranium deposit, northern Australia: Timing constraints, regional and ore-related alteration, and genetic implications for unconformity-related mineralisation. Ore Geol. Rev. 2016, 76, 463–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mercadier, J.; Cuney, M.; Cathelineau, M.; Lacorde, M. U redox fronts and kaolinisation in basement-hosted unconformity-related U ores of the Athabasca Basin (Canada): Late U remobilisation by meteoric fluids. Miner. Depos. 2011, 46, 105–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Boiron, M.-C.; Cathelineau, M.; Richard, A. Fluid flows and metal deposition near basement/cover unconformity: Lessons and analogies from Pb–Zn–F–Ba systems for the understanding of Proterozoic U deposits. Geofluids 2010, 10, 270–292. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chi, G.; Chu, H.; Petts, D.; Potter, E.; Jackson, S.; Williams-Jones, A. Uranium-rich diagenetic fluids provide the key to unconformity-related uranium mineralization in the Athabasca Basin. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 5530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chi, G.; Haid, T.; Quirt, D.; Fayek, M.; Blamey, N.; Chu, H. Petrography, fluid inclusion analysis, and geochronology of the End uranium deposit, Kiggavik, Nunavut, Canada. Miner. Depos. 2017, 52, 211–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Derome, D.; Cathelineau, M.; Fabre, C.; Boiron, M.-C.; Banks, D.; Lhomme, T.; Cuney, M. Paleo-fluid composition determined from individual fluid inclusions by Raman and LIBS: Application to mid-proterozoic evaporitic Na-Ca brines (Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, northern territories Australia). Chem. Geol. 2007, 237, 240–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Derome, D.; Cuney, M.; Cathelineau, M.; Fabre, C.; Dubessy, J.; Bruneton, P.; Hubert, A. A detailed fluid inclusion study in silicified breccias from the Kombolgie sandstones (Northern Territory, Australia): Inferences for the genesis of middle-Proterozoic unconformity-type uranium deposits. J. Geochem. Explor. 2003, 80, 259–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kotzer, T.G.; Kyser, T.K. Petrogenesis of the Proterozoic Athabasca Basin, northern Saskatchewan, Canada, and its relation to diagenesis, hydrothermal uranium mineralization and paleohydrogeology. Chem. Geol. 1995, 120, 45–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Martz, P.; Mercadier, J.; Cathelineau, M.; Boiron, M.-C.; Quirt, D.; Doney, A.; Gerbeaud, O.; De Wally, E.; Ledru, P. Formation of U-rich mineralizing fluids through basinal brine migration within basement-hosted shear zones: A large-scale study of the fluid chemistry around the unconformity-related Cigar Lake U deposit (Saskatchewan, Canada). Chem. Geol. 2019, 508, 116–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Renac, C.; Kyser, T.K.; Durocher, K.; Dreaver, G.; O’connor, T. Comparison of diagenetic fluids in the Proterozoic Thelon and Athabasca Basins, Canada: Implications for protracted fluid histories in stable intracratonic basins. Can. J. Earth Sci. 2002, 39, 113–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Durak, B.; Pagel, M.; Poty, B. Températures et Salinités des Fluides au Cours des Silicifications Diagénétiques D’une Formation Gréseuse Surmontant un Gisement D’uranium du Socle: L’exemple des Grès Kombolgie (Australie); Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris: Paris, France, 1983; pp. 571–574. [Google Scholar]
  15. Richard, A.; Cathelineau, M.; Boiron, M.-C.; Mercadier, J.; Banks, D.A.; Cuney, M. Metal-rich fluid inclusions provide new insights into unconformity-related U deposits (Athabasca Basin and Basement, Canada). Miner. Depos. 2016, 51, 249–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Richard, A.; Rozsypal, C.; Mercadier, J.; Banks, D.A.; Cuney, M.; Boiron, M.-C.; Cathelineau, M. Giant uranium deposits formed from exceptionally uranium-rich acidic brines. Nat. Geosci. 2012, 5, 142–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mercadier, J.; Richard, A.; Boiron, M.-C.; Cathelineau, M.; Cuney, M. Migration of brines in the basement rocks of the Athabasca Basin through microfracture networks (P-Patch U deposit, Canada). Lithos 2010, 115, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Richard, A.; Pettke, T.; Cathelineau, M.; Boiron, M.-C.; Mercadier, J.; Cuney, M.; Derome, D. Brine-rock interaction in the Athabasca basement (McArthur River U deposit, Canada): Consequences for fluid chemistry and uranium uptake. Terra Nova 2010, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Grare, A.; Benedicto, A.; Mercadier, J.; Lacombe, O.; Travé, A.; Guilcher, M.; Richard, A.; Ledru, P.; Blain, M.; Robbins, J.; et al. Structural controls and metallogenic model of polyphase uranium mineralization in the Kiggavik area (Nunavut, Canada). Miner. Depos. 2019. submitted. [Google Scholar]
  20. Derome, D.; Cathelineau, M.; Cuney, M.; Fabre, C.; Lhomme, T.; Banks, D.A. Mixing of sodic and calcic brines and uranium deposition at McArthur River, Saskatchewan, Canada: A Raman and laser-induced breakdown spectroscopic study of fluid inclusions. Econ. Geol. 2005, 100, 1529–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Leisen, M.; Boiron, M.-C.; Richard, A.; Dubessy, J. Determination of Cl and Br concentrations in individual fluid inclusions by combining microthermometry and LA-ICPMS analysis: Implications for the origin of salinity in crustal fluids. Chem. Geol. 2012, 330, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Richard, A.; Kendrick, M.A.; Cathelineau, M. Noble gases (Ar, Kr, Xe) and halogens (Cl, Br, I) in fluid inclusions from the Athabasca Basin (Canada): Implications for unconformity-related U deposits. Precambrian Res. 2014, 247, 110–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Richard, A.; Banks, D.A.; Mercadier, J.; Boiron, M.-C.; Cuney, M.; Cathelineau, M. An evaporated seawater origin for the ore-forming brines in unconformity-related uranium deposits (Athabasca Basin, Canada): Cl/Br and δ37Cl analysis of fluid inclusions. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2011, 75, 2792–2810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Richard, A.; Cauzid, J.; Cathelineau, M.; Boiron, M.-C.; Mercadier, J.; Cuney, M. Synchrotron XRF and XANES investigation of uranium speciation and element distribution in fluid inclusions from unconformity-related uranium deposits. Geofluids 2013, 13, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nutt, C.J. Chloritization and associated alteration at the Jabiluka unconformity-type uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia. Can. Mineral. 1989, 27, 41–58. [Google Scholar]
  26. Fisher, L.A.; Cleverley, J.S.; Pownceby, M.; MacRae, C. 3D representation of geochemical data, the corresponding alteration and associated REE mobility at the Ranger uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia. Miner. Depos. 2013, 48, 947–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Earle, S.A.M.; Sopuck, V.J. Regional lithogeochemistry of the eastern part of the Athabasca Basin uranium province, Saskatchewan, Canada. In Uranium Resources and Geology of North America; Muller-Kahle, E., Ed.; International Agency of Nuclear Energy: Vienna, Austria, 1989; Volume TECHDOC-500, pp. 263–269. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kister, P.; Vieillard, P.; Cuney, M.; Quirt, D.; Laverret, E. Thermodynamic constraints on the mineralogical and fluid composition evolution in a clastic sedimentary basin: The Athabasca Basin (Saskatchewan, Canada). Eur. J. Mineral. 2005, 17, 325–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kister, P.; Laverret, E.; Quirt, D.; Cuney, M.; Mas, P.P.; Beaufort, D.; Bruneton, P. Mineralogy and geochemistry of the host-rock alterations associated with the Shea Creek unconformity-type uranium deposits (Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada). Part 2. Regional-scale spatial distribution of the Athabasca Group sandstone matrix minerals. Clays Clay Miner. 2006, 54, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Polito, P.A.; Kyser, T.K.; Thomas, D.; Marlatt, J.; Drever, G. Re-evaluation of the petrogenesis of the Proterozoic Jabiluka unconformity-related uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia. Miner. Depos. 2005, 40, 257–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Adlakha, E.E.; Hattori, K. Paragenesis and composition of tcourmaline types along the P2 Fault and Mcarthur River uranium deposit, Athabasca Basin, Canada. Can. Mineral. 2016, 54, 661–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Adlakha, E.E.; Hattori, K.; Davis, W.J.; Boucher, B. Characterizing fluids associated with the McArthur River U deposit, Canada, based on tourmaline trace element and stable (B, H) isotope compositions. Chem. Geol. 2017, 466, 417–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mercadier, J.; Richard, A.; Cathelineau, M. Boron-and magnesium-rich marine brines at the origin of giant unconformity-related uranium deposits: δ11B evidence from Mg-tourmalines. Geology 2012, 40, 231–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marschall, H.R.; Jiang, S.-Y. Tourmaline Isotopes: No Element Left Behind. Elements 2011, 7, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. Annual Statement of Reserves and Resources; Energy Resources of Australia Ltd.: Darwin, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lally, J.H.; Bajwah, Z. Uranium Deposits of the Northern Territory; Northern Territory Geological Survey: Darwin, Australia, 2006.
  37. International Atomic Energy Agency. Geological Classification of Uranium Deposits and Description of Selected Examples; International Atomic Energy Agency: Vienna, Austria, 2018; ISBN 978-92-0-101618-8. [Google Scholar]
  38. Worden, K.; Carson, C.; Scrimgeour, I.; Lally, J.; Doyle, N. A revised Palaeoproterozoic chronostratigraphy for the Pine Creek Orogen, northern Australia: Evidence from SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology. Precambrian Res. 2008, 166, 122–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hollis, J.A.; Carson, C.J.; Glass, L.M. SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronological evidence for Neoarchean basement in western Arnhem Land, northern Australia. Precambrian Res. 2009, 174, 364–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hollis, J.A.; Glass, L.M.; Carson, C.J.; Armstrong, R.; Yaxley, G.M.; Kemp, A.I.S.; Phillips, D. The Geological Evolution of the Pine Creek Orogen: New pieces in the Puzzle on Orogen and Craton Scale. In Proceedings of the Annual Geoscience Exploration Seminar (AGES), Alice Springs, Australia, 20–21 March 2011; Volume 18. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hollis, J.A.; Wygralak, A.S. A review of the geology and uranium, gold and iron ore deposits of the Pine Creek Orogen. Episodes 2012, 35, 264–272. [Google Scholar]
  42. Annesley, I.R.; Madore, C.; Kwok, Y.Y.; Kamo, S.L.; Troy, A.; Hughes, L. U–Pb geochronology and petrochemistry of late Barramundi pegmatites from the Ranger U deposit, Northern Territory, Australia. In Uranium Deposits: From Their Genesis to Their Environmental Aspect, Proceedings of the International Workshop “Uranium Deposits: From Their Genesis to their Environmental Aspects”, Uranium, Prague, 10–11 September 2002; Czech Geological Survey: Prague, Czech Republic, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  43. Potma, W.; Fisher, L.; Schaubs, P.; Cleverley, J.; Corbel, S.; Lau, I.; Phang, C.; Hough, R. JSU–ERA Ranger Mineral System Project Final Report. CSIRO National Research Flagships, Minerals Down under; Northern Territory Geological Survey: Darwin, Australia, 2012.
  44. Pevely, S.; Hinman, M.; McLellan, A. Ranger 3 Deeps uranium deposit. In Australian Ore Deposits; Phillips, N., Ed.; Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Carlton, Australia, 2017; pp. 461–464. [Google Scholar]
  45. Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. Ranger 3 Deeps Exploration Decline Project—Further Underground Drilling Results Released; Energy Resources of Australia Ltd.: Darwin, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  46. Polito, P.A.; Kyser, T.K.; Marlatt, J.; Alexandre, P.; Bajwah, Z.; Drever, G. Significance of alteration assemblages for the origin and evolution of the Proterozoic Nabarlek unconformity-related uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia. Econ. Geol. 2004, 99, 113–139. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kyser, K.; Hiatt, E.; Renac, C.; Durocher, K.; Holk, G.; Deckart, K. Diagenetic fluids in Paleo-and Meso-Proterozoic sedimentary basins and their implications for long protracted fluid histories. Mineral. Assoc. Can. Short Course 2000, 28, 225–262. [Google Scholar]
  48. Yavuz, F.; Karakaya, N.; Yıldırım, D.K.; Karakaya, M.Ç.; Kumral, M. A Windows program for calculation and classification of tourmaline-supergroup (IMA-2011). Comput. Geosci. 2014, 63, 70–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Henry, D.J.; Novak, M.; Hawthorne, F.C.; Ertl, A.; Dutrow, B.L.; Uher, P.; Pezzotta, F. Nomenclature of the tourmaline-supergroup minerals. Am. Mineral. 2011, 96, 895–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bourdelle, F.; Cathelineau, M. Low-temperature chlorite geothermometry: A graphical representation based on a T–R2+ –Si diagram. Eur. J. Mineral. 2015, 27, 617–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chaussidon, M.; Albarède, F. Secular boron isotope variations in the continental crust: An ion microprobe study. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1992, 108, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dyar, M.D.; Wiedenbeck, M.; Robertson, D.; Cross, L.R.; Delaney, J.S.; Ferguson, K.; Francis, C.A.; Grew, E.S.; Guidotti, C.V.; Hervig, R.L. Reference minerals for the microanalysis of light elements. Geostand. Newsl. 2001, 25, 441–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Leeman, W.P.; Tonarini, S. Boron isotopic analysis of proposed borosilicate mineral reference samples. Geostand. Newsl. 2001, 25, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Catanzaro, E.J. Boric Acid: Isotopic and Assay Standard Reference Materials; National Bureau of Standards, Institute for Materials Research: Washington, DC, USA, 1970; Volume 260. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rosenberg, P.E.; Foit Jr, F.F. Magnesiofoitite from the uranium deposits of the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada. Can. Mineral. 2006, 44, 959–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wiewióra, A.; Weiss, Z. Crystallochemical classifications of phyllosilicates based on the unified system of projection of chemical composition: II. The chlorite group. Clay Miner. 1990, 25, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Plissart, G.; Féménias, O.; Mãruntiu, M.; Diot, H.; Demaiffe, D. Mineralogy and geothermometry of gabbro-derived listvenites in the Tisovita–Iuti ophiolite, Southwestern Romania. Can. Mineral. 2009, 47, 81–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Beaufort, D.; Patrier, P.; Laverret, E.; Bruneton, P.; Mondy, J. Clay alteration associated with Proterozoic unconformity-type uranium deposits in the East Alligator Rivers uranium field, Northern Territory, Australia. Econ. Geol. 2005, 100, 515–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Billault, V.; Beaufort, D.; Patrier, P.; Petit, S. Crystal chemistry of Fe-sudoites from uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin (Saskatchewan, Canada). Clays Clay Miner. 2002, 50, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Martz, P. Caractéristiques, Chronologie et Rôles des Circulations Fluides dans le Bassin D’athabasca et Son Socle: Implications dans la Formation et L’évolution du Gisement D’uranium de Cigar Lake. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  61. Vengosh, A.; Starinsky, A.; Kolodny, Y.; Chivas, A.R.; Raab, M. Boron isotope variations during fractional evaporation of sea water: New constraints on the marine vs. nonmarine debate. Geology 1992, 20, 799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Barth, S. Boron isotope variations in nature: A synthesis. Geol. Rundsch. 1993, 82, 640–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Palmer, M.R.; Swihart, G.H. Boron isotope geochemistry; an overview. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 1996, 33, 709–744. [Google Scholar]
  64. Meyer, C.; Wunder, B.; Meixner, A.; Romer, R.L.; Heinrich, W. Boron-isotope fractionation between tourmaline and fluid: An experimental re-investigation. Contrib. Mineral. Petro. 2008, 156, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kowalski, P.M.; Wunder, B.; Jahn, S. Ab initio prediction of equilibrium boron isotope fractionation between minerals and aqueous fluids at high P and T. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2013, 101, 285–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Molnár, F.; Mänttäri, I.; O’Brien, H.; Lahaye, Y.; Pakkanen, L.; Johanson, B.; Käpyaho, A.; Sorjonen-Ward, P.; Whitehouse, M.; Sakellaris, G. Boron, sulphur and copper isotope systematics in the orogenic gold deposits of the Archaean Hattu schist belt, eastern Finland. Ore Geol. Rev. 2016, 77, 133–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. MacGregor, J.; Grew, E.S.; De Hoog, J.C.; Harley, S.L.; Kowalski, P.M.; Yates, M.G.; Carson, C.J. Boron isotopic composition of tourmaline, prismatine, and grandidierite from granulite facies paragneisses in the Larsemann Hills, Prydz Bay, East Antarctica: Evidence for a non-marine evaporite source. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2013, 123, 261–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Binns, R.A.; Ayres, D.E.; Wilmshurst, J.R.; Ramsden, A.R. Petrology and geochemistry of alteration associated with uranium mineralization at Jabiluka, Northern Territory, Australia. In Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  69. Polito, P.A.; Kyser, T.K.; Alexandre, P.; Hiatt, E.E.; Stanley, C.R. Advances in understanding the Kombolgie Subgroup and unconformity-related uranium deposits in the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field and how to explore for them using lithogeochemical principles. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 2011, 58, 453–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Williams, L.B.; Hervig, R.L.; Holloway, J.R.; Hutcheon, I. Boron isotope geochemistry during diagenesis. Part, I. Experimental determination of fractionation during illitization of smectite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2001, 65, 1769–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Richard, A.; Boulvais, P.; Mercadier, J.; Boiron, M.-C.; Cathelineau, M.; Cuney, M.; France-Lanord, C. From evaporated seawater to uranium-mineralizing brines: Isotopic and trace element study of quartz–dolomite veins in the Athabasca system. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2013, 113, 38–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fontes, J.C.; Matray, J.M. Geochemistry and origin of formation brines from the Paris Basin, France: 1. Brines associated with Triassic salts. Chem. Geol. 1993, 109, 149–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. London, D.; Morgan, G.B.; Wolf, M.B. Boron in granitic rocks and their contact aureoles. Boron 1996, 33, 299–330. [Google Scholar]
Minerals 09 00432 g001 550
Figure 1. Location and geology of the Pine Creek Orogen comprising the Nimuwah, Central and Litchfield Domains, and the location of the Ranger deposit and other uranium and gold deposits and occurrences within the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field (labelled box). After Skirrow et al. [4].
Figure 1. Location and geology of the Pine Creek Orogen comprising the Nimuwah, Central and Litchfield Domains, and the location of the Ranger deposit and other uranium and gold deposits and occurrences within the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field (labelled box). After Skirrow et al. [4].
Minerals 09 00432 g001
Minerals 09 00432 g002 550
Figure 2. Generalised east–west cross sections of lithology, alteration and location of the sample investigated, at the Ranger 1 No 3 orebody (Australia). Modified from Skirrow et al. [4]. UMS: Upper Mine Sequence; LMS: Lower Mine Sequence; HWS: Hangingwall Schist.
Figure 2. Generalised east–west cross sections of lithology, alteration and location of the sample investigated, at the Ranger 1 No 3 orebody (Australia). Modified from Skirrow et al. [4]. UMS: Upper Mine Sequence; LMS: Lower Mine Sequence; HWS: Hangingwall Schist.
Minerals 09 00432 g002
Minerals 09 00432 g003 550
Figure 3. Simplified paragenetic sequence of the Ranger U deposit (Australia) with a focus on the successive generations of tourmaline, chlorite, quartz and uraninite (after Skirrow et al. [4]). Here, chemical and boron isotopic analyses were carried out on tourmaline T1 and chemical analyses were carried out on chlorite Chl2.
Figure 3. Simplified paragenetic sequence of the Ranger U deposit (Australia) with a focus on the successive generations of tourmaline, chlorite, quartz and uraninite (after Skirrow et al. [4]). Here, chemical and boron isotopic analyses were carried out on tourmaline T1 and chemical analyses were carried out on chlorite Chl2.
Minerals 09 00432 g003
Minerals 09 00432 g004 550
Figure 4. Chlorite-tourmaline-quartz generations and assemblages at the Ranger U deposit (Australia), from Skirrow et al. [4]. (A) Thin section studied for boron isotopes and major elements showing pre-ore B1 breccia, pre-ore silicification and main U1 ore stage. B1 breccia is composed of lithic clasts of banded quartz Q1 and chlorite Chl1 within a matrix of chlorite Chl2 and chlorite Chl3 that corrodes quartz. Some voids in B1 breccia are lined by tourmaline T1 and filled by quartz Q2 corresponding to the pre-ore silicification stage and B2 breccia. Both the B1 breccia and Q2-T1 assemblages were cut by ore-stage B3 breccia, with infill by chlorite Chl3, tourmaline T2, and uraninite U1. Voids in the B3 breccia matrix were filled by quartz Q3. Sample from drillhole S3PD759 402.9 m, transmitted light, from Skirrow et al. [4]. (B) Clast in B3 breccia containing intergrowths of euhedral quartz Q2, brownish fine-grained tourmaline T1, and fine-grained disseminated uraninite U1. Sample from drillhole S3PD759 395.3 m, transmitted light, from Skirrow et al. [4].
Figure 4. Chlorite-tourmaline-quartz generations and assemblages at the Ranger U deposit (Australia), from Skirrow et al. [4]. (A) Thin section studied for boron isotopes and major elements showing pre-ore B1 breccia, pre-ore silicification and main U1 ore stage. B1 breccia is composed of lithic clasts of banded quartz Q1 and chlorite Chl1 within a matrix of chlorite Chl2 and chlorite Chl3 that corrodes quartz. Some voids in B1 breccia are lined by tourmaline T1 and filled by quartz Q2 corresponding to the pre-ore silicification stage and B2 breccia. Both the B1 breccia and Q2-T1 assemblages were cut by ore-stage B3 breccia, with infill by chlorite Chl3, tourmaline T2, and uraninite U1. Voids in the B3 breccia matrix were filled by quartz Q3. Sample from drillhole S3PD759 402.9 m, transmitted light, from Skirrow et al. [4]. (B) Clast in B3 breccia containing intergrowths of euhedral quartz Q2, brownish fine-grained tourmaline T1, and fine-grained disseminated uraninite U1. Sample from drillhole S3PD759 395.3 m, transmitted light, from Skirrow et al. [4].
Minerals 09 00432 g004
Minerals 09 00432 g005 550
Figure 5. Zoom on the pre-ore silicification minerals from the Ranger U deposit (Australia): chlorite Chl2, on which very fine-grained rosettes of tourmaline T1 grow, then cemented by quartz Q2 with locations of the EPMA (red dots) and SIMS (orange ellipses) in situ analyses on tourmaline T1; (A) transmitted light. (B) BSE image. Sample from drillhole S3PD759 402.9 m.
Figure 5. Zoom on the pre-ore silicification minerals from the Ranger U deposit (Australia): chlorite Chl2, on which very fine-grained rosettes of tourmaline T1 grow, then cemented by quartz Q2 with locations of the EPMA (red dots) and SIMS (orange ellipses) in situ analyses on tourmaline T1; (A) transmitted light. (B) BSE image. Sample from drillhole S3PD759 402.9 m.
Minerals 09 00432 g005
Minerals 09 00432 g006a 550Minerals 09 00432 g006b 550Minerals 09 00432 g006c 550Minerals 09 00432 g006d 550
Figure 6. Locations of the EPMA (red dots for the tourmaline T1 and green dots for the chlorite Chl2) and SIMS (orange ellipse) in situ analyses. (A) BSE map of sample from drillhole S3PD759 402.9 m. The paragenetic assemblage of the pre-ore silicification minerals from the Ranger U deposit (Australia) consists of chlorite Chl2, followed by tourmaline T1 and then by quartz Q2. The insets indicate the location of BSE maps (B–D).
Figure 6. Locations of the EPMA (red dots for the tourmaline T1 and green dots for the chlorite Chl2) and SIMS (orange ellipse) in situ analyses. (A) BSE map of sample from drillhole S3PD759 402.9 m. The paragenetic assemblage of the pre-ore silicification minerals from the Ranger U deposit (Australia) consists of chlorite Chl2, followed by tourmaline T1 and then by quartz Q2. The insets indicate the location of BSE maps (B–D).
Minerals 09 00432 g006aMinerals 09 00432 g006bMinerals 09 00432 g006cMinerals 09 00432 g006d
Minerals 09 00432 g007 550
Figure 7. Classification of tourmaline T1 at the Ranger U deposit (Australia) and for different generations of tourmaline in other unconformity-related U deposits from the Athabasca Basin (Canada [31,33,55]) [48]. (A) Ca-Na + K-X-site vacancy ternary diagram showing the X-site occupancy; (B) binary diagram showing the Fetot/(Fetot + Mg) versus X-site vacancy/(X-site vacancy + Na + K) ratios; (C) zoom on the Mg-foitite domain on the Fetot/(Fetot + Mg) versus X-site vacancy/(X-site vacancy + Na + K) diagram. For Canadian deposits, “Hydrothermal” (Mercadier et al. [33]), “Tur 3” (Adlakha et al. [31]) and “Late tourmaline” (Rosenberg and Foit Jr., [55]) correspond to Mg-foitite. Note that each point for “Hydrothermal”, Magmatic” (Mercadier et al. [33]), “Tur1”, “Tur2”, “Tur3” (Adlakha et al. [31]),“early” and “late tourmaline” (Rosenberg and Foit Jr [55]) compositions correspond to the mean values for each sample or generation.
Figure 7. Classification of tourmaline T1 at the Ranger U deposit (Australia) and for different generations of tourmaline in other unconformity-related U deposits from the Athabasca Basin (Canada [31,33,55]) [48]. (A) Ca-Na + K-X-site vacancy ternary diagram showing the X-site occupancy; (B) binary diagram showing the Fetot/(Fetot + Mg) versus X-site vacancy/(X-site vacancy + Na + K) ratios; (C) zoom on the Mg-foitite domain on the Fetot/(Fetot + Mg) versus X-site vacancy/(X-site vacancy + Na + K) diagram. For Canadian deposits, “Hydrothermal” (Mercadier et al. [33]), “Tur 3” (Adlakha et al. [31]) and “Late tourmaline” (Rosenberg and Foit Jr., [55]) correspond to Mg-foitite. Note that each point for “Hydrothermal”, Magmatic” (Mercadier et al. [33]), “Tur1”, “Tur2”, “Tur3” (Adlakha et al. [31]),“early” and “late tourmaline” (Rosenberg and Foit Jr [55]) compositions correspond to the mean values for each sample or generation.
Minerals 09 00432 g007
Minerals 09 00432 g008 550
Figure 8. (A) Classification diagram of Plissart et al. [57] for tri- and di-trioctahedral chlorite. Compositions of chlorite Chl1 and Chl2 from Ranger deposit (this study) are plotted together with chlorite from other deposits from the ARUF [30,46,58], the Athabasca Basin [11,59,60] and the Thelon Basin [19] for comparison. For data from the ARUF (except for Ranger, this study) and the Canadian basins, the plotted data corresponds to the mean compositions for each sample or generation. (B) Distribution of temperatures for chlorite Chl1 and Chl2 from Ranger deposit (this study) determined by chlorite thermometry plotted in a T-R2+-Si diagram, with R2 = Mm + Mn + Fe (apfu) [56].
Figure 8. (A) Classification diagram of Plissart et al. [57] for tri- and di-trioctahedral chlorite. Compositions of chlorite Chl1 and Chl2 from Ranger deposit (this study) are plotted together with chlorite from other deposits from the ARUF [30,46,58], the Athabasca Basin [11,59,60] and the Thelon Basin [19] for comparison. For data from the ARUF (except for Ranger, this study) and the Canadian basins, the plotted data corresponds to the mean compositions for each sample or generation. (B) Distribution of temperatures for chlorite Chl1 and Chl2 from Ranger deposit (this study) determined by chlorite thermometry plotted in a T-R2+-Si diagram, with R2 = Mm + Mn + Fe (apfu) [56].
Minerals 09 00432 g008
Minerals 09 00432 g009 550
Figure 9. Histogram of boron isotopic compositions for tourmaline T1 at Ranger U deposit (this study) and for some of the unconformity-related U deposits from the Athabasca Basin (Canada): Adlakha et al. [32] and Mercadier et al. [33]. The boron isotopic composition for different B reservoirs are shown ([61,62,63] and references therein). The range of the boron isotopic composition of the calculated fluid in equilibrium with tourmaline T1 at Ranger is indicated by a grey zone limited by a red dotted line according to two independent methods: Meyer et al. [64] and Kowalski et al. [65].
Figure 9. Histogram of boron isotopic compositions for tourmaline T1 at Ranger U deposit (this study) and for some of the unconformity-related U deposits from the Athabasca Basin (Canada): Adlakha et al. [32] and Mercadier et al. [33]. The boron isotopic composition for different B reservoirs are shown ([61,62,63] and references therein). The range of the boron isotopic composition of the calculated fluid in equilibrium with tourmaline T1 at Ranger is indicated by a grey zone limited by a red dotted line according to two independent methods: Meyer et al. [64] and Kowalski et al. [65].
Minerals 09 00432 g009
Table
Table 1. Chemical composition (wt.%) of tourmaline T1 (EPMA) and calculated H2O and B2O3 compositions with the WinTcac software [48].
Table 1. Chemical composition (wt.%) of tourmaline T1 (EPMA) and calculated H2O and B2O3 compositions with the WinTcac software [48].
Analysis #SiO2TiO2Al2O3FeOMgOCaONa2OK2OFH2OB2O3Total
237.930.0035.250.3510.030.160.530.000.102.9710.9898.27
338.170.0035.180.339.550.150.470.000.132.9210.9197.76
438.310.0236.100.179.880.160.440.000.023.0211.0999.21
537.020.0034.750.269.590.170.360.000.082.8710.7295.78
638.110.0035.740.149.780.130.430.040.142.9311.0098.41
737.950.0435.960.159.290.180.500.060.122.9610.9398.09
838.380.0335.580.189.870.120.470.250.043.0411.0398.97
937.750.0036.000.249.470.170.420.000.052.9610.9598.00
1038.140.0036.010.229.470.160.420.010.122.9411.0098.44
1138.590.0035.880.239.730.110.430.310.063.0411.0799.43
1238.680.0235.750.178.220.170.440.000.132.8910.8097.22
1337.970.0036.280.189.100.220.440.010.062.9710.9498.15
1438.610.0034.710.249.530.170.490.040.082.9610.8897.69
1637.890.0035.880.188.790.250.440.060.062.9510.8397.30
1837.630.0035.060.129.920.150.390.090.092.9310.8897.24
1937.250.0034.870.179.830.160.480.080.102.9310.7996.64
2037.650.0035.490.159.600.140.450.160.112.9510.8897.53
2138.740.0036.000.319.520.140.450.040.063.0011.0899.33
2237.090.0435.830.239.070.200.370.070.082.9110.7896.64
2437.750.0236.000.249.660.170.480.090.073.0010.9998.46
2638.180.0035.580.249.590.160.380.040.122.9210.9798.16
2738.810.0035.940.299.420.150.390.220.073.0111.0699.34
2836.700.0134.700.119.880.140.490.000.052.9210.7195.70
2937.370.0335.330.239.630.230.480.000.092.9510.8497.15
3036.070.0033.940.2510.170.120.500.090.002.9410.6094.68
3138.350.0035.880.209.760.200.450.060.073.0011.0599.00
3237.570.0035.990.279.230.290.450.050.132.9410.8997.77
3338.310.0135.630.229.620.090.420.100.042.9810.9998.40
3437.100.0035.040.089.780.140.450.030.022.9510.7896.37
3537.600.0134.940.079.930.090.460.120.102.9310.8597.08
3636.050.0233.630.1710.280.120.550.060.132.8810.5694.41
3737.850.0035.460.179.640.150.490.020.102.9510.9197.73
3838.300.0034.810.519.840.180.550.060.033.0210.9498.23
3937.180.0135.090.319.580.230.430.030.132.9010.7996.64
4037.740.0835.470.309.730.210.390.040.112.9410.9497.92
4137.710.0034.950.279.290.210.450.010.062.9310.7796.62
4238.060.0035.720.359.790.170.470.270.073.0311.0298.94
4337.850.0434.640.389.870.150.610.040.023.0110.8697.47
4435.530.0632.510.329.530.120.580.040.122.7910.2491.80
4537.540.0534.940.059.890.140.480.040.022.9710.8496.97
4638.160.0434.240.219.750.120.650.180.063.0110.8197.21
4738.520.0135.890.109.430.150.440.000.062.9711.0198.57
4836.610.0734.430.1410.900.150.540.000.102.9710.8596.73
4937.400.0034.480.359.630.210.500.080.102.9310.7496.37
10136.560.0132.884.978.830.330.420.120.003.0110.7497.97
10537.890.0035.210.169.410.200.390.010.002.9510.8497.06
10639.350.0236.630.229.660.220.490.020.003.0911.25100.96
10838.570.0035.010.239.390.280.470.050.003.0110.8997.90
11935.640.0233.630.288.560.220.400.030.002.8110.2491.96
13440.000.0036.710.1610.010.140.550.010.003.1311.39102.12
13937.900.0233.240.458.920.160.670.090.002.9610.5294.93
14037.750.0133.710.188.670.290.380.090.002.8910.4994.46
14136.290.0233.271.739.780.250.450.040.002.9410.6195.38
14439.660.0035.530.478.860.270.490.070.003.0511.0399.46
14538.570.0034.240.399.220.390.460.030.002.9910.7897.07
14638.070.0034.580.269.610.220.470.020.002.9810.8297.04
14839.310.0235.800.438.170.320.520.070.003.0410.9098.57
15037.010.0234.690.209.270.200.410.040.002.9110.6595.40
15136.560.0033.360.288.660.170.380.020.002.8110.3292.59
15239.160.0135.950.419.820.180.520.060.003.0911.18100.38
Table
Table 4. Chemical composition (wt.%) and calculated temperature [50] of chlorite Chl1 and Chl2 (EPMA).
Table 4. Chemical composition (wt.%) and calculated temperature [50] of chlorite Chl1 and Chl2 (EPMA).
Analysis #Na2OMgOAl2O3SiO2K2OCaOMnOFeOTiO2TotalCalculated T (°C)
Chl1 20.066.9421.6627.540.810.090.1333.100.0390.36162
Chl1 30.087.2620.7127.180.600.130.1932.830.0489.03169
Chl1 40.007.9720.7726.840.440.110.0432.550.0488.76182
Chl1 60.047.2320.8226.400.360.070.0235.160.0490.12216
Chl1 80.007.9219.5325.950.190.090.1434.350.0388.19240
Chl1 130.039.1119.0325.950.060.120.0733.440.0287.83279
Chl1 200.026.7119.3925.760.020.040.0436.790.0588.80248
Chl1 210.007.5919.2925.110.040.030.0735.280.0487.45298
Chl1 220.058.2719.1525.510.040.070.0733.370.1086.64246
Chl1 330.006.9320.8625.680.050.020.0535.290.0188.87224
Chl1 380.046.9520.3625.080.050.080.1636.790.0189.51332
Chl1 390.027.1220.1725.260.500.110.0933.180.0386.47221
Chl1 440.056.8821.3026.940.600.130.2332.790.0388.96167
Chl1 450.008.3120.0125.840.070.020.0133.820.1488.21235
Chl1 460.017.8920.2225.780.350.030.0733.460.0887.89227
Chl1 520.037.3119.7024.800.110.110.0735.300.0987.53312
Chl2 1530.0221.7625.3032.560.010.110.056.160.0286.00101
Chl2 1540.0023.4025.3332.310.030.080.004.540.0285.71109
Chl2 1550.0226.8223.4031.830.030.010.003.580.0085.68136
Chl2 1560.0425.3121.0430.250.020.130.006.990.0083.78163
Chl2 1570.0322.9921.6230.250.000.050.0310.030.0085.01153
Chl2 1580.0023.9624.4831.260.070.050.085.700.0485.64129
Chl2 1590.0323.7724.6631.810.060.050.134.800.0085.29117
Chl2 1600.0225.1424.3931.650.020.030.013.880.0085.15125
Chl2 1610.0023.8224.6831.420.040.060.004.520.0084.53119
Chl2 1620.0224.9723.9531.470.050.050.003.850.0084.36124
Chl2 1630.0024.0223.6931.450.030.050.004.790.0184.06119
Chl21640.0326.4022.0230.720.040.070.004.450.0083.73151
Chl2 1650.0025.7123.8731.400.060.060.003.970.0085.06133
Chl2 1660.0022.6524.1830.870.040.050.055.870.0083.73119
Table
Table 5. Structural formula and occupancy sites for chlorite Chl1 and Chl2 calculated on a basis of 14 oxygens.
Table 5. Structural formula and occupancy sites for chlorite Chl1 and Chl2 calculated on a basis of 14 oxygens.
Analysis #Na (apfu)Mg (apfu)Al tot
(apfu)		Al IV (apfu)Al VI (apfu)Si (apfu)K (apfu)Ca (apfu)Mn (apfu)Fe (apfu)Ti (apfu)
Chl1 20.011.102.701.081.622.920.110.010.012.930.00
Chl1 30.021.162.631.071.552.930.080.020.022.960.00
Chl1 40.001.282.641.111.532.890.060.010.002.930.00
Chl1 60.011.162.641.161.482.840.050.010.003.160.00
Chl1 80.001.302.531.151.382.850.030.010.013.160.00
Chl1 130.011.492.461.151.322.850.010.010.013.070.00
Chl1 200.001.112.521.151.372.850.000.000.003.400.00
Chl1 210.001.262.541.201.342.800.010.000.013.300.00
Chl1 220.011.372.521.151.362.850.010.010.013.110.01
Chl1 330.001.132.691.191.492.810.010.000.003.220.00
Chl1 380.011.142.631.251.392.750.010.010.013.380.00
Chl1 390.001.192.661.171.492.830.070.010.013.110.00
Chl1 440.011.102.701.101.602.900.080.010.022.950.00
Chl1 450.001.352.581.171.412.830.010.000.003.090.01
Chl1 460.001.292.621.171.452.830.050.000.013.070.01
Chl1 520.011.222.591.231.372.770.020.010.013.300.01
Chl2 1530.003.082.830.911.913.090.000.010.000.490.00
Chl2 1540.003.302.820.951.873.050.000.010.000.360.00
Chl2 1550.003.782.610.991.623.010.000.000.000.280.00
Chl2 1560.013.732.451.011.452.990.000.010.000.580.00
Chl2 1570.013.392.521.011.512.990.000.010.000.830.00
Chl2 1580.003.412.761.011.742.990.010.010.010.460.00
Chl2 1590.013.382.770.971.803.030.010.010.010.380.00
Chl2 1600.003.562.730.991.743.010.000.000.000.310.00
Chl2 1610.003.412.790.981.813.020.000.010.000.360.00
Chl2 1620.003.572.710.981.733.020.010.010.000.310.00
Chl2 1630.003.462.700.961.743.040.000.010.000.390.00
Chl21640.013.842.531.001.533.000.000.010.000.360.00
Chl2 1650.003.662.681.001.683.000.010.010.000.320.00
Chl2 1660.003.302.780.981.803.020.000.010.000.480.00
Table
Table 6. B isotope compositions for tourmaline T1.
Table 6. B isotope compositions for tourmaline T1.
Analysis #δ11B1σAnalysis #δ11B1σAnalysis #δ11B1σ
11.780.62271.800.41524.840.76
21.150.37282.720.54534.340.91
31.221.01294.410.50544.260.89
40.580.70302.660.52554.811.07
52.151.22312.920.49562.690.52
61.700.53322.910.40573.450.37
71.390.49333.660.38586.220.72
83.190.58343.360.42593.370.41
92.551.07353.170.46603.310.51
105.400.85361.661.29614.670.52
113.940.72378.091.78626.701.18
121.730.49384.650.45635.770.91
133.200.57395.450.51647.550.28
143.610.39405.630.71659.380.60
153.900.60414.730.40668.750.53
163.620.97424.950.86672.670.40
174.340.54434.880.51680.800.90
182.020.51444.790.49692.500.52
191.770.47457.420.61703.740.52
200.820.66464.230.53714.660.48
212.070.47472.840.85723.350.44
223.470.59483.990.75734.340.52
233.430.52493.590.43741.450.76
243.310.55503.880.47751.930.52
253.180.55513.970.35763.220.66
263.130.52
Table
Table 2. Structural formula of tourmaline T1 (T, Z and Y sites) calculated with the WinTcac software [48].
Table 2. Structural formula of tourmaline T1 (T, Z and Y sites) calculated with the WinTcac software [48].
Analysis #Si(T)B(T)Al(T)Total (T)Al(Z)Total (Z)Al(Y)Ti(Y)Fe2+(Y)Mn2+(Y)Mg(Y)Total (Y)
26.010.000.006.016.006.000.580.000.050.002.372.99
36.080.000.006.086.006.000.610.000.040.002.272.92
46.000.000.006.006.006.000.670.000.020.002.313.00
56.000.000.006.006.006.000.640.000.040.002.323.00
66.020.000.006.026.006.000.660.000.020.002.302.98
76.030.000.006.036.006.000.740.010.020.002.202.97
86.050.000.006.056.006.000.610.000.020.002.322.95
95.990.010.006.006.006.000.730.000.030.002.243.01
106.030.000.006.036.006.000.710.000.030.002.232.97
116.060.000.006.066.006.000.640.000.030.002.282.94
126.220.000.006.226.006.000.780.000.020.001.972.78
136.030.000.006.036.006.000.790.000.020.002.162.97
146.170.000.006.176.006.000.530.000.030.002.272.84
166.080.000.006.086.006.000.790.000.020.002.102.92
186.010.000.006.016.006.000.600.000.020.002.362.99
196.000.010.006.016.006.000.620.000.020.002.363.00
206.010.000.006.016.006.000.680.000.020.002.292.99
216.080.000.006.086.006.000.660.000.040.002.232.92
225.980.000.026.006.006.000.790.010.030.002.183.00
245.970.010.026.006.006.000.690.000.030.002.283.01
266.050.000.006.056.006.000.650.000.030.002.272.95
276.100.000.006.106.006.000.660.000.040.002.212.90
285.960.010.036.006.006.000.610.000.020.002.393.01
295.990.010.016.006.006.000.670.000.030.002.303.01
305.920.020.066.006.006.000.500.000.030.002.493.02
316.030.000.006.036.006.000.650.000.030.002.292.97
326.000.000.006.006.006.000.770.000.040.002.203.00
336.060.000.006.066.006.000.640.000.030.002.272.94
345.980.010.016.006.006.000.650.000.010.002.353.01
356.020.000.006.026.006.000.600.000.010.002.372.98
365.930.020.056.006.006.000.470.000.020.002.523.02
376.030.000.006.036.006.000.660.000.020.002.292.97
386.080.000.006.086.006.000.520.000.070.002.332.92
395.990.010.006.006.006.000.660.000.040.002.303.01
406.000.010.006.016.006.000.640.010.040.002.313.00
416.080.000.006.086.006.000.650.000.040.002.232.92
426.010.000.006.016.006.000.640.000.050.002.302.99
436.060.000.006.066.006.000.530.010.050.002.352.94
446.030.000.006.036.006.000.500.010.050.002.412.97
456.020.000.006.026.006.000.600.010.010.002.362.98
466.140.000.006.146.006.000.490.010.030.002.342.86
476.080.000.006.086.006.000.680.000.010.002.222.92
485.870.030.116.006.006.000.390.010.020.002.603.03
496.050.000.006.056.006.000.580.000.050.002.322.95
1015.910.030.056.006.006.000.220.000.670.012.133.03
1056.080.000.006.086.006.000.650.000.020.002.252.93
1066.080.000.006.086.006.000.670.000.030.002.222.92
1086.150.000.006.156.006.000.580.000.030.002.232.85
1196.050.000.006.056.006.000.730.000.040.022.172.95
1346.100.000.006.106.006.000.600.000.020.002.282.90
1396.260.000.006.266.006.000.470.000.060.002.202.74
1406.250.000.006.256.006.000.580.000.030.002.142.75
1415.950.020.036.006.006.000.390.000.240.002.393.02
1446.250.000.006.256.006.000.600.000.060.002.082.75
1456.220.000.006.226.006.000.510.000.050.002.222.78
1466.120.000.006.126.006.000.550.000.040.002.302.88
1486.270.000.006.276.006.000.730.000.060.001.942.73
1506.040.000.006.046.006.000.670.000.030.002.262.96
1516.160.000.006.166.006.000.620.000.040.002.182.84
1526.090.000.006.096.006.000.590.000.050.002.282.91
Table
Table 3. Structural formula of tourmaline T1 (X, V and W sites) calculated with the WinTcac software [48].
Table 3. Structural formula of tourmaline T1 (X, V and W sites) calculated with the WinTcac software [48].
Analysis #Ca(X)Na(X)K(X)vacancy(X)Total(X)OH(V)OH(W)F(W)O(W)Total(V+W)
20.030.160.000.811.003.000.140.050.814.00
30.030.150.000.831.003.000.110.070.834.00
40.030.130.000.841.003.000.150.010.844.00
50.030.110.000.861.003.000.100.040.864.00
60.020.130.010.841.003.000.090.070.844.00
70.030.150.010.801.003.000.140.060.804.00
80.020.140.050.791.003.000.190.020.794.00
90.030.130.000.841.003.000.140.030.844.00
100.030.130.000.841.003.000.100.060.844.00
110.020.130.060.791.003.000.180.030.794.00
120.030.140.000.831.003.000.100.070.834.00
130.040.140.000.831.003.000.150.030.834.00
140.030.150.010.811.003.000.150.040.814.00
160.040.140.010.811.003.000.160.030.814.00
180.030.120.020.841.003.000.120.050.844.00
190.030.150.020.811.003.000.150.050.804.00
200.020.140.030.801.003.000.140.060.804.00
210.020.140.010.831.003.000.140.030.834.00
220.040.120.010.841.003.000.130.040.834.00
240.030.150.020.811.003.000.170.040.804.00
260.030.120.010.851.003.000.090.060.854.00
270.030.120.040.811.003.000.150.040.814.00
280.020.150.000.821.003.000.170.030.814.00
290.040.150.000.811.003.000.150.050.814.00
300.020.160.020.801.003.000.220.000.784.00
310.030.140.010.821.003.000.150.040.824.00
320.050.140.010.801.003.000.130.070.804.00
330.020.130.020.841.003.000.140.020.844.00
340.020.140.010.831.003.000.170.010.824.00
350.020.140.030.821.003.000.130.050.824.00
360.020.180.010.791.003.000.160.070.774.00
370.030.150.000.821.003.000.130.050.824.00
380.030.170.010.791.003.000.200.020.794.00
390.040.130.010.821.003.000.120.070.814.00
400.040.120.010.841.003.000.120.060.834.00
410.040.140.000.821.003.000.150.030.824.00
420.030.140.050.771.003.000.190.040.774.00
430.030.190.010.781.003.000.210.010.784.00
440.020.190.010.781.003.000.160.060.784.00
450.020.150.010.821.003.000.170.010.824.00
460.020.200.040.741.003.000.230.030.744.00
470.030.140.000.841.003.000.130.030.844.00
480.030.170.000.811.003.000.170.050.784.00
490.040.160.020.791.003.000.160.050.794.00
1010.060.130.030.791.003.000.250.000.754.00
1050.030.120.000.841.003.000.160.000.844.00
1060.040.150.000.811.003.000.190.000.814.00
1080.050.150.010.801.003.000.200.000.804.00
1190.040.130.010.821.003.000.180.000.824.00
1340.020.160.000.811.003.000.190.000.814.00
1390.030.220.020.741.003.000.260.000.744.00
1400.050.120.020.811.003.000.190.000.814.00
1410.040.140.010.811.003.000.220.000.784.00
1440.050.150.010.791.003.000.210.000.794.00
1450.070.140.010.781.003.000.220.000.784.00
1460.040.150.000.811.003.000.190.000.814.00
1480.060.160.010.771.003.000.230.000.774.00
1500.040.130.010.831.003.000.170.000.834.00
1510.030.120.000.841.003.000.160.000.844.00
1520.030.160.010.801.003.000.200.000.804.00

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gigon, J.; Skirrow, R.G.; Harlaux, M.; Richard, A.; Mercadier, J.; Annesley, I.R.; Villeneuve, J. Insights into B-Mg-Metasomatism at the Ranger U Deposit (NT, Australia) and Comparison with Canadian Unconformity-Related U Deposits. Minerals 2019, 9, 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/min9070432

AMA Style

Gigon J, Skirrow RG, Harlaux M, Richard A, Mercadier J, Annesley IR, Villeneuve J. Insights into B-Mg-Metasomatism at the Ranger U Deposit (NT, Australia) and Comparison with Canadian Unconformity-Related U Deposits. Minerals. 2019; 9(7):432. https://doi.org/10.3390/min9070432

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gigon, Joséphine, Roger G. Skirrow, Matthieu Harlaux, Antonin Richard, Julien Mercadier, Irvine R. Annesley, and Johan Villeneuve. 2019. "Insights into B-Mg-Metasomatism at the Ranger U Deposit (NT, Australia) and Comparison with Canadian Unconformity-Related U Deposits" Minerals 9, no. 7: 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/min9070432

APA Style

Gigon, J., Skirrow, R. G., Harlaux, M., Richard, A., Mercadier, J., Annesley, I. R., & Villeneuve, J. (2019). Insights into B-Mg-Metasomatism at the Ranger U Deposit (NT, Australia) and Comparison with Canadian Unconformity-Related U Deposits. Minerals, 9(7), 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/min9070432

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop