The largest Au deposits in the St Ives Goldfield (Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia) may be located in a major Neoarchean volcano-sedimentary depo-centre

The largest Neoarchean gold deposits in the world-class St Ives Goldfield, Western Australia, occur in an area known as the Argo-Junction region (e.g. Junction, Argo and Athena). Why this region is so well endowed with large deposits compared with other parts of the St Ives Goldfield is currently unclear, because gold deposits at St Ives are hosted by a variety of lithologic units and were formed during at least three different deformational events. This paper presents an investigation into the stratigraphic architecture and evolution of the Argo-Junction region to assess its implications for gold metallogenesis. The results show that the region's stratigraphy may be subdivided into five regionally correlatable packages: mafic lavas of the Paringa Basalt; contemporaneously resedimented feldspar-rich pyroclastic debris of the Early Black Flag Group; coarse polymictic volcanic debris of the Late Black Flag Group; thick piles of mafic lavas and sub-volcanic sills of the Athena Basalt and Condenser Dolerite; and the voluminous quartz-rich sedimentary successions of the Early Merougil Group. In the Argo-Junction region, these units have an interpreted maximum thickness of at least 7,130 m, and thus represent an unusually thick accumulation of the Neoarchean volcano-sedimentary successions. It is postulated that major basin-forming structures that were active during deposition and emplacement of the voluminous successions later acted as important conduits during mineralisation. Therefore, a correlation exists between the location of the largest gold deposits in the St Ives Goldfield and the thickest parts of the stratigraphy. Recognition of this association has important implications for camp-scale exploration.

A practical guide to terminology for kimberlite facies: A systematic progression from descriptive to genetic, including a pocket guide

Kimberlite terminology remains problematic because both descriptive and genetic terms are mixed together in most existing terminology schemes. In addition, many terms used in existing kimberlite terminology schemes are not used in mainstream volcanology, even though kimberlite bodies are commonly the remains of kimberlite volcanic vents and edifices. We build on our own recently published approach to kimberlite facies terminology, involving a systematic progression from descriptive to genetic. The scheme can be used for both coherent kimberlite (i.e. kimberlite that was emplaced without undergoing any fragmentation processes and therefore preserving coherent igneous textures) and fragmental kimberlites. The approach involves documentation of components, textures and assessing the degree and effects of alteration on both components and original emplacement textures. This allows a purely descriptive composite component, textural and compositional petrological rock or deposit name to be constructed first, free of any biases about emplacement setting and processes. Then important facies features such as depositional structures, contact relationships and setting are assessed, leading to a composite descriptive and genetic name for the facies or rock unit that summarises key descriptive characteristics, emplacement processes and setting. Flow charts summarising the key steps in developing a progressive descriptive to genetic terminology are provided for both coherent and fragmental facies/deposits/rock units. These can be copied and used in the field, or in conjunction with field (e.g. drill core observations) and petrographic data. Because the approach depends heavily on field scale observations, characteristics and process interpretations, only the first descriptive part is appropriate where only petrographic observations are being made. Where field scale observations are available the progression from developing descriptive to interpretative terminology can be used, especially where some petrographic data also becomes available.

A new approach to kimberlite facies terminology using a revised general approach to the nomenclature of all volcanic rocks and deposits: Descriptive to genetic

Although kimberlite pipes/bodies are usually the remains of volcanic vents, in-vent deposits, and subvolcanic intrusions, the terminology used for kimberlite rocks has largely developed independently of that used in mainstream volcanology. Existing kimberlite terminology is not descriptive and includes terms that are rarely used, used differently, and even not used at all in mainstream volcanology. In addition, kimberlite bodies are altered to varying degrees, making application of genetic terminology difficult because original components and depositional textures are commonly masked by alteration. This paper recommends an approach to the terminology for kimberlite rocks that is consistent with usage for other volcanic successions. In modern terrains the eruption and emplacement origins of deposits can often be readily deduced, but this is often not the case for old, variably altered and deformed rock successions. A staged approach is required whereby descriptive terminology is developed first, followed by application of genetic terminology once all features, including the effects of alteration on original texture and depositional features, together with contact relationships and setting, have been evaluated. Because many volcanic successions consist of both primary volcanic deposits as well as volcanic sediments, terminology must account for both possibilities.