Criteria for interpreting kimberlite as coherent: Insights from the Muskox and Jericho kimberlites (Nunavut, Canada)

The Jurassic Muskox and Jericho kimberlites (Northern Slave Province, Nunavut, Canada) contain a variety of facies exhibiting different geometries, contact relationships, internal organisation, country rock abundance and olivine shapes, although many have similar matrix/groundmass mineralogies and textures. Five facies are examined that either have characteristics consistent with coherent rocks in general (i.e. intrusive and extrusive non-fragmental rocks) or are mineralogically and texturally similar to kimberlite described as coherent (or apparent coherent). Three facies are interpreted as coherent on the basis of: (1) geological setting, (2) apparent-porphyritic texture, (3) sharp contacts with fragmental kimberlite, (4) relative abundance of elongate and unbroken olivine crystals and (5) paucity of country rock xenoliths, while the remaining two facies are interpreted as fragmental on the basis of: (1) the gradational contacts with demonstrably fragmental kimberlite, (2) relative abundance and range of sizes of country rock lithic clasts and (3) numerous broken olivine crystals. Comparisons are made with coherent and apparent-coherent kimberlite from the literature. Our three coherent facies are similar to literature reported coherent kimberlite dykes hosted in country rock (CKd) in terms of internal organisation, low abundance of country rock xenoliths, and apparent-porphyritic texture. Conversely, our two fragmental facies share attributes with previously described pipe-filling coherent and apparent-coherent kimberlite (CKpf) in terms of geometry, internal organisation and abundance of country rock xenoliths. We conclude that CKd and most CKpf, although similar in matrix/groundmass mineralogy and texture, can be distinguished on the basis of internal organisation, country rock lithic clast abundance, texture (e.g. apparent-porphyritic texture) and possibly olivine crystal shapes and suggest that fragmental kimberlite is more common than reported.

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.

Petrology and textural classification of the Jericho kimberlite, northern Slave Province, Nunavut, Canada

The paper presents data on petrology, bulk rock and mineral compositions, and textural classification of the Middle Jurassic Jericho kimberlite (Slave craton, Canada). The kimberlite was emplaced as three steep-sided pipes in granite that was overlain by limestones and minor soft sediments. The pipes are infilled with hypabyssal and pyroclastic kimberlites and connected to a satellite pipe by a dyke. The Jericho kimberlite is classified as a Group Ia, lacking groundmass tetraferriphlogopite and containing monticellite pseudomorphs. The kimberlite formed, during several consecutive emplacement events of compositionally different batches of kimberlite magma. Core-logging and thin-section observations identified at least two phases of hypabyssal kimberlites and three phases of pyroclastic kimberlites. Hypabyssal kimberlites intruded as a main dyke (HK1) and as late small-volume aphanitic and vesicular dykes. Massive pyroclastic kimberlite (MPK1) predominantly filled the northern and southern lobes of the pipe and formed from magma different from the HK1 magma. The MPK1 magma crystallized Ti-, Fe-, and Cr-rich phlogopite without rims of barian phlogopite, and clinopyroxene and spinel without atoll structures. MPK1 textures, superficially reminiscent of tuffisitic kimberlite, are caused by pervasive contamination by granite xenoliths. The next explosive events filled the central lobe with two varieties of pyroclastic kimberlite: (1) massive and (2) weakly bedded, normally graded pyroclastic kimberlite. The geology of the Jericho pipe differs from the geology of South African or the Prairie kimberlites, but may resemble Lac de Gras pipes, in which deeper erosion removed upper fades of resedimented kimberlites.

Some major problems with existing models and terminology associated with kimberlite pipes from a volcanological perspective, and some suggestions

Five significant problems hinder advances in understanding of the volcanology of kimberlites: (1) kimberlite geology is very model driven; (2) a highly genetic terminology drives deposit or facies interpretation; (3) the effects of alteration on preserved depositional textures have been grossly underestimated; (4) the level of understanding of the physical process significance of preserved textures is limited; and, (5) some inferred processes and deposits are not based on actual, modern volcanological processes. These issues need to be addressed in order to advance understanding of kimberlite volcanological pipe forming processes and deposits. The traditional, steep-sided southern African pipe model (Class I) consists of a steep tapering pipe with a deep root zone, a middle diatreme zone and an upper crater zone (if preserved). Each zone is thought to be dominated by distinctive facies, respectively: hypabyssal kimberlite (HK, descriptively called here massive coherent porphyritic kimberlite), tuffisitic kimberlite breccia (TKB, descriptively here called massive, poorly sorted lapilli tuff) and crater zone facies, which include variably bedded pyroclastic kimberlite and resedimented and reworked volcaniclastic kimberlite (RVK). Porphyritic coherent kimberlite may, however, also be emplaced at different levels in the pipe, as later stage intrusions, as well as dykes in the surrounding country rock. The relationship between HK and TKB is not always clear. Sub-terranean fluidisation as an emplacement process is a largely unsubstantiated hypothesis; modern in-vent volcanological processes should initially be considered to explain observed deposits. Crater zone volcaniclastic deposits can occur within the diatreme zone of some pipes, indicating that the pipe was largely empty at the end of the eruption, and subsequently began to fill-in largely through resedimentation and sourcing of pyroclastic deposits from nearby vents. Classes II and III Canadian kimberlite models have a more factual, descriptive basis, but are still inadequately documented given the recency of their discovery. The diversity amongst kimberlite bodies suggests that a three-model classification is an over-simplification. Every kimberlite is altered to varying degrees, which is an intrinsic consequence of the ultrabasic composition of kimberlite and the in-vent context; few preserve original textures. The effects of syn- to post-emplacement alteration on original textures have not been adequately considered to date, and should be back-stripped to identify original textural elements and configurations. Applying sedimentological textural configurations as a guide to emplacement processes would be useful. The traditional terminology has many connotations about spatial position in pipe and of process. Perhaps the traditional terminology can be retained in the industrial situation as a general lithofacies-mining terminological scheme because it is so entrenched. However, for research purposes a more descriptive lithofacies terminology should be adopted to facilitate detailed understanding of deposit characteristics, important variations in these, and the process origins. For example every deposit of TKB is different in componentry, texture, or depositional structure. However, because so many deposits in many different pipes are called TKB, there is an implication that they are all similar and that similar processes were involved, which is far from clear.

Lower mantle diamonds from Rio Soriso (Juina area, Mato Grosso, Brazil)

The morphology, colour, fluorescence, cathodoluminescence, nitrogen content and aggregation state, internal structure and mineral inclusions have been studied for 69 alluvial diamonds from the Rio Soriso (Juina area, Mato Grosso State, Brazil). Nitrogen in most diamonds (53%) is fully aggregated as B centres, but there is also a large proportion of N-free stones (38%). A strong positive correlation between nitrogen and IR-active hydrogen concentrations is observed. The diamonds contain (in order of decreasing abundance) ferropericlase, CaSi-perovskite, magnetite, MgSi-perovskite, pyrrhotite, 'olivine', SiO2, perovskite, tetragonal almandine-pyrope phase and some other minerals represented by single grains. The Rio Soriso diamond suite is subdivided into several subpopulations that originated in upper and lower mantle of ultramafic and mafic compositions, with the largest subgroup forming in the ultramafic lower mantle. Analysed ferropericlase grains are enriched in Fe (Mg#=0.43-0.89), which is ascribed to their origin in the lowermost mantle. The Juina kimberlites may be unique in sampling the material from depths below 1,700 km that ascended in a plume formed at the core-mantle boundary.