4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Geochemistry of hypabyssal kimberlites from Lac de Gras, Canada: Comparisons to a global database and applications to the parent magma problem

Journal

LITHOS
Volume 112, Issue -, Pages 236-248

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.lithos.2009.06.001

Keywords

Ultramafic magma; Volatiles; Crustal contamination; Mantle assimilation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present 104 whole-rock geochemical analyses of hypabyssal kimberlite from the Lac de Gras field. Screens using Yb versus Al2O3 and In Si/Al versus In Mg/Yb effectively discriminate crustally contaminated samples. The remaining non-contaminated kimberlites samples have variable (5 to 50%) entrainment of cratonic peridotite. It is problematic to effectively screen for small amounts (<5%) of digested crust in samples with higher (>20%) contents of peridotite contamination. We utilize the Lac de Gras data suite to calculate, by two different methods, parent magma compositions and identify two (and potentially three) geochemically distinct parent magma types. The Lac de Gras parent magma compositions are compared to those calculated from other localities in Canada, Greenland, South Africa and Russia. Together, these calculated parent magmas define a range, albeit limited, of viable, yet distinct, kimberlite parent magma compositions. Geochemically, kimberlite parent magmas have high volatile contents (H2O and CO2), high MgO, and low SiO2, Al2O3 and alkalis, with K>Na and Na+K/Al<1. It is difficult to reconcile differences between various calculated kimberlite parent magma compositions from different cratonic areas as merely due to the effects of craton specific lithospheric mantle contamination, indicating the intra- and inter-cratonic variation of parent magma compositions reflect differing source region characteristics and/or partial melting regimes. Crown Copyright (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available