Ore Deposits E-Book

Sophie Decree

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Serie: Geophysical Monograph Series
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 752

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019

Beschreibung

The latest knowledge on mineral ore genesis and the exploration of ore deposits Global demand for metals has risen considerably over the past decade. Geologists are developing new approaches for studying ore deposits and discovering new sources. Ore Deposits: Origin, Exploration, and Exploitation is a compilation of diverse case studies on new prospects in ore deposit geology including atypical examples of mineral deposits and new methods for ore exploration. Volume highlights include: * Presentation of the latest research on a range of ore deposit types * Application of ore deposits to multiple areas of geology and geophysical exploration * Emphasis on diverse methods and tools for the study of ore deposits * Useful case studies for geologists in both academia and industry Ore Deposits: Origin, Exploration, and Exploitation is a valuable resource for economic geologists, mineralogists, petrologists, geochemists, mining engineers, research professionals, and advanced students in relevant areas of academic study. Read an interview with the editors to find out more: https://eos.org/editors-vox/developments-in-the-continuing-search-for-new-mineral-deposits

Leseprobe

Geophysical Monograph Series

190

The Stratosphere: Dynamics, Transport, and Chemistry

L. M. Polvani, A. H. Sobel, and D. W. Waugh (Eds.)

191

Rainfall: State of the Science

Firat Y. Testik and Mekonnen Gebremichael (Eds.)192Antarctic Subglacial Aquatic Environments Martin J. Siegert, Mahlon C. Kennicut II, and Robert A. Bindschadler (Eds.)

193

Abrupt Climate Change: Mechanisms, Patterns, and Impacts

Harunur Rashid, Leonid Polyak, and Ellen Mosley‐Thompson (Eds.)

194

Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems: Scientific Approaches, Analyses, and Tools

Andrew Simon, Sean J. Bennett, and Janine M. Castro (Eds.)

195

Monitoring and Modeling the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: A Record‐Breaking Enterprise

Yonggang Liu, Amy MacFadyen, Zhen‐Gang Ji, and Robert H. Weisberg (Eds.)

196

Extreme Events and Natural Hazards: The Complexity Perspective

A. Surjalal Sharma, Armin Bunde, Vijay P. Dimri, and Daniel N. Baker (Eds.)

197

Auroral Phenomenology and Magnetospheric Processes: Earth and Other Planets

Andreas Keiling, Eric Donovan, Fran Bagenal, and Tomas Karlsson (Eds.)

198

Climates, Landscapes, and Civilizations

Liviu Giosan, Dorian Q. Fuller, Kathleen Nicoll, Rowan K. Flad, and Peter D. Clift (Eds.)

199

Dynamics of the Earth’s Radiation Belts and Inner Magnetosphere

Danny Summers, Ian R. Mann, Daniel N. Baker, and Michael Schulz (Eds.)

200

Lagrangian Modeling of the Atmosphere

John Lin (Ed.)

201

Modeling the Ionosphere‐Thermosphere

Jospeh D. Huba, Robert W. Schunk, and George V. Khazanov (Eds.)

202

The Mediterranean Sea: Temporal Variability and Spatial Patterns

Gian Luca Eusebi Borzelli, Miroslav Gacic, Piero Lionello, and Paola Malanotte‐Rizzoli (Eds.)

203

Future Earth – Advancing Civic Understanding of the Anthropocene

Diana Dalbotten, Gillian Roehrig, and Patrick Hamilton (Eds.)

204

The Galápagos: A Natural Laboratory for the Earth Sciences

Karen S. Harpp, Eric Mittelstaedt, Noémi d’Ozouville, and David W. Graham (Eds.)

205

Modeling Atmospheric and Oceanic Flows: Insightsfrom Laboratory Experiments and Numerical Simulations

Thomas von Larcher and Paul D. Williams (Eds.)

206

Remote Sensing of the Terrestrial Water Cycle

Venkat Lakshmi (Ed.)

207

Magnetotails in the Solar System

Andreas Keiling, Caitríona Jackman, and Peter Delamere (Eds.)

208

Hawaiian Volcanoes: From Source to Surface

Rebecca Carey, Valerie Cayol, Michael Poland, and Dominique Weis (Eds.)

209

Sea Ice: Physics, Mechanics, and Remote Sensing

Mohammed Shokr and Nirmal Sinha (Eds.)

210

Fluid Dynamics in Complex Fractured‐Porous Systems

Boris Faybishenko, Sally M. Benson, and John E. Gale (Eds.)

211

Subduction Dynamics: From Mantle Flow to Mega Disasters

Gabriele Morra, David A. Yuen, Scott King, Sang Mook Lee, and Seth Stein (Eds.)

212

The Early Earth: Accretion and Differentiation

James Badro and Michael Walter (Eds.)

213

Global Vegetation Dynamics: Concepts and Applications in the MC1 Model

Dominique Bachelet and David Turner (Eds.)

214

Extreme Events: Observations, Modeling and Economics

Mario Chavez, Michael Ghil, and Jaime Urrutia‐Fucugauchi (Eds.)

215

Auroral Dynamics and Space Weather

Yongliang Zhang and Larry Paxton (Eds.)

216

Low‐Frequency Waves in Space Plasmas

Andreas Keiling, Dong‐Hun Lee, and Valery Nakariakov (Eds.)

217

Deep Earth: Physics and Chemistry of the Lower Mantle and Core

Hidenori Terasaki and Rebecca A. Fischer (Eds.)

218

Integrated Imaging of the Earth: Theory and Applications

Max Moorkamp, Peter G. Lelievre, Niklas Linde, and Amir Khan (Eds.)

219

Plate Boundaries and Natural Hazards

Joao Duarte and Wouter Schellart (Eds.)

220

Ionospheric Space Weather: Longitude and Hemispheric Dependences and Lower Atmosphere Forcing Timothy Fuller‐Rowell

,

Endawoke Yizengaw, Patricia H. Doherty, and Sunanda Basu (Eds.)

221

Terrestrial Water Cycle and Climate Change Natural and Human‐Induced Impacts

Qiuhong Tang and Taikan Oki (Eds.)

222

Magnetosphere‐Ionosphere Coupling in the Solar System

Charles R. Chappell, Robert W. Schunk, Peter M. Banks, James L. Burch, and Richard M. Thorne (Eds.)

223

Natural Hazard Uncertainty Assessment: Modeling and Decision Support

Karin Riley, Peter Webley, and Matthew Thompson (Eds.)

224

Hydrodynamics of Time‐Periodic Groundwater Flow: Diffusion Waves in Porous Media

Joe S. Depner and Todd C. Rasmussen (Auth.)

225

Active Global Seismology

Ibrahim Cemen and Yucel Yilmaz (Eds.)

226

Climate Extremes

Simon Wang (Ed.)

227

Fault Zone Dynamic Processes

Marion Thomas (Ed.)

228

Flood Damage Survey and Assessment: New Insights from Research and Practice

Daniela Molinari, Scira Menoni, and Francesco Ballio (Eds.)

229

Water‐Energy‐Food Nexus – Principles and Practices

P. Abdul Salam, Sangam Shrestha, Vishnu Prasad Pandey, and Anil K Anal (Eds.)

230

Dawn–Dusk Asymmetries in Planetary Plasma Environments

Stein Haaland, Andrei Rounov, and Colin Forsyth (Eds.)

231

Bioenergy and Land Use Change

Zhangcai Qin, Umakant Mishra, and Astley Hastings (Eds.)

232

Microstructural Geochronology: Planetary Records Down to Atom Scale

Desmond Moser, Fernando Corfu, James Darling, Steven Reddy, and Kimberly Tait (Eds.)

233

Global Flood Hazard: Applications in Modeling, Mapping and Forecasting

Guy Schumann, Paul D. Bates, Giuseppe T. Aronica, and Heiko Apel (Eds.)

234

Pre‐Earthquake Processes: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Earthquake Prediction Studies

Dimitar Ouzounov, Sergey Pulinets, Katsumi Hattori, and Patrick Taylor (Eds.)

235

Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond

Andreas Keiling, Octav Marghitu, and Michael Wheatland (Eds.)

236

Quantifying Uncertainty in Subsurface Systems

Céline Scheidt, Lewis Li, and Jef Caers (Eds.)

237

Petroleum Engineering

Moshood Sanni (Ed.)

238

Geological Carbon Storage: Subsurface Seals and Caprock Integrity

Stéphanie Vialle, Jonathan Ajo‐Franklin, and J. William Carey (Eds.)

239

Lithospheric Discontinuities

Huaiyu Yuan and Barbara Romanowicz (Eds.)

240

Chemostratigraphy Across Major Chronological Eras

Alcides N.Sial, Claudio Gaucher, Muthuvairavasamy Ramkumar, and Valderez Pinto Ferreira (Eds.)

241

Mathematical Geoenergy:Discovery, Depletion, and Renewal

Paul Pukite, Dennis Coyne, and Daniel Challou (Eds.)

Geophysical Monograph 242

Ore Deposits

Origin, Exploration, and Exploitation

Sophie Decrée

Laurence Robb

Editors

This Work is a co‐publication of the American Geophysical Union and John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

This Work is a co‐publication between the American Geophysical Union and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This edition first published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA and the American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009

© 2019 American Geophysical Union

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions

Published under the aegis of the AGU Publications CommitteeBrooks Hanson, Executive Vice President, ScienceLisa Tauxe, Chair, Publications CommitteeFor details about the American Geophysical Union visit us at www.agu.org.

Wiley Global Headquarters111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USAFor details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials, or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication data is available

ISBN: 9781119290537

Cover image: Courtesy of Laurence RobbCover design: Wiley

CONTRIBUTORS

Jean‐Marc BaeleDepartment of Geology and Applied GeologyUniversity of MonsMons, Belgium

Shaun L. L. BarkerSchool of ScienceUniversity of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand;Mineral Deposit Research UnitUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, BC, Canada;Centre for Ore Deposit and Earth SciencesUniversity of TasmaniaHobart, Tasmania

Tamara B. BayanovaGeological InstituteKola Science CentreRussian Academy of Sciences (GI KSC RAS)Apatity, Russia

Victor V. ChashchinGeological InstituteKola Science CentreRussian Academy of Sciences (GI KSC RAS)Apatity, Russia

Janine ColeSchool of GeosciencesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg, South Africa;Geophysics and Remote Sensing UnitCouncil for GeoscienceSilverton, Pretoria, South Africa

G. R. J. CooperSchool of GeosciencesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg, South Africa

L. CorriveauGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaQuébec, QC, Canada

W. J. DavisGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaOttawa, ON, Canada

Sophie DecréeGeological Survey of BelgiumRoyal Belgian Institute of Natural SciencesBrussels, Belgium

Stijn DewaeleDepartment of Geology and MineralogyRoyal Museum for Central AfricaTervuren, Belgium;Department of Geology and Soil ScienceGhent UniversityGhent, Belgium

Gregory M. DippleMineral Deposit Research UnitUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, BC, Canada

R. J. DurrheimUniversity of the WitwatersrandSchool of GeosciencesJohannesburg, South Africa

Niels HulsboschKU LeuvenGeodynamics and Geofluids Research GroupDepartment of Earth and Environmental SciencesLeuven, Belgium

E. J. HuntUniversity of the WitwatersrandSchool of GeosciencesJohannesburg, South Africa

Alexey U. KorchaginGeological Institute, Kola Science CentreRussian Academy of Sciences (GI KSC RAS), Apatity, Russia;JSC “Pana,”Apatity, Russia

John N. LuddenBritish Geological SurveyKeyworth, Nottingham, UK

M. S. ManziUniversity of the WitwatersrandSchool of GeosciencesJohannesburg, South Africa

S. MasterEconomic Geology Research InstituteSchool of GeosciencesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg, South Africa

Ryan MathurDepartment of GeologyJuniata CollegeHuntingdon, Pennsylvania, USA

Maarten MinnenKU LeuvenGeodynamics and Geofluids Research GroupDepartment of Earth and Environmental SciencesLeuven, Belgium

Alexander F. MitrofanovSRK ConsultingToronto, Canada

Felix P. MitrofanovGeological InstituteKola Science CentreRussian Academy of Sciences (GI KSC RAS)Apatity, Russia

J.‐F. MontreuilFormerly Institut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueQuébec, QC, Canada;Red Pine Exploration Inc.Toronto, ON, Canada

Philippe MuchezKU LeuvenGeodynamics and Geofluids Research GroupDepartment of Earth and Environmental SciencesLeuven, Belgium

N. M. NdhlovuSchool of GeosciencesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg, South Africa

Lyudmila I. NerovichGeological InstituteKola Science CentreRussian Academy of Sciences (GI KSC RAS)Apatity, Russia

E. G. PotterGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaOttawa, ON, Canada

Brian RuskDepartment of GeologyWestern Washington UniversityBellingham, Washington, USA

Stephanie E. Scheiber‐EnslinSchool of GeosciencesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg, South Africa

Pavel A. SerovGeological InstituteKola Science CentreRussian Academy of Sciences (GI KSC RAS)Apatity, Russia

Da WangState Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral ResourcesSchool of Earth Sciences and ResourcesChina University of Geosciences Beijing, China

Susan J. WebbSchool of GeosciencesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg, South Africa

Dmitry V. ZhirovGeological InstituteKola Science CentreRussian Academy of Sciences (GI KSC RAS)Apatity, Russia

PREFACE

The volatility of financial markets over the past decade has had a major impact on the upstream sector of the global resource industry. Exploration and replenishment of natural resources have not kept pace with consumption, and the declining rate of discovery of new, viable mineral deposits is cause for concern. Coupled with this is the fact that world‐class mineral deposits are increasingly difficult to find because large, shallow ores have largely been discovered. A major challenge of the 21st century, therefore, is how to locate buried mineral deposits that do not have a footprint at the surface, and also how to identify new sources of mineral wealth.

Recent trends in exploration and mining have seen a number of amazing innovations, exemplified by technologies that have, for example, enabled the mining of massive sulphide deposits on the ocean floor. Even more astounding are the developments aimed at exploiting asteroids from near‐Earth orbits. While many might see these innovations as futuristic, they are nevertheless counterbalanced by the ability of geoscientists to continue pushing the frontiers of mineral exploration and seek new land‐bound metallotects, as well as to develop innovative methods for detecting metal anomalies under cover. This book brings together a variety of papers that, in Section I, highlight the features of less conventional mineral deposit styles that offer alternative exploration opportunities, and, in Section II, describe some of the recent technological advances that will assist in the future discovery of mineral deposits.

Whereas most of the world's mineral exploration is still focused on well‐trodden metallotects, such as magmatic arcs and stable cratonic blocks, Section I emphasizes the features of atypical ores such as metamorphosed porphyry deposits of Proterozoic age, stratiform copper deposits hosted in sandstone, and fractionation mechanisms in S‐type granitoids. These examples point to the fact that exploration should not be constrained by geologic didactics that exclude certain targets because of seemingly inappropriate lithology, tectonic setting, or epoch. Some of the great discoveries of the past have been made by thinking intuitively and “out of the box.” Section II presents a variety of techniques that expand the armory of exploration tools available to the geoscientist: from microscopic and laboratory techniques involving mineral cathodoluminescence and isotope vectoring, to big data approaches aimed at geophysically imaging the Earth's crust. Although this book covers but a small fraction of the advances currently being made in mineral exploration science, it is timely because these innovations will catalyze the implementation of resource utilization policies that will, in the future, be more sustainable and environmentally responsive than at any time in the past.

Sophie DecréeRoyal Belgium Institute of Natural SciencesandGeological Survey of Belgium

Laurence RobbUniversity of OxfordandCIMERA – University of the Witwatersrand/University of Johannesburg

Section ICharacteristics of Atypical Mineral Deposit Styles

1Origin and Exploration of the Kola PGE‐bearing Province: New Constraints from Geochronology

Felix P. Mitrofanov1, Tamara B. Bayanova1, John N. Ludden2, Alexey U. Korchagin1,3, Victor V. Chashchin1, Lyudmila I. Nerovich1, Pavel A. Serov1, Alexander F. Mitrofanov4, and Dmitry V. Zhirov1

1Geological Institute, Kola Science Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences (GI KSC RAS), Apatity, Russia

2British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

3JSC “Pana”, Apatity, Russia

4SRK Consulting, Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT

The NE Fennoscandian Shield comprises the Northern (Kola) Belt in Finland and the Southern Belt in Karelia. The belts host mafic‐ultramafic layered Cu‐Ni‐Cr and Pt‐Pd‐bearing intrusions. They were studied using precise isotope analyses with U‐Pb on zircon and baddeleyite and Sm‐Nd on rock‐forming silicates and sulfides. The analyses indicate the 130 Ma magmatic evolution with major events at 2.53, 2.50, 2.45, and 2.40 Ga. It is considered to be governed by the long‐lived mantle plume activity. Barren phases were dated at 2.53 Ga for orthopyroxenites and olivine gabbro in the Fedorovo‐Pansky massif. Main PGE‐bearing phases of gabbronorite (Mt. Generalskaya), norite (Monchepluton), and gabbronorites (Fedorovo‐Pansky and Monchetundra massifs) yielded ages of 2.50 Ga. Anorthosites of Mt. Generalskaya, the Fedorovo‐Pansky and Monchetundra massifs occurred at the 2.45 Ga PGE‐bearing phase. According to regional geochronological correlations, this widespread event emplaced layered PGE‐bearing intrusions of Finland (Penikat, Kemi, Koitelainen) and mafic intrusions in Karelia. Dikes of the final mafic magmatic pulse at 2.40 Ga are present in the Imandra lopolith. Slightly negative εNd values and ISr values of 0.703–0.704 suggest the layered intrusions to originate from an enriched EM‐1‐like mantle reservoir.

1.1. INTRODUCTION

Magmatic sulfide Ni‐Cu‐PGE and low‐sulfide Pd‐Pt deposits are best‐valued commercial types of the Pd‐Pt mineralization. In Russia, there is a well‐known Ni‐Cu‐PGE deposit in Norilsk and a low‐sulfide Pd‐Pt deposit at the Monchegorsk and Fedorovo‐Pansky massifs (Sluzhenikin et al., 1994). These deposits differ by their PGE mineralization. In the sulfide type, PGEs are accompanying components, and ferrous metals play the lead role, whereas in the low‐sulfide type, Pd, Pt, and Rh are major, while nonferrous metals are secondary. Dividing PGE ores into the sulfide and low‐sulfide types (groups) provides a basis for the classification proposed in Naldrett (2003), Dodin et al. (2001), and Likhachyov (2006).

In the 21st century, up to 90% of the platinum‐group metals (PGM) production was related to processing of the Norilsk high‐grade Ni‐Cu‐PGE ore. PGE were by‐products, though in 2000–2001, their contribution to the price structure in the world’s market was about 50%. According to Russian and American specialists (Dodin et al., 2001), the PGE production in Russia will be mainly related to mining of low‐sulfide ores. Its resources in the Norilsk district are estimated at thousands of tons (Starostin & Sorokhtin, 2010). In contrast, PGE resources of the Kola region are estimated at hundreds of tons as of 2010.

Though the Kola low‐sulfide PGE ores are a minor source of PGE in the global scope, they are widespread in the Kola region and require a detailed study (Mitrofanov et al., 2013). This paper provides a comprehensive study of the age distribution in the layered complexes. As some of them are barren, the geochronology may be used as a guide to explore or at least to understand their mineralization and magmatic settings.

1.2. LIPS AND LOW‐SULFIDE DEPOSITS: GEOLOGICAL SETTING

Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs) are considered as derivatives of deep mantle plumes (Campbell and Griffits, 1990). In addition to alkaline and komatiite LIPs, a special group of LIPs comprises mafic intraplate continental provinces (Bleeker & Ernst, 2006) and consists of rift‐related thick sedimentary and volcanic sequences, dike swarms, and intrusions of mafic and ultramafic rocks.

Some researchers provide geological, geophysical, and geochemical evidence of links between LIPs and deep mantle plumes (Grachev, 2003; Pirajno, 2007; Bogatikov et al., 2010). The plumes are considered to be active in the Precambrian regions, although many of ancient geological and geophysical features of terrestrial structures cannot be detected. Nevertheless, several indicators of an ancient intracontinental mafic LIP can be proposed (Mitrofanov et al., 2013; Robb, 2008; Rundkvist et al., 2006; Smol’kin et al., 2009):

widespread areas of rocks associated with deep gravity anomalies that were caused by a granulite‐mafic layer at the base of the crust;

a rift‐related (anorogenic) assembly, discordant with older basement structures. It occurs as multiphase extensional faulting that controls the arrangement of grabens, volcanic belts, extended dike swarms, and radial intrusive bodies;

long‐term, multistage, and pulsatory tectonics and magmatism;

breaks in sedimentation and related erosion;

early manifestations of tholeiitic basaltic (trap), high‐magnesian (boninite‐like) and alkaline magmatism in domains with the continental crust; formation of leucogabbro‐anorthosite complexes;

sills, lopoliths, sheetlike intrusions, large dikes, and dike swarms;

multiphase and layered intrusions that differ from spreading and subduction‐related rocks by geochemistry (Bleeker & Ernst,

2006

). They have fine‐scale fractionation (layering) and minor intermediate and felsic rocks, often with final leucogabbro and anorthosite and abundant pegmatoid mafic varieties;

characteristic undepleted mantle geochemistry of rocks and ores with anomalously high contents of siderophile‐chalcophile elements and LILE marked by

143

Nd/

144

Nd,

87

Sr/

86

Sr,

187

Os/

188

Os, and

3

He/

4

He isotope ratios;

large orthomagmatic Cr, Ni, Cu, Co, PGE ± Au, Ti, and V deposits.

The eastern Baltic (Fennoscandian) Shield hosts the vast Palaeoproterozoic East Scandinavian mafic LIP. Its current remnants cover about 1 mln km2. The shield basement formed as a mature Archaean granulite and gneiss‐migmatite crust 2550 Ma ago. It is exposed in the Kola‐Lapland‐Karelia Craton. Main structural features of the East Scandinavian mafic LIP and its Pd‐Pt and Ni‐Cu‐PGE deposits are described in Mitrofanov et al. (2013). According to geophysical data, the lower crust in the eastern part of the shield is composed of a transitional crust‐mantle layer (Vp = 7.1–7.7 km/s). Deep xenoliths of granulites and garnet anorthosite are dated ~2460 Ma. They were taken out from this layer by the Kandalaksha explosion pipes. Compositionally, these rocks are close to the bodies exposed at the surface (Verba et al., 2005). It implies that masses of deep magma did not only ascend as volcanic rocks, dikes, and intrusions, but also underplated the crust (Mitrofanov, 2005). The exposed part of the shield extends beneath the sedimentary cover toward the northern Russian Platform as a vast Palaeoproterozoic Baltic‐Mid‐Russia wide arc‐intracontinental orogen (Mints, 2011).

The geological map of the Fennoscandian Shield (2005) clearly shows the anorogenic pattern of grabens, dike swarms, and belts (trends) of intrusive bodies independent of the Archaean gneiss‐migmatite framework. These intrusions, related deposits, and occurrences make up extended belts in the northern part of the province: the NW‐trending Kola Belt and the NE‐trending Karelian Belt with a concentration of intrusions in the Monchegorsk ore cluster (Fig. 1.1) (Bayanova et al., 2009).

Figure 1.1 Rift belts and known Paleoproterozoic mafic complexes in northern ESMLIP. KB, Kola Belt; FKB, Fenno‐Karelian Belt. 1 ‐ Archean belts; 2 ‐ Paleoproterozoic belts; 3 ‐ Thrust caledonides. Main layered complexes (numerals in figure): 1, Fedorov Pana; 2, Monchepluton; 3, Monchetundra, Volchetundra, gabbro of the Main Range; 4, Mt. General’skaya; 5, Kandalaksha and Kolvitsa intrusions; 6, Lukkulaisvaara; 7, Kondozero massif; 8, Tolstik; 9, Ondomozero; 10, Pesochny; 11, Pyalochny; 12, Keivitsa; 13, Portimo Complex (Kontijarvi, Siikakama, Ahmavaara); 14, Penikat; 15, Kemi; 16, Tornio; 17, Koillismaa Complex; 18, Akanvaara; 19, Birakov‐Aganozero massif. Hundreds of intrusive bodies are out of scale (Mitrofanov et al., 2013).

The long Early Palaeoproterozoic (2530–2400 Ma) geological history of the East Scandinavian Mafic LIP (ESMLIP) comprises several stages. They are separated by breaks in sedimentation and magmatic activity often marked by uplift erosion and deposition of conglomerates. The Sumian stage (2550–2400 Ma) is crucial for the metallogeny of Pd‐Pt ores. It can be related to the emplacement of high‐Mg and high‐Si boninite‐like and anorthosite magmas (Mitrofanov, 2005; Sharkov, 2006). The ore‐bearing intrusions were emplaced in the Kola Belt (Fedorovo‐Pansky and other intrusions, 2530–2450 Ma) and in the Fenno‐Karelian Belt (2450–2400 Ma) (Bayanova et al., 2009).

Recently, the Baltic Shield has been defined as the PGE‐bearing ESMLIP of plume nature (Bayanova et al., 2009), or the Baltic LIP with igneous rocks rich in Mg and Si (Bogatikov et al., 2010), or the Kola‐Lapland‐Karelian plume province (Smol’kin et al., 2009). These Early Palaeoproterozoic geological settings fill a substantial gap in understanding of geological events and Pd‐Pt and Ni‐Cu metallogeny of the Late Neoarchaean‐Early Palaeoproterozoic transitional period in the Earth's evolution (2.7–2.2 Ga ago). In classic metallogenic summaries (Naldrett, 2003; Groves et al., 2005), this period is characterized by the Stillwater, Great Dike of Zimbabwe, Bushveld, and Sudbury ore‐bearing complexes. However, their geological setting cannot be coordinated in space and time with regional geological frameworks.

The Neoarchaean and Palaeoproterozoic deposits (2.7–2.5 and 2.0–1.9 Ga) host the world’s main resources of Pd‐Pt ores in layered intrusions (~60 kt). Neoarchaean komatiites, Mesoproterozoic, and Late Paleozoic deposits contain Ni ores (Groves et al., 2005). These epochs coincide with the existence of the thick (250–150 km) continental lithosphere, completion of collision, and ascent of superplumes that developed over more than 200 Ma (Condie, 2004). The structures that host low‐sulfide Pd‐Pt deposits were typically within‐plate (Groves et al., 2005).

Thus, recent studies of global geodynamics and metallogeny emphasize the importance of the period in the Earth’s evolution 2.7–2.2 Ga ago, when the Neoarchaean to Palaeoproterozoic plume tectonics gave way to plate tectonics. It is particularly evident for the Kaapvaal and East European cratons (Glikson, 2014).

1.3. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES, ISOTOPE U‐PB METHOD

1.3.1. U‐Pb (TIMS) Method with 208Pb/235U Tracer

The method proposed by Krogh (Krogh, 1973) was used to dissolve samples in strong (48%) hydrofluoric acid at a temperature of 205–210 °C over 1–10 days. In order to dissolve fluorides, the samples were reacted with 3.1 N HCl at a temperature of 130 °C for 8–10 hours. To determine the isotope composition of lead and concentrations of Pb and U, a sample was divided into two aliquots in 3.1 N HCl, then a mixed 208Pb/235U tracer was added. Pb and U were separated on an AG 1 × 8, 200–400 mesh anion exchanger in Teflon columns. A laboratory blank for the whole analysis was < 0.1–0.08 ng for Pb and 0.01–0.04 ng for U. All isotope determinations for zircon and baddeleyite were made on Finnigan MAT‐262 and MI 1201‐T mass spectrometers. The Pb isotope composition was analyzed on a secondary‐ion multiplier on a Finnigan MAT‐262 in an ion‐counting mode. Measurements of the Pb isotope composition are accurate to 0.025% (Finnigan MAT‐262) and 0.15% (MI 1201‐T) when calibrated against NBS SRM‐981 and SRM‐982 standards, respectively. U and Pb concentrations were measured in a single filament mode with H3PO4 and silica gel added. The method described in Scharer and Gower (1988) and Scharer et al. (1996) was used. Pb and U concentrations were measured in temperature ranges of 1350–1450°C and 1450–1550°C, respectively. Isotope ratios were corrected for mass discrimination during static processing of replicate analyses of the SRM‐981 and SRM‐982 standards (0.12 ± 0.04% for the Finnigan MAT‐262 and 0.17 ± 0.05% per a.m.u.). Errors in the U‐Pb ratios were calculated during the statistical treatment of replicate analyses of the IGFM‐87 standard. They were assumed equal to 0.5% for Finnigan MAT‐262 and 0.7% for MI 1201‐T. Isochrons and sample points were calculated using the Squid and Isoplot programs (Ludwig, 1991, 1999). Age values were calculated with the conventional decay constants for U (Steiger & Jager, 1977). All errors are reported for a 2‐sigma level. Corrections for common Pb were made according to Stacey and Kramers (1975). Corrections were also made for the composition of Pb separated from syngenetic plagioclase or microcline, if the admixture of common Pb was >10% of the overall Pb concentration and the 206Pb/204Pb ratios were <1000.

1.3.2. 205Pb/235U Tracer for Single Grains

The U‐Pb (TIMS) method was based on the U‐Pb method for single grain accessory minerals using ion‐exchange chromatography (Corfu et al., 2011). Handpicked crystals are first treated in ultrasonic bath for cleaning in spirit or in acetone, and then in 7 N nitric acid. Then they are heated for about 15 minutes on a warm rangette and are finally flushed three times with recurrent purification water. Chemical mineral decomposition is performed in Teflon bombs, adding 3 to 5 mcl of mixed 205Pb/235U tracer in concentrated nitric acid during 5 to 7 days at a temperature of 210°C. The technique is provided in Krogh (1973). After the complete decomposition, the column effluent is evaporated on a warm rangette. Then 10 drops of 6.2 N chlorohydric acid are added. The sample is placed to the thermostat for 8 to 10 hours at a temperature of 140–150°C for homogenization. Pb and U are separated using ion‐exchange chromatography in columns with Dowex IX8 200–400 mesh resin. Pb is eluted with 10 drops of 6.2 N chlorohydric acid, when one drop of 0.1 N phosphoric acid is added and the solution is evaporated on a rangette down to 3 mcl. U is eluted separately from Pb, when 20 drops of water with one drop of 0.1 N phosphoric acid are added. It is evaporated on a rangette down to 3 mcl. All chemical procedures are performed in an ultraclean block with blank Pb and U contamination of ca.1–3 pg and ca.10–15 pg, respectively. Pb and U isotope composition and concentrations are measured on Re bands at seven‐channel mass‐spectrometer Finnigan‐MAT 262 (RPG), on collectors, with 204Pb and 205Pb measured at a temperature of 1350–1450°C in an ion‐counting mode using a multiplier or quadrupole RPG accessory. Silica gel is used as an emitter. U concentrations are detected at a temperature of 1450–1550°C using a collector and a multiplier in a mixed statically dynamic mode. When U concentrations are negligible, a multiplier or quadrupole RPQ accessory is applied in a dynamic mode. All the measured isotope ratios are adjusted for the obtained mass‐discrimination, when parallel analyses of SRM‐981 are studied and SRM‐982 standards are 0.12 ± 0.04%. Coordinates of points and isochrone parameters are calculated according to Ludwig (1991, 1999). Ages are calculated in accordance with the accepted values of U decay constants (Steiger & Jager, 1977), with errors indicated on a 2b level. The Stacey and Kramers model is used to adjust numbers for the admixture of common Pb (Stacey & Kramers, 1975).

1.3.3. Isotope Sm/Nd Method

In order to define concentrations of Sm and Nd, a sample was mixed with a compound tracer 149Sm/150Nd prior to dissolution. It was then diluted with a mixture of HF + HNO3 (or + HClO4) in Teflon sample bottles at a temperature of 100°C until complete dissolution. Sm and Nd were extracted by standard procedures with a two‐stage ion‐exchange and an extraction‐chromatographic separation. An ion‐exchange tar Dowex 50 × 8 in chromatographic columns employing 2.3 N and 4.5 N HCl was used as an eluent. The separated Sm and Nd fractions were transferred into nitrate form, whereupon the samples (preparations) were ready for mass‐spectrometric analysis. Nd‐isotope composition and Sm and Nd concentrations were measured by isotope dilution. A multicollector mass‐spectrometer in a Finnigan MAT 262 (RPQ) was used in a static mode with Re + Re and Ta + Re filament. The reproducibility measured for ten parallel analyses of the Nd‐isotope composition (standard La Jolla = 0.511833 ± 6) was <0.0024% (2σ). The same reproducibility was obtained from 11 parallel analyses of the Japanese standard: Ji Nd1 = 0.512078 ± 5. The error in 147Sm/144Nd ratios of 0.2% (2σ), the average of seven measures, was accepted for statistic calculations of the Sm and Nd concentrations using the BCR standard. Blanks for laboratory contamination for Nd and Sm were 0.3 and 0.06 ng, respectively. Isochron parameters were developed from programs made by Ludwig (Ludwig, 1991 and 1999). The reproducibility of measurements was ± 0.2% (2σ) for Sm/Nd ratios and ± 0.003% (2σ) for Nd‐isotope analyses. All 147Sm/144Nd and 143Nd/144Nd ratios were normalized to 146Nd/144Nd = 0.7219 and adjusted to 143Nd/144Nd = 0.511860 using the La Jolla Nd standard. The εNd (T) values and model TDM ages were calculated based on the currently accepted parameters of CHUR (Jacobsen & Wasserburg, 1984): 143Nd/144Nd = 0.512638 and 147Sm/144Nd = 0.1967 and DM (Goldstein and Jacobsen, 1988): 143Nd/144Nd = 0.513151 and 147Sm/144Nd = 0.2136.

Sulfide minerals (pyrite, pentlandite, chalcopyrite, etc.) were chemically and analytically treated for the Sm‐Nd study following a modified (Ekimova et al., 2011) conventional technique (Zhuravlyov et al., 1987). To decompose sulfides, a mineral weight (20 to 50 mg) is mixed with a 149Sm/150Nd tracer solution, treated with aqua regia (HCl + HNO3) until complete decomposition and evaporated dry. Afterwards, it is converted to chlorides through evaporating the sample in 4.5–6 N HCl. After the fractional acid decomposition, the dry residue is dissolved in ~1ml 2.3 N HCl. Then REEs are separated from the solution via cation‐exchange chromatography. A stepwise elution method is applied to 2.3 and 4.5 N HCl in a chromatographic column with cation‐exchange resin Dowex 50 × 8 (200–400 mesh). The separated REE fraction is evaporated dry, dissolved in 0.1 N HCl and loaded to the second column with KEL‐F solid ion‐exchange resin HDEHP. The resin is used to separate Sm and Nd. The selected Sm and Nd fractions are evaporated to get prepared for further mass‐spectrometric analysis. The Nd isotope composition and Sm and Nd concentrations were measured by an isotope dilution technique. A 7‐channel solid‐phase mass‐spectrometer Finnigan‐MAT 262 (RPQ) was used in a static double‐band mode in collectors with Ta + Re filaments. Re filaments were used as ionizers. A sample was applied to a Ta filament with a diluted H3PO4 microdrop. The reproducibility error for 11 determinations of the Nd isotope composition of La Jolla = 0.511833 ± 6 (2σ, N = 11) was up to 0.0024% (2σ). The same error was obtained for 44 parallel analyses of a new Japanese standard, JNdi1 = 0.512072 ± 2 (2σ, N = 44). The error in 147Sm/144Nd ratios is accepted for static calculations of the Sm and Nd concentrations in BCR‐1 to be 0.2% (2σ). It is an average of 7 measurements. The blank intralaboratory contamination in Nd and Sm is 0.3 ng and 0.06 ng, respectively. The measured Nd isotope rations were normalized per 148Nd/144Nd = 0.241570 and recalculated for 143Nd/144Nd in La Jolla = 0.511860 afterward. The isochron parameters were computed using programs of K. Ludwig (Ludwig, 1991, 1999). Decompositions constants are as per Steiger & Jager (1977). εNd parameters were calculated according to DePaolo (1981) for a one‐stage model and according to Liew and Hofmann (1988) for a two‐stage model.

1.3.4. Isotope Rb/Sr Method

The samples and minerals were all treated with double distilled acids (HCl, HF, and HNO3) and H2O distillate. A sample of 20–100 mg (depending on Rb and Sr contents) was dissolved with 4 ml of mixed HF and HNO3 (5:1) in corked Teflon sample bottles and left at a temperature of about 200°C for one day. The solution was then divided into three aliquots in order to determine Rb and Sr isotope compositions and concentrations. These were measured by isotope dilution using separate 85Rb and 84Sr tracers. Rb and Sr extraction was performed by eluent chromatography with Dowex tar 50 × 8 (200–400 mesh). 1.5 N and 2.3 N HCl served as an eluent. Tar volumes in the columns were c. 7 and c. 4 cm3. The separated Rb and Sr fractions were evaporated until dryness, followed by treatment with a few drops of HNO3. Sr isotope compositions and Rb and Sr contents were measured by a MI‐1201‐T (Ukraine) mass spectrometer in the two‐ribbon mode with Re filaments. The samples were deposited on the ribbons in the form of nitrate. Sr isotope composition in the measured samples was normalized to a value of 0.710235 recommended by NBS SRM‐987. Errors on Sr isotope analysis (confidence interval of 95%) are up to 0.04%, and those of Rb‐Sr ratio determination are 1.5%. Blank laboratory contamination for Rb is 2.5 ng and for Sr 1.2 ng. The adopted Rb decay constant of Steiger & Jager (1977) was used for age calculations.

1.3.5. Isotope Re/Os Method

The isotope analysis of sulfides has been provided in VSEGEI (Saint‐Petersburg). The method of Re and Os chemical extraction described in Birck et al. (1997) has been applied. Samples of minerals with the weight of 50–200 mg were dissociated in a mixture of reagents (1 ml Br2 + 2 ml 7 N HNO3 + 0.5 ml 40% CrO3 in 7 N HNO3) in 5‐ml Teflon Savillex vials under the temperature of 90 °C for 48 hours. After that Os was extracted using the microdistillation method. Re was extracted by liquid extraction with the isoamyl alcohol. The isotope dilution method with the mixed tracer 185Re/190Os was used to define the Re and Os concentrations and 187Re/188Os ratio. The tracer was added until samples were dissociated. Os as bromides was applied on a Pt filament with 0.2 ml of emitter Ba(OH)2 + NaOH. The Os isotope composition was measured with the Triton (Thermo Scientific) solid‐phase multicollector mass‐spectrometer using ion source in a dynamic mode in negative ions. The inner standard of 187Os/188Os is 0.11997 ± 0.00001. The Element‐2 (Thermo Scientific) mass‐spectrometer with the inductively coupled plasma was used to measure the Re isotope composition. Re was measured from the solution of 3% HNO3 using a multiplier in a dynamic mode. A quartz nebulizer, Ni cones, and a peristaltic pump were used. The measurements were carried with an average resolution. The Re standard of 10 mg/t was measured in the beginning and in the end of a session. The obtained value was averaged and the correcting factor of the mass deviation was estimated. The analysis accuracy is 0.5%. The measured standard 185Re/187Re ratios are within the range of 0.585–0.591, with the table standard of 0.5974 (Gramlich et al., 1973).

1.3.6. Study of Sulfide Mineral Texture and REE

Sulfides were studied using back‐scattered electrons with a high‐performance LEO 1450 scanning electron microscope. Analyses were carried to study possible inclusions in sulfides with considerable concentrations of REE that might have distorted results of Sm‐Nd dating (Elizarova et al., 2009).

To define REE in samples with no preliminary separation and concentration, reference values of REE concentrations in the GSO 2463 standard (apatite), sulfide from the Talnakh deposit, and international standard samples of the Centre of Petrographic and Geochemical Research (Nancy, France) were reproduced using the ELAN 9000 DRC‐e (Perkin Elmer, USA) quadrupole mass‐spectrometer in ICTREMRM KSC RAS, Apatity. The samples were separated under the conditions provided in Elizarova and Bayanova (2012).

1.3.7. LA‐ICP‐MS of PGE in Sulfides

To analyze concentrations of Cr, Co, As, Se, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, Sb, Re, Os, Ir, Pt, Au, Tl, Pb, and Bi in sulfides, laser ablation (UP‐213 laser) was used on a high‐resolution Element‐XR mass spectrometer with ionization in an inductively coupled plasma LA‐ICP‐MS. Measurement parameters were as follows: 40 µm crater diameter, 4 Hz impulse frequency of laser radiation. Samples were analyzed by blocks. They were prepared using the Element XR software with measurement of standard samples in the beginning and in the end of each block. Internal laboratory sulfide standards were used for analysis. The deviation defined from calibration standards is + −10 – 20%. Fe abundance was applied as an internal standard, since (a) its concentrations are high in relation to background values and (b) it occurs in all studied samples being the most homogeneously distributed in phases. The data were processed using the Glitter software (Jackson, 2001).

1.4. FEDOROVO‐PANSKY COMPLEX: GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The Fedorovo‐Pansky Layered Complex (Fig. 1.2) exposes over an area of >400 km2. It strikes northwestward for >60 km and dips southwestward at an angle of 30°–35°. The total rock sequence is about 3–4 km thick. Tectonic faults divide the complex into several blocks. The major blocks from west to east (Fig. 1.2) are known as the Fedorov, Lastjavr, Western, and Eastern Pansky (Mitrofanov, 2005). The Fedorovo‐Pansky Complex is bordered by the Archaean Keivy terrain and the Palaeoproterozoic Imandra‐Varzuga rift. The rocks of the complex crop out close to the Archaean gneisses only in the NW extremities, but their contacts cannot be defined because of their poor exposure. In the north, the complex borders alkaline granites of the White Tundra intrusion. The alkaline granites were proven to be Archaean with a U‐Pb zircon age of 2654 ± 15 Ma (Bayanova, 2004; Zozulya et al., 2005). The contact of the Western Pansky Block with the Imandra‐Varzuga volcano‐sedimentary sequence is mostly covered by Quaternary deposits. However, drilling and excavations to the south of Mt. Kamennik reveal a strongly sheared and metamorphosed contact between the intrusion and overlying Palaeoproterozoic volcano‐sedimentary rocks that we consider to be tectonic.

Figure 1.2 General geological map of the Fedorovo‐Pansky Layered Complex. (1) Quaternary deposits; (2) The Imandra‐Varzuga Proterozoic volcano‐sedimentary complex; (3) Gabbro Zone; (4) Upper Layered Horizon; (5) Gabbronorite Zone; (6) Lower Layered Horizon; (7) Alternating gabbro, gabbrnorite and troctolite; (8) Olivine gabbro and gabbronorite horizons; (9) Norite Zone; (10) Marginal Zone – Mafic schists; (11) PGE reef‐type mineralization; (12) PGE contact‐type mineralization; (13) Early Proterozoic Tsaga gabbro‐anorthosite massif; (14) Archaean Kola gneiss; (15) Archaean plagiomicrocline granite; (16) Archaean Keivy alkaline granite; (17) Boundaries between geological units; (18) Reliable boundaries between rock complexes with different ages; (19) Assumed boundaries between rock complexes with different ages; (20) Tectonic dislocations; (21) Schistosity, gneissic banding; (22) Boundaries of license areas with titles of deposits (large circles) or prospects (small circles) (Mitrofanov et al., 2005).

The Fedorovo‐Pansky Complex mostly comprises gabbronorites with varying proportions of mafic minerals and different structural features (Fig. 1.3). From the bottom up, the layered sequence is as follows:

Marginal Zone (50–100 m) of plagioclase‐amphibole schists with relicts of massive finegrained norite and gabbronorite, which are referred to as chilled margin rocks;

Taxitic Zone (30–300 m), which contains an ore‐bearing gabbronoritic matrix (2485 Ma) and early xenoliths of plagioclase‐bearing pyroxenite and norite (2526–2516 Ma). Syngenetic and magmatic ores are represented by Cu and Ni sulfides with Pt, Pd, and Au, as well as Pt and Pd sulfides, bismuth‐tellurides, and arsenides;

Norite Zone (50–200 m) with cumulus interlayers of harzburgite and plagioclase‐bearing pyroxenite that includes an intergranular injection Cu‐Ni‐PGE mineralization in the lower part. The rocks of the zone are enriched in chromium (up to 1000 ppm) and contain chromite. It is also typical of the rocks of the Penikat and Kemi intrusions (Finland) derived from the earliest magma portion (Iljina & Hanski,

2005

). Basal Cu‐Ni‐PGE deposits of the Fedorov Block were explored and prepared for licensing (Schlissel et al.,

2002

; Mitrofanov et al.,

2005

).

Main Gabbronorite Zone (c. 1000 m) is a thickly layered “stratified” rock series (

Fig. 1.3

) with a 40–80 m thinly layered lower horizon (LLH) at the upper part. LLH consists of contrasting alteration of gabbronorite, norite, pyroxenite, and interlayers of leucocratic gabbro and anorthosite. LLH contains a reef‐type PGE deposit poor in base‐metal sulfides. According to field investigations (Latypov & Chistyakova

2000

), LLH anorthositic layers intruded later, as shown by cutting injection contacts. It is confirmed by a zircon U‐Pb age for the anorthosite of 2470 ± 9 Ma.

Upper layered horizon (ULH) between the Lower and Upper Gabbro Zones. ULH consists of olivine‐bearing troctolite, norite, gabbronorite, and anorthosite (

Fig. 1.3

). It comprises several layers of rich PGE (Pd

S >

 Pt) ore poor in base‐metal sulfides (Mitrofanov et al.,

2005

). The U‐Pb age of the ULH rocks on zircon and baddeleyite is 2447 ± 12 Ma (see below). It is the youngest among those obtained for the Fedorovo‐Pansky Complex rocks (Bayanova, 2006; Bayanova et al., 2017).

Figure 1.3 Composite “stratigraphic” section of the Fedorovo‐Pansky Complex with Cu‐Ni and PGE mineralization (modified after Schissel et al., 2002). The cumulate mineral terminology used in this paper is that of cumulate phase minerals in small letters, in order of volume percent, preceding the capital C for cumulate, with postcumulate mineral phases following. Major mineral abbreviations are a = augite; b = bronzite; c = chromite; o = olivine; p = plagioclase (see Table 1.5 for references). Modified after Schissel et al., 2002.

1.5. MONCHEPLUTON ORE COMPLEX: GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The NE Fennoscandian Shield hosts two large Palaeoproterozoic layered intrusions in its central part, that is, the Monchegorsk (Fig. 1.4) mafic‐ultramafic pluton (Monchepluton, 55 km2) and the substantially mafic Monchetundra massif (120 km2). They compose the Monchegorsk Complex of layered intrusions (Sharkov, 2006; Sharkov & Chistyakov, 2014; Konnikov & Orsoev 1991; Grokhovskaya et al., 2012) and are incorporated into the Monchegorsk Cr‐PGE‐Cu‐Ni ore district (Korovkin et al., 2003).

Figure 1.4