OFR 6370 Summary of Field Work and Other Activities 2020

ISSN 1916-6117 (online) ISSN 0826-9580 (print) ISBN 978-1-4868-4844-7 (PDF) ISBN 978-1-4868-4843-0 (print) (for entire OFR 6370) (for entire OFR 6370)

THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT

Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the

“User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use.

Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines (ENDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. ENDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. ENDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. ENDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever.

Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by ENDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. ENDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”). Both your use of a linked Web site, and your right to use or reproduce information or materials from a linked Web site, are subject to the terms of use governing that particular Web site. Any comments or inquiries regarding a linked Web site must be directed to its Owner.

Copyright: Canadian and international intellectual property laws protect the Content. Unless otherwise indicated, copyright is held by the Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

It is recommended that reference to the Content be made in the following form:

Ontario Geological Survey 2020. Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2020; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6370, 182p.

or, for partial Content Hastie, E.C.G., Petrus, J.A., Gibson, H.L. and Tait, K.T. 2020. Gold Fingerprinting: Using major and trace

elements associated with native gold to work toward a global gold database; in Summary of Field Work, 2020, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6370, p.10-1 to 10-10.

Use and Reproduction of Content: The Content may be used and reproduced only in accordance with applicable intellectual property laws. Non-commercial use of unsubstantial excerpts of the Content is permitted provided that appropriate credit is given and Crown copyright is acknowledged. Any substantial reproduction of the Content or any commercial use of all or part of the Content is prohibited without the prior written permission of ENDM. Substantial reproduction includes the reproduction of any illustration or figure, such as, but not limited to graphs, charts and maps. Commercial use includes commercial distribution of the Content, the reproduction of multiple copies of the Content for any purpose whether or not commercial, use of the Content in commercial publications, and the creation of value-added products using the Content.

Contact:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON PLEASE CONTACT: BY TELEPHONE: BY E-MAIL:

The Reproduction of the EIP or Content

ENDM Publication Services

Local: (705) 670-5691 Toll-Free: 1-888-415-9845, ext. 5691

(inside Canada, United States) [email protected]

The Purchase of ENDM Publications

ENDM Publication Sales

Local: (705) 670-5691 Toll-Free: 1-888-415-9845, ext. 5691


Crown Copyright Queen’s Printer Local: (416) 326-2678 Toll-Free: 1-800-668-9938


mailto:[email protected]



Ontario Geological Survey Open File Report 6370

Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2020

2020

ONTARIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Open File Report 6370

Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2020

by

Ontario Geological Survey

Edited by R.M. Easton, S. Préfontaine, S.M. Hamilton, D.R.B. Rainsford, O.M. Burnham, M. Duguet, J.H. Hechler and R.D. Dyer

2020

Parts of this publication may be quoted if credit is given. It is recommended that reference to this publication be made in the following form:

Hastie, E.C.G., Petrus, J.A., Gibson, H.L. and Tait, K.T. 2020. Gold Fingerprinting: Using major and trace elements associated with native gold to work toward a global gold database; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2020, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6370, p.10-1 to 10-10.

Users of OGS products should be aware that Indigenous communities may have Aboriginal or treaty rights or other interests that overlap with areas of mineral potential and exploration.

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2020

ii

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2020 ISBN 978-1-4868-4843-0 (print) ISBN 978-1-4868-4844-7 (PDF)

Open File Reports of the Ontario Geological Survey are available for viewing at the John B. Gammon Geoscience Library in Sudbury and at the regional Mines and Minerals office whose district includes the area covered by the report (see below).

Copies can be purchased at Publication Sales and the office whose district includes the area covered by the report. Although a particular report may not be in stock at locations other than the Publication Sales office in Sudbury, they can generally be obtained within 3 working days. All telephone, fax, mail and e-mail orders should be directed to the Publication Sales office in Sudbury. Purchases may be made using cash, debit card, VISA, MasterCard, cheque or money order. Cheques or money orders should be made payable to the Minister of Finance.

John B. Gammon Geoscience Library Tel: (705) 670-5615933 Ramsey Lake Road, Level A3 Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5

Publication Sales Tel: (705) 670-5691 (local)933 Ramsey Lake Rd., Level A3 Toll-free: 1-888-415-9845 ext. 5691Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5 Fax: (705) 670-5770

E-mail: [email protected]

Regional Mines and Minerals Offices:

Kenora – Suite 104, 810 Robertson St., Kenora P9N 4J2

Kirkland Lake – 1451 Hwy. 66, Swastika P0K 1T0

Red Lake – 227 Howey Street, P.O. Box 324, Red Lake P0V 2M0

Sault Ste. Marie – 740 Great Northern Rd., Sault Ste. Marie P6B 0B4

Southern Ontario – P.O. Bag Service 43, 126 Old Troy Rd., Tweed K0K 3J0

Sudbury – 933 Ramsey Lake Rd., Level A3, Sudbury P3E 6B5

Thunder Bay – Suite B002, 435 James St. S., Thunder Bay P7E 6S7

Timmins – Ontario Government Complex, P.O. Bag 3060, 5520 Hwy. 101 East, South Porcupine P0N 1H0

Every possible effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this report; however, the Ontario Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines does not assume liability for errors that may occur. Source references are included in the report and users are urged to verify critical information.

If you wish to reproduce any of the text, tables or illustrations in this report, please write for permission to the Manager, Publication Services, Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, 933 Ramsey Lake Road, Level A3, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5.

Cette publication est disponible en anglais seulement.

Parts of this report may be quoted if credit is given. It is recommended that reference be made in the following form:

Hastie, E.C.G., Petrus, J.A., Gibson, H.L. and Tait, K.T. 2020. Gold Fingerprinting: Using major and trace elements associated with native gold to work toward a global gold database; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2020, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6370, p.10-1 to 10-10.



iii

Mines and Minerals Division Regional and District Offices

CITY ADDRESS OFFICE(S) TELEPHONE FAX Kenora Suite 104, 810 Robertson St.,

Kenora P9N 4J2 ○ ■ (807) 468-2813 (807) 468-2930

Red Lake 227 Howey Street, P.O. Box 324, Red Lake P0V 2M0

● ■ (807) 727-3272 (807) 727-3553

Thunder Bay – North Thunder Bay – South

Suite B002, 435 James St. S., Thunder Bay P7E 6S7

● ■ ▼

(807) 475-1332 (807) 475-1112

Sault Ste. Marie 740 Great Northern Road, Sault Ste. Marie P6B 0B4

○ ■ (705) 945-6932

Timmins Ontario Government Complex, P.O. Bag 3060, 5520 Hwy 101 East, South Porcupine P0N 1H0

● ■ ▼

(705) 235-1615 (705) 235-1620

Kirkland Lake 1451 Hwy 66, Swastika P0K 1T0

● ■ (705) 568-4520 (705) 568-4524

Sudbury Willet Green Miller Centre, Level A3, 933 Ramsey Lake Rd., Sudbury P3E 6B5

○ (705) 670-5733 (705) 670-5770

(705) 670-5742 Toll-Free (Canada, USA): (888) 415-9845

(705) 670-5681 Toll-Free (Canada, USA): (877) 670-1444

Tweed (Southern Ontario)

P.O. Bag Service 43, 126 Old Troy Rd., Tweed K0K 3J0

● ■ ▼

(613) 478-3161 (613) 478-2873

iv

Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines

Ontario Geological Survey Branch

• Geoscience Surveys and

Mapping - Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Quaternary Geology - Surficial Geology - Surficial Geochemistry - Aggregate Resources - Industrial Minerals - Groundwater - Geophysics

• Warehouse

• Direct Client Services • Land-Use Planning • Local Area Expertise • Mineral Resource Potential • Investment Attraction • Recommendations For

Exploration

• Geoscience Laboratories - Inorganic Geochemical and Mineralogical Analytical and Research Services - Reference Material

• Publication Services Unit - Publications - Publication Sales - Geoscience Library - Archives

Director's Office(705) 670-5758

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping

(705) 670-5758

Resident Geologist Program

(807) 475-1334

GeoServicesSection

(705) 670-5632

• Strategic Co-ordination • Aboriginal Engagement and

Relationship Building • Communication

v

Contents

Office of the Director, Ontario Geological Survey 1. Ontario Geological Survey: Update of Strategic Perspective for 2020–2021 S.B. Beneteau

2. Ontario Geological Survey: Measuring Success J.E. Nadeau

3. Activities of the Aboriginal Geoscience Liaisons in 2019–2020 M.D. Levesque and L.C. Schmidt

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section 4. Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section: 2020–2021 Program and Projects Overview

J.H. Hechler, R.M. Easton, D.R.B. Rainsford, S. Préfontaine, S.M. Hamilton and R.D. Dyer

Precambrian Geology – Northeastern Ontario 5. Project NE-19-004. Summary of 2019 Field Activity, Ramsey–Algoma Area Compilation Project,

Superior and Southern Provinces S. Préfontaine

6. Project AS-19-002. Preliminary Interpretation of the Sturgeon River Area Aeromagnetic Survey, Northeastern Ontario R.M. Easton, D.R.B. Rainsford and S. Préfontaine

Precambrian Geology – Northwestern Ontario 7. Project NW-19-001. Precise U/Pb Age for a North-Trending Mafic Dike from the Western Flank

of the Marathon Swarm, East Bay Area, Northwestern Ontario R.T. Metsaranta and M.A. Hamilton

8. Project NW-19-003. Geochemistry of Archean Volcaniclastic and Mafic Intrusive Rocks, Georgia Lake Area, Quetico Subprovince, Northwestern Ontario M. Duguet

Precambrian Geology – Pan-Provincial 9. Exploration Guidelines for Carbonatites in Ontario R.M. Easton

10. Project ON-19-004. Gold Fingerprinting: Using Major and Trace Elements Associated with Native Gold to Work Toward a Global Gold Database E.C.G. Hastie, J.A. Petrus, H.L. Gibson and K.T. Tait

Geophysics 11. Summary of Geophysical Projects and Activities D.R.B. Rainsford, S. Biswas and T.O. Larsen

Surficial Mapping and Sampling 12. Project FN-19-001. Far North Terrain Mapping in the Pickle Lake–Cat Lake Area, Northwestern

Ontario: Preliminary Indicator Mineral Results C. Gao and K.H. Yeung

13. Project NE-18-001. Quaternary Geology Mapping in the “Great Clay Belt” of Northeastern Ontario A.S. Marich

vi

Surficial Geochemistry 14. Project NE-16-001. The Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry Project: Investigating the Controls

on Groundwater Chemistry in Crystalline Silicate Rock Terrain in Northeastern Ontario K.M. Dell

Paleozoic Geology and Energy Studies 15. Project SO-20-001. Subsurface Correlation of the Silurian Clinton and Medina Groups,

Southwestern Ontario R.H. Paterson, F.R. Brunton, J. Jin, A.R. Phillips and K.H. Yeung

Geoscience Laboratories 16. Summary of Quality-Control Data for the Geoscience Laboratories Methods GFA-PBG,

XRF-M01, XRF-M02, XRF-T02, XRF-T03, XRF-T04, XRF-T05 and XRF-W01 J.C. Hargreaves and O.M. Burnham

Index of Authors

Metric Conversion Table

Office of the Director, Ontario Geological Survey

Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2020, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6370, p.1-1 to 1-11. © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2020

1-1

1. Ontario Geological Survey: Update of Strategic Perspective for 2020–2021

S.B. Beneteau1

1Director’s Office, Ontario Geological Survey, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5

INTRODUCTION

This article provides an update on the strategic direction of the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) based on activities during the 2020–2021 fiscal year.

These strategic priorities include the delivery of relevant, accurate, up-to-date public geoscience data and information about Ontario in order to

• identify economic opportunities; • safeguard public health and safety related to natural geological factors; and • inform environmental and land-use planning decisions.

As part of delivering on the strategic plan, the OGS continues to address government priorities and provides public geoscience to the general public, Indigenous and other stakeholders. This is done to inform and guide decision making in the areas of mineral investment attraction and Earth resources management, land-use planning, healthy communities, and energy supply.

THE ONTARIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The OGS is the principal provincial government organization responsible for the collection, interpretation, documentation and dissemination of public geoscience data and information. The geoscience expertise of the OGS focusses on the description of Ontario’s bedrock geology, surficial geology, the geological processes that shaped the landscape, and the Earth resources (groundwater, minerals, metals, aggregates, hydrocarbons) that occur within the geological framework. This public geoscience information is used to support and inform decisions related to

• environmental geochemical baseline; • identification and description of naturally occurring geological hazards that may pose a threat to

public health and safety; • engineering infrastructure factors related to aggregates and terrain; • changing climate impact and mitigation considerations; • land-use planning and Earth resources management from a geological perspective; • biodiversity and habitat as they relate to geology; and • economic development and stewardship related to groundwater, energy, aggregates, metals and

minerals.

Director’s Office (1) S.B. Beneteau

1-2

The COVID-19 pandemic created an unusually challenging year for the OGS. Although field activities were curtailed, there continued to be significant quantities of geoscience project activity. Despite a physical workplace shutdown, the OGS continued to generate world-class geoscience information, products and services, including the 16 articles included in this volume and numerous other publications released by OGS staff. The Resident Geologist Program (RGP) continued to provide information and support to the exploration sector and are on target to release 2020–2021 Recommendations for Exploration in the coming months. The Geoscience Laboratories staff returned to the physical workplace in late September 2020.

VISION, MISSION AND MANDATE OF THE ONTARIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The OGS vision, mission and mandate statements are

Vision: The OGS is “a leading provider of reliable, credible, accessible public geoscience data, information and expert knowledge for the public good”.

Mission: The OGS sustains and supports Ontario’s quality of life, economic prosperity, environmental quality and public safety by providing Ontario’s citizens, institutions and Indigenous people with public geoscience data, information and expert knowledge to inform decision making.

Mandate: The OGS collects and disseminates public geoscience data and information and provides expert knowledge to attract and guide mineral sector investment, as well as inform a broad range of government policy priorities, including mineral investment attraction, land use planning, healthy communities, and energy supply.

ONTARIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY: DELIVERING GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC GEOSCIENCE

The OGS has maintained an international reputation for independent, credible, public geoscience expertise. The following examples highlight recent achievements of OGS technical professionals:

• completed airborne surveys in the Sturgeon River area, east-central Ontario, and in the Biscotasing Arm area, west-central Ontario. Procurement is underway for acquisition of airborne survey to be flown in the winter of 2021 in the Saganash area of central Ontario to assist in characterizing the regional bedrock framework. In addition, a preliminary interpretation of the results of the Sturgeon River aeromagnetic survey are provided herein (this volume, Article 6);

• completed and published bedrock geology and compilation of the McFaulds Lake (“Ring of Fire”) region;

• publication of Quaternary geology preliminary maps for the Kapuskasing and Smooth Rock Falls areas along the Highway 11 corridor of northeastern Ontario;

• remote predictive mapping of surficial deposits in the Cat Lake region of Ontario’s Far North (this volume, Article 12);

• continuing groundwater aquifer mapping: three-dimensional (3-D) modelling of subsurface sediments and bedrock; and the karst map of southern Ontario: Clinton and Medina groups update (this volume, Article 15);


1-3

• continuation of Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry projects: data interpretation, southernOntario;

• update of Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry project: data compilation, northeastern Ontario(North Bay, Sudbury, Manitoulin and North Shore) (this volume, Article 14);

• continuation of the Gold Fingerprinting project: using major and trace elements associated withnative gold to work toward an open-source database (this volume, Article 10);

• completed exploration guidelines for carbonatites in Ontario (this volume, Article 9);

• continued compilation of the Archean and Proterozoic geology of the Ramsey–Algoma area(this volume, Article 5)

• ongoing delivery of the services of a world-class inorganic geochemical laboratory, whichsupports the OGS geochemical program; and

• ongoing delivery of the Resident Geologist Program (RGP), which delivers local expertgeoscience knowledge and front-line service to clients, stakeholders, Indigenous people and thegeneral public across Ontario.

To date, the active OGS public geoscience information holdings include 10 402 maps, 3350 reports and 651 data releases. In the period January 1 to October 31, 2020, the OGS published 8 new reports, 28 new maps, and 9 new data releases.

During this same period, numerous publications and data files were downloaded or accessed:

downloaded from our GeologyOntario Web site: in excess of 368 577 maps and reports in portable document format (.pdf) and image (.jpg) format 10 044 compressed (.zip) files, representing 3304 different publications

downloaded from our OGS Earth Web site: 76 598 master .kml files Resident Geologist Program databases and recommendations Mineral Deposit Inventory (MDI) 659 .zip files Ontario Assessment File Database (OAFD) 651 .zip files Ontario Drill Hole Database (ODHD) 506 .zip files Recommendations for Exploration 876 .pdf files

(61% represents the current Recommendations for Exploration 2019–2020,the remaining 39% represents recommendations from 2005 to 2018)

accessed and downloaded from our OGS Earth RGP Activity Reports—Mineral Exploration(AR—ME) Web page, compiled by the district offices: AR—ME Web page accessed 312 times AR—ME Web table page accessed 335 times AR—ME .kml file downloaded 558 times individual pages for the district offices accessed 1628 times

(through either the OGS Earth Web page or the AR—ME Web table page)

http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/geologyontario

http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth

http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth/activity-reports-mineral-exploration

http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mines/ogs/rgp/MER_listing_e.html


1-4

CURRENT TRENDS THAT WILL SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THE ONTARIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Trends that continue to influence the OGS geoscience program include the following: • Long-term global growth, largely driven by the need for mineral resources: having up-to-date

inventories of Ontario’s geology and Earth resources is a key aspect of attracting and fulfilling this investment potential.

• Mineral resource exploration and development continue to push geographic and technological frontiers: the Far North, “deep search” for mineral resources, potential for renewable and non-renewable energy sources, and quality and quantity of groundwater resources.

• Expectations for governments to provide robust guidance on management, mitigation and adaptation to the challenges of a changing climate require geoscience to help frame and inform some of those decisions, including drought mitigation and the identification and protection of vulnerable groundwater aquifers.

• Population growth across southern Ontario, which requires geoscience for land-use planning and the identification of groundwater aquifers and aggregate construction materials.

• Emphasis on evidence-based decision making requiring the inclusion of geoscience to fully assess risk and to support decision making.

• Increasing societal need to understand, identify, and reduce disaster risks posed by natural geological features and, in a geological context, protect Ontario’s natural environments. For each action, the OGS has a vital role to play in ensuring Ontario is well positioned to face these challenges through provision of geological data and information.

• Standards and expectations for environmental responsibility continue to grow. A sound understanding of the geological features of the Earth is critical to ensuring a geochemical baseline is in place, that the material to be sampled for geochemical analysis is understood, and that the “geological container” that holds the Earth resources, such as groundwater, is described.

• Land-use planning across the Far North and municipalities elsewhere in Ontario will continue; that process requires the consideration of geology in order to assess health, safety, infrastructure, geochemical baseline, source water protection and economic potential options.

• Expectations for rapid, evidence-based policy analysis and user-friendly data discovery, access and handling will continue to grow through an “open spatial data” climate.

• Engagement, relationship-building, collaboration and notification of Indigenous people and citizens of Ontario related to the delivery of OGS geoscience project activities is an essential part of operating with a social licence and is an integral part of the operations of the OGS geoscience program where a multi-year presence on the land is required.

ONTARIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CLIENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS The OGS works closely with Indigenous people in anticipated and planned geoscience project areas

to engage, to build meaningful relationships and to discuss potential impacts and implications of OGS projects. The OGS practice is to work collaboratively with Indigenous communities on topics of mutual interest that can be the basis of a collaboration and/or partnership related to a geoscience project. This practice has matured since the OGS implemented changes in 1999 to its Indigenous engagement practices. In 2016, the OGS Director’s Office recruited 2 Aboriginal Geoscience Liaison positions based in Sudbury and Thunder Bay. A summary of the activities of the Aboriginal Geoscience Liaisons during the 2019–2020 fiscal year are described by Levesque and Schmidt (this volume, Article 3).


1-5

The OGS also has clients who formulate and implement policy and who are regulators in provincial, municipal and local governments. In 2019–2020, the OGS continued to move forward with the development of a provincial Geoscience Integration plan that is intended to broaden the application of geoscience information into broader government decision making by guiding other provincial ministries in applying public geoscience to help inform their decisions. A focus of the OGS is to develop a Geoscience Communities of Practices, which aims at strengthening collaboration and communication among government geoscientists and users of geoscience, through co-ordinated cross-ministry efforts that support the exchange of information, and at expanding the knowledge and expertise with respect to the application of geoscience in government.

In addition, public geoscience data, information and knowledge are used by municipalities, academia and a variety of private sector organizations to inform business-related decisions. The OGS conducts annual client surveys (see Nadeau, this volume, Article 2) to measure 6 performance indicators including the percentage of decision makers who state that their use of OGS products and services increased their decision-making efficiency and effectiveness by focussing their efforts on areas of interest identified by public geoscience. The performance and effectiveness of the OGS geoscience program, based on client input, is measured and tracked from year to year (see Nadeau, this volume, Article 2).

CURRENT STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

Four strategic priorities, with implementation plans, continue to be the focus of the OGS for fiscal years out to 2021.

What Will the OGS Do Strategically? • Priority 1 Establish a geoscience baseline for all of Ontario in order to identify economic

opportunities, safeguard public health and safety, and inform environmental and land-use planning decisions.

• Priority 2 Contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of Indigenous relations.

• Priority 3 Contribute to mineral development investment attraction.

• Priority 4 Inform users about the value and relevance of OGS goods and services.

Results to Date

PRIORITY 1

Priority 1. Establish a geoscience baseline for Ontario in order to identify economic opportunities, safeguard public health and safety, and inform environmental and land-use planning decisions.

Strategic Objective: Provide modern, independent and credible geoscience data, information and knowledge to support decision making by government, Indigenous communities, citizens and industry.

Ontario Geological Survey public geoscience goods and services provide support for economic, social and environmental public policy decisions in a variety of areas:

• Economy: water (groundwater), metal, mineral (including aggregate) and energy resources; • Environment: inorganic geochemical baseline, geological habitat that influences biodiversity,

waste management and climate change mitigation and adaptation;


1-6

• Public health and safety: groundwater quality; geological hazards (e.g., landslides, karst, geochemical, gas, radioactivity); and

• Community: infrastructure planning, land-use planning, resource stewardship.

Multi-year priorities are established and reviewed annually during the OGS project planning process. The Geological Survey of Canada (Natural Resources Canada–Lands and Minerals Sector) is also an important part of the annual geoscience priority planning. These inputs are in addition to geoscience needs that are identified by public and private stakeholders and clients. The resulting geoscience projects are distributed across all of Ontario (see Hechler et al., this volume, Article 4).

Results

To deliver on the strategic priorities, different roles and responsibilities are distributed across the OGS Branch (Table 1.1). Some notable results of the 4 key technical mapping commitments are the following.

• Two- and three-dimensional geological mapping projects continued in various regions across Ontario to attract mineral investment, to inform land-use planning related to Indigenous communities and municipalities in northern and southern Ontario, to assess mineral, energy and groundwater resource potential and to support resource and infrastructure development decisions.

• Published geochemical survey data, including groundwater characterization, to continue to assist in the identification of natural factors in the environment, water-quality issues and geohazards.

• Airborne geophysical survey to be flown in northeastern Ontario. • Inventory assessments of groundwater quality related to geology have been completed across

southern Ontario and are still underway in northern Ontario. • Continuing updates to the Mineral Deposit Inventory (MDI) and its online database. • Continuing updates to the Aggregate Resources of Ontario (ARO) and its online database. • Continuing updates to the Geochronology Inventory of Ontario (GeochrON) and its online

database. • Continuing updates to the Lake Geochemistry of Ontario (LakeGeochemON) and its online

database.

A number of technical initiatives are achieving these results (see Hechler et al., this volume, Article 4).

PRIORITY 2

Priority 2. Contribute to building collaborative relationships with Indigenous communities.

Strategic Objective: Continue to maintain and build meaningful and respectful relationships with Indigenous people and organizations as a foundation for OGS geoscience program activities.

Within the ENDM Mines and Minerals Division, the OGS contributes to the Divisional and Ministry goal to build and deliver on an Indigenous strategy (Table 1.2).

Director’

s Office (1)

S.B. Beneteau

1-7

Table 1.1. Summary of OGS strategic objectives for public geoscience.

Strategic Objectives – Public Geoscience Information Outcomes Divisional Mandate Strategic Objectives Activities How? Who? * Ontario geoscience portfolio recognized as a relevant resource to inform economic opportunities, health and safety, environmental and land-use planning decisions

Land-use and environmental decisions informed by public geoscience

Mineral investment decisions informed by public geoscience

Enhanced efficiency and effectiveness and reduced risk of economic investment decisions and land-use and environmental decisions

Public awareness about the value and relevance of public geoscience

To support prosperous and sustainable economic growth, by collecting and disseminating geoscience information and regulating mineral exploration and mining in Ontario in a manner consistent with Indigenous reconciliation, protection of public health and safety and the environment

Establish a geoscience baseline for Ontario to identify economic opportunity

Establish geoscience priorities based on public policy direction and input from stakeholders and clients

Gap analysis meetings with external clients, stakeholders, and with OGS staff who serve as proxy for external clients

Director’s Office, ERGMS, RGP

Project planning ERGMS, RGP, GeoServices Establish a geoscience baseline for Ontario to safeguard public health and safety

Collect, analyze, advise and archive geoscience information

Mapping (OGS and collaborative projects with external collaborators or other governments)

ERGMS, GeoServices, RGP

Property or site visits: mineral and aggregates

RGP

Geochemistry ERGMS, RGP, GeoServices Geophysics ERGMS Receive third-party geoscience information

RGP, ERGMS

Geoscience Library GeoServices Establish a geoscience baseline for Ontario to inform environmental and land-use planning decisions

Provide access to OGS geoscience goods and services in a form that meets client needs

Geoscience Library GeoServices GeologyOntario, OGS Earth and OGS Geoscience Atlas

GeoServices, RGP, ERGMS

OGS expert technical staff participation in third-party technical meetings

ERGMS, RGP, GeoServices

Inform users about the value and relevance of OGS goods and services and facilitate application of public geoscience to address priority issues faced by government, industry, and citizens

Multi-ministry committees Director’s Office, ERGMS, GeoServices, RGP, other ENDM business units

Provide geoscience information at technical meetings, symposia, workshops, and through direct client visits

ERGMS, RGP, GeoServices

Develop a Geoscience Integration Plan

Director’s Office, RGP, ERGMS

*Abbreviations: ENDM = Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines; ERGMS = Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section; GeoServices = GeoServices Section; OGS = Ontario Geological Survey; RGP = Resident Geologist Program.

Director’

s Office (1)

S.B. Beneteau

1-8

Table 1.2. Strategic objectives for Indigenous relations.

Strategic Objectives – Indigenous Relations Outcomes Divisional Mandate Strategic Objectives Activities How? Who? * Strong and meaningful relationships between ENDM and Indigenous people and organizations

To support prosperous and sustainable economic growth, by collecting and disseminating geoscience information and regulating mineral exploration and mining in Ontario in a manner consistent with Indigenous reconciliation, protection of public health and safety and the environment

Continue to maintain and build meaningful and respectful relationships with Indigenous people and organizations as a foundation for OGS geoscience program activities

Engagement and relationship-building with Indigenous people, at a community level, and with organizations

Seek social licence for OGS geoscience projects through engagement and relationship-building

Offer OGS geoscience topic area expertise

Raise awareness about geoscience and its application to Indigenous interests

Help build capacity related to geoscience and mineral industry-related careers

Serve as a bridge between Indigenous people and government and non-government topic experts

Director’s Office, ERGMS, RGP

*Abbreviations: ENDM = Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines; ERGMS = Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section; OGS = Ontario Geological Survey; RGP = Resident Geologist Program.

Table 1.3. Strategic objectives for mineral development investment and opportunities.

Strategic Objectives – Mineral Development Investment and Opportunities Outcomes Divisional Mandate Strategic Objectives Activities How? Who? * Identification of investment opportunities and/or advantages that maximize mineral resource potential for Ontario’s economic development

Sustain and increase investment in Ontario’s mineral sector

Research, development and promotion of strategic investment opportunities that influence policy issues and support Ontario’s mineral competitiveness

Promote the products and services of Mines and Minerals Division and Ontario’s geology

Monitor Ontario’s exploration and mining industries

Provide data and analysis on the mineral sector

Identify, assess, and promote mineral investment opportunities to industry (and local governments, conservation authorities, and groundwater-related interest groups)

Participate in provincial, national and international marketing and promotional events

RGP, ERGMS, GeoServices, Director’s Office

*Abbreviations: ERGMS = Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section; GeoServices = GeoServices Section; RGP = Resident Geologist Program.


1-9

Results

Focus during the 2020–2021 fiscal year is to continue collaborations and relationship building with Mississauga First Nation, Sandy Lake First Nation, Keewaywin First Nation, Pic River First Nation, North Caribou Lake First Nation, Deer Lake First Nation, Temagami First Nation, Red Rock Indian Band, Matawa First Nations Management and Keewaytinook Okimakanak Council, as well as numerous communities in northeastern and southern Ontario (see Levesque and Schmidt, this volume, Article 3).

The Director’s Office includes 2 Aboriginal Geoscience Liaison positions based in Sudbury and Thunder Bay. These positions report to the Director and engage, build and maintain relationships with Indigenous people in remote and non-remote communities across Ontario.

PRIORITY 3

Priority 3. Contribute to mineral development investment attraction.

Strategic Objective: The OGS contributes to 2 mineral investment-related strategic objectives that are the primary responsibility of the Mines and Minerals Division (MMD), Strategic Services Branch, these are

• promoting the products and services of Mines and Minerals Division, as well as promote Ontario’s geology through educational and/or informational tools;

• monitoring Ontario’s exploration and mining industries and provide information and/or data and analysis on Ontario’s mineral sector.

The OGS participates in the promotion of mineral development opportunities in Ontario by promoting the geology and mineral potential of the province, as well as the public geoscience data and information resources. The OGS brings geoscience data, information and expert knowledge to the investment attraction and promotional activities led by the Strategic Services Branch (Table 1.3). In addition, OGS technical experts support the investment attraction efforts by providing

• geoscience knowledge of available mineral properties in a region;

• knowledge of Ontario geology and the potential for different types of mineral resource opportunities across all of Ontario (for example, regional geochemical maps that highlight areas of enhanced mineral potential); and

• knowledge of key players in the mineral industry and facilitating relationships between interested clients.

Results

The technical staff of the OGS participated at the Association for Mineral Exploration (AME) Annual Mineral Exploration Roundup 2020 and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) 2020 Annual Convention, and helped to co-host the 2020 Ontario Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Canada, and Conservation Ontario Geoscientists Open House. Staff also participated virtually in the 2020 Denver X-ray Conference; GeoConvention 2020 (joint meeting of the Canadian Geophysical Union, Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Canadian Well Logging Society, Geological Association of Canada and the Mineralogical Association of Canada); the 2020 Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Conference, and the Geological Society of America (GSA) 2020 Connects Online conference.


1-10

PRIORITY 4

Priority 4. Inform users about the value and relevance of OGS goods and services.

Strategic Objective: The objective is to raise awareness and understanding about the relevance, value and application of OGS public geoscience to inform decision-making for government, clients, stakeholders, Indigenous people and the public.

The OGS role is to communicate the existence, relevance and application of public geoscience and provide a broad range of products and services to deliver geoscience information to users, including two- and three-dimensional geological maps, reports, data sets and databases, technical posters, technical presentations, and expert knowledge and advice.

All geoscience publications are available for free download through the GeologyOntario online data warehouse. Some key data sets are also available through OGS Earth, which uses the Google Earth™ mapping service to view public geoscience data and information in a geographic context. The Resident Geologist Program (RGP) has also enhanced access to data using OGS Earth by adding mineral deposit and assessment file information, as well as increasing online accessibility to non-assessment geoscience information in the RGP offices.

Results

The OGS continued to use a variety of communication channels to deliver its products, raise awareness about geoscience and improve access to data, including

• “social media”, such as Twitter and Facebook and internal communication channels; • formal public presentations that describe the value, relevance and application of geoscience; • development of “communities of practice” in government ministries who employ geoscientists; • development of a “geoscience lens” to facilitate and guide the application of public geoscience

in government decision making; • improving the Ontario Mineral Exploration Information System, which is an internal process to

improve and streamline processing and uploading of assessment files, drill-hole data and other geoscience information; and

• development of a new GIS-based geological and geospatial data product (OGS Focus) to assist mineral sector clients with exploration targeting.

THE FUTURE

Building on the work initiated in 2018–2019, the OGS management team has been developing the new OGS strategic plan based on initial input from all OGS staff. The new 5-year strategic plan will be fully integrated with the newly launched 2018–2023 Mines and Minerals Division Strategic Plan, which includes the following 5 priorities: 1) a dynamic and fully engaged workforce; 2) global leadership in geoscience, exploration and mining investment; 3) streamlined regulatory processes; 4) partnerships with Indigenous communities; and 5) fully integrated online service delivery and access to information.

The OGS continues to • implement a geoscience program based on accurate, modern, credible, public geoscience data,

information and knowledge to help inform decision making; • identify naturally occurring geological features and phenomena relevant to public health and

safety;


1-11

• publish and promote information about Ontario’s Earth resources, including its mineral, energy and water resource endowments;

• develop new geoscience products that help present our complex geoscience data in a form that is understood by non-geoscience users, including the development of products that broaden the access and awareness of OGS geoscience goods and services to both traditional and non-traditional users;

• continue the utilization of social media.

The OGS public geoscience goods and services play an important role in helping support public-policy decision makers, investors and other users. Societal needs are increasingly complex and require a sound and objective understanding of geoscience to help assess and frame the complex options available. Geoscience is an essential element of social, environmental, and resource management decision-making processes. One important future step the OGS is already working toward for Ontario is the implementation of the Geoscience Integration plan, designed to

• guide Government ministries in their application of geoscience information to help inform decision-making;

• help inform evaluation of land-use management and stewardship options; • provide a consistent and defensible standard for use by ministries; and • contribute to safer and stronger communities, a more sustainable environment, and a more

prosperous economy.

STAFFING CHANGES IN THE DIRECTOR’S OFFICE

In January 2020, Steve Beneteau became the Director of the Ontario Geological Survey. Also, in January 2020, Erin Rondeau joined the Director’s Office as the Administrative Assistant. In May 2020, Leah Schmidt took on a 9-month training and development assignment with the Strategic Support Unit, Strategic Services Branch, within the Mines and Minerals Division.


2-1

2. Ontario Geological Survey: Measuring Success

J.E. Nadeau1

1Director’s Office, Ontario Geological Survey

INTRODUCTION

The Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) Branch has 3 program outcomes.

• Short-Term Outcome: Clients, stakeholders and Indigenous communities have awareness of the value, relevance and application of available geoscience information;

• Intermediate Outcome: Geoscience knowledge and information are valued and used to inform decisions related to economic, environmental and social priorities;

• Long-Term Outcome: People and communities in Ontario benefit from the informed use of Ontario’s land and Earth resources.

To help achieve these outcomes, as well as to measure program success, the OGS has 6 performance indicators that it measures and tracks.

1. Percentage of decision makers who state that their use of OGS products and services increased their decision-making efficiency and effectiveness by focussing their efforts on areas of interest identified by OGS geoscience.

2. Percentage of decision makers who used OGS products and services to support their mineral investments or environmental decisions.

3. Percentage of decision makers who were satisfied with OGS products and services to support their decision making.

4. Indigenous communities who were satisfied with OGS products and services.

5. Percentage of clients and stakeholders satisfied with value-added OGS geoscience information (e.g., laboratory services, publication services, prospecting courses, groundwater meetings).

6. Annual number of square kilometres mapped by OGS based on results of OGS project proposal evaluation process.

The OGS conducts a large annual client survey by e-mail to measure each of the performance indicators. Performance is also measured by surveying participants who attend OGS information sessions; documenting the completion of major project milestones; and documenting testimonials from Indigenous communities. All of these data are collected, tracked and monitored to ensure that the OGS is providing high-quality, relevant geoscience products and services to its clients, stakeholders, Indigenous people and the general public.

Director’s Office (2) J.E. Nadeau

2-2

VALUE-ADDED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

The Resident Geologist Program (RGP) and the GeoServices Section of the OGS conduct client surveys that are specific to their program areas. The RGP distribute hard-copy surveys at regional offices and at various tradeshows and conferences that they attend. The GeoServices Section uses SurveyMonkey® software to distribute client surveys and collect results (Table 2.1).

The OGS, in collaboration with the Geological Survey of Canada and Conservation Ontario, conducts an annual Regional-Scale Groundwater Geoscience Open House in Southern Ontario. Participants are surveyed on their overall satisfaction with the event, using hard-copy surveys and SurveyMonkey®, and results are recorded (see Table 2.1).

Table 2.1. Client survey results from the Resident Geologist Program, GeoServices Section and the Groundwater Open House.

Survey Question Program Area 2015–2016 2016–2017 2017–2018 2018–2019 2019–2020 How satisfied are you with the RGP

products and services Resident Geologist

Program n/a 79% 94% 96% 100%*

How satisfied are you with the analyses and services provided by the Geoscience Laboratories

GeoServices Section

84% n/a 83% 97% 99%

Please rate your overall satisfaction with the Groundwater Open House

Groundwater Open House

n/a 94% 93% 99% 100%

n/a = no data available. *Please note that there were less than 30 respondents.

ANNUAL CLIENT SURVEY

Method

The 2019–2020 OGS Client Survey was conducted from June 29 to July 31, 2020. A database of 432 clients was compiled by OGS staff with 420 of these clients having valid contact information. The survey was conducted using SurveyMonkey®, which is an online survey platform that is used to create and distribute surveys and collect and analyze results. This approach involved sending electronic invitations through the software to respondents that had email addresses provided (N=420), for them to complete the survey online. A total of 4 follow up reminders were then sent to those that did not complete the survey.

A total of 191 responses were captured, a 46% response rate. This response was a 5% decrease from the 2019 results; however, it is higher than the average from 2014–2019.

Survey Results

Ten questions were asked of 2 major OGS client groups: 1) mineral or other resource exploration/ development; and 2) land-use planning, groundwater or environmental. These clients were further separated into A) product users and B) service users. It should be noted, however, that this was the second year clients were divided into these categories; therefore, the results may be skewed in the representation to years previous to 2019. Also note that clients were able to identify as solely using products, solely using services, or a user of both products and services, this separation began in 2019 as well. The results of each category are noted below in Table 2.2 for questions asked of all clients, Table 2.3 for questions asked of clients who identified themselves as product users and Table 2.4 for those clients who identified as service users.


2-3

Table 2.2. Ontario Geological Survey 2019–2020 client survey questions and summary of results for OGS clients.

Survey Questions Mineral / Resource / Exploration Land-Use Planning / Groundwater / Environmental

2014–2015

2015–2016

2016–2017

2017–2018

2018–2019

2019–2020

2014–2015

2015–2016

2016–2017

2017–2018

2018–2019

2019–2020

What category best describes the majority of work that you conduct?

66% 65% 72% 77% 80% 72% 34% 35% 28% 23% 20% 28%

How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the OGS?

85% 80% 85% 73% 81% 86% 95% 94% 93% 96% 90% 96%

Table 2.3. Ontario Geological Survey 2019–2020 client survey questions and summary of results for OGS product users.

Survey Questions Mineral / Resource / Exploration Land Use Planning / Groundwater / Environmental

2014–2015

2015–2016

2016–2017

2017–2018

2018–2019

2019–2020

2014–2015

2015–2016

2016–2017

2017–2018

2018-2019

2019–2020

Percentage of clients who used OGS products within the past 12 months?

90% 94% 90% 89% 94% 92% 85% 94% 91% 89% 90% 89%

Overall satisfaction with the quality of OGS products

n/a n/a 88% 79% 80% 85% n/a n/a 91% 97% 89% 95%

Percentage of clients who used OGS products to make a decision1

69% 80% 68% 54% 57%1 50%1 90% 91% 78% 77% 77%1 71%1

Did OGS products allow clients to focus their efforts on areas of higher potential and/or interest?

74% 76% 73% 50% 62%2 77%2 83% 58% 83% 57% 64%2 66%2

Did OGS products reduce the time and cost to advance to the next stage of exploration or decision making?

61% 65% 50% 38% 32%2 33%2 83% 58% 56% 60% 55%2 54%2

Did the use of OGS products improve clients’ exploration models or strategies?

80% 76% 55% 46% 40%2 46%3 80% 58% 50% 69% 64%2 86%2

Did the use of OGS products reduce clients’ decision risks?

74% 65% 60% 39% 28%2 34%3 78% 36% 50% 60% 34%2 36%2

Did the use of OGS products/services provide evidence of the presence or absence of critical features, target deposit type or topic of interest?

72% 57% 59% 41% 43%2 48%3 83% 53% 64% 74% 45%2 52%2

1 An open-ended question asking respondents if there was a specific reason why they did not use OGS products to make a decision. Mineral/resource/exploration clients: 19% had no specific reason why and 15% said information was used for research/information. Land-use/groundwater/environmental clients: 42% stated that was not their purpose for usage and 17% said information was used for academia or educational purposes.

2 New option added to these questions of “Other” where respondents were able to provide how products increased the efficiency of their decision-making. Twenty-three percent of mineral/resource/exploration clients gave a response here and 22% of land-use clients responded.

3 New option added to these questions of “Other” where respondents were able to provide how products increased the effectiveness of their decision-making. Nineteen percent of mineral/resource/exploration clients gave a response here and 10% of land-use clients responded.

n/a = no data available.


2-4

Table 2.4. Ontario Geological Survey 2019–2020 client survey questions and summary of results for OGS service users.

Survey Questions Mineral / Resource / Exploration Land Use Planning / Groundwater / Environmental

2014–2015

2015–2016

2016–2017

2017–2018

2018–2019

2019–2020

2014–2015

2015–2016

2016–2017

2017–2018

2018–2019

2019–2020

Percentage of clients who used OGS services within the past 12 months?

n/a n/a 96% 85% 53% 54% n/a n/a 100% 97% 75% 68%

Overall satisfaction with the quality of OGS products

n/a n/a 91% 82% 84% 81% n/a n/a 91% 97% 87% 100%

Percentage of clients who used OGS services to make a decision1

69% 80% 68% 54% 48%3 32%4 90% 91% 78% 77% 77%3 74%4

Did OGS services allow clients to focus their efforts on areas of potential and/or interest?

74% 76% 73% 50% 50%4 75%5 83% 58% 83% 57% 67%4 90%5

Did OGS services reduce the time and cost to advance to the next stage of exploration or decision making?

61% 65% 50% 38% 32%4 34%5 83% 58% 56% 60% 56%4 52%5

Did the use of OGS services improve clients’ exploration models or strategies?

80% 76% 55% 46% 46%4 56%6 80% 58% 50% 69% 59%4 83%6

Did the use of OGS services reduce clients’ decision risks?

74% 65% 60% 39% 25%4 32%6 78% 36% 50% 60% 23%4 40%6

Did the use of OGS services provide evidence of the presence or absence of critical features, target deposit type or topic of interest?

72% 57% 59% 41% 37%4 50%6 83% 53% 64% 74% 44%4 50%6

4 An open-ended question asking respondents if there was a specific reason why they did not use OGS services to make a decision. Mineral/resource/exploration clients: 18% had no specific reason why and 22% said the information was used for academia, research or informational purposes. Land-use/groundwater/environmental clients: 38% said information was used for research/informational purposes and 25% had no specific reason why.

5 New option added to these questions of “Other” where respondents were able to provide how services increased the efficiency of their decision-making. Thirty-one percent of mineral/resource/exploration clients gave a response here and 10% of land-use clients responded.

6 New option added to these questions of “Other” where respondents were able to provide how services increased the effectiveness of their decision-making. Thirty-three percent of mineral/resource/exploration clients gave a response here and 7% of land-use clients responded.

n/a = no data available


2-5

SUCCESSES WITH PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

The OGS measures its products and services success by monitoring exploration companies working in Ontario who reference OGS data to make an informed decision. The 6 most recent successes are described below.

1. In June 2020, Benton Resources recently acquired the Far Lake project from White Metals Resources and expanded the property to cover all the structures recommended in the 2019 Report of Activities of the Thunder Bay South District. With support and assistance of the Regional Geologist Program staff in the Thunder Bay South office. (e-mail correspondence and in-office visits with the Thunder Bay RGP; Benton Resources, presentation, May 2020)

2. In February 2020, the 2019–2020 Recommendations for Exploration release led a prospector, Rudy Wahl, to acquire the 118 cell My Lake property in the Marathon area, adjacent to a Canadian Orebodies property. Mr. Wahl uses the work of the Ontario Geological Survey to promote the property. The same month, Mr. Wahl acquired the Pic River copper-nickel-platinum group metals property (136 cells), stemming from previous Recommendations for Exploration. (e-mail correspondence and in-office visits with the Thunder Bay RGP; http://users.renegadeisp.com/~rwahl/)

3. In late 2019, the Thunder Bay Regional Geologist Program office discovered a paper copy of a historical diamond-drilling assessment file that led to the discovery of a new gold occurrence on what is now referred to as the Young–Corrigan structure in Hutchinson Township. The staff worked together with Traxxin Resources to successfully locate the structure in the field. Subsequently in June 2020, after recommendation for further exploration in the 2019 Report of Activities, Portofino Resources Inc. acquired Melema West gold property. (e-mail correspondence, in-office visits and field visits with the Thunder Bay RGP; Portofino Resources Inc., news release, June 11, 2020)

4. In January 2020, Bold Ventures Inc. optioned the Fairwell property northwest of Wawa, Ontario. The company cited 2 publications from the Ontario Geological Survey that led to their additional claims being acquired: an airborne geophysical survey from 1987 and a map produced in 1977. (Bold Ventures Inc., news releases, January 6, 2020 and April 30, 2020)

5. In November 2019, Riverside Resources Inc. acquired the Pichette gold project located northwest of Thunder Bay in the Beardmore–Geraldton greenstone belt. The company cited the use of the Thunder Bay Drill Core Library, as well as several Ontario Geological Survey Open File Reports, as part of their exploration work before the acquisition. (Riverside Resources Inc., news releases, November 26, 2019; company web site, Project Overview, www.rivres.com/projects/canadian-project/pichette-gold-project)

6. In September 2019, Silver Spruce Resources Inc. acquired the Melchett Lake project in the Thunder Bay North district. The 2016–2017 Recommendations for Exploration led 2 individuals to originally stake the property after the release of this publication. Following the acquisition, the staff at the Thunder Bay North Resident Geologist Program office worked extensively with all parties, as their involvement in the property dates back to 2014. (e-mail correspondence, site visits and in-office visits; Silver Spruce Resources Inc., news release, September 24, 2019)

http://users.renegadeisp.com/%7Erwahl/

https://www.rivres.com/projects/canadian-project/pichette-gold-project


2-6

SUCCESSES WITH INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

The OGS measures its success with Indigenous communities through qualitative data collection (e.g., collaborations, blessings, testimonials). In 2019–2020, the following successes were documented (see also Levesque and Schmidt, this volume).

1. In November 2019, staff reported back to the Sandy Lake First Nation community, Keewaywin First Nation community and the Pic River First Nation community on mapping projects that were undertaken in their respective traditional territories. Several mapping projects were also proposed and discussed for future work within their regions.

2. On December 4, 2019, the Ontario Geological Survey’s Aboriginal Geoscience Liaisons participated in a Career Fair in North Caribou Lake First Nation. A “Minerals in Your Life” was displayed and discussions for future opportunities in the area were discussed.

3. On January 22, 2020, staff from the Ontario Geological Survey attended the Anishinabek Nation Lake Huron Round Table to present an update on the current groundwater program and to extend a formal invitation to the communities to attend the Annual Groundwater Open House hosted by the Ontario Geological Survey in February.

4. On February 10, 2020, staff from the Ontario Geological Survey provided an update to Keewaytinook Okimakanak Tribal Council, a group of 6 communities (Keewaywin First Nation, Deer Lake First Nation, North Spirit Lake First Nation, Fort Severn First Nation, McDowell Lake First Nation and Poplar Hill First Nation) on current surficial mapping publications. Subsequently, new lake sediment sampling program was proposed, which has the support of the communities.

5. On February 20, 2020, staff from the Resident Geologist Program conducted a prospectors training course for community members of Temagami First Nation. After this course, the community requested a follow-up field trip and presentation of data.

NEXT STEPS

The OGS will continue to

• collect performance measures data that include baseline values, target values and actual values;

• take steps to address gaps and downward trends and to continually improve products and services;

• communicate the value and relevance of public geoscience information;

• improve the integration of geoscience information into broader government and public decision-making;

• build strong and successful collaborations and relationships with Indigenous communities.


3-1

3. Activities of the Aboriginal Geoscience Liaisons in 2019–2020

M.D. Levesque1 and L.C. Schmidt2

1Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section, Ontario Geological Survey, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7E 6S7

2Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section, Ontario Geological Survey, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5

INTRODUCTION

The Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) is committed to building meaningful relationships with Indigenous communities in anticipated and planned geoscience project areas. Since 2016, the OGS Aboriginal Geoscience Liaisons (AGL) have been focussed on engaging, building and maintaining strong treaty relationships with First Nation, as well as Métis, communities across Ontario. A responsibility of the AGL position is to engage with our treaty partners in co-development, co-design and implementation of geoscience projects and to discuss application and potential impacts of OGS geoscience project work and results. This article will focus on

• OGS Indigenous community engagement activities across the province; and

• A description of 2 projects that demonstrate partnerships in co-development, co-design and implementation of OGS projects.

INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES VISITED BY THE ABORIGINAL GEOSCIENCE LIAISONS

*It should be noted that, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, several events and mapping projects were postponed.

Table 3.1. Indigenous Communities visited by the Aboriginal Geoscience Liaisons.

Community Visit Purpose and Outcome Temagami First Nation September 17, 2019 Purpose: Present to community on OGS services and local geology.

Proposed future mapping in the region, including airborne geophysical and bedrock mapping.

Outcome: Great attendance and interest. Invited to conduct the airborne geophysical survey and begin planning for future prospector course.

Sandy Lake First Nation November 5, 2019 Purpose: Report back to community on surficial mapping project. Proposed future mapping in the region, including lake sediment sampling and bedrock mapping.

Outcome: Community happy with surficial mapping and invited OGS to conduct lake sediment sampling.

Keewaywin First Nation November 6, 2019 Purpose: Report back to community on surficial mapping project. Proposed future mapping in the region, including lake sediment sampling and bedrock mapping.

Outcome: Community happy with surficial mapping and invited OGS to conduct lake sediment sampling.

Director’s Office (3) M.D. Levesque and L.C. Schmidt

3-2

Table 3.1, continued.

Community Visit Purpose and Outcome Biigtigong Nishnaabeg (Pic River First Nation)

November 20, 2019 Purpose: Report back to community on published bedrock maps from the region. Present future mapping proposals within the region.

Outcome: Community happy with geological maps and open to future mapping in the area.

North Caribou Lake First Nation

December 4, 2019 Purpose: Participate in Career Fair, display “Minerals in Your Life” kit and discuss opportunities for future mapping in the region.

Outcome: Community open to future presentations on geological mapping in the region.

Anishinabek Nation Southeast/Southwest Round Table

January 15, 2020 Purpose: Present OGS update on groundwater program and provide invitation to communities to attend February OGS Groundwater Conference.

Outcome: Attending members supportive of OGS groundwater program and some interest generated in attending groundwater conference.

Anishinabek Nation Lake Huron Round Table

January 22, 2020 Purpose: Present OGS update on groundwater program and provide invitation to communities to attend February OGS Groundwater Conference.

Outcome: Attending members supportive of OGS groundwater program and some interest generated in attending groundwater conference.

Mississauga First Nation January 27, 2020 Purpose: Report back to community representatives on 2019 field season and begin planning for 2020 field season.

Outcome: Community still supportive of OGS mapping in region and is interested in having a full-time student as part of the crew if possible.

Mineral Development Advisor/Community Communications Liaison Officer Training Session

January 28–30, 2020 Purpose: Provide OGS overview, “Minerals in Your Life” and OGS products and services. Meet and greet opportunity with new community partners.

Outcome: Positive feedback from participants about presentations. Anishinabek Nation Northern Superior Round Table

January 29, 2020 Purpose: Present to communities on submitting OGS project proposals for regional-scale geological mapping.

Outcome: Communities interested in submitting a regional geological mapping program.

Keewaytinook Okimakanak Council

February 10, 2020 Purpose: Provide update to group of 6 communities (Keewaywin, Deer Lake, North Spirit Lake, Fort Severn, McDowell Lake and Poplar Hill) on surficial map publications. Propose lake sediment sampling program for the Sandy Lake and Favourable Lake greenstone belts.

Outcome: Community would like to see drafts of surficial maps as they become available. Group supportive of lake sediment sampling and would like to grow program to the south toward North Spirit Lake First Nation.

Keewaywin First Nation February 11, 2020 Purpose: Seek approval and permission to conduct lake sediment sampling in the 2020 field season.

Outcome: Supportive of program and would like crew to spend time living in Keewaywin, as well as in Sandy Lake.

Red Rock Indian Band February 18, 2020 Purpose: Meet new lands and resource staff and provide update to staff on bedrock mapping projects in their region for the 2020 field season.

Outcome: Community supportive of mapping program and would like to spend day in the field with crew.

Temagami First Nation February 20, 2020 Purpose: Provide prospecting training to community. Outcome: OGS requested to return in the spring for field trip of region

and asked to present geophysics map of the region on day of publication.

Notification Letters distributed for OGS 2020 mapping season

March 3, 2020 Purpose: Notification letters sent to all First Nations/Métis who have a geoscience mapping project in their region for the 2020 field season.

Outcome: Several communities responded with formal words of support of the projects.

Director’s Office (3) M.D. Levesque and L.C. Schmidt

3-3

NORTH CARIBOU LAKE FIRST NATION CAREER FAIR

In December, the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) participated in the North Caribou Lake First Nation Career Fair. Many organizations flew into the community to be part of the career fair. There were approximately a dozen booths set up and hundreds of community members walked through during the event. The OGS provided localized expert knowledge on the geology of their district. As such, they engaged with First Nation community members to discuss the geology and mineral potential of their traditional lands. Knowledge of the local geology plays an important role in land-use planning because it pertains to mineral resources, wildlife habitat, energy and public safety. OGS geologists always welcome the opportunity to speak with community members and leaders to exchange geological and traditional knowledge about the lands that make up Ontario’s Far North.

The OGS displayed the “Minerals in Your Life” kit, which contains samples of minerals and common consumer goods derived from the minerals used in everyday life. The students and adults who attended the fair showed genuine interest, and the Resident Geologist Program (RGP) staff fielded many questions during the large turnout. In addition, the booth also displayed rocks from North Caribou Lake and samples from Musselwhite Mine. Throughout the day, OGS staff heard many community members make comments about seeing similar rocks in their traditional territory and were excited to have the opportunity to learn about them with the help of the RGP Thunder Bay North staff. Teachers brought their students through the Career Fair one grade at time to visit the various booths. The Career Fair was very well attended and was a great experience for the OGS team. As part of OGS Indigenous Engagement, the OGS is committed to partnering with local First Nation communities in areas where OGS geoscience mapping projects may take place.

TEMAGAMI FIRST NATION

This year, the AGLs focussed on establishing a new relationship with Temagami First Nation. Meetings in the fall of 2019 were attended by Kirkland Lake Resident Geologist Program (RGP) staff, along with the OGS Director and AGL. Staff from Indigenous Consultation and Partnership Branch (ICPB) and Mining Division Branch (MDB) were also present. The RGP staff provided a half-day course focussing on the geology of nDaki Menan, specifically the Temagami greenstone belt, the Shining Tree area and the Gowganda area. Chief Paul along with 25 community members attended the entire event, consisting of several presentations after the course. Afterward, OGS was invited to attend the annual career fair; however, this was cancelled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The AGLs have facilitated various requests by Temagami First Nation, including virtual Mining Lands Administrative System (MLAS) training sessions, and currently are planning a presentation on the Sturgeon River airborne geophysical survey for the community. The AGLs have formed a great relationship with Temagami First Nation, which has resulted in community approvals for potential mapping, following the current phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The AGLs are looking forward to continuing and maintaining the strong relationship with the staff and community members of Temagami First Nation.

REFERENCES Schmidt, L. and Levesque, M. 2019. Activities of the Aboriginal Geoscience Liaisons in 2018–2019; in Summary of

Field Work and Other Activities, 2019, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6360, p.3-1 to 3-3.

Schmidt, L. and Simpson, J. 2018. Activities of the Aboriginal Geoscience Liaisons in 2017–2018; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2018, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6350, p.3-1 to 3-5.

This page left blank intentionally

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section


4-1

4. Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section: 2020–2021 Program and Projects Overview

J.H. Hechler1, R.M. Easton1, D.R.B. Rainsford1, S. Préfontaine1, S.M. Hamilton1 and R.D. Dyer1

1Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section, Ontario Geological Survey

GOAL AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SECTION

The goal of the Ontario Geological Survey’s (OGS) Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (ERGMS) is to improve the understanding of the geology, geochemistry and Earth resources of the province and to convey this knowledge to the public through multi-year, multi-disciplinary geoscience projects that address key geoscience problems. These studies may be delivered as part of the ERGMS geoscience mapping function or through collaborative geoscience projects or initiatives.

The ERGMS is responsible for

• mapping Ontario’s Precambrian and Phanerozoic bedrock geology and assessing its inherent resources at a regional scale;

• mapping and sampling of Quaternary sediments for the purpose of mineral resource assessment, land-use planning, aggregate delineation, geotechnical applications, etc.;

• three-dimensional (3-D) mapping of Quaternary and Phanerozoic hydrostratigraphic units and their contained groundwater resources at a regional scale. Determining the relationship between aquifer composition and regional groundwater geochemistry;

• collecting regional ground and airborne geophysical data and producing derivative products in support of bedrock geology and groundwater aquifer mapping projects, mineral exploration and land-use planning;

• collecting regional surficial geochemistry data from water and other surficial media (e.g., lake and stream sediments, peat, etc.) to support mineral exploration, mapping of bedrock and sediments, land-use planning, assessment of watershed quality and the establishment of natural baseline databases;

• mapping aggregate and industrial minerals to provide up-to-date inventories and quality assessments of potential aggregate and industrial mineral resources; and

• mapping bedrock that hosts traditional and unconventional non-renewable energy resources to identify new energy sources and better understand the effect of hydrocarbon interaction on groundwater resources.

The program direction and strategies of the ERGMS address the strategic objectives and core business of the Ontario Geological Survey Branch, which, in turn, are linked to those of the Mines and Minerals Division of the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines (ENDM). Ministry and Government priorities are achieved through specific ERGMS strategies and initiatives that consist of one

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (4) J.H. Hechler et al.

4-2

or more projects. Staff of the OGS conducts an annual, project planning exercise, including project proposals development, evaluation and selection. This project planning exercise is designed to achieve alignment of individual projects with higher level Divisional, Ministry and Government priorities. This article reports on the current activities of the ERGMS.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had wide-spread impacts in this past year. In Ontario, the provincial government implemented a work from home directive shortly after March 17, 2020. The ongoing impacts of the pandemic necessitated the cancellation of the Ontario Geological Survey’s 2020 summer field season. Fortunately, because of the nature of the section’s work, which involves staff working away from the office during the field season, the transition from office work to remote work for many occurred relatively smoothly, with most staff being able to continue with work on their projects despite the physical workplace shutdown. This is reflected in the 16 articles included in this volume, as well as the list of publications released by ERGMS staff in 2020, as summarized in this article. Furthermore, staff have still been able to connect with clients via email and other electronic methods. As of this writing, planning is underway for a gradual return to the workplace at the Willet Green Miller Centre in Sudbury.

The ERGMS supported 69 active projects during the 2020–2021 fiscal year, which includes 57 active core projects and 22 active collaborative projects (Table 4.1). The collaborative projects include 2 projects with other provincial ministries; 5 projects with the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC); 1 project with the City of Guelph; 2 projects with the City of Ottawa; and 13 graduate thesis projects with universities. Locations of projects for which there are corresponding articles in this volume are depicted in Figure 4.1.

From January to December 2020, inclusive, the ERGMS produced 4 Open File Reports, 3 Preliminary Maps, 6 Miscellaneous Releases—Data (MRD), 1 Groundwater Resources Study (GRS), 3 Geophysical Data Sets (GDS) (and includes 1 GDS released in December 2019 not counted in Hechler et al. (2019)), 26 airborne geophysical survey maps and 2 online databases (1 new and 1 update) (see “List of Publications” in this article for a complete listing of these publications; the geophysical maps are grouped by theme for the survey area). The ERGMS online databases consist of the compiled Aggregate Resources of Ontario, the compiled Lake Geochemistry of Ontario, and the Geochronology Inventory of Ontario, which are available for download through GeologyOntario and for viewing in Google Earth by downloading the appropriate .kml file through the OGSEarth website. The ERGMS staff presented several technical talks and posters at various geoscience forums and meetings, including virtual geoscience meetings, throughout the year.

ERGMS STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES

The Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (ERGMS) strategies and objectives are derived from OGS strategic priorities, which stem from the Mines and Minerals Division Strategic Framework and Ministry business goals.

The purpose of ERGMS strategies and objectives is to focus staff and resources in key geological areas or geoscience themes, over a period of 3 to 5 years, to contribute to

• expanding the geoscience database of Ontario;

• supporting sustainable development and effective land-use planning;

• providing the geoscience framework for groundwater use and source water protection, public health and safety and the public good; and

• supporting and attracting new mineral investment.


4-3

Figure 4.1. Locations of the Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section projects in Ontario as described in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2020. Numbers correspond to article numbers; note articles 1 to 4, 9, 10 and 16 are provincial in scope and are not indicated on the figure. Bedrock geology from Ontario Geological Survey (2011).

Earth Resources and Geoscience M

apping Section (4) J.H

. Hechler et al.

4-4

Table 4.1. Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section collaborative initiatives and projects, 2020–2021.

Initiative Project ERGMS Core Program / Project Collaborator(s)

Project Progress

Geophysical Techniques in Support of Bedrock Geology Mapping Initiative

Airborne high-resolution magnetic gradiometer over the Sturgeon River area, eastern central Ontario project management and QA/QC of airborne

geophysical surveys

ERGMS Core Program Completed. Airborne survey in Sturgeon River, eastern central Ontario: data and maps published in September 2020 Summary of Field Work (this volume, Article 6)

Airborne time-domain electromagnetic survey over the Biscotasing Arm area, western central Ontario project management and QA/QC of airborne

geophysical surveys

ERGMS Core Program Airborne survey in the Biscotasing Arm, western central Ontario: survey completed, data and maps published in October 2020 Summary of Field Work (this volume, Article 11)

Airborne time-domain electromagnetic survey over the Saganash area, western central Ontario project management and QA/QC of airborne

geophysical surveys

ERGMS Core Program Airborne survey in the Saganash area western central Ontario: survey being commissioned, flying in winter 2021 Summary of Field Work (this volume, Article 11)

Airborne geophysical surveys, request for data Purchase of geophysical data from exploration

companies for public release

ERGMS Core Program Request For Data document drafted, pending public release

“Ring of Fire” Initiative Bedrock geology and compilation of the Fort Hope–Miminiska greenstone belt multi-year bedrock geology mapping and

compilation

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed Preliminary Maps and MRDs in press for Makokibatan

Lake area mapped in 2016, and for Wabassi River and Peninsular Lake areas mapped in 2017

Bedrock geology and compilation of the McFaulds Lake (“Ring of Fire”) region multi-year bedrock geology mapping,

core re-logging and compilation

ERGMS Core Program Geological Survey of Canada (as in-kind support to TGI-4)

Completed – all data and publications released, with OFR published in July 2020

Far North Land Use Planning Initiative

Far North terrain mapping project remote predictive mapping, field checking;

Quaternary mapping Sandy Lake area Pickle Lake–Cat Lake area

ERGMS Core Program Predictive Quaternary geology mapping in the Sandy Lake area in 2018 preliminary maps in progress Summary of Field Work articles published in 2017, 2018

Predictive Quaternary geology mapping in the Pickle Lake–Cat Lake area in 2019 Summary of Field Work article published in 2019 and in

this volume (article 12)

Abbreviations: MRD, Miscellaneous Release—Data; OFR, Open File Report.



. Hechler et al.

4-5



Project Progress

Surficial Geochemistry of Northern Ontario Initiative

Geochemistry of detrital chromites: investigating their use as a vector to nickel-copper-PGE, chromium and iron-titanium-vanadium deposits

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – analyses in progress

Marathon region sediment and water sampling project high-density lake sediment and water geochemistry

survey

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing MRD in progress

Biogeochemical and electrical investigations in soils over a forest ring Thorn North forest ring

ERGMS Core Program University of Alberta University of Toronto

Ongoing – field work completed, analyses in progress Summary of Field Work articles published in 2018, 2019 Journal Paper: von Gunten et al. (2018)

Surficial geochemistry sampling over the Borden Lake area and Kapuskasing Structural Zone

ERGMS Core Program (internship project: L.M. Colgrove)

Ongoing OFRs and MRDs in preparation Summary of Field Work article published in 2016

Surficial mapping and geochemical and mineralogical characterization of Ni-Cu-PGE mineralization in Denison and Drury townships

PhD Thesis (S. Hashmi) Laurentian University– Queen’s University

Ongoing – field work completed, analyses in progress, OFR and MRD published in 2018 Summary of Field Work article published in 2016

Surficial Mapping of Northern Ontario Initiative

Quaternary geological mapping along the Highway 11 corridor 1:50 000 scale surficial mapping and sampling

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – Iroquois Falls to Smooth Rock Falls area mapped in 2016; Kapuskasing and Opasatika areas mapped in 2017: Preliminary Maps for Cochrane, Abitibi and Iroquois Falls areas published in 2019; Preliminary Maps for Kapuskasing and Smooth Rock Falls published in May 2020 OFR and MRD in press Summary of Field Work (this volume, Article 13)

Summary of Field Work articles published in 2016, 2017, 2018




. Hechler et al.

4-6



Project Progress

Proterozoic Initiative Southwest Sudbury Structure bedrock geology mapping project 1:20 000 scale bedrock geology mapping

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – bedrock mapping in Denison Township in 2018: Preliminary Map, OFR and MRD published in 2018 for Drury Township mapped in 2015–2016 Summary of Field Work articles published in 2016, 2017,

2018 Structural, metamorphic and lithologic controls on low-sulphide PGE mineralization, Denison and Drury townships

PhD Thesis (C-A. Généreux) Laurentian University

Ongoing – field work completed, analyses in progress Summary of Field Work articles published in 2016, 2017

Sedimentary provenance of the Elliot Lake and Hough Lake groups, Huronian Supergroup geochronology and petrography analyses

MSc Thesis (J.A. Ménard) University of Waterloo

Completed – MSc thesis completed in September 2019; MRD published in September 2020 Summary of Field Work article published in 2017

Geology and mineral potential of Scarfe, Cobden, Thomson and Patton townships, Blind River area, Southern Province 1:20 000 scale bedrock geology mapping

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – no mapping in 2020, bedrock mapping in Scarfe and part of Cobden townships in 2019 Summary of Field Work article published in 2019

Geology of the Brudenell area, Grenville Province multi-year 1:50 000 bedrock geology and compilation

mapping project to improve understanding of the geology and mineral deposits

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed: Preliminary Map, MRD and OFR in progress

Geology of the Cobden area, Grenville Province multi-year 1:50 000 scale bedrock geology and

compilation mapping project to improve understanding of the geology and mineral deposits

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed: OFR and MRD published in 2017 Preliminary Map and OFR in progress

Geology of the Perth area, Grenville Province multi-year 1:50 000 scale bedrock geology and


ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed: OFR published in 2017, MRD published in 2019 Preliminary Map and OFR in progress

Geology of Carleton Place area, Grenville Province multi-year 1:50 000 scale bedrock geology and


ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – bedrock mapping of part of Carleton Place map area in 2019 Summary of Field Work articles published in 2017, 2018,

2019 Geology of the Renfrew area, Grenville Province 1:50 000 scale bedrock geology and compilation

mapping

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed, analyses in progress, Preliminary Map and MRD in progress Summary of Field Work article published in 2018




. Hechler et al.

4-7



Project Progress

Geology of Northeastern Ontario Initiative

Southern Swayze area (Abitibi greenstone belt) bedrock geology mapping project 1:20 000 scale bedrock geology mapping

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – no mapping in 2020, bedrock mapping in Heenan and Benton townships and part of Esther Township in 2019; Preliminary Map and MRD published in 2019 and 2020, respectively, for Mallard and Marion townships and part of Genoa Township mapped in 2018; Preliminary Map and MRD for Yeo and Chester townships area published in 2017 and 2018; Preliminary Map and MRD published in 2018 for Osway and Huffman townships and parts of Eric, Fingal and Arbutus townships mapped in 2017 Summary of Field Work articles published in 2016, 2017,

2018, 2019 Swayze area (Abitibi greenstone belt) metavolcanic evolution study regional and detailed bedrock geology mapping and

detailed geochemistry and volcanology

ERGMS Core Program PhD Thesis (T.P. Gemmell) Laurentian University– MERC (Metal Earth)

Ongoing – field work completed, analyses in progress Summary of Field Work article in 2017

Gold metallogeny in the Swayze area of the Abitibi greenstone belt

PhD thesis (E.C.G. Hastie) Laurentian University

Ongoing – field work completed, field trip guidebook published in 2017, MRD in progress Summary of Field Work articles published in 2015, 2016

Structural and tectonic study of the Swayze area of the Abitibi greenstone belt

PhD thesis (Q. Wu) University of Waterloo

Ongoing – field work completed Summary of Field Work articles published in 2015, 2016

Northern Swayze area (Abitibi greenstone belt) bedrock geology mapping project 1:20 000 scale bedrock geology mapping

ERGMS Core Program Bedrock mapping of Reeves and Sewell townships in 2019, Preliminary Maps and MRD in press; bedrock mapping in Penhorwood Township in 2018, Preliminary Map for Penhorwood Township published in December 2020; MRD (Penhorwood and Kenogaming townships) published in December 2020 Summary of Field Work articles published in 2018, 2019

ERGMS Core Program (internship project – L.E.D. Vice)

Bedrock mapping in Kenogaming Township completed: Preliminary Map published in November 2019, re-released with amendments in December 2020; MRD for Kenogaming Township and Penhorwood Township published in 2020 Summary of Field Work article published in 2018

Northeast Michipicoten greenstone belt bedrock geology mapping 1:20 000 scale bedrock geology mapping

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – no mapping in 2020, Preliminary Map for Stover Township published in 2019, Preliminary Maps and MRDs for Copenace and Bruyere townships published in 2018 Summary of Field Work articles published in 2016, 2017,

2018, 2019

Abbreviations: MERC, Mineral Exploration Research Centre; MRD, Miscellaneous Release—Data; OFR, Open File Report.



. Hechler et al.

4-8



Project Progress

Geology of Northeastern Ontario Initiative, continued

Temagami greenstone belt bedrock mapping project 1:20 000 scale bedrock geology mapping

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – no mapping in 2020, reconnaissance bedrock mapping in 2019 Summary of Field Work article published in 2019

Tectonometamorphic history of the Wawa–Abitibi terrane, northeastern Ontario: a deep crustal P–T transect from the Kapuskasing uplift to the Island Gold Mine

PhD thesis (J. Kendrick) University of Waterloo

Ongoing – sampling transects in 2018 and 2019, analyses in progress Summary of Field Work articles published in 2018, 2019

The Rundle intrusive complex: investigating oxidation processes related to gold mineralization in an Archean alkalic intrusive setting

MSc thesis (C. Small) Laurentian University–MERC (Metal Earth)

Ongoing – field work completed Summary of Field Work article published in 2018

Bedrock geology and compilation of the Ramsey–Algoma intrusive complex and surrounding rocks multi-year bedrock geology mapping and

compilation 1:100 000

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – no mapping in 2020, reconnaissance bedrock mapping in 2019 Summary of Field Work (this volume, Article 5)

Summary of Field Work article published in 2019 Geology of Northwestern Ontario Initiative

Bedrock geology mapping of Marks and Conmee townships 1:20 000 scale bedrock geology mapping

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – no mapping in 2020, Preliminary Map and MRD for Marks Township published in 2019; Preliminary Map for Conmee Township and MRD in progress Summary of Field Work articles published in 2017, 2018

Rowan–Kakagi lakes area bedrock geology mapping project 1:50 000 scale bedrock geology mapping

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed, analyses in progress; Preliminary Maps and MRD in progress Summary of Field Work articles published in 2016, 2017

Structural study of the Dogpaw and Dubenski gold deposits in the Rowan–Kakagi lakes area

MSc Thesis (A.D. Kraft-Jones) University of Waterloo

Ongoing – field work completed Summary of Field Work articles published in 2016, 2017

Bedrock geology mapping of the western Schreiber–Hemlo greenstone belt 1:20 000 scale bedrock geology mapping

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed: Preliminary Map and MRD for Syine Township published in 2019; OFR (guidebook) for area published in 2019; Preliminary Map and MRD for Walsh and Tuuri townships published in 2017 and 2018, respectively; Preliminary Maps and MRDs for Priske and Strey townships mapped in 2018 in press Summary of Field Work articles published in 2016, 2017,

2018 Gold mineralization in the Terrace Bay batholith, western Schreiber–Hemlo greenstone belt

MSc Thesis (K.A. Arnold) Lakehead University

Completed – MRD published in July 2020 Summary of Field Work article published in 2017

Abbreviations: MERC, Mineral Exploration Research Centre; MRD, Miscellaneous Release—Data; OFR, Open File Report.



. Hechler et al.

4-9



Project Progress

Geology of Northwestern Ontario Initiative, continued

Bedrock geology mapping and rare-mineral potential in the central Quetico Subprovince 1:50 000 scale bedrock geology mapping

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – no mapping in 2020, bedrock mapping of the Georgia Lake area, Quetico Subprovince in 2019 Summary of Field Work (this volume, Article 8)

Summary of Field Work article published in 2019 Bedrock geology mapping of the Quetico Subprovince and related Proterozoic rocks northwest of Thunder Bay 1:50 000 scale bedrock geology mapping

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – no mapping in 2020, bedrock mapping of western MacGregor Township and portions of the Hicks Lake, Greenwich Lake, Tartan Lake and Onion Lake areas in 2019 Summary of Field Work (this volume, Article 7)

Summary of Field Work article published in 2019 Geochemical study of ultramafic rocks in the Lake of the Woods area, northwestern Ontario

MSc Thesis (C. Boucher) Lakehead University

Completed – MRD published in August 2020 Summary of Field Work articles published in 2017, 2018

Petrology and geochemistry of mafic to ultramafic rocks of the Nakina area, English River Subprovince, northwestern Ontario

MSc Thesis (S. Killins) Lakehead University

New project – geochemical study of drill core donated to the Resident Geologist Program in Thunder Bay, sampling in fall 2020

2-D and 3-D Surficial Sediment Groundwater Aquifer Mapping Initiative

Three-dimensional (3-D) mapping of Quaternary geology in central Simcoe County multi-year project to generate geologic model for

groundwater assessment; Quaternary mapping and drilling

ERGMS Core Program PhD Thesis (R.P.M. Mulligan) McMaster University

Ongoing – Quaternary drilling in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018; Preliminary Maps published in 2017; other Preliminary Maps in progress; MRD and GRS in progress; 4 external papers published; 2 external papers in progress; PhD completed in 2019 Summary of Field Work articles published in 2016, 2017,

2018, 2019 Three-dimensional (3-D) mapping of Quaternary deposits in the Niagara Peninsula multi-year project to generate geologic model for

groundwater assessment; Quaternary mapping and drilling

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed: MRD published in December 2020; GRS in progress Summary of Field Work articles published in 2015, 2016,

2017

Regional groundwater systems mapping in the County of Simcoe, southern Ontario

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – groundwater sampling in 2018 and 2019 Summary of Field Work in 2018, 2019

Various groundwater geoscience projects (groundwater data mining, chemostratigraphic framework; 3-D model of surficial geology) in southern Ontario as part of the Federal groundwater program

Geological Survey of Canada (GSC)

Ongoing GSC Special Volume published in 2020

(GSC OF8536: Russell and Kjarsgaard 2020) summarizing status of projects

Ongoing OGS input into 3D sediment model of southern Ontario

Surficial and subsurface sediment mapping in the City of Ottawa, eastern Ontario

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – no field work in 2020 Summary of Field Work article published in 2019

Abbreviations: MERC, Mineral Exploration Research Centre; GRS, Groundwater Resources Study; MRD, Miscellaneous Release—Data; OFR, Open File Report.



. Hechler et al.

4-10



Project Progress

Aggregate Resources Initiative

Renfrew County Aggregate Resources Inventory ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – data from sand and gravel and selected bedrock areas have been published in the ARO online database ARIP in progress

Elgin County Aggregate Resources Inventory ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed ARIP in progress

Regional Municipality of Niagara Aggregate Resources Inventory

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed ARIP in progress

Haldimand County Aggregate Resources Inventory ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed in 2019 Summary of Field Work article published in 2019

Identification and mapping of alkali–carbonate reactive layers in the Gull River Formation, near Kingston, Ontario (pilot project)

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed Summary of Field Work article published in 2018 OFR in progress

2-D and 3-D Paleozoic Bedrock Geology Groundwater Aquifer Mapping Initiative

Bedrock aquifer, karst and Early Silurian sequence stratigraphic mapping project

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed GRS published in December 2020

Characterization of groundwater flow systems of the Early Silurian carbonates, Niagara Escarpment cuesta

ERGMS Core Program City of Guelph PhD Thesis (E.H. Priebe) University of Waterloo

Ongoing – field work completed GRS published in 2017; MRD published in 2016;

second MRD in press; 2 papers published, 1 paper in progress

PhD completed in 2019 Update karst map for southern Ontario ERGMS Core Program Ongoing - mapping and sampling in 2019

Summary of Field Work article published in 2019 Various groundwater geoscience projects (3-D geological model of Paleozoic bedrock) in southern Ontario as part of the Federal groundwater program

ERGMS Core Program Geological Survey of Canada (GSC)

3-D model published in 2019 as GRS 19 (Carter et al. 2019) Summary of Field Work articles published in 2017, 2018

Abbreviations: ARIP, Aggregates Resources Inventory Paper; GRS, Groundwater Resources Study; MRD, Miscellaneous Release—Data.



. Hechler et al.

4-11



Project Progress

Paleozoic Initiative Paleozoic geology of eastern Ontario 1:50 000 bedrock geology mapping;

establish stratigraphic framework for the area

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – no mapping in 2020, bedrock mapping and stratigraphic work in 2019 Summary of Field Work articles published in 2017, 2018,

2019 South Niagara Peninsula bedrock geology

mapping project ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – field work completed

Preliminary Maps published in 2017 and 2018; 1 more Preliminary Map in progress

Lineament and structural analysis of Chatham airborne magnetic data

ERGMS Core Program Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)

Ongoing OFR published in December 2020

Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry Mapping

Groundwater Initiative

Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry projects, southern Ontario data interpretation

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing update of MRD 283—Revised in progress Summary of Field Work (this volume, Article 14)

Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry project, eastern Ontario (east Ottawa–Champlain Township)

ERGMS Core Program City of Ottawa

Field work completed Summary of Field Work article published in 2017;

update of MRD 283—Revised in progress Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry project, eastern Ontario (west Ottawa groundwater study)

ERGMS Core Program City of Ottawa

Ongoing – field work completed Summary of Field Work article published in 2019;

data to be incorporated into update of MRD 283—Revised in progress

Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry project, northeastern Ontario (North Bay)

ERGMS Core Program North Bay area field work completed in 2018; data to be incorporated into northern Ontario ambient groundwater MRD in progress for publication in 2021 Summary of Field Work article published in 2018

Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry project, northeastern Ontario (Manitoulin and North Shore)

ERGMS Core Program Manitoulin Island and North Shore areas in 2017 data to be incorporated into northern Ontario ambient

groundwater MRD in progress for publication in 2021 Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry project, northeastern Ontario (Sudbury)

ERGMS Core Program Sudbury area in 2016 data to be incorporated into northern Ontario ambient

groundwater database MRD in progress for publication in 2021

Abbreviations: MNRF, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry; MRD, Miscellaneous Release—Data; OFR, Open File Report.



. Hechler et al.

4-12



Project Progress

Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry Mapping

Groundwater Initiative, continued

Characterizing the controls on groundwater chemistry in north-central Ontario

ERGMS Core Program MSc Thesis (K.M. Dell) Queen’s University

Ongoing – field work completed, analyses in progress OFR and northern Ontario ambient groundwater database

MRD in progress for publication in 2021 Summary of Field Work article (this volume, article 14)

Characterization of groundwater chemistry, bedrock topography, marine sediment thickness and their inter-relationships along the south bank of the Ottawa River between Ottawa and Hawkesbury, Ontario

MSc Thesis (S. Foubister) University of Ottawa

Ongoing – desk-top study in progress

Provincial-Scale Compilation Initiative

Geochronology database for Ontario update current geochronology database and

convert it to a Microsoft® Access® database and GIS format

ERGMS Core Program Completed – Inaugural (beta) version of database released in 2019; update planned for 2020–2021 after 2019–2020 geochronology data are available

Aggregate Resources of Ontario compilation (ARO—2019)

ERGMS Core Program Ongoing – Updates published in 2019 and 2020; update planned in 2021

Lake Geochemistry of Ontario compilation (LakeGeochemON—2019)

ERGMS Core Program Inaugural (beta) publication in March 2020

Gold fingerprinting: Major and trace elements associated with native gold working toward an open-source database

ERGMS Core Program Metal Earth, MERC–LU, ROM

Ongoing – laboratory and desktop study, data acquisition and analysis in progress Summary of Field Work (this volume, Article 10)

Exploration guidelines for carbonatites in Ontario ERGMS Core Program Completed – desk-top study Summary of Field Work (this volume, Article 9)

Abbreviations: LU, Laurentian University; MERC, Mineral Exploration Research Centre; MRD, Miscellaneous Release—Data, ROM, Royal Ontario Museum.


4-13

To successfully deliver these strategies, the ERGMS is fully engaged in building new and strengthening existing collaborations with Indigenous communities, the private sector, academia, federal agencies and other provincial ministries on initiatives of mutual interest.

The ERGMS main strategies consist of applying geoscience techniques

• to assess Earth resource potential to meet societal and government priorities;

• in areas of environmental priority to identify natural hazards related to geology;

• in areas of aggregate resource priority to meet societal and government priorities; and

• in areas of groundwater priority to meet societal and government priorities.

The ERGMS program is organized into 5 objectives based on the collection, interpretation, synthesis and distribution/communication of geoscience data and information as follows:

provide the geological framework to support Earth resource exploration (minerals, metals, groundwater, aggregates, industrial minerals and energy), land-use planning, economic and infrastructure development and provide a geoscience baseline to help assess cumulative impacts of development;

provide the geologic context to assess energy potential in the south and Far North;

provide the geologic context to identify and interpret natural hazards to the environment and public health and safety;

provide the geoscience framework to identify and inventory aggregate and industrial mineral resources for land-use planning, and resource and infrastructure development; and

provide the geoscience framework to identify and inventory groundwater resources for use, protection and planning.

CORE GEOSCIENCE PROGRAM

The ERGMS strategies and objectives are addressed through its core geoscience program, which consists of a series of initiatives built upon one or more projects (see Table 4.1). In addition, the ERGMS participates in several collaborative projects to complement existing staff skills and capacity and to expand the amount of geoscience data available for the province. Collaborative projects are an important means to extend government resources and to capitalize on resources and expertise available in other organizations.

Initiatives

The ERGMS initiatives are based on geographic or functional groupings and are made up of

team initiatives (i.e., Geology of Northeastern Ontario Initiative) consisting of individual projects that are designed to meet an overall goal;

interjurisdictional collaborative team initiatives, such as the recently completed (March 2020) Targeted Geoscience Initiative 5 (TGI-5), that consist of individual and joint OGS and GSC projects that are also designed to meet an overall goal or objective; and

individual, focussed projects.


4-14

The major initiatives of the ERGMS are subdivided into 6 broad categories outlined below and in Table 4.1.

Initiatives involving geoscience mapping projects and the identification of Earth resources based on geographic area or geological region: • Far North Land Use Planning; • “Ring of Fire”; • Geology of Northeastern Ontario; • Geology of Northwestern Ontario; • Proterozoic initiative; • Paleozoic initiative; • Surficial Geochemistry of Northern Ontario; • Surficial Mapping of Northern Ontario; • Surficial Geochemistry of Southern Ontario; • Surficial Mapping of Southern Ontario.

Initiatives involving identification of overburden and bedrock hydrostratigraphic units and contained groundwater resources at a regional scale; and understanding the geochemical effects of surface and groundwater interactions with rock and surficial media: • two- and three-dimensional surficial sediment groundwater aquifer mapping; • two- and three-dimensional Paleozoic bedrock geology groundwater aquifer mapping; • ambient groundwater geochemistry.

Initiatives involving aggregate and industrial mineral resource compilation and inventory studies: • documentation and inventory of potential aggregate resources; • documentation and inventory of potential industrial mineral resources.

Initiatives involving geophysical projects: • application of geophysical techniques in support of bedrock geology mapping; • geophysics and rock properties data compilation; • application of geophysical techniques in support of surficial sediment mapping.

Initiatives involving provincial-scale mineral resource compilation and inventory studies: • documentation of specific types of mineralization; • developing inventories of various tectonic settings relevant to mineral exploration; • ongoing maintenance of a database of geochronology work conducted in Ontario.

Initiatives that involve collaborative project agreements with the GSC: • participating in the bedrock and surficial geology working groups as part of the Canada-3D

geological map compilation project for Canada.

To successfully develop and deliver on these initiatives, the ERGMS is engaged in numerous activities to develop, maintain and manage client, stakeholder and Indigenous relationships. The ERGMS is dedicated to maintaining relationships and exchanging technical information with partners, clients, stakeholders, regional prospector and land-owner associations and Indigenous communities. The ERGMS is also part of a number of external and internal committees to ensure these relationships are respectful, strong, long lasting and mutually beneficial.


4-15

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT COLLABORATIVE INITIATIVES AND PROJECTS

The ERGMS participates in several collaborative initiatives and projects (see Table 4.1). These collaborations are critical to maximizing individual organization resources and delivering the highest quality geoscience to all ERGMS clients and stakeholders.

Collaborations with Mineral Exploration Research Centre (MERC), Harquail School of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University

In the fall of 2016, Laurentian University was awarded $104 million for “Metal Earth” by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF). The Fund’s objective is to help Canadian postsecondary institutions excel globally in research areas that create long-term economic advantages for Canada. The premise of the Metal Earth project is to explain why some Archean greenstone terranes are rich in mineral deposits, whereas other, similar terranes are much less endowed despite broadly similar geology at surface. Metal Earth has conducted several major seismic and geological surveys in Ontario: the Larder Lake, Matheson and Swayze areas in the Abitibi Subprovince, the Kapuskasing area, the Cobalt area, the eastern Sudbury Basin, and the Beardmore–Geraldton, Sturgeon Lake, Dryden–Stormy River, Atikokan and Rainy River areas of the Wabigoon Subprovince. Metal Earth conducted a limited field season in the summer 2020 because of COVID-19 restrictions; details on these activities can be found on the Metal Earth website at https://merc.laurentian.ca/research/metal-earth [last accessed September 27, 2020].

As mentioned in articles in the previous 3 years (Simard 2017, 2018; Hechler et al. 2019), the OGS is a provincial partner of Metal Earth. Its participation in Metal Earth activities includes providing access to 1) zircons that were used in U/Pb geochronology studies conducted by the OGS, as well as the OGS geochronology database; 2) OGS geochemical data; 3) OGS geophysical data; and 4) OGS rock properties data. In addition, in 2017, 2018, 2019 articles about Metal Earth projects in Ontario were published as part of the OGS Summary of Field Work and Other Activities volume. This did not occur in 2020 because of the change in Metal Earth field operations resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

In areas in which Metal Earth field research overlaps with the ERGMS mapping initiatives, ERGMS is also assisting with logistical support. The ERGMS is currently supporting several PhD and MSc theses in the Swayze area (Abitibi greenstone belt), including an MSc thesis on the Rundle complex in collaboration with Metal Earth (see Table 4.1).

Collaborative Initiatives with the Geological Survey of Canada

In 2015, the federal government launched the Targeted Geoscience Initiative 5 (TGI-5). The Targeted Geoscience Initiative (TGI) is a Government of Canada led, collaborative geoscience research program directed toward providing next generation knowledge and methods that will facilitate more effective targeting of buried mineral deposits. The fifth phase of this initiative ended on March 31, 2020. The aim of TGI-5 was to improve the understanding of major mineral deposit types through targeted and thematic studies for deep remote exploration. The TGI-5 focussed on the following ore systems: uranium-rich systems, volcanic- and sedimentary-hosted base metal mineralization, porphyry-related mineral systems, lode gold systems, and nickel-chromium-platinum group element (PGE) systems. Several gold, nickel and uranium TGI-5 projects are being led by GSC geoscientists in Ontario and many ERGMS geoscientists have shared information and knowledge to support these various projects over the last year (e.g., Bleeker et al. 2020; Houlé et al. 2020).

https://merc.laurentian.ca/research/metal-earth


4-16

The ERGMS is also collaborating with the GSC as part of the Lands and Minerals Sector (LMS) of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) Canada-3D digital geological map of Canada project. The Canada-3D project is a national collaboration involving the provincial and territorial geological surveys and the Geological Survey of Canada, operating under the auspices of the National Geological Surveys Committee (NGSC). The goal of this project is to develop the next generation of products to enhance the representation of Canada’s subsurface geology. In addition, some residual activities in support of the OGS-GSC groundwater geoscience collaboration (formal agreement between 2014–2019) are on-going, and plans are underway to host the annual OGS-GSC-CA workshop in a virtual format in 2021.

Other Collaborative Projects

As mentioned previously, the ERGMS is involved with numerous governmental and academic partnerships to maximize geoscience resources and to augment the depth of geoscience projects in Ontario. The ERGMS also supported and/or participated in several collaborative projects with academic partners in 2020 (see Table 4.1). Three of these projects were completed in 2020.

Following 3 groundwater geochemistry studies, completed with the South Nation Conservation Authority and local municipalities, in partnership with the OGS, to support the development of an Aquifer Capability Screening Tool (ACST) in eastern Ontario municipalities: the City of Clarence–Rockland (pilot study, 2013–2015) (Morton et al. 2013; Morton 2015; Geofirma Engineering Ltd. 2016), the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet (2015–2017) (Di Iorio, Lemieux and Hamilton 2015; Morrison Hershfield 2017) and the City of Ottawa (targeting eastern rural parts of the City) and Champlain Township. The program was continued in 2019–2020 within western rural parts of the City of Ottawa within western rural Ottawa (Di Iorio et al. 2019).

INTERJURISDICTIONAL AND COMMITTEE REPRESENTATION

Staff of the ERGMS represented the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, the OGS and other geoscience organizations on several interjurisdictional committees, internal committees and associations during the 2020–2021 fiscal year, which are summarized below:

• Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario (APGO) Council

• North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature (representing the Geological Association of Canada and commissioner-at-large)

• Paleontology Division of the Geological Association of Canada

• TGI-5–National Geological Surveys Committee (NGSC) Subcommittee

• Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition

• Canadian Mining Industry Research Organization (CAMIRO) Geochemical Expert Committee

• Conservation Authorities Geosciences Committee

• Canadian Exploration Geophysical Society (KEGS) Scholarship Foundation

• Far North Information and Knowledge Management Working Group

• Growing the Green Belt to Protect Water Interministerial Team

• OPS Land Information Ontario (LIO) Imagery Group

• OPS Elevation Coordination & Consultation Committee (EC3)

• ENDM Green Team


4-17

• ENDM Information Technology–Information Management (IT/IM) Strategy Committee

• Geoscience Laboratories (Geo Labs)–ERGMS Working Group

• Willet Green Miller Centre (WGMC) Joint Health and Safety Committee

• GIS in the Ontario Public Service (OPS) License Management Task Force

• Southern Ontario Stream Sediment Geochemistry Project Steering Committee

• Canadian Working Group on Regional Groundwater Flow Systems of the International Association of Hydrogeologists

• International Joint Commission (IJC) Great Lakes Science Advisory Board

• thesis committees and adjunct professorships at universities (Laurentian University, Carleton University, Ohio State University, University of Western Ontario, University of Toronto, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

• Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) Health and Safety Committee (representing the Committee of Provincial and Territorial Geological Surveys)

• Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) Student–Industry Mineral Exploration Workshop (S-IMEW)

STAFFING CHANGES IN THE SECTION

John Hechler accepted the Senior Manager position. Lise Robichaud accepted the position of Manager, Geoscience Mapping within ERGMS, following the retirement of Tom Brown in December 2019. Dr. Andy Bajc, Senior Geoscience Leader, Quaternary Geology, retired in the summer of 2020. Lianna Vice accepted a position as a Precambrian Geoscientist; prior to this, she had been with the section first as a Precambrian Geoscientist intern, and later as an Acting Precambrian Geoscientist. Dr. Katherine Hahn accepted a position as Paleozoic-Mesozoic Geologist; previously, she had been an Aggregate-Industrial Minerals Specialist. Laura Handley is her replacement as the Aggregate-Industrial Minerals Specialist. Jose Pallot accepted a temporary acting assignment in the Geoscience Laboratories. Jon Webb accepted a temporary acting assignment in the Information Lands Branch.

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS2 Arnold, K.A., Hollings, P. and Magnus, S.J. 2020. Geological and geochemical data from the Terrace Bay pluton,

western Schreiber–Hemlo greenstone belt, Wawa–Abitibi terrane, northwestern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 379.

Béland Otis, C. 2020. Application of subsurface mapping to the interpretation of Paleozoic structures from lineament analysis of high-resolution aeromagnetic data in the Chatham Sag, southwestern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6362, 171p.

Boucher, C. and Hollings, P. 2020. Geochemical data from ultramafic rocks in the Lake of the Woods greenstone belt; northwestern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 384.

2 This list provides references for publications produced by ERGMS, during the period from January to December 2020, inclusive, comprising 4 Open File Reports, 3 Preliminary Maps, 6 Miscellaneous Releases—Data (MRD), 1 Groundwater Resources Study (GRS), 2 online databases, 3 Geophysical Data Sets (GDS) and 26 airborne geophysical survey maps (the geophysical maps are grouped by theme for the survey area). Note: Also included is 1 GDS from December 2019, which was not included in the list of publications provided by Hechler et al. (2019).


4-18

Brunton, F.R. and Brintnell, C. 2020. Early Silurian sequence stratigraphy and geological controls on karstic bedrock groundwater flow zones, Niagara Escarpment region and the subsurface of southwestern Ontario; Groundwater Resources Study 13.

Burt, A.K. 2020. Results of the 2014–2017 drilling programs on the Niagara Peninsula: Graphic logs, descriptions and analytical data; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 383.

Gemmell, T.P. and Szumylo, N. 2020. Geological, geochemical, geophysical and geochronological data related to Marion and Mallard townships and part of Genoa Township, Swayze area, southern Abitibi greenstone belt; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 377.

MacDonald, P.J., Vice, L.E.D. and Bisaillon, J.M. 2020. Precambrian geology of Penhorwood Township, northern Swayze area, Abitibi greenstone belt, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3842, scale 1:20 000.

Marich, A.S. 2020a. Quaternary geology of the Kapuskasing area, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3836, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020b. Quaternary geology of the Smooth Rock Falls area, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3837, scale 1:50 000.

Ménard, J.A. 2020. Geochemical and geochronological data from the Elliot Lake Group and Hough Lake Group of the Huronian Supergroup, Southern Province, Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 386.

Metsaranta, R.T. and Houlé, M.G. 2020. Precambrian geology of the McFaulds Lake “Ring of Fire” region, northern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6359, 260p.

Ontario Geological Survey 2019. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, Reid–Mahaffy airborne geophysical test site (1999–2017); Geophysical Data Set 1111—Revised.

——— 2020a. Aggregate Resources of Ontario—2019; Ontario Geological Survey, Aggregate Resources of Ontario—2019, online database (March 2020 update).

——— 2020b. Lake Geochemistry of Ontario—2019; Ontario Geological Survey, Lake Geochemistry of Ontario—2019, online database (March 2020).

——— 2020c. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic gradiometer data, grid and profile data (ASCII and Geosoft® formats) and vector data, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1088.

——— 2020d. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 014, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020e. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 015, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020f. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 016, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020g. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 017, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020h. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 018, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020i. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 019, scale 1:50 000.


4-19

——— 2020j. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 020, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020k. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 021, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020l. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 022, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020m. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 023, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020n. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 024, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020o. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 025, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020p. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic and electromagnetic data, grid and profile data (ASCII and Geosoft® formats) and vector data, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1087.

——— 2020q. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, residual magnetic field contours with electromagnetic anomalies and Keating correlation coefficients, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 000, scale 1:20 000.

——— 2020r. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, residual magnetic field contours with electromagnetic anomalies and Keating correlation coefficients, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 001, scale 1:20 000.

——— 2020s. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, residual magnetic field contours with electromagnetic anomalies and Keating correlation coefficients, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 002, scale 1:20 000.

——— 2020t. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, residual magnetic field contours with electromagnetic anomalies and Keating correlation coefficients, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 003, scale 1:20 000.

——— 2020u. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, residual magnetic field contours with electromagnetic anomalies and Keating correlation coefficients, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 004, scale 1:20 000.

——— 2020v. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, residual magnetic field contours with electromagnetic anomalies and Keating correlation coefficients, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 005, scale 1:20 000.

——— 2020w. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field and electromagnetic anomalies, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 006, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020x. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field and electromagnetic anomalies, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 007, scale 1:50 000.


4-20

——— 2020y. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 008, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020z. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 009, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020aa. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, colour-filled contours of the EM decay constant and electromagnetic anomalies, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 010, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020bb. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, colour-filled contours of the EM decay constant and electromagnetic anomalies, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 011, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020cc. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, colour-filled contours of the apparent conductivity and electromagnetic anomalies, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 012, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020dd. Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, colour-filled contours of the apparent conductivity and electromagnetic anomalies, Biscotasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 013, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020. Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2020; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6370, 182p.

Priebe, E.H., Holysh, S., Ford, D., Russell, H.A.J. and Nadeau, J.E. compilers. 2020. Regional-scale groundwater geoscience in southern Ontario: An Ontario Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Canada, and Conservation Ontario Geoscientists Open House; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6361, 46p.

Vice, L.E.D. and MacDonald, P.J. 2020. Geological, geochemical and geophysical data related to Kenogaming and Penhorwood townships, northern Swayze area, southern Abitibi greenstone belt, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 378.

REFERENCES Bleeker, W., Smith, J., Hamilton, M.[A.], Kamo, S.[L.], Liikane, D., Hollings, P., Cundari, R.[M.], Easton, [R.]M.

and Davis, D.[W.] 2020. The Midcontinent Rift and its mineral systems: Overview and temporal constraints of Ni-Cu-PGE mineralized intrusions; in Advances in the understanding of Canadian Ni-Cu-PGE and Cr ore systems – Examples from the Midcontinent Rift, the Circum-Superior Belt, the Archean Superior Province, and Cordilleran Alaskan-type intrusions; Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8722, p.7-35.

Carter, T.R., Brunton, F.R., Clark, J.[K.], Fortner, L., Freckelton, C.N., Logan, C.E., Russell, H.A.J., Somers, M., Sutherland, L. and Yeung, K.H. 2019. Three-dimensional geological model of the Paleozoic bedrock of southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Groundwater Resources Study 19 / Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8618, 45p.

Di Iorio, T., Harrison, R.A., Al, T., Majury, A. and Hamilton, S.M. 2019. West Ottawa groundwater study; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2019, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6360, p.23-1 to 23-9.

Di Iorio, T., Lemieux, A.J. and Hamilton, S.M. 2015. Township of Alfred and Plantagenet groundwater study; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2015, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6313, p.38-1 to 38-6.

Geofirma Engineering Ltd. 2016. Clarence–Rockland Groundwater study: Development of an Aquifer Capability Screening Tool; unpublished report, Geofirma Engineering Ltd., 144p.


4-21

Hechler, J.H., Easton, R.M., Rainsford, D.R.B., Bajc, A.F., Préfontaine, S. and Hamilton, S.M. 2019. Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section: 2019–2020 Program and Projects Overview; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2019, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6360, p.4-1 to 4-22.

Houlé, M.G., Lesher, C.M., Metsaranta, R.T., Sappin, A.-A., Carson, H.J.E., Schetselaar, E.M., McNicoll, V. and Laudadio, A. 2020. Magmatic architecture of the Esker intrusive complex in the Ring of Fire intrusive suite, McFaulds Lake greenstone belt, Superior Province, Ontario: Implications for the genesis of Cr and Ni-Cu-(PGE) mineralization in an inflationary dyke-chonolith-sill complex; in Targeted Geoscience Initiative 5: Advances in the understanding of Canadian Ni-Cu-PGE and Cr ore systems – Examples from the Midcontinent Rift, the Circum-Superior Belt, the Archean Superior Province, and Cordilleran Alaskan-type intrusions; Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8722, p.141-163.

Morrison Hershfield 2017. Development of an Aquifer Capability Screening Tool, Township of Alfred and Plantagenet; unpublished report, Morrison Hershfield, 53p.

Morton, S.R. 2015. Development and evaluation of an aquifer capability screening tool. Pilot Study: Clarence–Rockland, Ontario; unpublished MSc thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, 113p.

Morton, S.R., Di Iorio, T., Hamilton, S.M. and Robin, M.J.L. 2013. Development of an aquifer mapping tool, City of Clarence–Rockland, Ontario; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2013, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6290, p.40-1 to 40-7.

Ontario Geological Survey 2011. 1:250 000 scale bedrock geology of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 126–Revision 1.

Russell, H.A.J. and Kjarsgaard, B A. editors. 2020. Southern Ontario groundwater project 2014–2019: Summary report; Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8536, 245p.

Simard, R-L. 2017. Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section: 2017–2018 Program and Projects Overview; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2017, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6333, p.4-1 to 4-29.

——— 2018. Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section: 2018–2019 Program and Projects Overview; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2018, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6350, p.4-1 to 4-30.

von Gunten, K., Hamilton, S.M., Zhong, C., Nesbø, C., Jiaying, L., Muehlenbachs, K., Konhauser, K.O. and Alessi, D.S. 2018. Electron donor-driven bacterial and archaeal community patterns along forest ring edges in Ontario, Canada; Environmental Microbiology Reports, v.10, no.6 (Dec), p.663-672.


5-1

5. Project NE-19-004. Summary of 2019 Field Activity, Ramsey–Algoma Area Compilation Project, Superior and Southern Provinces

S. Préfontaine1


INTRODUCTION

As a result of the improvement in our understanding of the geochronology, geochemistry and tectonostratigraphic assemblage subdivisions as they pertain to the metallogeny of the main Abitibi greenstone belt, a multi-year compilation project covering the southern and western parts of the Wawa–Abitibi terrane was initiated in 2019. The major objectives of the compilation project are to establish a standardized regional tectonic framework for the various greenstone belts using isotopic ages and lithogeochemistry, because currently our knowledge of these belts varies considerably, and to have a better understanding of the intrusive rocks surrounding these greenstone belts. To aid this work, an airborne high-resolution gamma-ray spectrometer and magnetic gradiometer survey was contracted by the Ontario Geological Survey and flown in 2018. This geophysical survey covered approximately 26 058 km2 at 250 m flight-line spacing for a total of 117 770 line-kilometres (Ontario Geological Survey 2019a, 2019b).

Six weeks of field work were conducted in the first year of the compilation project (spring and fall 2019) with a focus on the southeastern part of the Ramsey–Algoma area to the west of Sudbury (Figure 5.1). Some reconnaissance mapping was also conducted throughout the whole geophysical survey area. As a result, 265 field stations were recorded, 100 lithogeochemical samples were submitted of analysis (19 samples of sedimentary rocks (Huronian Supergroup), 38 samples of mafic composition rocks dominantly intrusive rocks, 43 samples of felsic to intermediate composition dominantly intrusive rocks) and 19 samples were submitted for geochronology (isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry (ID-TIMS) and laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP–MS)).

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The geophysical survey area covers principally Archean felsic to intermediate intrusive rocks known as the Ramsey–Algoma granitoid complex (see Figure 5.1). A few Archean greenstone belts (Benny and Whiskey Lake greenstone belts and Biscotasing arm of the Swayze area, Abitibi greenstone belt) and greenstone slivers within the granitoids are found in the area. The southern portion is dominantly covered by younger Proterozoic rocks of the Huronian Supergroup and Nipissing gabbro intrusions and to a lesser extent by mafic intrusive rocks of the East Bull Lake intrusive suite. Multiple generations (swarms) of dominantly mafic composition dikes crosscut both the Archean and the Proterozoic rocks. Several other features, such as the Sudbury Igneous Complex and its associated breccias and offset dikes, carbonatites, potential kimberlite targets and alkalic intrusion are present in the geophysical survey area, but will not be discussed below.

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (5) S. Préfontaine

5-2

Figure 5.1. General bedrock geology at 1:250 000 scale of the Elliot Lake area (Ontario Geological Survey 2011) with the Ramsey–Algoma geophysical survey area outlined in black and 2019 field visit areas.


5-3

Archean Felsic to Intermediate Intrusive Rocks The geophysical survey, both the airborne high-resolution gamma-ray spectrometer and magnetic

gradiometer survey, allowed us to refine the boundaries of some known plutonic bodies of the Ramsey–Algoma granitoid complex, but also to delineate new geological features. The area is dominated by large granite batholiths. Thus, to aid with the identification of the main intrusive bodies, a principal component analysis (PCA) technique was applied to the airborne gamma-ray spectrometer data to enhance features not easily visualized in standard images (Préfontaine and Rainsford 2019; Figure 5.2). This PCA image was used to target areas during the 2019 field season.

Although the 2019 field season focussed mainly on the southeastern portion of the geophysical survey area (see Figure 5.1), an attempt was made to briefly map some of the major intrusions that were defined using the geophysical survey. The main batholith mapped (labelled A on Figure 5.2) is generally medium to coarse grained, pink to pale grey, locally porphyritic and massive to weakly foliated (Photo 5.1A). It was locally observed to host crosscutting dikes of pegmatitic granitoid composition, as well as breccia interpreted to be Sudbury Breccia. The eastern portion of this feature is locally known as the Cartier Batholith (circa 2642 Ma: Meldrum et al. 1997). It is still presently unclear if the Cartier Batholith can be extended westward to cover the totality of this geophysical feature or if there are other intrusive facies within it.

Figure 5.2. Principal component analysis (PCA) image of the gamma-ray spectrometer data set (Préfontaine and Rainsford 2019). Green show areas of low signal (overburden or mafic rocks), yellow indicate moderate potassium–equivalent thorium–equivalent uranium (K–eTh–eU) responses, magenta indicates high eTh and eU concentrations and cherry red areas show high eTh with elevated eU responses. Letters refer to specific areas mentioned in “Archean Felsic to Intermediate Intrusive Rocks”.


5-4

Between Sudbury and Elliot Lake, 2 different geophysical signatures can be noticed south of feature A on the PCA image: mottled pink and yellow (labelled B on Figure 5.2) and green and blue (labelled C on Figure 5.2). On previous maps (Easton 2013; Easton et al. 2011), these features broadly correspond to 2 compositionally different rocks: felsic and intermediate intrusive rocks. On surface outcrops, the felsic intrusive rocks (mottled pink and yellow on PCA image) are pink, medium to coarse grained, massive to weakly foliated, biotite bearing and locally potassium feldspar megacrystic (Photo 5.1B). They are regularly crosscut by pegmatitic dikes. Locally, this intrusion is called the Birch Lake intrusion (Ginn 1960; 2651±1.4 Ma: Kamo 2006). The intermediate composition rock (green and blue on the PCA image) are white to pale grey, medium-grained, foliated to weakly gneissic granodiorite to tonalite.

Several of the main intrusions that can be defined using the PCA image were briefly visited in 2019. However, it is important to note that the northern part of the PCA image is largely blue-green because, in this area, the gamma-ray signal is being masked by the largely non-radiogenic overburden. The central magenta unit (labelled D on Figure 5.2), in outcrop, seems to be dominated by a massive, medium-grained, pale pink granite, whereas, the few outcrops visited in the central to western yellow to green area (labelled E on Figure 5.2) were dominantly granodiorite that was medium to coarse grained, foliated to

Photo 5.1. Field photographs of the main Archean features located in the survey area. A) Granitic rock of the main intrusive body mapped during the 2019 field season (labelled A on Figure 5.2; 429014E 5168849N). B) Granitic rock of the southern felsic body (labelled B on Figure 5.2; 406063E 5127332N). C) Foliated tonalitic rock south of the Swayze area, Abitibi greenstone belt (443516E 5254762N). D) Mafic metavolcanic rock metamorphosed to amphibolite facies with folded crosscutting felsic dike; western part of the Benny greenstone belt (432865E 5186614N). Compass for scale is 22 cm long with sighting arm pointing north and pen is approximately 14 cm long. All location information provided as Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) co-ordinates using North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) in Zone 17.


5-5

gneissic, and locally hosting partially digested enclaves of supracrustal rocks. The western magenta area stretching to the north, where the signal progressively gets masked by overburden (labelled F on Figure 5.2), seems to be dominated by massive, medium- to coarse-grained granites that are locally feldspar porphyritic. However, one outcrop in this area appeared to be more intermediate in composition and exhibited gneissic fabric, as well as partly digested supracrustal rock enclaves. Thus, it would suggest that this area (F on Figure 5.2) may be more complex than what the PCA image shows. The 2 outcrop areas mapped south of the Swayze area of the Abitibi greenstone belt (see Figure 5.1), are foliated biotite-bearing tonalite to granodiorite (Photo 5.1C), which matches with the lithology described on the 1:50 000 scale maps of Heather and Shore (1999). The visited outcrops surrounding the Benny greenstone belt (see Figure 5.1) had a wide-range in composition, from xenolith-bearing foliated tonalite to foliated granodiorite to massive to weakly foliated granodiorite and, finally, to granite located on the eastern side of the belt. Lastly, the visited outcrops of the Levack gneiss complex are quite varied in texture and composition (see Figure 5.1). They ranged from foliated granodiorite (dominant) to tonalitic gneiss.

Archean Greenstone Belts and Slivers of Supracrustal Rocks A few greenstone belts are located in the geophysical survey area, and include the Benny greenstone

belt (2683.0±2.3 Ma: Ayer et al. 2010), the Whiskey Lake greenstone belt (2724.9±1.4 Ma, 2686.5±1.1 Ma: Easton 2013) and the Biscotasing arm (2715.4±1.3 Ma: van Breemen, Heather and Ayer 2006) (see Figure 5.1). These greenstone belts are generally composed of mafic to intermediate metavolcanic rocks with minor clastic metasedimentary rocks. A few outcrops of the metavolcanic rocks, located in the western part of the Benny greenstone belt, were visited during the 2019 field season (see Figure 5.1). The mafic metavolcanic rocks are massive coherent flows that were metamorphosed to amphibolite facies (Photo 5.1D). The intermediate metavolcanic rocks mapped are fragmental: tuff breccia and lapilli tuff. These metavolcanic rocks are well foliated and commonly crosscut by folded felsic dikes (see Photo 5.1D). Locally, remnants of greenstone belt rocks within the granitoids were mapped. These slivers are generally mafic in composition and metamorphosed to amphibolite facies. Little to no primary features are preserved in those rocks. The dimension of these remnants is commonly unknown, but further analysis of the airborne geophysical survey data (both magnetic and radiometric) may help identify the extent of the larger remnants.

Proterozoic Rocks The Proterozoic rocks in the area are divided into 2 categories: the sedimentary Huronian

Supergroup and mafic to ultramafic intrusive rocks. The Proterozoic rocks of the Huronian Supergroup cover most of the southern part of the survey area and the Elliot Lake area (see Figure 5.1). The mafic to ultramafic intrusive rocks are located throughout the survey area and can be subdivided into 2 categories as well: dike swarms and other, more sizeable, intrusive bodies, such as the Nipissing gabbro or the East Bull Lake and Agnew intrusions.

HURONIAN SUPERGROUP

Based on previous mapping, all 4 groups of the Huronian Supergroup are present in the survey area, they are from oldest to youngest: Elliot Lake Group, Hough Lake Group, Quirke Lake Group and Cobalt Group (see Easton, Rainsford and Préfontaine, this volume, Figure 6.3; Robertson, Card and Frarey 1969; Robertson, Frarey and Card 1969). During the 2019 field season, all 4 groups were observed. Since recent mapping and compilation in the East Bull Lake–Agnew Lake area (Easton et al. 2011) and Pecors–Whiskey area (Easton 2013) were completed, these areas were not visited during the field season. The Elliot Lake Group, which includes the uranium-ore–bearing Matinenda Formation, was dominantly observed in the southern portion of the survey. The bulk of the outcrops observed from this group are


5-6

interbedded sandstone and siltstones of the McKim Formation. These are generally located south of the Murray Fault where a strong penetrative foliation is present that is coeval with metamorphic minerals, such as white mica, garnet and possibly some chloritoid and staurolite. A few outcrops of sandstone (quartzite) were visited near Elliot Lake and may belong to the Matinenda Formation. Similarly to the Elliot Lake Group, the Hough Lake Group mapped during the field season is located in the southern portion of the survey area. The outcrops are dominantly composed of sandstone (quartz-feldspar) interpreted to belong to the Mississagi Formation (Photo 5.2A). However, one outcrop of a quartz-pebble conglomeratic sandstone was interpreted to belong to the Ramsay Lake Formation. The Quirke Lake Group was observed mostly in the southeastern portion of the map areas and, to a lesser extent, in the Huronian Supergroup outliers near the Benny greenstone belt. In the southern portion, the outcrops visited were dominantly composed of quartz-rich sandstones and wackes most likely belonging to the Serpent Formation. A few outcrops of the carbonate-rich metasedimentary rocks of the Espanola Formation were also visited. Although there has been reports locally of Bruce Formation in the survey area, no rock of this formation was observed during the 2019 field season. The outcrops mapped from the Huronian Supergroup outliers, between the Sudbury Igneous Complex and the Benny greenstone belt, belong dominantly to the Espanola Formation, which is characterized by carbonate-rich metasedimentary

Photo 5.2. Field photographs of the main Proterozoic rocks located in the survey area. A) Bedded sandstone and siltstone of the Mississagi Formation (Hough Lake Group; 435702E 5117078N). B) Bedded carbonate-rich siltstones of the Espanola Formation (Quirke Lake Group; 451824E 5162244N). C) Feldspar porphyritic gabbro of the Matachewan dike swarm (394815E 5125713N). D) Gabbroic texture of the Nipissing intrusive suite (451779E 5162720N). Compass for scale is 22 cm long with sighting arm pointing north, bear bangers pen pull launcher is 10 cm long and pen width is 0.8 cm. All location information provided as UTM co-ordinates using NAD83 in Zone 17.


5-7

rocks (Photo 5.2B). Finally, the Cobalt Group, located at the very southern edge of the map area and in the outliers, was mapped as dominantly conglomerates of the Gowganda Formation, which are locally magnetic (Préfontaine and Rainsford 2019).

MAFIC INTRUSIVE ROCKS (DIKE SWARMS)

The magnetic gradiometer survey depicts numerous dikes that crosscut the survey area (Figure 5.3). Most of these dikes are interpreted to be Proterozoic, of which several dike swarms are known to be present in the survey area: Matachewan (NW-WNW-trending; circa 2460 Ma: Bleeker et al. 2015),

Figure 5.3. Pole-reduced magnetic ternary image (residual magnetic intensity in red, first vertical derivative in green, second vertical derivative in blue) with U/Pb isotopic ages on baddeleyite using uranium-lead isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry method (see references in the text).


5-8

Marathon (WNW-trending in this area, circa 2110 Ma: Bleeker et al. 2015), Biscotasing (ENE-trending; circa 2170 Ma: Buchan, Mortensen and Card 1993), Sudbury (WNW-trending; circa 1240 Ma: Krogh et al. 1988), Abitibi (ENE-trending; circa 1140 Ma: Krogh et al. 1988) and Grenville (W-trending; circa 585 Ma: Halls et al. 2015) swarms. Because many of these dike swarms share similar orientation and/or petrography, several dikes investigated in the field could not be attributed with certainty to any of the aforementioned dike swarms. Further investigation of the history of mafic diking in the survey area is warranted. As such, several techniques will be used to try to discriminate the different dikes swarms, including field observations, lithogeochemistry, petrography, X-ray diffraction (XRD) and cluster analysis on XRD patterns, geophysical images, in-situ scintillometer readings and, where possible, U/Pb geochronology.

A large portion of the northern part of the survey area is dominated by north- to northwest-trending dikes (see Figure 5.3). These are interpreted to be part of the Matachewan dike swarm for which there is an age of 2458±1 Ma (Bleeker et al. 2012, 2015) from a dike located just north of the survey area (see Figure 5.3). It is believed that there are at least 2 pulses of Matachewan-related events: a younger one at circa 2460 Ma (Bleeker et al. 2015); an older one at circa 2480 Ma (Krogh, Davis and Corfu 1984; James et al. 2002) that is related to East Bull Lake intrusive suite magmatism. As one goes south in the survey area, the orientation of the Matachewan dikes seems to rotate from north to northwest to west-northwest and becomes parallel to what is interpreted to be Sudbury dike swarm (1238.4±4 Ma: Krogh et al. 1988, Kamo 1984; see Figure 5.3). Consequently, in the central part of the geophysical survey, it is difficult to separate the Matachewan dikes from the Sudbury dikes because of their similar orientation and the very high density of dikes (see Figure 5.3). The Sudbury swarm dikes are more easily identifiable in the Sturgeon River area geophysical survey located immediately to the east (Easton, Rainsford and Préfontaine, this volume, Article 6) where there are significantly fewer Matachewan dikes. In the southern portion of the geophysical survey, the dikes of the Matachewan swarm are likely present, but are either concealed by the thick Huronian Supergroup cover and/or their magnetic signature was erased by alteration and/or fluid flow related to the Huronian unconformity. This loss of magnetism of the Matachewan dikes resulting from metasomatism was previously documented in the Elliot Lake area (Easton 2010). In the field, the Matachewan diabase are generally medium- to coarse-grained, locally porphyritic gabbros (Photo 5.2C). On the other hand, the Sudbury dikes observed were described as medium-grained gabbro, locally olivine bearing. The geochemistry of Sudbury diabase dike differs from the Matachewan dikes because the former is more alkalic than the more tholeiitic gabbro of the Matachewan swarm (e.g., Ketchum and Davidson 2000). The limited scintillometer readings (21 readings) seem to confirm this difference in chemistry with the Matachewan diabase dikes having a lower total count per minutes (range 57-93, n=13) than the Sudbury diabase (range 96-175, n=8). If this relationship is proven true, the scintillometer readings could help in a more systematic field identification of these 2 dike swarms in the area.

A set of west-trending and west-northwest-trending dikes are observed on the pole-reduced magnetic ternary image (see Figure 5.3). Locally, they have been identified as belonging to the Marathon and the Grenville swarms. In the southern portion of the survey, Bleeker et al. (2015) identified dikes that are interpreted to belong to the Marathon event, based on ages of 2116±5 Ma and 2105±5 Ma at 2 localities near Blind River (see Figure 5.3). These ages are located on a west- to west-northwest-trending magnetic feature (see Figure 5.3). There are several magnetic features that parallel the dike sampled by Bleeker et al. (2015), thus one can interpret that a significant portion of them are of Marathon age. A few outcrops mapped in 2019 may be related to the Marathon dike swarm based on similar, parallel magnetic signatures. All are gabbros and have similar total counts per minute on the scintillometer, with average values ranging from 67 to 118 (n=6). These values are higher than the scintillometer values obtained on dikes that are interpreted to be related to the Grenville dike swarm (range 33-69, n=5). In the survey area, a west-trending dike attributed to the Grenville dike swarm yielded an age of 584.8±0.6 Ma (Halls et al. 2015; see Figure 5.3). Only a few dikes that were mapped during the 2019 field season may belong to the


5-9

Grenville dike swarm. Three outcrops visited seem to be on the continuation of the magnetic feature where the dike sampled by Halls et al. (2015) occurs and, thus, they are interpreted as belonging to the Grenville dike swarm. Two more gabbro outcrops, that lie on a west-trending magnetic feature and are located west of the Sudbury Structure, just south of the Huronian Supergroup outliers, have similar scintillometer values to the aforementioned Grenville dike to the south. If these gabbro outcrops are indeed related to the Grenville dike swarm, they would be the northernmost known occurrence of the Grenville dike swarm in Ontario.

Northeast-trending magnetic features can be observed on the pole-reduced magnetic ternary image (see Figure 5.3). During the 2019 field season, none of the northeastern-trending dikes were observed and further investigation is warranted. A few researchers have attempted to assign these northeast-trending dike to the known dike swarms. However, there is little agreement between them because these northeast-trending dikes have been variously attributed to no less than 3 dike swarms, as well as Nipissing gabbro. For instance, the 2 main northeastern trending linear features in the central west part of the map area have been variously interpreted as Biscotasing or Abitibi (Buchan and Ernst 2004) or Marathon (Johns, McIlraith and Muir 2003) dikes. Considering that the only dike with a Marathon age in the area has a west-northwest trend, it would seem less probable that these northeast-trending dikes are related to the Marathon dike swarm. Other distinctive northeast-trending linear features in the survey area are low (greenish blue) magnetic features in the northwestern corner of the survey (see Figure 5.3). These are interpreted to be part of the Abitibi dike swarm. Smaller northeastern trending dikes have been interpreted locally as probably being related to the Matachewan dike swarm (e.g., in Shakespeare Township (Easton et al. 2011) and in Drury Township (Gordon, Simard and Généreux 2018)) where these dikes were intruded in a variety of orientations, including the northeast orientation.

MAFIC TO ULTRAMAFIC INTRUSIVE ROCKS (NIPISSING GABBRO)

The 2 main mafic to ultramafic intrusive suites are located dominantly in the southern portion of the survey area, these are Nipissing intrusive suite (circa 2215 Ma: Davey et al. 2019) and the East Bull Lake intrusive suite (2490–2470 Ma: James et al. 2002) (see Figure 5.1). Since the East Bull Lake and Agnew Lake intrusions were the study of a recent mapping and compilation (Easton et al. 2011), they were not visited during the 2019 field season and are not discussed below. Lightfoot and Naldrett (1996) describes the Nipissing gabbro (historically called Nipissing diabase) as a suite of dominantly tholeiitic to calc-alkalic rocks ranging from chilled diabase through quartz diabase, gabbronorite, gabbro, vari-textured gabbro, pegmatitic gabbro, quartz diorite, granodiorite, granophyre and aplitic granitoids. The intrusions extend from Sault Ste. Marie through the Sudbury region, to the Cobalt and Gowganda regions (Lightfoot and Naldrett 1996). The Nipissing intrusions are located dominantly in the Huronian Supergroup, but are also localized along the Archean–Proterozoic unconformity. Based on observed field relationships (e.g., Jackson 2001; Easton et al. 2011; Hastie and Vice 2019; Easton, Rainsford and Préfontaine, this volume, Article 6), the Nipissing sills can be divided into 2 types: the first type is folded along with the country rock; the second type is linear and crosscuts at least a folding event. Available unpublished geochronological data (Kamo 2020) suggests little difference in age between the apparently folded and the crosscutting types in the Blind River area. These data, and the fact that the Marathon dike studied by Bleeker et al. (2015) cuts across the Chiblow anticline, suggest that folding of the Huronian Supergroup may be much older than the commonly assumed Penokean (circa 1870–1835 Ma) time frame (e.g., Card et al. 1972). The few outcrops of Nipissing gabbro visited in the map area were medium-grained gabbros (Photo 5.2D). The Nipissing intrusions mapped in the southeastern part of the survey area have undergone some deformation and varying degrees of metamorphism. Card, McIlwaine and Meyn (1973) noted that where the Nipissing gabbros are metamorphosed, there is an overall increase in magnetite content, resulting from the recrystallization of primary ilmenite to magnetite. Consequently, the metamorphosed gabbros are more responsive magnetically than the fresh gabbros (Card, McIlwaine and Meyn 1973). This contributes to the great variability of magnetic signatures associated with the Nipissing gabbros in the area.


5-10

CONTINUED AND FUTURE WORK

Continued and future compilation work for this project includes the review of more than 10 000 assessment files and data from drill-holes, approximately 350 OGS maps, and geochemical, mineralogical and geochronological data. Future field work for the next several years will target areas to the north and to the west of the majority of 2019 stations. The collection of geochemistry and geochronology sample will be ongoing with the mapping component of this project.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Nick Szumylo and Joe Walker are recognized by the author for their patience, assistance and entertainment during the long hours spent in the truck for this mapping project. Joe Walker is thanked for downloading several of the assessment files and maps; and Shannon Evers and assistants are acknowledged for patiently georeferencing the majority of the geological maps. This project has benefited from several discussions with several colleagues at the Ontario Geological Survey, in particular, Michael Easton and Evan Hastie focussing on the Proterozoic rocks and Desmond Rainsford for the geophysical data. Leah Schmidt is thanked for her work with the First Nations communities located within the boundaries of this project. I would like to thank Mattagami First Nation, Brunswick House First Nation, Flying Post First Nation, Mississaugi First Nation, Serpent River First Nation, Sagamok First Nation, Whitefish River First Nation, Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and North Shore Métis Council for allowing us to map on their traditional territory. Pat Gervais is recognized for drafting the figures for this report.

REFERENCES Ayer, J.A., Chartrand, J.E., Trowell, N.F. and Wilson, A.[C.] 2010. Geological compilation of the Maple Mountain

area, Abitibi greenstone belt; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3620, scale 1:100 000.

Bleeker, W., Hamilton, M.A., Ernst, R.E. and Söderlund, U. 2012. Resolving the age structure of the Matachewan event: Magmatic pulses at ca. 2445–2452 Ma, 2458–2461 Ma, and 2475–2480 Ma; unpublished CAMIRO Reports A96, A97, and A98, 17p.

Bleeker, W., Kamo, S.L., Ames, D.E. and Davis, D. 2015. New field observations and U-Pb ages in the Sudbury area: Toward a detailed cross-section through the deformed Sudbury Structure; in Targeted Geoscience Initiative 4: Canadian Nickel-Copper-Platinum Group Elements-Chromium Ore Systems – Fertility, Pathfinders, New and Revised Models, Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 7856, p.151-156.

Buchan, K.L. and Ernst, R.E. 2004. Diabase dyke swarms and related units in Canada and adjacent regions; Geological Survey of Canada, Map 2022A, scale 1:5 000 000.

Buchan, K.L., Mortensen, J.K. and Card, K.D. 1993. Northeast-trending Early Proterozoic dykes of southern Superior Province: Multiple episodes of emplacement recognized from integrated paleomagnetism and U–Pb geochronology; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.30, p.1286-1296.

Card, K.D., Church, W.R., Franklin, J.M., Frarey, M.J., Robertson, J.A., West, G.F. and Young, G.M. 1972. The Southern Province; in Variations in tectonic styles in Canada, Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 11, p.335-380.

Card, K.D., McIlwaine, W. and Meyn, H.D. 1973. Geology of the Maple Mountain area, districts of Timiskaming, Nipissing and Sudbury; Ontario Division of Mines, Geological Report 106, 133p.

Davey, S., Bleeker, W., Kamo, S.[L.], Davis, D.[W.], Easton, [R.]M. and Sutcliffe, R.H. 2019. Ni-Cu-PGE potential of the Nipissing sills as part of the ca. 2.2 Ga Ungava large igneous province; in Targeted Geoscience Initiative: 2018 report of activities, Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8549, p.404-419.


5-11

Easton, R.M. 2010. Compilation mapping, Pecors–Whiskey Lake area, Superior and Southern provinces; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2010, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6260, p.8-1 to 8-12.

——— 2013. Precambrian geology, Pecors–Whiskey area; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3775, scale 1:20 000.

Easton, R.M., Josey, S.D., Murphy, E.I. and James, R.S. 2011. Geological compilation, East Bull Lake and Agnew intrusions; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3596, scale 1:50 000.

Ginn, R.M. 1960. The relationship of the Bruce Series to the granites in the Espanola area; unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 179p.

Gordon, C.A., Simard, R-L. and Généreux, C-A. 2018. Precambrian geology of Drury Township, southwest Sudbury Structure; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3823, scale 1:15 000.

Halls, H.C., Lovette, A., Hamilton, M.[A.] and Söderlund, U. 2015. A paleomagnetic and U–Pb geochronology study of the western end of the Grenville dyke swarm: Rapid changes in paleomagnetic field direction at ca. 585 Ma related to polarity reversals?; Precambrian Research, v.257, p.137-168.

Hastie, E.C.G. and Vice, L.E.D. 2019. Preliminary geology of Scarfe and Cobden townships, Blind River area, Southern Province; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2019, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6360, p.13-1 to 13-11.

Heather, K.B. and Shore, G.T. 1999. Geology, Swayze greenstone belt, Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 3384e, scale 1:50 000.

Jackson, S.L. 2001. On the structural geology of the Southern Province between Sault Ste. Marie and Espanola, Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5995, 55p.

James, R.S., Easton, R.M., Peck, D.C. and Hrominchuk, J.L. 2002. The East Bull Lake intrusive suite: Remnants of a ~2.48 Ga large igneous and metallogenic province in the Sudbury area of the Canadian Shield; Economic Geology, v.97, p.1577-1606.

Johns, G.W., McIlraith, S. and Muir, T.L. 2003. Bedrock geology compilation map—Sault Ste. Marie–Blind River sheet; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2670, scale 1:250 000.

Kamo, S.L. 1984. The petrology, chemistry, and U-Pb age date of a Sudbury dyke; unpublished BSc thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 78p.

——— 2006. Report on U-Pb geochronological data from the southern Abitibi Subprovince, Bannockburn–Montrose and Vernon townships, and the Grenville Front region, Thistle–Sisk townships, Ontario; internal U/Pb age report prepared for the Ontario Geological Survey, Jack Satterly Geochronology Laboratory, Department of Geology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 20p.

——— 2020. Part A: Report on U-Pb ID-TIMS geochronology for the Ontario Geological Survey: Bedrock Mapping Projects, Ontario Year 5: 2019–2020; internal report for the Ontario Geological Survey, Jack Satterly Geochronology Laboratory, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 55p.

Ketchum, J.W.F. and Davidson, A. 2000. Crustal architecture and tectonic assembly of the Central Gneiss Belt, southwestern Grenville Province, Canada: A new interpretation; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.37, p.217-234.

Krogh, T.E., Corfu, F., Davis, D.W., Dunning, G.R., Heaman, L.M., Kamo, S.L., Machado, N., Greenough, J.D. and Nakamura, E. 1988. Precise U-Pb isotopic ages of diabase dykes and mafic to ultramafic rocks using trace amounts of baddeleyite and zircon; in Mafic dyke swarms, Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 34, p.147-152.


5-12

Krogh, T.E., Davis, D.W. and Corfu, F. 1984. Precise U-Pb zircon and baddeleyite ages for the Sudbury area; in The geology and ore deposits of the Sudbury Structure; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 1, p.431-446.

Lightfoot, P.C. and Naldrett, A.J. 1996. Petrology and geochemistry of the Nipissing Gabbro: Exploration strategies for nickel, copper and platinum group elements in a large igneous province; Ontario Geological Survey, Study 58, 81p.

Meldrum, A., Abel-Rahman, A.M., Martin, R.F. and Wodicka, N. 1997. The nature, age and petrogenesis of the Cartier Batholith, northern flank of the Sudbury Structure, Ontario; Precambrian Research, v.82, p.265-285.

Ontario Geological Survey 2011. 1:250 000 scale bedrock geology of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 126 – Revision 1.

——— 2019a. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic gradiometer and gamma-ray spectrometric data, grid and profile data (ASCII format) and vector data, Ramsey–Algoma area; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1086a.

——— 2019b. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic gradiometer and gamma-ray spectrometric data, grid and profile data (Geosoft® format) and vector data, Ramsey–Algoma area; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1086b.

Préfontaine, S. and Rainsford, D.R.B. 2019. Geological compilation project: Ramsey–Algoma granitoid complex and surrounding rocks, Superior and Southern provinces; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2019, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6360, p.5-1 to 5-9.

Robertson, J.A., Card, K.D. and Frarey, M.J. 1969. The Federal–Provincial Committee on Huronian Stratigraphy, Progress Report; Ontario Department of Mines, Miscellaneous Paper 31, 26p.

Robertson, J.A., Frarey, M.J., and Card, K.D. 1969. The Federal–Provincial Committee on Huronian Stratigraphy, Progress Report; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.6, p.335-336.

van Breemen, O., Heather, K.B. and Ayer, J.A. 2006. U-Pb geochronology of the Neoarchean Swayze sector of the southern Abitibi greenstone belt; in Geological Survey of Canada, Current Research 2006-F1, 32p.


6-1

6. Project AS-19-002. Preliminary Interpretation of the Sturgeon River Area Aeromagnetic Survey, Northeastern Ontario

R.M. Easton1, D.R.B. Rainsford1 and S. Préfontaine1


INTRODUCTION

Between December 2019 and February 2020, a magnetic gradiometer survey, comprising 51 101 line-kilometres, was flown in the Sturgeon River area. The southern boundary of the survey area is located approximately 30 km north of the city of Sudbury (Figure 6.1). High-resolution data were acquired at a flight-line interval of 200 m. The purposes of the survey were to address a geoscience gap where existing aeromagnetic coverage was coarse (800 m line spacing), to trace Archean basement geology below the overlying veneer of Huronian Supergroup rocks, and to provide high-resolution data to assist with future geological mapping projects in the area. In addition, the area of the Sturgeon River survey, which is known to host numerous mineral occurrences, has seen historical mining for copper, gold and platinum group metals, as listed by Ayer et al. (2006, 2010). This survey is adjacent to the Ramsey–Algoma geophysical survey (Ontario Geological Survey 2019a, 2019b), which is presently the subject of a geological compilation project (Préfontaine and Rainsford 2019; see Préfontaine, this volume, Article 5).

The airborne magnetic survey results were published as Geophysical Data Set (GDS) 1088 (Ontario Geological Survey 2020a) and as a set of hard-copy maps (Ontario Geological Survey 2020b-m), as indicated in Figure 6.2. This article summarizes preliminary findings from this survey.

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The airborne magnetic survey area includes rocks of the Archean Superior Province and the Paleoproterozoic Southern Province, the northeast corner of the Paleoproterozoic Sudbury Structure, and a minor part of the Mesoproterozoic Grenville Province (see Figure 6.1). The survey area is covered by recent 1:100 000 scale geological compilation maps (Ayer et al. 2006, 2010) that were utilized in the interpretation of the aeromagnetic survey data.

The Paleoproterozoic Huronian Supergroup (Figure 6.3) overlies most of the Superior Province in the eastern two-thirds of the survey area (see Figure 6.1), in what is commonly referred to as the Cobalt Basin (previously referred to as the Cobalt Embayment (cf. Bennett, Dressler and Robertson 1991)). The Cobalt Basin is dominated by rocks of the Cobalt Group, the uppermost of the 4 groups that constitute the Huronian Supergroup (see Figure 6.3). Estimated maximum thickness of the 4 formations of the Cobalt Group in the Cobalt Basin is 3600 to 6000 m (Card, McIlwaine and Meyn 1973), but this estimate may be somewhat overestimated because of unrecognized folding present in the Cobalt Basin. In addition,

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (6) R.M. Easton et al.

6-2

Figure 6.1. Map showing the regional geology of northeastern Ontario, with the thick black line depicting the outline of the Sturgeon River airborne magnetic survey. Paleoproterozoic Cobalt Group siltstones, sandstones and conglomerate that underlie much of the survey area are shown in brown and Nipissing sills are shown in lilac. Geology map compiled from Ontario Geological Survey (2011).


6-3

thicknesses can vary greatly over short distances, for example, the Paleoproterozoic cover is approximately 657 m thick in diamond-drill hole AT-14-01 (Kleinboeck 2015), yet Archean rocks are exposed on surface only 1.2 km to the northeast of the drill collar. Rocks of the Elliot Lake, Hough Lake and Quirke Lake groups occur in the southwestern and southern portions of the Cobalt Basin.

The Huronian Supergroup is intruded by gabbro sills of the Nipissing intrusive suite, which were emplaced during a short-period of time at circa 2215 Ma (Davey et al. 2019). Two intrusive forms are present in the survey area: folded sills and north-trending linear bodies. Similarly, the 2 intrusive forms are observed also in the Blind River area (Hastie and Vice 2019), as well as in the southern part of the Ramsey–Algoma survey area (see Préfontaine, this volume).

Four main Proterozoic dike swarms are generally thought to be present within survey area. These are, from oldest to youngest, 1) the northwest-trending Matachewan dike swarm, emplaced at circa 2460 Ma (Bleeker et al. 2015); 2) the east-northeast-trending Biscotasing dike swarm, emplaced at circa 2167 Ma (Buchan et al. 1993); 3) the west-northwest-trending Sudbury dike swarm, emplaced at circa 1238 Ma (Krogh et al. 1988); and 4) the east-northeast-trending Abitibi dike swarm emplaced at circa 1140 Ma (Krogh et al. 1988). However, similar to the adjacent Ramsey–Algoma survey area, several dikes cannot be attributed to the above swarms based on their orientation alone and thus warrant further investigation (Préfontaine and Rainsford 2019; see Préfontaine, this volume).

INTERPRETATION

The main known and interpreted geological features in the area of the Sturgeon River airborne magnetic survey are highlighted in a pole-reduced magnetic ternary image (Figure 6.4) (residual magnetic intensity in red, first vertical derivative in green, second vertical derivative in blue). Key features are indicated by coloured lines or by the letters A to P that refer to specific features discussed in the text. Note that in the text, for additional reference purposes, the geographic townships associated with letters A to P are also mentioned, even though, for purposes of image clarity, those townships are not indicated on Figure 6.4.

Figure 6.2. Map of northeastern Ontario showing the area covered by the Sturgeon River airborne magnetic survey (Ontario Geological Survey 2020a) and the areas covered by the hard-copy geophysical maps released in September 2020 (Ontario Geological Survey 2020b-m). Upper numbers are residual magnetic field maps, lower numbers are second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field maps. The grey lines indicate township boundaries.


6-4

Faulting

The western half of the survey area, that is west of Lake Wanapitei, is dominated by northwest-trending faults generally spaced 5 to 10 km apart. In contrast, the eastern half of the survey area is dominated by north-trending faults, that are somewhat more widely spaced (6–12 km) (see Figure 6.4). Sudbury swarm dikes, emplaced at circa 1238 Ma (Krogh et al. 1988), appear to be offset or redirected by the north-trending faults, suggesting that these faults may be younger than circa 1238 million years in age.

Figure 6.3. Generalized stratigraphic column for the Huronian Supergroup (from Jackson 2001).

6-5


apping Section (6) R.M

. Easton et al.

Figure 6.4. Pole-reduced magnetic ternary image (residual magnetic intensity = red; first vertical derivative = green; second vertical derivative = blue) for the Sturgeon River airborne magnetic survey area highlighting the main geological features present in the survey area. Letters A to P refer to features discussed in the text.


6-6

Archean Metavolcanic Units Windows of Archean metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks were previously known to be present

in the area covered by the Huronian Supergroup; however, it was not known if these windows were isolated slivers or more continuous belts beneath the Huronian Supergroup. The answer, based on this survey, appears to be that these windows are isolated slivers, and that much of the Archean basement in the survey area consists of felsic intrusive rocks. This conclusion is also supported by the regional ground gravity data, which, although less detailed than the magnetic data, do not suggest continuity between the greenstone slivers. In this regard, the Archean in the survey area closely resembles the Ramsey–Algoma terrane between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, where small greenstone belts and greenstone slivers are present in an area dominated by several generations of felsic intrusive rocks (e.g., Card 1979).

A northwest- to north-northwest-trending magnetic anomaly in Seagram and Clary townships is similar in response to those of Archean iron formations discussed below. This feature, labelled G on Figure 6.4, is also directly coincident with a linear high gravity anomaly. The Gowganda Formation sedimentary rocks mapped at surface do not appear to explain either of the magnetic and gravity anomalies. It is speculated that these features indicate the presence of a greenstone sliver under Huronian Supergroup cover at relatively shallow depth.

Archean Iron Formation Archean iron formation is more abundant in the eastern part of the survey area than would be

expected based on known surface exposures. The main areas of known and interpreted areas of iron formation, which are typically associated with metasedimentary rocks and mafic metavolcanic rocks, are part of the high-response units labelled A, B, E and F on Figure 6.4, and are described below. All 4 interpreted areas of iron formation have similar signatures in the first and second derivative of the total magnetic field, and in the horizontal gradient of the total magnetic field. Since 2 of the 4 correspond to known iron formations, the authors are confident that all 4 of the high-response features represent areas of iron formation and associated rocks.

High-response unit A (see Figure 6.4), located in Cotton Township, corresponds with a previously mapped area of iron formation and mafic metavolcanic rocks that is intruded by granitic rocks (Meyn 1976). The magnetic anomaly associated with the iron formation generally matches well with the existing geology; however, in its eastern extent, it has a domal form, cored by granite, indicating it was likely folded prior to intrusion of the granite.

Similarly, high-response unit B (see Figure 6.4), located in Hutton Township, is associated with a previously mapped area of iron formation and mafic metavolcanic rocks; however, the intensity of the magnetic anomaly suggests that the iron formation might be more widespread at depth than indicated in surface exposure. Again, there is an indication of folding present in high-response unit B, which has an area of approximately 16 km2.

The other 2 interpreted iron formation belts are present in the southeastern part of the survey area, west of the Temagami greenstone belt that contains several large iron formations. High-response unit E (see Figure 6.4), located in Clement and Scholes townships, has a minimum area of 30 km2. It forms the eastern extent of the total magnetic field anomaly known historically as the Temagami magnetic anomaly ( for details, see “Temagami Magnetic Anomaly”) (cf. Milkereit and Wu 1996; Kawohl et al. 2019). Examination of the first and second derivatives of the total magnetic field, and the horizontal gradient of the total magnetic field, indicate that the magnetic anomaly associated with high-response unit F has similar characteristics to the other iron formation anomalies, including those with known surface exposures, although its signature is slightly subdued, possibly because on surface it is overlain by a Nipissing gabbro sill.


6-7

The near-surface expression of the magnetic anomaly associated with high-response unit F (see Figure 6.4) has a strike length of approximately 7 km and is associated with a belt of Archean metasedimentary rocks located south of the Grenville Front in the Grenville Province. Existing maps of the area (Grant 1964; Lumbers 1973) do not indicate any surface exposures of iron formation, and it is possible that the anomaly represents a slightly deeper feature. Minor northward-directed thrusting associated with the Grenville Orogeny would be one explanation for the lack of a surface expression of this anomaly. The magnetic anomaly extends a further 5 km to the west below Huronian Supergroup cover, although it is not clear whether it is a continuation of the inferred iron formation or if it results from the presence of ultramafic intrusive rocks of the Nipissing intrusive suite of which there is a single outcrop mapped in the vicinity (Lumbers 1973).

Temagami Magnetic Anomaly

Visible in the total magnetic field image is a magnetic high approximately 60 km long by 22 km wide known as the Temagami magnetic anomaly (TMA). Card et al. (1984) noted that the TMA consists of a component of shorter wavelength corresponding to banded iron formation and another component of hitherto unknown origin. Several explanations for the other component have been suggested, including 1) a buried Sudbury-like impact structure and/or intrusive rocks associated with the Sudbury Structure (Kawohl et al. 2019), 2) a rift basin with buried Huronian Supergroup mafic metavolcanic rocks (Milkereit and Wu 1996), and 3) an ultramafic intrusion at depth (Milkereit and Wu 1996; Card et al. 1984). This new survey provides additional insight into the possible origin of the TMA. Note that the TMA is cut by mafic dikes of the Sudbury dike swarm, suggesting that whatever causes the TMA is older than circa 1238 Ma.

As suggested by Card et al. (1984), the eastern end of the anomaly, visible in the total magnetic field image, is associated with iron formation located beneath the Huronian Supergroup west of Lake Temagami. Its western end is associated with the area of high magnetic response associated with the Gowganda Formation in Parkin, Creelman and Fraleck townships (C on Figure 6.4, also see Figure 6.5A). When one looks at the first vertical derivative of the total magnetic field and the ternary images, the size of the anomaly shrinks considerably, from approximately 60 km in length to approximately 35 km, and appears as 3 distinct lobes. The easternmost lobe is characterized by well-defined, northeast-trending, strong, linear magnetic highs that appear to represent a source at shallow to intermediate depths. The central lobe is expressed as a broad magnetic high with no well-defined linear features and is consistent with a deep magnetic source. The western lobe of the TMA appears, from its longer wavelength, to be deeper than the central lobe and the 2 lobes are interpreted to be separated by a previously unmapped north-northwest-trending fault evident in the new magnetic data. The western lobe broadly coincides with a syncline containing quartz arenites of the Lorrain Formation (Figure 6.6A). These non-magnetic rocks are not associated with the TMA, but they do suggest a greater depth of burial of the Archean basement in the western lobe.

Although the new data do not point to any specific cause of the TMA, the weakening of the magnetic response in the first and second derivatives suggests that the source is deep seated and is not associated with the Huronian Supergroup rocks observed at surface. A 2197.5 m long hole (labelled AT-14-01 in Figure 6.4), drilled by Canadian Continental Exploration in 2014 in Afton Township to test the magnetic anomaly, encountered 3 intersections, thicker than 70 m, of magnetite-dominated banded iron formation intercalated with Neoarchean basement metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks (Kleinboeck 2015; Kawohl et al. 2019). The Archean units encountered in the drill hole are similar lithologically to rocks exposed on surface along the shores of Emerald Lake, only 1.2 km to the northeast of the drill-hole collar.


6-8

Figure 6.5. A) Pole-reduced magnetic ternary image (residual magnetic intensity = red; first vertical derivative = green; second vertical derivative = blue) of high response rocks in Creelman and Fraleck townships showing complex folding pattern. B) Geology of the same area as the magnetic ternary image (A) showing that high-response unit corresponds to rocks of the Cobalt Group (medium brown on map, geology from Ayer et al. 2010). Dark brown unit is the Matinenda Formation, which, in northwest Parkin Township, cores the prominent magnetic low visible at the centre of image A).


6-9

Magnetic Character of the Proterozoic Units

For the most part, the metasedimentary rocks of the Huronian Supergroup are not magnetic and, thus, they can be regarded as relatively transparent magnetically. The exception to this generalization is the Gowganda Formation, which can contain magnetite-rich horizons, especially in the lower parts of the formation (Meyn 1970, p.80; Meyn 1971, p.17; Card, McIlwaine and Meyn 1973, p.58-59; data in Kleinboeck 2015). In addition, Nipissing gabbro sills intruded into the Huronian Supergroup have varied magnetic responses. As noted by Card, McIlwaine and Meyn (1973, p.58-59), where metamorphosed, the Nipissing gabbro sills have an overall increase in magnetite content, resulting from the change from the primary oxide mineralogy of ilmenite-magnetite. Thus, the altered magnetite-bearing gabbros are more responsive magnetically than are the ilmenite-magnetite-bearing fresh gabbros (Card, McIlwaine and Meyn 1973). The thickness of the Nipissing sills in the survey area is poorly constrained, although the Nipissing sill in Afton Township in drill hole AT-14-01, is at least 350 m thick (Kleinboeck 2015) (see Figure 6.4).

Figure 6.6. A) Geology in the south-central part of the Sturgeon River survey area showing synclines (indicated by thick black lines) in the Lorrain Formation. The area shown in the image overlies the western lobe of the Temagami magnetic anomaly. Cobalt Group rocks are shown in brown. Geology from Ayer et al. (2010). B) Second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field showing a magnetically quiet area coincident with the mapped Lorrain Formation and surrounded by more magnetically responsive rocks of the Gowganda Formation. Note the Sudbury swarm dikes crossing both synforms in the north, as well as a large Sudbury dike in the southern part of the image. C) Pole-reduced magnetic ternary image (residual magnetic intensity = red; first vertical derivative = green; second vertical derivative = blue) of the area shown in A and B, highlighting the magnetically quiet area and the Sudbury swarm dikes.


6-10

Given the reported thickness of the Huronian Supergroup in the Cobalt Basin (i.e., typically >1500 m) one would expect it, and the interleaved Nipissing gabbro sills, to be responsible for much of the magnetic pattern visible in the images covering the eastern two-thirds of the survey area. The thickness of the Huronian Supergroup appears to increase substantially, in mostly higher ground, north of approximately 47°10′ N, where the overall magnetic pattern becomes more subdued than to the south. Near the northwest edge of the Cobalt Basin, there appears to be a wedge-like extension of the Huronian Supergroup (labelled H on Figure 6.4), to the northwest of its current mapped extent, into Beulah and adjacent townships. This interpretation is based on the subdued magnetic response associated with the wedge.

Huronian Supergroup Anomalies

Two additional high-response units are present in the southwestern part of the survey area and are interpreted to be related to magnetic horizons within the Gowganda Formation. They differ from the Archean iron formation response in having a wormy texture of alternating highs and lows, described by Meyn (1970, p.32) as a “very confused magnetic pattern that can be correlated with the structurally disturbed, magnetite-rich Gowganda” Formation mudstones. High-response unit C (see Figure 6.4), located in Creelman, Fraleck and Parkin townships, covers an area of approximately 72 km2, with the dominant response coming from the Gowganda Formation (see Figure 6.5). The magnetic pattern reflects documented folding of the Huronian Supergroup, which, in northern Parkin Township, has a domal pattern, with a magnetically low core of Matinenda Formation sandstone surrounded by linear magnetic highs present in the surrounding Gowganda Formation rocks. Similarly, high-response unit D (see Figure 6.4), located in northwest Creelman Township near high-response units B and C, is associated with rocks of the Gowganda and Matinenda formations. It covers an area of approximately 24 km2 and appears to be folded around a northeast-trending fold axis. Similar responses were also observed in the Gowganda Formation in the southern portion of the Ramsey–Algoma survey (Préfontaine and Rainsford 2019).

In the south-central part of the survey area, several strikingly uniform patches of magnetic field (labelled I, J, K, L on Figure 6.4) appear to be closely correlated with the outline of the Lorrain Formation quartz arenites as depicted by Ayer et al. (2010) (see Figure 6.6). These uniform patches are broadly basinal in form and are flanked by the more magnetically responsive Gowganda Formation. Based on the magnetic data, the dominant folding patterns seems to be one of earlier northwesterly to westerly trending fold axes being refolded around northeast-trending to northerly trending fold axes. The result is a dome and basin map pattern, similar to interference folding documented in the Huronian Supergroup to the west of Sudbury (Easton 2006).

Mafic Intrusive Rocks

The Nipissing gabbro sills show a variety of magnetic responses. One response presents as curiously etched, plate-like features with ragged edges present in the ternary magnetic image, with these plate-like features being interpreted as the expression of multiple Nipissing sill layers within the Huronian Supergroup (Figure 6.7A). In contrast, some of the ring-like magnetic features might indicate a saucer-like geometry to the Nipissing gabbro sills with edges at or close to surface, whereas the central parts are deeper (Figure 6.7B). A similar magnetic response was observed in association with Nipigon sills in the Nipigon area (Hart and MacDonald 2007).

As mentioned previously, Nipissing gabbro sills that are metamorphosed are more responsive magnetically (Card, McIlwaine and Meyn 1973). This effect is most apparent in the area of Afton, Scholes, Macbeth, Clement, McNish and Pardo townships (labelled M on Figure 6.4), where there is a striking pattern of alternating magnetic highs and lows associated with Nipissing gabbro sills in the area.


6-11

In the same townships, an area 14 km long by 4 km wide of uniform magnetic character in the first and second vertical derivative images (labelled P on Figure 6.4) might represent a more homogeneous felsic intrusion of unknown age.

Dikes of the Matachewan dike swarm are most prominent in the magnetic field in the northeast quadrant of the survey area. Dikes of this swarm are likely present throughout the entire northern half of the survey area, but are either masked by the thick Huronian Supergroup cover and/or resetting of their magnetic signature as the result of alteration and/or fluid flow related to the Huronian Supergroup unconformity, as previously observed in the Elliot Lake area (Easton 2010). Areas where magnetic resetting of the Matachewan dikes has likely occurred include the area directly north of the Sudbury Structure and an area approximately 400 km2 in size centred on latitude 47°04′N, longitude 80°53′W.

The other 3 mafic dike swarms were all emplaced after the deposition of the Huronian Supergroup. Only a few dikes that may be related to the Abitibi dike swarm are potentially identifiable in the magnetic data: both are in the northeast quadrant of the survey area. No dikes could be assigned to the Biscotasing swarm based on magnetic character alone.

Of the 3 other main dike swarms, dikes of the Sudbury dike swarm are most abundant, and many of the larger of these dikes are indicated on the existing geology maps of the Sturgeon River survey area (e.g., Ayer et al. 2006, 2010). Nonetheless, it is clear that, in the northern portion of the survey area, where the Huronian Supergroup is thickest, there are more dikes of this swarm shown in the survey than had been previously noted.

Figure 6.7. Pole-reduced magnetic ternary images (residual magnetic intensity = red; first vertical derivative = green; second vertical derivative = blue) of Nipissing sill features. A) Inferred stacked sills, showing irregular margins, intruded into Huronian Supergroup sedimentary rocks. B) “Saucer”-like sill with exposed margins highlighted by a bright, ring-shaped outline surrounding a more subdued central area.


6-12

A few northwest-trending dikes are present in the northern part of the survey area that do not appear to belong to the aforementioned swarms. These northwest-trending dikes appear to be cut by the Sudbury dikes. It is possible that these northwest-trending dikes may be related to the Marathon dike swarm, emplaced at circa 2125 to 2105 Ma. Dikes of this swarm have been identified cutting rocks of the Huronian Supergroup in the Blind River area (Bleeker et al. 2015), so their presence in the survey area would not be unexpected. A linear northeast-trending magnetic low centred at UTM 561292E 5189562N (NAD83, Zone 17) and crossing the Clement–Vogt township boundary may represent a reversely magnetized dike; if so, then it is likely a Marathon swam dike, as the younger dikes (circa 2105 Ma) of the Marathon swarm can be reversely magnetized (Halls et al. 2008).

Features Along the Grenville Front

The location of the Grenville Front cannot be discerned in any of the magnetic images, and the magnetic patterns present north of the Grenville Front continue for at least 3 to 4 km south of the front. Beyond that point, the magnetic pattern is characterized by a moderate intensity pattern with small linear magnetic highs. Surface outcrops in this area of moderate intensity consist of a variety of felsic intrusive rocks with slivers and xenoliths of metamorphosed Archean metasedimentary rocks. Immediately south of the Grenville Front, in Hobbs Township, an area, 4.5 km long by 2 km wide of uniform magnetic character in the first and second vertical derivative images, might represent more homogeneous felsic intrusion (labelled N on Figure 6.4). This intrusion is not shown on current maps of the area (e.g., Grant 1964; Lumbers 1973). Although the extent of the Sturgeon River aeromagnetic survey does cover the northeastern part of the River Valley intrusion in the Dana Lake area, the intrusion itself is not identifiable in the magnetic data.

Sudbury Structure

The Sudbury Structure is visible in the southwestern portion of the Sturgeon River survey image as indicated in Figure 6.4. It is surrounded by an area 5 to 6 km wide with a “birds-eye” magnetic texture that is labelled “SIC aureole” in Figure 6.4. Much of this birds-eye textured area is coincident with surface exposures of the Archean Levack gneiss complex, but it also includes surface exposures of Archean granitoid rocks. The magnetic texture could reflect the presence of the Levack gneiss complex at depth, and/or it could reflect the distribution of high-grade metamorphic rocks associated with the contact metamorphic aureole of the Sudbury Structure (Dressler 1984a, 1984b).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the Wahnapitae First Nation, the Temagami First Nation, the Matachewan First Nation and the Nipissing First Nation for allowing the Ontario Geological Survey to fly the airborne survey over their traditional territory. Their co-operation is greatly appreciated. P. Gervais (ERGMS) prepared the final figures for the article.

REFERENCES Ayer, J.A., Chartrand, J.E., Grabowski, G.P.D., Josey, S., Rainsford, D.[R.B.] and Trowell, N.F. 2006. Geological

compilation of the Cobalt–Temagami area, Abitibi greenstone belt; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3581, scale 1:100 000.

Ayer, J.A., Chartrand, J.E., Trowell, N.F. and Wilson, A.[C.] 2010. Geological compilation of the Maple Mountain area, Abitibi greenstone belt; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3620, scale 1:100 000.


6-13

Bennett, G., Dressler, B.O. and Robertson, J.A. 1991. The Huronian Supergroup and associated intrusive rocks; Chapter 14 in Geology of Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, Part 1, p.549-591.

Bleeker, W., Kamo, S.L., Ames, D.E. and Davis, D. 2015. New field observations and U-Pb ages in the Sudbury area: Toward a detailed cross-section through the deformed Sudbury Structure; in Targeted Geoscience Initiative 4: Canadian Nickel-Copper-Platinum Group Elements-Chromium Ore Systems — Fertility, Pathfinders, New and Revised Models, Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 7856, p.151-166.

Buchan, K.L., Mortensen, J.K. and Card, K.D. 1993. Northeast-trending Early Proterozoic dykes of southern Superior Province: Multiple episodes of emplacement recognized from integrated paleomagnetism and U–Pb geochronology; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.30, p.1286-1296.

Card, K.D. 1979. Regional geological synthesis, central Superior Province; in Current Research, Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 79-1A, p.87-90.

Card, K.D., Gupta, V.K., McGrath, P.H. and Grant, F.S. 1984. The Sudbury Structure: its regional geological and geophysical setting; Chapter 2 in Geology of Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 1, p.25-43.

Card, K.D., McIlwaine, W. and Meyn, H.D. 1973. Geology of the Maple Mountain area, districts of Timiskaming, Nipissing and Sudbury; Ontario Division of Mines, Geological Report 106, 133p.

Davey, S., Bleeker, W., Kamo, S.[L.], Davis, D.[W.], Easton, [R.]M. and Sutcliffe, R.H. 2019. Ni-Cu-PGE potential of the Nipissing sills as part of the ca. 2.2 Ga Ungava large igneous province; in Targeted Geoscience Initiative: 2018 report of activities, Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8549, p.404-419.

Dressler, B.O. 1984a. The effects of the Sudbury Event and the intrusion of the Sudbury Igneous Complex on the footwall rocks of the Sudbury Structure; in The geology and ore deposits of the Sudbury Structure, Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 1, p.97-136.

——— 1984b. General geology of the Sudbury area; in The geology and ore deposits of the Sudbury Structure, Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 1, p.57-82.

Easton, R.M. 2006. Geology of Porter and Vernon townships; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.2845, scale 1:20 000.

——— 2010. Compilation mapping, Pecors–Whiskey Lake area, Superior and Southern provinces; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2010, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6260, p.8-1 to 8-12.

Grant, J.A. 1964. Vogt–Hobbs area, District of Nipissing; Ontario Department of Mines, Map 2048, scale 1:31 680.

Halls, H.C., Davis, D.W., Stott, G.M. and Ernst, R.E. 2008. The Paleoproterozoic Marathon Large Igneous Province: New evidence for a 2.1 Ga long-lived mantle plume event along the southern margin of the North American Superior Province; Precambrian Research, v.162, p.327-353.

Hart, T.R. and MacDonald, C.A. 2007. Proterozoic and Archean geology of the Nipigon Embayment: Implications for emplacement of the Mesoproterozoic Nipigon diabase sills and mafic to ultramafic intrusions; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.44, p.1021-1040.

Hastie, E.C.G. and Vice, L.E.D. 2019. Preliminary geology of Scarfe and Cobden townships, Blind River area, Southern Province; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2019, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6360, p.13-1 to 13-11.

Jackson, S.L. 2001. On the structural geology of the Southern Province between Sault Ste. Marie and Espanola, Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5995, 55p.

Kawohl, A., Frimmel, H.E., Bite, A., Whymark, W. and Debaille, V. 2019. Very distant Sudbury impact dykes revealed by drilling the Temagami geophysical anomaly; Precambrian Research, v.324, p.220-235.


6-14

Kleinboeck, J. 2015. Phase 1 diamond drilling program: TeckMag1 project, Canadian Continental Exploration Corp., Ontario Assessment File Database record number 20000014558, 203p.

Krogh, T.E., Corfu, F., Davis, D.W., Dunning, G.R., Heaman, L.M., Kamo, S.L., Machado, N., Greenough, J.D. and Nakamura, E. 1988. Precise U-Pb isotopic ages of diabase dykes and mafic to ultramafic rocks using trace amounts of baddeleyite and zircon; in Mafic dyke swarms, Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 34, p.147-152.

Lumbers, S.B. 1973. River Valley area, districts of Nipissing and Sudbury; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.844, scale 1:63 360.

Meyn, H.D. 1970. Geology of Hutton and Parkin townships; Ontario Department of Mines; Geological Report 80, 78p.

——— 1971. Geology of Roberts, Creelman and Fraleck townships; Ontario Department of Mines, Geological Report 91, 48p.

——— 1976. Geology of Frechette, McNamara and Cotton townships; Ontario Division of Mines; Geoscience Report 143, 58p.

Milkereit, B. and Wu, J. 1996. Seismic image of an Early Proterozoic rift basin; Tectonophysics, v.264, p.89-100.

Ontario Geological Survey 2011. 1:250 000 Bedrock geology of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 126–Revision 1.

——— 2019a. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic gradiometer and gamma-ray spectrometric data, grid and profile data (ASCII format) and vector data, Ramsey–Algoma area; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1086a.

——— 2019b. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic gradiometer and gamma-ray spectrometric data, grid and profile data (Geosoft® format) and vector data, Ramsey–Algoma area; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1086b.

——— 2020a. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic gradiometer data, grid and profile data (ASCII and Geosoft® formats) and vector data, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1088.

——— 2020b. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 014, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020c. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 015, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020d. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 016, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020e. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 017, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020f. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 018, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020g. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, colour-filled contours of the residual magnetic field, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 019, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020h. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 020, scale 1:50 000.


6-15

——— 2020i. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 021, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020j. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 022, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020k. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 023, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020l. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 024, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020m. Airborne magnetic gradiometer survey, shaded colour image of the second vertical derivative of the residual magnetic field and Keating correlation coefficients, Sturgeon River area; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 83 025, scale 1:50 000.

Préfontaine, S. and Rainsford, D.R.B. 2019. Geological compilation project: Ramsey–Algoma granitoid complex and surrounding rocks, Superior and Southern provinces; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2019, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6360, p.5-1 to 5-9.


7-1

7. Project NW-19-001. A Precise U/Pb Age for a North-Trending Mafic Dike from the Western Flank of the Marathon Swarm, East Bay Area, Northwestern Ontario

R.T. Metsaranta1 and M.A. Hamilton2

1Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section, Ontario Geological Survey, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5 2Jack Satterly Geochronology Laboratory, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto,

Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1

INTRODUCTION

Proterozoic mafic dikes of various ages form a significant proportion of Precambrian crust in Ontario (Figure 7.1). However, the spatial density of mafic dikes in Ontario varies considerably depending on location (see Figure 7.1). In the area west of Lake Nipigon and west-northwest of Thunder Bay, there is a paucity of dikes relative to geologically similar (with respect to Archean terranes) areas of northeastern Ontario and northwestern Minnesota (e.g., Buchan and Ernst 2004). Few studies of mafic dikes in this part of northwestern Ontario have been carried out compared to areas east of Lake Nipigon (e.g., Hamilton et al. 2002; Halls, Stott and Davis 2005; Halls et al. 2008), although some dikes in the area were the subject of preliminary geochemical, geochronological and paleomagnetic studies during the Lake Nipigon Region Geoscience Initiative (LNRGI; Ernst et al. 2006). New higher resolution geophysical data for the area (e.g., Ontario Geological Survey 2015a, 2015b) have revealed the presence of more, likely pre-Midcontinent Rift, dikes in this area than previously recognized (compare Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2).

This brief contribution presents a new isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry (ID-TIMS) U/Pb (baddeleyite) age for a single, north-striking mafic dike that intruded Archean rocks of the Quetico Subprovince in the East Bay area (area represented by National Topographic System (NTS) map 52 A/14), north-northwest of Thunder Bay (see Figure 7.2). The sample was collected during reconnaissance mapping for a larger multi-year bedrock geology mapping project (referred to herein as the “study area”; see also Metsaranta 2015; Metsaranta and Walker 2019) during the summer of 2015. The main rationale for collecting the sample was to determine if the dike, part of a distinct north-trending swath of mafic dikes in the area, was possibly related to late Mesoproterozoic Midcontinent Rift magmatism that is extensive in the Lake Nipigon and the western Lake Superior region, or whether the dike represents part of an older Proterozoic mafic dike swarm. Previous work (e.g., Ernst et al. 2006) tentatively assigned north-trending dikes farther north, but along strike, to the Marathon swarm (circa 2126–2101 Ma: Halls et al. 2008), but lacked any supporting geochronology. New U/Pb age data presented herein support assigning the dike to the Marathon swarm; however, the affinities of other dikes with different orientations in the project area remain undetermined.

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (7) R.T. Metsaranta and M.A. Hamilton

7-2

GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND SAMPLE DETAILS

Figure 7.2 shows the sample location (15RM423: 323914mE 5411631mN, NAD83, Zone 16) on a simplified geological map portraying a preliminary aeromagnetic data interpretation of Proterozoic mafic dikes and the generalized Archean and Proterozoic geology of the study area. Figure 7.3 shows the location of sample overlain on an image of the second vertical derivative magnetic field (Ontario Geological Survey 2017). The sampled material was a homogeneous, unfoliated, medium-grained,

Figure 7.1. A map showing the location of the study area and general distribution of mafic dikes in Ontario emphasizing those dikes (shown in red) considered part of the Marathon swarm based on existing digital mafic dike compilation maps (Ontario Geological Survey 2011; Buchan and Ernst 2004). Also shown are the locations of U/Pb zircon or baddeleyite geochronology sample locations (including the sample described in this report) that have ages consistent with the Marathon swarm (Ontario Geological Survey 2019).


7-3

sparsely plagioclase-phyric gabbro (Photo 7.1). The sample is from a mafic dike that forms part of an approximately 10 km wide zone of multiple dikes with broadly north-trending, but irregular apparent strikes, that can be traced approximately 80 km from apparently overlying Animikie Group sedimentary rocks to the south, to the Nipigon Embayment in the north. Dikes in the zone appear as either linear high magnetic field features or low magnetic field features on airborne magnetic data compilations (e.g., see Figure 7.3; Ontario Geological Survey 2017). The width of the dike is not known; however, it is constrained between approximately 10 m, the width of exposure in outcrop across the geophysical strike and approximately 125 m, the crude approximate width of the geophysical anomaly as shown in Figure 7.3. At the sample locality, 10 measurements of magnetic susceptibility averaged 21.5 ×10−4 SI units, which lies at the low end of the range (i.e., least fresh) for generally unaltered diabase (Bleeker 2012). Geochemical data for the sample will be published in a future digital data release.

Figure 7.2. Sample location and preliminary aeromagnetic interpretation of mafic dikes in the study area. Also shown are general locations of specific known and probable Midcontinent Rift (“MCR”)–related mafic to ultramafic intrusions and/or complexes, Nipigon sills, interpreted Archean terrane boundaries, and areas interpreted to be underlain by the Sibley Group. Numbered Midcontinent Rift–related intrusions and/or complexes are 1) Griff magnetic anomaly, 2) Saturday Night intrusion, 3) Sunday Lake intrusion, 4) Thunder intrusion, 5) Lone Island Lake complex, 6) Steepledge Lake complex, 7) Current Lake complex and 8) Seagull intrusion. All UTM co-ordinates are provided using North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) in Zone 16.


7-4

ANALYTICAL METHODS

Full sample preparation and isotopic analyses were carried out at the Jack Satterly Geochronology Laboratory at the University of Toronto. The sample was crushed and milled using standard methods (jaw crusher and Bico disk mill, respectively). A heavy mineral concentrate was achieved by slow processing of the milled sample over a shaking, riffled, water (Wilfley) table, with the heavy concentrate pipetted directly to dishes for grain selection. Although zircon was not found to be present in sample 15RM423, this medium-grained gabbro yielded a modest amount of fine brown blades and blade fragments of baddeleyite. Only the freshest-looking baddeleyite crystals, based on highest lustre, were chosen for analysis.

Figure 7.3. Second vertical derivative of magnetic field for the area in proximity to the sampled dike (Ontario Geological Survey 2017). All UTM co-ordinates are provided using North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) in Zone 16.


7-5

Uranium–lead (U/Pb) analysis was achieved by isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry methods (ID-TIMS). Baddeleyite grains were rinsed with HNO3 prior to dissolution. A 205Pb–235U spike was added to the Teflon™ dissolution capsules during sample loading. Baddeleyite was dissolved using ~0.10 mL of concentrated HF acid and ~0.02 mL of 7N HNO3 at 200°C for 3 days. All samples were dried to a precipitate and re-dissolved in ~0.15 mL of 3N HCl overnight (Krogh 1973). Uranium and lead were isolated from baddeleyite using 50 µL anion exchange columns using HCl, deposited onto outgassed rhenium filaments with silica gel (Gerstenberger and Haase 1997), and analyzed with a VG354 mass spectrometer using a Daly detector in pulse counting mode. All common lead was assigned to the procedural lead blank. Initial lead from geological sources above 1 picogram was corrected using the lead evolution model of Stacey and Kramers (1975). Dead time of the Daly detector system for lead and uranium was 16 and 14 ns, respectively. The mass discrimination correction for the Daly detector is constant at 0.05% per atomic mass unit. Amplifier gains and Daly characteristics were monitored using the SRM 982 Pb standard. Thermal mass discrimination corrections are 0.10% per atomic mass unit for both lead and uranium. Decay constants are those of Jaffey et al. (1971). All age errors quoted in the text and table, and error ellipses in the concordia diagrams are given at the 95% confidence interval. VG Sector software was used for data acquisition, and in-house software (in Visual Basic programmed by D.W. Davis) was used for data reduction. Plotting and age calculations were done using Isoplot 3.00 (Ludwig 2003).

By virtue of its crystal chemistry, baddeleyite (ZrO2) is typically not susceptible to significant lead loss. However, several studies have suggested that the causes of discordance in baddeleyite analyses, where it is observed, likely involve lead loss from secondary zircon overgrowths on baddeleyite crystals (e.g., Heaman and LeCheminant 1993), and/or alpha recoil effects because of the commonly thin, tabular crystal habit of baddeleyite that yields high surface area:volume ratios, particularly in very small crystals (e.g., Romer 2003; Davis and Davis 2017; Sahin and Hamilton 2019).

RESULTS

Analytical data for sample 15RM423 are tabulated in Table 7.1; a concordia plot and baddeleyite images are provided in Figure 7.4. Four fractions of baddeleyite were analyzed, comprising between 5 and 20 grains each. Total common lead levels ranged from 0.33 to 0.60 pg Pbc. Thorium–uranium ratios for the baddeleyite analyses range from 0.09 to 0.16, which is higher than typical for fresh baddeleyite (~0.05), suggesting that the grains could have minor, cryptocrystalline overgrowths of zircon, presumably

Photo 7.1. A photo of a representative specimen of geochronology sample 15RM423.


7-6

Table 7.1. U/Pb baddeleyite isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry (ID-TIMS) data for sample 15RM423, a north-trending gabbro dike in the East Bay area.

Baddeleyite Fraction

U (ppm)

PbT (pg)

Pbc (pg)

Th/U 206Pb/204Pb measured

207Pb/235U 2σ 206Pb/238U 2σ Error Corr.

B1 (13) 123 23.08 0.52 0.086 2869 6.793 0.027 0.3787 0.0013 0.874 B2 (5) 153 29.05 0.33 0.150 5552 6.750 0.019 0.3772 0.0009 0.883 B3 (13) 166 31.73 0.60 0.132 3373 6.815 0.022 0.3798 0.0009 0.846 B4 (20) 180 34.41 0.48 0.163 4556 6.766 0.024 0.3768 0.0010 0.812 Baddeleyite Fraction

207Pb/206Pb 2σ 206Pb/238U Age

2σ 207Pb/235U Age

2σ 207Pb/206Pb Age

2σ % Discordance

B1 0.13007 0.00025 2070.4 6.0 2084.8 3.5 2098.9 3.4 1.6 B2 0.12980 0.00017 2063.1 4.1 2079.3 2.4 2095.3 2.3 1.8 B3 0.13015 0.00023 2075.2 4.4 2087.7 2.9 2100.0 3.1 1.4 B4 0.13023 0.00027 2061.3 4.5 2081.3 3.1 2101.1 3.6 2.2

Notes: B is baddeleyite. (n) is number of grains in fraction. Th/U calculated from radiogenic 208Pb/206Pb ratio and 207Pb/206Pb age assuming concordance.

PbT is total amount of Pb (in picograms). Pbc is total common Pb (in picograms) assuming the isotopic composition of laboratory blank (206Pb/204Pb=18.49±0.4%;

207Pb/204Pb=15.59±0.4%; 208Pb/204Pb=39.36±0.4%). 206Pb/204Pb corrected for fractionation and common Pb in the spike. Pb/U ratios corrected for fractionation, common Pb in the spike, and blank. Correction for 230Th disequilibrium in 206Pb/238U and 207Pb/206Pb assuming Th/U of 4.2 in the magma. Percent discordance is calculated for the given 207Pb/206Pb age. Error Correlation (“Error Corr.”) is correlation coefficient of X-Y errors on the concordia plot. Decay constants are those of Jaffey et al. (1971): 238U and 235U are 1.55125 × 10−10/yr and 9.8485 × 10−10/yr. 238U/235U ratio of 137.88 used for 207Pb/206Pb model age calculations.

late magmatic in origin. Alteration of such zircon could well be responsible for the minor, variable measured discordance (1.4–2.2%). In general, the data for all 4 fractions is essentially colinear, with 207Pb/206Pb ages ranging narrowly between 2095 and 2101 Ma. Results for fraction subset B1, B3 and B4 are fit best to a recent lead-loss trajectory (to the origin, 0 Ma); regression of these points yields an upper intercept age of 2100.0±1.9 Ma, which is taken to represent the best estimate of the age of emplacement and crystallization of the dike. Fraction B2, with the lowest 207Pb/206Pb age (2095 Ma) is excluded from the regression, and likely reflects minor secondary (ancient) lead loss.

DISCUSSION

The north-trending strike of the sampled dike, combined with the age of circa 2100 Ma, confirms that it represents a component of the regionally extensive Marathon dike swarm and large igneous province (e.g., Halls et al. 2008), although it now stands as one of its youngest recognized magmatic members. A reasonable preliminary interpretation would be to assign other broadly north-trending dikes in the study area to the Marathon swarm. However, additional complexity is suggested by the irregular orientation pattern and varying magnetic signature with apparent normal and reverse polarity dikes present (see Figure 7.3). Combined paleomagnetic and geochronological studies of this dike swarm have previously demonstrated unequivocally that Marathon magmatism records a reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field, from normal to reversed, between 2126 and 2101 Ma (Buchan, Halls and Mortensen 1996; Hamilton et al. 2002; Halls et al. 2008). Therefore, we consider it plausible that the normal and reverse polarity dikes of similar northerly trend in the present study area likely represent Marathon dikes, but of varied ages.


7-7

Figure 7.4. Concordia plot and images of baddeleyite crystal fractions analyzed by ID-TIMS.


7-8

At least 3 other distinct dike orientations are present in the preliminary magnetic interpretation shown on Figure 7.2. The northwest-trending dikes in the far western portion of the study area could conceivably be Midcontinent Rift–related Cloud River dikes or related to older northwest-trending dike swarms. The single north-northeast-trending dike—west of the sampled dike and that occurs beneath Dog Lake—is subparallel to the Empey Lake dike (Buchan and Ernst 2004), which has a minimum age of circa 1144 Ma (based on discordant zircon data; Ernst et al. 2006) and is located immediately west of the project area (see Figure 7.1). North-northwest-trending dikes in the eastern part of the study area could be related to the Paleoproterozoic Pickle Crow, Mine Centre or Fort Frances swarms. Alternatively, they could be related to the Midcontinent Rift. Interpretation is speculative at this point without supporting geochronological or geochemical data.

Field work in the study area in coming years should help to more fully characterize the dike swarms by using geochemical and geochronological analyses and physical properties data collection (magnetic susceptibility and specific gravity). Paleomagnetic characterization of some of the dikes would also be warranted, but is not planned at this time. Additional reinterpretation of Proterozoic mafic dike geology throughout northwestern Ontario is warranted based on preliminary interpretation of newly acquired airborne magnetic data.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Fort William First Nation, Lac Des Milles Lac First Nation, Kiashke Zaaging Anishinaabek, Red Rock Indian Band, Métis Nation of Ontario Region 2 Thunder Bay Métis Council and Red Sky Métis Independent Nation for allowing the Ontario Geological Survey to map in their traditional territory. Their co-operation is greatly appreciated. Pat Gervais (ERGMS) is thanked for drafting the figures. Rob Cundari (Resident Geologist Program) is thanked for discussions on Proterozoic geology of the area. Michael Easton (ERGMS) and Monica Gaiswinkler Easton (Publication Services) are thanked for technical and editorial reviews, respectively.

REFERENCES Bleeker, W. 2012. The use of hand-held magnetic susceptibility meters in the field: An invaluable tool in regional

studies of dyke swarms; Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 7139, 1p. poster.

Buchan, K.L. and Ernst, R.E. 2004. Diabase dyke swarms and related units in Canada and adjacent regions; Geological Survey of Canada, Map 2022A, compilation at 1:5 000 000 scale.

Buchan, K.L., Halls, H.C. and Mortensen, J.K. 1996. Paleomagnetism, U–Pb geochronology and geochemistry of Marathon dykes, Superior Province, and comparison with the Fort Frances swarm; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.33, p.1583-1595.

Davis, W.J. and Davis, D.W. 2017. Alpha recoil loss of Pb from baddeleyite evaluated by high-resolution ion microprobe (SHRIMP II) depth profiling and numerical modeling; Chapter 11 in Microstructural geochronology: Planetary records down to atom scale, American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 232, p.248-259.

Ernst, R.E., Buchan, K.L., Heaman, L.M., Hart, T.R. and Morgan, J. 2006. Multidisciplinary study of north- to north-northeast-trending dikes in the region west of the Nipigon Embayment: Lake Nipigon Region Geoscience Initiative; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 194.

Gerstenberger, H. and Haase, G. 1997. A highly effective emitter substance for mass spectrometric Pb isotope ratio determinations; Chemical Geology, v.136, p.309-312.


7-9

Halls, H.C., Davis, D.W., Stott, G.M., Ernst, R.E. and Hamilton, M.A. 2008. The Paleoproterozoic Marathon Large Igneous Province: New evidence for a 2.1 Ga long-lived mantle plume event along the southern margin of the North American Superior Province; Precambrian Research, v.162, p.327-353.

Halls, H.C., Stott, G.M. and Davis, D.W. 2005. Paleomagnetism, geochronology and geochemistry of several Proterozoic mafic dike swarms in northwestern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6171, 59p.

Hamilton, M.A., Davis, D.W., Buchan, K.L. and Halls, H.C. 2002. Precise U–Pb dating of reversely magnetized Marathon diabase dykes and implications for emplacement of giant dyke swarms along the southern margin of the Superior Province, Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Current Research 2002-F6, 8p.

Heaman, L.M. and LeCheminant, A.N. 1993. Paragenesis and U-Pb systematics of baddeleyite (ZrO2); Chemical Geology, v.110, p.95-126.

Jaffey, A.H., Flynn, K.F., Glendenin, L.E., Bentley, W.C. and Essling, A.M. 1971. Precision measurement of half-lives and specific activities of 235U and 238U; Physical Review, v.4, p.1889-1906.

Krogh, T.E. 1973. A low contamination method for hydrothermal decomposition of zircon and extraction of U and Pb for isotopic age determinations; Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v.37, p.485-494.

Ludwig, K.R. 2003. User’s manual for Isoplot 3.00. A geochronological toolkit for Microsoft® Excel®; Berkeley Geochronology Center, Special Publication No. 4, 71p.

Metsaranta R.T. 2015. Preliminary results from geological mapping of the Quetico Subprovince, the Shebandowan greenstone belt and Proterozoic rocks north of Thunder Bay; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2015, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6313, p.15-1 to 15-20.

Metsaranta R.T. and Walker J.A. 2019. Precambrian geology of western McGregor Township and adjacent areas, northeast of Thunder Bay; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2019, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6360, p.11-1 to 11-10.


——— 2015a. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic and gamma-ray spectrometric data, grid and profile data (ASCII and Geosoft® formats) and vector data, Mahon Lake and Flatrock Lake areas; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1077.

——— 2015b. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic and gamma-ray spectrometric data, grid and profile data (Geosoft® format) and vector data, Lac des Mille Lacs–Nagagami Lake area; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1078b.

——— 2017. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic data, grid data (ASCII and Geosoft® formats), magnetic supergrids; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1037—Revised.

——— 2019. Geochronology Inventory of Ontario—2019; Ontario Geological Survey, Geochronology Inventory of Ontario—2019 (online database).

Romer, R.L. 2003. Alpha-recoil in U-Pb geochronology: effective sample size matters; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v.145, p.481-491.

Sahin, T and Hamilton, M.A. 2019. New U-Pb baddeleyite ages for Neoarchean and Paleoproterozoic mafic dyke swarms of the southern Nain Province, Labrador: Implications for possible plate reconstructions involving the North Atlantic craton; Precambrian Research, v.329, p.44-69. doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2019.02.001

Stacey, J.S. and Kramers, J.D. 1975. Approximation of terrestrial lead isotope evolution by a two-stage model; Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v.26, p.207-221.


8-1

8. Project NW-19-003. Geochemistry of Archean Volcaniclastic and Mafic Intrusive Rocks, Georgia Lake Area, Quetico Subprovince, Northwestern Ontario

M. Duguet1


INTRODUCTION

A two-year, 1:50 000 scale, mapping project started in the summer of 2019 in the Georgia Lake area. The map area coincides with the 1:50 000 scale NTS sheet (42 E/5) and is located just east of Lake Nipigon. The map area incudes Archean metasedimentary and intrusive rocks of the Quetico Subprovince (Superior Province), Proterozoic mafic intrusive rocks related to the Midcontinent Rift (Nipigon sills) and several older Proterozoic dike swarms (Figure 8.1). The Georgia Lake area was partly mapped at 1:63 360 scale in the 1960s by Pye (1964) for the western half and by Carter (1974) for the southeast corner. The rest of the map area has not been mapped in detail, but was included in the 1:250 000 compilation map of Johns, McIlraith and Stott (2003). The Georgia Lake area hosts most of the known lithium occurrences in the Quetico Subprovince, and it constitutes the largest known pegmatite field in the Superior Province. These pegmatites and associated S-type granites were the subject of an extensive regional study of their petrographic and chemical characteristics by Breaks, Selway and Tindle (2008).

The objectives of the project are to 1) address geoscience gaps in this area related to structure, metamorphism, plutonism and the timing of events in the Quetico Subprovince, 2) assess the level of structural control on the S-type plutonism, particularly for the rare-element pegmatites, and 3) document in more detail the different Proterozoic mafic dike swarms present in the area using geophysical interpretation, mapping, geochemistry and geochronology.

This article presents a brief overview of the geochemistry of Archean volcaniclastic rocks and mafic intrusive rocks sampled in the summer of 2019.

VOLCANICLASTIC ROCKS These rocks were described first on the shoreline of Lake Jean by Williams (1988), who interpreted

them as sedimentary rocks derived from the erosion of nearby ultramafic bodies. A similar interpretation was provided by Valli, Guillot and Hattori (2004), but they suggested a komatiite basalt as the source. New occurrences were discovered by the author during the 2019 field season (see Figure 8.1) and another occurrence was identified afterward through geochemistry in the northern part of the map area (see Figure 8.1). Duguet (2019) proposed an alternate theory pertaining the origin of these rocks; namely, they are volcaniclastic rocks, boninitic to picritic in composition, derived from an ash-flow tuff or possibly from phreatomagmatic eruption. In this article, the data from Valli, Guillot and Hattori (2004) are synthesized, discussed and compared with the newly acquired geochemical data. The newly acquired

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (8) M. Duguet

8-2

data comprise 9 chemical analyses on volcaniclastic rocks and 17 analyses on the host turbidites, whereas Valli, Guillot and Hattori (2004) have 12 chemical analyses on volcaniclastic rocks and 7 on the host turbidites. Representative chemical analyses are provided in Table 8.1, with various geochemical plots shown in Figures 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5.

Boninites sensu stricto are defined by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) as volcanic rocks with SiO2 > 52 weight %, MgO > 8 weight % and TiO2 < 0.5 weight % (Le Bas 2000). Based on this definition, further refinements were made in the classification of boninites and high-magnesian volcanic rocks by Pearce and Reagan (2019), which is used herein. Recalculation of major elements was performed according to the methodology presented by Pearce and Reagan (2019). Before proceeding, however, one must keep in mind that these classification diagrams were designed for unaltered to weakly altered volcanic flows. Herein, these are volcaniclastic rocks that underwent significant mixing with the surrounding turbidites. Thus, to assess the level of contamination of the volcaniclastic rocks and, therefore, approximate their true composition, MgO, Cr, Al2O3, K2O, SiO2 and TiO2 were plotted against CaO (Figures 8.2A, 8.2B, 8.2C, 8.2D, 8.2E and 8.2F, respectively) for the volcaniclastic rocks and the metaturbidites. Calcium (CaO) was chosen for 3 main reasons: i) CaO is a significant component of mafic

Figure 8.1. Simplified geological and structural map of the area (from Duguet 2019; modified from Pye 1964; Carter 1974; Breaks, Selway and Tindle 2008). New locations of volcaniclastic rocks (green stars) discussed in the text. Mineral occurrences (red triangle) from Ontario Geological Survey (2019). Abbreviations: Ag, silver; Au, gold; Cu, copper; Li, lithium; Nb, niobium. Age of the Midcontinent Rift Nipigon (historically termed “Keweenawan”) sills is from Halls, Stott and Davis (2005).


8-3

Table 8.1. Representative geochemical analyses of various rock units in the Georgia Lake map area.

Sample Number

19MD170 239d* 19MD174B-1 19MD260B 19MD185A2 19MD173A

Easting (m) 437805 nr 424331 441748 435819 437658 Northing (m) 5471780 nr 5477009 5462800 5471585 5471535 Rock Name Volcaniclastic rock Volcaniclastic rock Mafic sill Mafic sill Argillite Sandstone SiO2 54.82 59.19 48.89 52.16 56.73 67.69 TiO2 0.66 0.39 1.00 0.99 0.77 0.56 Al2O3 13.97 9.82 12.42 15.11 20.12 15.19 Fe2O3

T 8.56 6.33 8.92 9.53 8.54 4.8 MnO 0.135 0.160 0.197 0.222 0.090 0.060 MgO 8.85 10.45 9.26 7.18 3.74 2.18 CaO 7.29 8.86 14.12 8.12 2.204 2.068 Na2O 2.14 2.08 1.05 0.90 2.86 4.08 K2O 2.39 0.31 1.45 3.07 3.46 1.97 P2O5 0.271 0.170 0.749 0.722 0.173 0.133 CO2 0.169 nr 0.418 0.084 0.099 0.042 LOI 1.26 1.30 1.77 2.03 1.64 1.37 Total 100.51 99.06 100.24 100.12 100.43 100.14 Cr 787 808 200 351 208 180 Th 6.179 4 1.284 12.639 8.080 5.939 U 1.248 nr 0.664 2.978 2.461 1.834 Hf 3.62 nr 2.82 7.99 3.52 3.32 Nb 6.092 9 32.470 9.961 7.184 5.304 Y 13.98 14 24.13 27.46 19.07 12.64 Zr 155 83 114 312 139 129 La 27.10 <10 52.60 22.40 27.60 20.70 Ce 59.19 33 123.25 44.54 60.14 41.18 Pr 7.041 nr 16.108 5.127 7.353 4.645 Nd 27.32 18 66.80 19.07 28.21 18.15 Sm 4.885 nr 10.906 3.579 5.338 3.306 Eu 1.2478 nr 2.9937 1.0193 1.3558 0.9858 Gd 3.629 nr 8.048 2.994 4.521 2.669 Tb 0.4969 nr 0.9545 0.4371 0.6311 0.3675 Dy 2.578 nr 4.920 2.742 3.580 2.239 Ho 0.4878 nr 0.8513 0.5442 0.7001 0.4520 Er 1.412 nr 2.216 1.589 1.988 1.284 Tm 0.1941 nr 0.2969 0.2315 0.2883 0.1934 Yb 1.299 nr 1.876 1.553 1.937 1.252 Lu 0.197 nr 0.273 0.234 0.296 0.187 Total REE 137.0776 nr 292.0934 106.0601 143.9383 97.6107

Notes: *Data from Valli, Guillot and Hattori (2004). All Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) co-ordinates provided using North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) in Zone 16. All analyses, except for sample 239d, were performed at the Geoscience Laboratories, Sudbury. Major element oxides were analyzed by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and are reported in weight percent; trace element data were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP–MS) and are reported in ppm. Abbreviations: Fe2O3

T, total iron; LOI, loss-on-ignition; nr, not reported; REE, rare earth element.


8-4

Figure 8.2. Binary plots presenting chemistry of the volcaniclastic rocks their host metaturbidites: A) MgO versus CaO, B) Cr versus CaO, C) Al2O3 versus CaO, D) K2O versus CaO, E) SiO2 versus CaO and F) TiO2 versus CaO. Archean mafic intrusive rocks intruding the metaturbidites in the area are also plotted for comparison purpose. All analyses have been recalculated to 100 weight % (wt%) on an anhydrous basis.


8-5

to intermediate volcanic rocks and is found in much greater quantities in these rocks than in the turbidites. Furthermore, based on field observations, and the CO2, loss-on-ignition (LOI) and trace element data, there is little evidence of alteration that may have remobilized the major elements, which is why CaO is considered suitable for characterizing the primary composition. ii) CaO remains relatively constant (average 2 to 3 weight % CaO) in the turbidites regardless if one is looking at the chemistry of an argillite or a sandstone (see Figures 8.2C, 8.2D, 8.2E and 8.2F; see Table 8.1); and iii) although a full spectrum of trace elements was measured in the samples from this study, only a limited number of trace elements were reported by Valli, Guillot and Hattori (2004). This limits, to some extent, our ability to use trace elements for comparative purposes, thereby resulting in the need to also use the major elements.

Positive linear correlations are observed for MgO and Cr versus CaO (see Figures 8.2A and 8.2B, respectively), with the correlation coefficient of Cr versus CaO being the highest of all elements (R2=0.719; see Figure 8.2B). However, MgO versus CaO displays a lot more scatter. Negative correlation is seen with Al2O3, K2O, SiO2 and TiO2 versus CaO; however, these correlations are, at best, mediocre. The main reason for this poor correlation is that there are likely 2 sources of contamination: one is represented by the sandstones, and the other by argillites and siltstones. Additional scatter may result from varied degrees of contribution of sandstone, siltstone and argillite. This is well illustrated by the scatter in Al2O3, K2O, SiO2 and TiO2 for relatively constant CaO values (see Figures 8.2C, 8.2D, 8.2E and 8.2 F, respectively), which likely represents multiple mixing lines between the volcaniclastic rocks and 2 sedimentary rock end members (i.e., sandstones and siltstones and argillites). Conversely, chromium composition is more homogeneous, regardless of the type of sedimentary rocks involved; hence, it has a better linear correlation with CaO. Note that mechanical sorting during deposition, which could have played a significant role in the reworking of the volcaniclastic rocks, has not been considered.

As noted above, increasing chromium content is correlated with increasing CaO content. The maximum values for chromium and CaO are 685 to 866 ppm Cr and 5.89 to 8.86 weight % CaO (see Table 8.1). Because chromium is typically an immobile element, it is unlikely that it was remobilized during post-depositional metamorphism and deformation. Therefore, it can be considered that CaO values associated with high chromium values are representative of the primary composition of the fragmental volcanic rock. Critical oxides SiO2, MgO and TiO2 are used to characterize boninites and other high-magnesium volcanic rocks. Because these elements display more scatter that makes them more difficult to interpret, 3 ternary diagrams were designed in order to examine the relationship between some of these key chemical elements (Figures 8.3A, 8.3B and 8.3C). As expected, on the CaO–Al2O3–Cr2O3*100 diagram, one can observe an increase in both CaO and Cr2O3 content with a decrease in Al2O3 (see Figure 8.3A) away from the metaturbidite cluster. On the diagram Al2O3–TiO2*10–MgO, MgO content increases whereas TiO2 and Al2O3 decrease from the metaturbidite cluster (see Figure 8.3B). On the diagram Al2O3–TiO2*10–Cr2O3*100, Cr2O3 content increases whereas TiO2 and Al2O3 decrease from the metaturbidite cluster (see Figure 8.3C). In summary, the least contaminated volcaniclastic rocks display high CaO, MgO and chromium contents and low TiO2 content. When these data were plotted on diagrams from Pearce and Reagan (2019) (Figure 8.4), the least contaminated volcaniclastic rocks plot entirely in the boninite field for SiO2 versus MgO and SiO2 versus Cr (circled areas on Figure 8.4A and 8.4C, respectively). However, these data overlap the boninite, picrite and basalt fields when plotted on TiO2 versus MgO and TiO2 versus Cr (see Figure 8.4B and 8.4D, respectively). Despite uncertainties of the initial chemical values, especially SiO2, it is very likely that the volcaniclastic rocks originated from either a boninitic or siliceous high-magnesium basalt or andesite. Moreover, the trace element chemistry indicates that the volcaniclastic rocks have calc-alkaline affinities; namely on primitive mantle–normalized incompatible element diagram where the volcaniclastic rocks with boninite or siliceous high-magnesium basalt affinities both have similar negative anomalies in niobium, tantalum and titanium and positive anomalies in zirconium and hafnium (Figure 8.5B). In addition, volcaniclastic rock compositions show moderate to strong enrichment in light rare earth elements (LREE) and depletion in heavy rare earth elements (HREE) (see Figure 8.5A).


8-6

Figure 8.3. Ternary plots presenting chemistry of the volcaniclastic rocks and their host metaturbidites: A) CaO–Al2O3–Cr2O3*100, B) Al2O3–TiO2*10–MgO and C) Al2O3–TiO2*10–MgO–Cr2O3*100. Archean mafic intrusive rocks intruding the metaturbidites in the area are also plotted for comparison purpose. All analyses have been recalculated to 100 weight % (wt.%) on an anhydrous basis.


8-7

Figure 8.4. Discrimination diagrams of Pearce and Reagan (2019): A) SiO2 versus MgO, B) TiO2 versus MgO, C) SiO2 versus Cr and D) TiO2 versus Cr. Archean mafic intrusive rocks intruding the metaturbidites in the area and the metaturbidites next to the volcaniclastic rocks are also plotted for comparison purpose. The chemical compositions that were identified as the closest to the primary composition of the volcaniclastic rocks are circled. Abbreviations: A, andesite; BA, basaltic andesite; BADR, basalt-andesite-dacite-rhyolite; D, dacite; HMA, high-magnesium andesite; HSB, high-silica boninite; LOTI, low-titanium basalt; LSB, low-silica boninite; PB, picrobasalt; SHMB, siliceous high-magnesium basalt.


8-8

ARCHEAN MAFIC INTRUSIVE ROCKS Two types of Archean mafic intrusive rocks were described by Duguet (2019). Both types intruded

the turbidites of the Quetico Subprovince. The first type is the most abundant in the field and intruded the turbidites as veins and sills parallel to the general stratigraphy. These mafic intrusive rocks commonly display structures akin to peperites, which indicates that their emplacement occurred in unconsolidated water-saturated sediment (see Duguet 2019). The second type was found in only 1 location and had biotite as part of its mineralogical assemblage. Only 3 samples of each type were suitable for geochemistry, only 2 of which are listed in Table 8.1. Samples 19MD174B-1 and 19MD174B-2 for the first type and sample 19MD260B for the second type (see Table 8.1). Both types display relatively high TiO2 contents (1 weight % TiO2), especially compared to the volcaniclastic rocks. However, chromium abundance varies from 200 to 350 ppm Cr, respectively, for samples 19MD174B-1, 19MD174B-2 and 19MD260B. Potassium (K2O) content is the main difference between the 2 intrusive types at 1.43 and 3.07 weight % K2O, respectively, for 19MD174B-1 and 19MD260B (see Table 8.1). The higher content in K2O of 19MD260B is consistent with the visible biotite in the sample. It is, however, unclear whether the high potassium content of 19MD260B reflects a primary compositional difference or if the potassium was added subsequently via alteration. Trace element geochemistry does not display any significant differences between the 2 mafic intrusive types. Only the total rare earth element content is different at 420, 292 and 263 ppm total REE for samples 19MD260B, 19MD174B-1 and 19MD174B-2, respectively. Both intrusive types have similar strongly fractionated patterns with enrichment in light rare earth elements (LREE) and depletion in heavy rare earth elements (HREE) (see Figure 8.5A). On a primitive mantle–normalized incompatible element diagram, both types have similar negative anomalies in niobium, tantalum and titanium and, for some samples, negative anomalies in zirconium and hafnium (see Figure 8.5B).

DISCUSSION The source of the volcaniclastic rocks is still uncertain, because larger outcrop areas of volcanic

and/or intrusive rocks of similar composition remain to be found in the map area. Although the geochemical data set for the mafic intrusive rocks in the Georgia Lake area is still very limited in number, it is unlikely that the volcaniclastic rocks originated from the mafic intrusive rocks as documented herein, as shown in Figures 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4. Although trace-element chemistry may show some similarities

Figure 8.5. A) Chondrite-normalized rare earth element (REE) diagram for mafic intrusive rocks (blue) and volcaniclastic rocks (green) in the Georgia Lake area. B) Primitive mantle–normalized incompatible elements diagram for mafic intrusive rocks (blue) and volcaniclastic rocks (green) in the Georgia Lake map area. Normalizing factors of Sun and McDonough (1989) are used.


8-9

between the intermediate volcaniclastic rocks and the mafic intrusive rocks, TiO2 and chromium content simply do not match between the 2 rock types. Notably, the mafic intrusive rocks are too low in chromium content and too high in TiO2 content compared to even the most sediment-contaminated volcaniclastic rocks (see Table 8.1). Obvious source candidates for these volcaniclastic rocks would be the intrusions belonging to the Sanukitoid suite (e.g., Quetico intrusions, Pettigrew and Hattori (2006); see also Stevenson, Henry and Gariépy (1999)). However, Sanukitoid suite intrusive rocks generally show much steeper fractionation pattern on chondrite-normalized REE diagrams than those observed for the mafic intrusive and the volcaniclastic rocks of the Georgia Lake area. Potential candidates may also be found either in mafic intrusions in the southern part of the map area that have not yet been mapped (see Figure 8.1), or much farther away in the Shebandowan and Schreiber–Hemlo greenstone belts to the south or the Wabigoon Subprovince to the north. Indeed, one must keep in mind that pyroclastic flows can travel tens of kilometres above water before depositing their volcanic ash and sometimes hundreds of kilometres away from their source ash plumes.

The negative niobium, tantalum and titanium anomalies for both the volcaniclastic and the Archean mafic intrusive rocks on primitive mantle–normalized incompatible element diagram suggest a subduction-related mantle source for both, consistent with their presence in a turbidite basin. The geochemistry strengthens this hypothesis previously formulated by Fralick, Purdon and Davis (2006).

Preliminary geochronology on the least-contaminated volcaniclastic rocks at Jean Lake (see Table 8.1, sample 19MD170) yielded an age of 2702.0±3.3 Ma (U/Pb zircon, laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP–MS), C. Sutcliffe, Geochronologist, Jack Satterly Geochronology Laboratory, written communication, 2020). This age is similar to the 2 youngest U/Pb zircon ages found in a similar volcaniclastic rock sampled on the Jean Lake shoreline by Fralick, Purdon and Davis (2006; isotope-dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry (ID-TIMS) on single grains; no location data provided). However, for the reasons explained in this article and in Duguet (2019), the author does not interpret the age of 2702.0±3.3 Ma as a maximum depositional age, but rather as a crystallization age and, therefore, as a true depositional age. This age of circa 2702 Ma is also remarkably similar to the ID-TIMS ages from the youngest zircon grains from metasedimentary rocks throughout the northern Quetico Subprovince: for example, in the Atikokan area (2698±3 Ma: Davis, Pezzutto and Ojakangas 1990); in the Shebandowan area (2700±3 Ma: Fralick, Purdon and Davis 2006); or approximately 30 to 40 km north of the study area in the central and southern sedimentary packages of the Geraldton greenstone belt (2699 to 2701 Ma: Fralick, Purdon and Davis 2006; Tóth 2018).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Michael Easton (OGS) and Riku Metsaranta (OGS) are thanked for many discussions that we have had over the geology of the Quetico Subprovince. Mark Puumala and Rob Cundari from the Resident Geologist Office in Thunder Bay are also thanked for their field visits and input. I would like to thank Rocky Bay First Nation, Sand Point First Nation, Pays Plat First Nation and Red Rock Indian Band for allowing us to map on their traditional territory. Pat Gervais drafted the figures of this article.

REFERENCES Breaks, F.W., Selway, J.B. and Tindle, A.G. 2008. The Georgia Lake rare-element pegmatite field and related

S-type, peraluminous granites, Quetico Subprovince, north-central Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6199, 176p.

Carter, M.W. 1974. Dickinson Lake area, Thunder Bay district; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2293, scale 1:63 360.


8-10

Davis, D.W., Pezzutto, F. and Ojakangas, R.W. 1990. The age and provenance of metasedimentary rocks in the Quetico Subprovince, Ontario, from single zircon analyses: Implications for Archean sedimentation and tectonics in the Superior Province; Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v.99, p.195-205.

Duguet, M. 2019. Archean and Proterozoic geology of the Georgia Lake area, Quetico Subprovince, Ontario; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2019, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6360, p.12-1 to 12-9.

Fralick, P., Purdon, R.H. and Davis, D.W. 2006. Neoarchean trans-sub-province sediment transport in western Superior Province; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.43, p.1055-1070.

Halls, H.C., Stott, G.M. and Davis, D.W. 2005. Paleomagnetism, geochronology and geochemistry of several Proterozoic mafic dike swarms in northwestern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6171, 59p.

Johns, G.W., McIlraith, S. and Stott, G.M. 2003. Precambrian geology compilation map–Longlac sheet; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2667, scale 1:250 000.

Le Bas, M.J. 2000. IUGS reclassification of the high-Mg and picritic volcanic rocks; Journal of Petrology, v.41, p.1467-1470.

Ontario Geological Survey 2019. Mineral Deposit Inventory; Ontario Geological Survey, Mineral Deposit Inventory (September 2019 update), online database.

Pearce, J.A. and Reagan, M.K. 2019, Identification, classification, and interpretation of boninites from Anthropocene to Eoarchean using Si-Mg-Ti systematics; Geosphere, v.15, p.1008-1037. doi.org/10.1130/GES01661.1

Pettigrew, N.T. and Hattori, K.H. 2006. The Quetico intrusions of western Superior Province: Neo-Archean examples of Alaskan/Ural-type mafic–ultramafic intrusions; Precambrian Research, v.149, p.21-42.

Pye, E.G. 1964. Georgia Lake area, Thunder Bay District; Ontario Department of Mines, Map 2056, scale 1:63 360.

Stevenson, R., Henry, P. and Gariépy, C. 1999. Assimilation–fractional crystallization origin of Archean Sanukitoid Suites: Western Superior Province, Canada; Precambrian Research, v.96, p.83-99.

Sun, S-s. and McDonough, W.F. 1989. Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic basalts: Implications for mantle compositions and processes; in Magmatism in ocean basins, The Geological Society, Special Publication No.42, p.313-345.

Tóth, Z. 2018. The geology of the Beardmore–Geraldton belt, Ontario, Canada: Geochronology, tectonic evolution and gold mineralization; unpublished PhD thesis, Harquail School of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, 303p., https://zone.biblio.laurentian.ca/handle/10219/3207. [accessed December 6, 2020]

Valli, F., Guillot, S. and Hattori, K.H. 2004. Source and tectono-metamorphic evolution of mafic and pelitic metasedimentary rocks from the central Quetico metasedimentary belt, Archean Superior Province of Canada; Precambrian Research, v.132, p.155-177.

Williams, H.R. 1988. Geological studies in the Wawa, Quetico, and Wabigoon subprovinces, with emphasis on structure and tectonic development; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 1988, Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Paper 141, p.169-172.

https://zone.biblio.laurentian.ca/handle/10219/3207


9-1

9. Exploration Guidelines for Carbonatites in Ontario

R.M. Easton1


INTRODUCTION

As summarized in Sage (1991), there are more than 50 carbonatite and/or alkalic complexes in Ontario ranging in age from Neoarchean to Jurassic (Figure 9.1; Table 9.1). Although there are numerous reports and compendia on these complexes (Sage 1991 and references therein; Woolley and Kjarsgaard 2008), from a mineral exploration standpoint, there is little guidance available with respect to determining which complexes might have higher mineral potential than the others, especially regarding rare elements, such as niobium, and the rare earth elements. The purpose of this document is to try and address this gap, using the results from some recent academic studies on alkaline and carbonatitic magmas (Nabyl et al. 2020; Ballouard et al. 2020).

In their study of the partitioning of elements between immiscible silicate and carbonate melts, Nabyl et al. (2020) determined that the abundance of rare earth elements in carbonate melts (calcio-carbonate type) can reach contents similar to those of the most rare earth element–enriched carbonatites (total REE >30 000 ppm) if the associated silicate melts are of phonolitic to phono-trachyitic composition (i.e., feldspathoidal-bearing, with compositions along the peralkaline-meta-aluminous join (terminology of Shand 1943). Put another way, the carbonatites with the highest REE contents are associated with calcium-poor alkaline silicate magmas. Nabyl et al. (2020) also attribute the presence of magnesio-carbonatites and iron-carbonatites as the result of subsequent hydrothermal and/or metasomatic processes, which can also cause additional rare earth element enrichment.

In contrast, Ballouard et al. (2020) examined niobium-tantalum geochemical fractionation in the evolution of felsic igneous rocks, but they also noted that niobium and rare earth element enrichment is common in igneous rocks of phonolitic to phono-trachyitic composition (i.e., feldspathoidal-bearing), as well as in type A1 anorogenic granites. Type A1 granites result from a low-degree of partial melting, are peralkaline to metaluminous, and have undergone crustal contamination to varied degrees. Type A1 granites are common in intracontinental rifts, whereas Type A2 granites are commonly associated with orogenic zones.

Both studies lead to the inference that calcio-carbonatites associated with coeval feldspathoidal-dominated silicate rocks (e.g., ijolite, nepheline syenite) are more likely to host niobium and/or rare earth element mineralization than are calcio-carbonatites found with other igneous rock associations. In this article, this suggestion is examined with respect to carbonatite and alkalic complexes in Ontario.

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (9) R.M. Easton

9-2

Figure 9.1. Locations of carbonatite complexes, alkalic complexes, aeromagnetically inferred alkalic and/or carbonatite complexes and areas of fenite and carbonatite dikes. Also indicated are the traces of the southern limit of the Circum-Superior Orogen, the Kapuskasing Structural Zone, the Midcontinent Rift, and the Ottawa–Bonnechere graben. Complexes with higher estimated exploration potential are indicated in red. The geology of the individual carbonatite and alkalic complexes are described in greater detail in Table 9.1. Figure modified from Sage (1991).



. Easton

9-3

Table 9.1. Geological characteristics of carbonatite and alkalic complexes of Ontario, grouped alphabetically by relative age, from older to younger. Number corresponds to number shown in Figure 9.1. Estimate of Exploration Potential (EEP) is based on rock composition, the presence or absence of post-emplacement metasomatism, and previously described mineralization. Only U/Pb absolute ages are listed herein. Rubidium-strontium, lead-lead and/or potassium-argon ages for most of the listed complexes can be found in Ontario Geological Survey (2019).

Number Name Type (Ca, Mg, Fe, Si)

Associated Alkalic Rocks Phonolite or Non-phonolite

PEM Mineralization (reported)

Age (in Ma)

Tectonic Setting and/or Comment

EEP (High, Moderate, Low)

Archean 34 Herman Lake

alkalic complex None Syenite, nepheline syenite Non-phonolite No None

No known control Low

9 Otto alkalic complex

None Syenite Non-phonolite No Sulphide mineralization

2680±1 1 No known control Low

37 Poohbah Lake complex

None Mafic syenite, syenite, diatreme breccia

Non-phonolite No Apatite


51 Springpole Lake None Breccias Non-phonolite No None

No known control Low 38 Sturgeon Narrows

alkalic complex None Nepheline syenite, syenite,

syenodiorite, gabbro Non-phonolite No None


41 Wakiopa River alkalic complex

None Mafic syenite, syenite, granite

Non-phonolite No None


Paleoproterozoic 24 Albany Forks

carbonatite complex

Ca, Si Magnetite and magnetite-apatite rock

Non-phonolite No Magnetite, apatite

KSZ, near Circum-Superior

Moderate

21 Argor carbonatite complex

Ca, Si, Mg (minor)

Pyroxenite Non-phonolite Yes Columbite after pyrochlore, apatite, vermiculite

>1769 2 KSZ, closest to Circum-Superior, listed as economic in GSC OF 5796

High

12 Borden Township carbonatite complex

Ca, Si None described Non-phonolite No Apatite, vermiculite 1882.0±3.9 2 KSZ Low

42 Carb Lake carbonatite complex

Ca, Si None described Non-phonolite No Apatite, vermiculite 1865.8±22 2 Proximal to Circum-Superior

Low

15 Cargill Township carbonatite complex

Ca, Si, Mg Pyroxenite Non-phonolite No Apatite, vermiculite 1896.8±1.4 2 KSZ, age reset in Paleozoic

Low

Abbreviations: KSZ, Kapuskasing Structural Zone; MCR, Midcontinent Rift; OBG, Ottawa–Bonnechere graben; PEM, post-emplacement metasomatism; TSTZ, Trans-Superior tectonic zone. GSC OF, Geological Survey of Canada Open File 5796 (see Woolley and Kjarsgaard (2008)).

Carbonatite Types: Ca, calcium carbonatite or sövite; Fe, iron carbonatite; Mg, magnesio-carbonatite or rauhaugite; Si, silicocarbonatite (>50% silicate or oxide minerals). Age Sources: 1Corfu and Noble (1992); 2Rukhlov and Bell (2010); 3Heaman et al. (2007); 4Heaman and Machado (1992); 5Wu et al. (2017); 6Ontario Geological Survey (2019);

7 McGregor et al. (2020).



. Easton

9-4



Associated Alkalic Rocks

Phonolite or Non-phonolite


Age (in Ma) Tectonic Setting and/or Comment


Paleoproterozoic, continued 20 Goldray carbonatite

complex Ca, Si Hornblendite, fenite Non-phonolite No None 1886.8±0.9 2 KSZ Low

8 Spanish River carbonatite complex

Ca, Si Ijolite, syenite, pyroxenite

Non-phonolite No Vermiculite, agricultural lime

1880.6±2.4 2 East of KSZ Low

Mesoproterozoic 40 Big Beaver House

carbonatite complex

Ca, Si Pyroxenite, ijolite, magnetite-apatite rock

Non-phonolite? No Apatite, pyrochlore 1093±1.7 2 No known control, potential similar to Schryburt complex

Low

30 Chipman Lake fenites and carbonatite dikes

Mg-carbonatite dikes

Diorite, syenodiorite Non-phonolite No Sulphide mineralization

TSTZ Low

17 Clay-Howells alkalic complex

Ca-Si dike Pyroxenite syenite, granite

Non-phonolite No Pyrochlore, magnetite in carbonatite dike

KSZ listed as economic in GSC OF 5796

Low

35 Firesand River carbonatite complex

Fe, Mg, Ca, Si, Ca dikes

Ijolite Non-phonolite? Yes Pyrochlore, apatite 1142.6±1.6 2 TSTZ, minor radioactivity

High

none Good Hope carbonatite complex

Fe, Mg, Ca None, but near Prairie Lake

Non-phonolite? Yes Pyrochlore, apatite

MCR, TSTZ, separate or part of Prairie Lake complex?

High

18 Hecla–Kilmer alkalic complex

None Ijolite, nepheline syenite, pyroxenite

Phonolite No None

KSZ, age no carbonatite thus low potential, reset in Paleozoic

Low

31 Killala Lake alkalic complex

None Syenite, nepheline syenite, monzonite, gabbro

Non-phonolite No Sulphide mineralization in gabbro

TSTZ Low

11 Lackner Lake alkalic complex

Ca, Si Ijolite, nepheline syenite, mafic alkalic dikes

Phonolite No Pyrochlore, apatite KSZ High






. Easton

9-5








Mesoproterozoic, continued 28 Martison

carbonatite complex

Gossan overlying carbonatite?

None described No associated plutonic rocks

No Apatite, magnetite

KSZ listed as economic in GSC OF 5796

Low

29 Nagagami River alkalic complex

None Amphibole-pyroxene syenite, granite, minor nepheline syenite



45 Nemag and Lusk lake fenites

Mg-carbonatite breccia

Fenite No associated plutonic rocks

No None


13 Nemegosenda Lake alkalic complex

Ca, Si Ijolite, pyroxene syenite, nepheline syenite

Phonolite No Pyrochlore, apatite 1105.4±2.6 3 KSZ, listed as economic in GSC OF 5796

High

33 Port Coldwell alkalic complex

None Nepheline syenite, pyroxene syenite, quartz syenite, gabbro, diorite

Non-phonolite No Sulphide mineralization in gabbro

1108±1 4 gabbro 1109±5 4 syenite

MCR Low

32 Prairie Lake carbonatite complex

Fe, Mg, Ca Ijolite, pyroxene syenite, fenite

Non-phonolite? Yes Pyrochlore, uranium 1163.5±3.5 2 ijolite 1157.2±2.3 5 sövite

MCR, TSTZ, radioactive

High

39 Schryburt Lake carbonatite complex

Ca, Si, Mg Fenite Non-phonolite Yes Pyrochlore, uranium, apatite

1083±1.2 2 No known control, radioactive, potential similar to Big Beaver House complex

High

10 Seabrook Lake carbonatite complex

Ca, Si Ijolite, nepheline syenite Phonolite No Apatite (minor) KSZ Moderate

14 Shenango Township alkalic complex

None Diorite, syenodiorite, monzonite, quartz monzonite

Non-phonolite No None KSZ Low






. Easton

9-6








Mesoproterozoic, continued 52 Sullivan Island

carbonatite complex

Ca, Si None described No associated plutonic rocks

No None 1053.7±2 6 Grenville Low

16 Teetzel Township carbonatite complex

Ca-carbonatite dikes

None described No associated plutonic rocks

No None

KSZ Low

19 Valentine Township complex

Ca, Si Fenite No associated plutonic rocks

No Pyrochlore, apatite

KSZ Moderate

46 Allan Lake carbonatite complex

Fe, Mg, Si Fenite Non-phonolite Yes Apatite

OBG Moderate

2 Brent Crater Ca-carbonatite dikes

Fenite, syenite Non-phonolite No None Impact event at 452.8±.2.7 7

OBG Low

5 Burritt Island alkalic complex

Ca Fenite No associated plutonic rocks

No Apatite

OBG Low

3 Callander Bay alkalic complex


Nepheline syenite, monzonite, granite, fenite


OBG Low

7 Lavergne (Springer Township) carbonatite


Fenite Non-phonolite No Low-grade rare earth elements?

OBG Moderate

6 Iron Island alkalic complex

Si, Mg Nepheline syenite, ijolite, pyroxenite

Phonolite Yes Pyrochlore, apatite, magnetite

OBG High

4 Manitou Island alkalic complex


Mafic syenite, pyroxenite, fenite

Non-phonolite No Pyrochlore, uranium

OBG, past-producer, listed as economic in GSC OF 5796

Moderate

Phanerozoic 1 Eastview carbonatite Ca None described Non-phonolite No None

OBG, dike in quarry

Low





9-7

CARBONATITE AND ALKALIC COMPLEXES IN ONTARIO Figure 9.1 shows the more than 50 carbonatite and/or alkalic complexes and related aeromagnetic

anomalies in Ontario, as compiled from Sage (1991). Table 9.1 provides a summary of the key features of the subset of approximately 40 carbonatite and/or alkalic complexes present in Ontario and are grouped by age. It should be noted that many of the complexes in Ontario, especially the complexes containing carbonatites, are typically poorly exposed, and are largely known only through limited diamond-drill hole data. In addition, many complexes in the James Bay Lowland and along the Ottawa–Bonnechere graben are located beneath Paleozoic cover rocks, and for which only limited diamond-drill core information is available. Only major element geochemical data are available for most complexes. Previous sulphur, carbon and oxygen isotope work on several of the carbonatite complexes in Ontario found no systematic variation in isotope ratios based on either age or location (Farrell, Bell and Clark 2010).

In Table 9.1, these complexes are classified as phonolitic or non-phonolitic as per Nabyl et al. (2020), based on published information. Table 9.1 also lists information about the major rock types associated with the complexes, U/Pb age if known, tectonic setting, and known mineralization. In addition, the author has assigned an estimate of exploration potential (low, moderate or high) for each complex based on whether, or not, it is phonolitic or non-phonolitic, its tectonic setting and the presence of known mineralization.

Neoarchean Alkalic Complexes The Neoarchean alkalic complexes are most abundant in northwestern Ontario, but have no obvious

pattern with respect to major crustal structures or tectonic domains and/or terranes (see Figure 9.1). These complexes are dominated by non-phonolitic compositions, typically syenodiorite, syenite and monzonite, although some complexes do contain nepheline syenite. None are known to have associated carbonatite phases. As such, they are not considered favourable targets for either niobium or rare earth element mineralization.

Paleoproterozoic Complexes The majority of the Paleoproterozoic complexes occur in northeastern Ontario along a north-trending

line extending from the north shore of Lake Huron to the James Bay Lowland, with several complexes located in the Kapuskasing Structural Zone. One complex, Carb Lake, is located near the Manitoba–Ontario border. Most are calcio-carbonatite (sövite) complexes with little in the way of associated silicate intrusive phases (see Table 9.1; Woolley and Kjarsgaard 2008). Almost all contain abundant apatite and many are weathered sufficiently to contain vermiculite deposits. The apparent lack of associated silicate phases makes it difficult to be certain of their mineral potential based on the work of Nabyl et al. (2020) and Ballouard et al. (2020), although the abundance of apatite does suggest that these complexes should be favourable targets for light rare earth element mineralization, depending on apatite abundance.

It is possible that proximity of a complex to the Circum-Superior Orogen (circa 1880 Ma) might be significant with respect to mineral potential, as the complex with the highest niobium content (Argor) is the complex closest to that orogenic belt (see Figure 9.1). Furthermore, the Argor complex also appears to have undergone hydrothermal and/or metasomatic alteration, with columbite associated with brecciated magnesio-carbonatite (MDI421I14SE00004). Bleeker et al. (2019) suggest that the majority of these Paleoproterozoic complexes formed in the interior of the craton, which may explain the lack of associated silicate phases (i.e., lower degrees of mantle melting, hence less crustal melting). The model of Bleeker et al. (2019), however, would suggest higher mantle fluxes nearer the margins of the craton, which may explain why the Argor complex appears to be more niobium rich than the other Paleoproterozoic complexes in Ontario.


9-8

Mesoproterozoic Complexes Mesoproterozoic complexes occur along the Kapuskasing Structural Zone, and along the

Midcontinent Rift and its associated structures, such as the Trans-Superior tectonic zone. Of the complexes located along the Kapuskasing Structural Zone, the Lackner, Nemegosenda and Seabrook complexes are all associated with phonolitic intrusive phases and have associated pyrochlore or apatite mineralization (Lackner MDI41014SE00017; Nemegosenda MDI42B03SE00004 and 42B03SE00005; Seabrook MDI41J14NW00014). These 3 complexes may warrant additional exploration.

The carbonatite complexes located along the Midcontinent Rift include the Firesand River (MDI41N15NE00069, MDI41N1500096), the Good Hope (MDI000000001840, MDI000000002219), and the Prairie Lake (MDI42E02SE00003) complexes; the latter 2 complexes are also located along the Trans-Superior tectonic zone (see Figure 9.1). All are associated with phonolitic intrusive phases, are commonly altered or metasomatized, and have associated pyrochlore and/or apatite mineralization, in some cases associated with uranium. These complexes appear to be older than most of the other Mesoproterozoic complexes, with ages between 1143 and 1163 Ma (see Table 9.1), whereas the others have ages ranging from 1083 to 1108 Ma (see Table 9.1). Thus, the northeastern limb of the Midcontinent Rift appears to be one of the most favourable zones in Ontario for hosting carbonatite-related mineralization based on the criteria of Nabyl et al. (2020) and Ballouard et al. (2020).

The Big Beaver House and Schryburt Lake complexes are not clearly associated with any tectonic zone, but have favourable compositions and known mineralization (MDI52A13NW00004 and MDI53A12SE00004, respectively) and, thus, also warrant additional study.

Neoproterozoic Complexes These carbonatite and alkalic complexes are located along the circa 590 million-year-old Ottawa–

Bonnechere graben, with many of them in the North Bay area, including the past-producing Newman deposit (MDI31L05SE00009) in the Manitou Island alkalic complex (MDI000000000676). The pyrochlore mined from the Newman deposit was uraniferous. Apatite is also abundant, and magnesio-carbonatite is also present. The nearby Iron Island (MDI31L05SW00004) contains significant apatite, pyrochlore and magnetite, as does the less well exposed and less prospected Burritt Island (MDI31L05SE00008) alkalic complex. Unfortunately, all of these complexes occur in Lake Nipissing, which poses challenges to any exploration and development.

Low-grade rare earth element mineralization hosted in bastnaesite has been reported in carbonatite veins present in Springer Township (MDI31L05NW00002) to the northwest of Lake Nipissing. The Allan Lake carbonatite contains apatite, but is located in Algonquin Park. The only mineralization reported from the Callander Bay complex at the east end of Lake Nipissing is from McPherson Island at the west margin of the complex where apatite and niobium are reported from carbonatite veins associated with the complex (MDI31L03NW00004). Overall, the Ottawa–Bonnechere graben, especially the segment from Mattawa to the west shore of Lake Nipissing, is a favourable target area for niobium and rare earth element mineralization based on the criteria of Nabyl et al. (2020) and Ballouard et al. (2020).

DISCUSSION Using the suggestion that phonolite to phono-trachyitic rock compositions may be a predictor or

favourable rare element mineralization in carbonatite and alkalic complexes (Nabyl et al. 2020; Ballouard et al. 2020) reduces the number of potential targets in Ontario from more than 40 complexes to approximately 10. These more favourable complexes are associated with feldspathoidal-bearing intrusive rocks, and known pyrochlore and/or significant apatite occurrences. Most occur in 3 main areas of the


9-9

province associated with areas of crustal extension and/or mantle upwelling. Specifically, 1) the Argor Complex is proximal to the Circum-Superior Orogen; 2) the Firesand River, Good Hope and Prairie Lake complexes are associated with the Midcontinent Rift; and 3) the Manitou Island, Iron Island and Burritt Island complexes, and the Lavergne fenite, are all associated with the Ottawa–Bonnechere graben in the area where it impinges on the former trace of the mantle plume associated with the Sudbury dike swarm emplaced at circa 1238 Ma (Easton 2002). In addition, the Mesoproterozoic Lackner, Nemegosenda and Seabrook complexes along the Kapuskasing Structural Zone also have exploration potential. Acquisition of modern trace element geochemistry from these 10 complexes may help to further refine their potential to host rare element mineralization.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is derived in part from numerous client queries over the years about the mineral potential of Ontario carbonatite complexes, but also from the near-simultaneous publication of the journal articles by Nabyl et al. (2020) and Ballouard et al. (2020) that provided new insight into the topic. M. Duguet (ERGMS) is thanked for his prepublication review of the article. P. Gervais (ERGMS) updated the figure from Sage (1991).

REFERENCES Ballouard, C., Massuyeau, M., Elburg, M.A., Tappe, S., Viljoen, F. and Brandenburg, J-T. 2020. The magmatic and

magmatic-hydrothermal evolution of felsic igneous rocks as seen through Nb-Ta geochemical fractionation, with implications for the origins of rare-metal mineralizations; Earth Science Reviews, v.203, article 103115, 31p.

Bleeker, W., Kamo, S., Hamilton, M. and Chamberlain, K. 2019. New age data and insights into the ca. 1887-1870 Ma Circum-Superior Belt, with startling implications for the Lake Superior area geology; in Institute on Lake Superior Geology, 65th Annual Meeting, Terrace Bay, Ontario, Proceedings and Abstracts, v.65, p.12-13.

Corfu, F. and Noble, S.R. 1992. Genesis of the southern Abitibi greenstone belt, Superior Province, Canada: Evidence from zircon Hf isotope analyses using a single filament technique; Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v.56, p.2081-2097.

Easton, R.M. 2002. Geology of mafic intrusive rocks of Flett and Angus townships, Grenville Province; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6090, 70p.

Farrell, S., Bell, K. and Clark, I. 2010. Sulphur isotopes in carbonatites and associated silicate rocks for the Superior Province, Canada; Mineralogy and Petrology, v.98, p.209-226.

Heaman, L.M., Easton, R.M., Hart, T.R., Hollings, P., MacDonald, C.A. and Smyk, M. 2007. Further refinement to the timing of Mesoproterozoic magmatism, Lake Nipigon region, Ontario; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.44, p.1055-1085.

Heaman, L.M. and Machado, N. 1992. Timing and origin of mid-continent rift alkaline magmatism, North America: Evidence from the Coldwell Complex; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v.110, p.289-303.

McGregor, M., Dence, M.R., McFarlane, C.R.M. and Spray, J.G. 2020. U–Pb geochronology of apatite and zircon from the Brent impact structure, Canada: A Late Ordovician Sandbian–Katian boundary event associated with L‑Chondrite parent body disruption; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v.175, article 63, 21p. doi.org/10.1007/s00410-020-01699-9

Nabyl, Z., Massuyeau, M., Gaillard, F., Tuduri, J., Iacono-Marziano, G., Rogerie, G., Le Trong, E., Di Carlo, I., Melleton, J. and Bailly, L. 2020. A window in the course of alkaline magma differentiation conducive to immiscible REE-rich carbonatites; Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v.282, p.297-323.


9-10

Ontario Geological Survey 2019. Geochronology Inventory of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, online database (July 2019), www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth/geochronology-inventory-ontario-compilation

Rukhlov, A.S. and Bell, K. 2010. Geochronology of carbonatites from the Canadian and Baltic shields, and the Canadian Cordillera: Clues to mantle evolution; Mineralogy and Petrology, v.98, p.11-54.

Sage, R.P. 1991. The Huronian Supergroup and associated intrusive rocks; Chapter 18 in Geology of Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, Part 1, p.682-709.

Shand, S.J. 1943. The eruptive rocks, 2nd ed.; John Wiley, New York, 444p.

Woolley, A.R. and Kjarsgaard, B.A. 2008. Carbonatite occurrences of the world: Map and database; Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 5796.

Wu, F-Y., Mitchell, R.H., Li, Q-L., Zhang, C. and Yang, Y-H. 2017. Emplacement age and isotopic composition of the Prairie Lake carbonatite complex, northwestern Ontario, Canada; Geological Magazine, v.154, p.217-236.

https://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth/geochronology-inventory-ontario-compilation

https://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth/geochronology-inventory-ontario-compilation


10-1

10. Project ON-19-004. Gold Fingerprinting: Using Major and Trace Elements Associated with Native Gold to Work Toward a Global Gold Database

E.C.G. Hastie1, J.A. Petrus2, H.L. Gibson2 and K.T. Tait3,4

1Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section, Ontario Geological Survey, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5 2Mineral Exploration Research Centre, Harquail School of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University,

Sudbury, Ontario P3E 2C6 3Department of Natural History, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C6 4Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1

INTRODUCTION Gold is one of Ontario’s most significant mineral resources, primarily because of its world-class gold

districts hosted by Archean granite–greenstone terranes. Gold has been studied throughout human history (Butt and Hough 2009) and its deposits have seen significant research from industry, government and academia over the past century (Clarke 1920; Boyle 1979; Hough and Butt 2009). This work, in part, has been to develop criteria that assist in finding new gold deposits and to better understand how those deposits form. Almost all gold deposit research has utilized proxies for gold, rather than gold itself, to infer its source, transport and deposition. The problem with this approach is that many proxies (e.g., quartz, sulphide minerals) cannot be linked directly to gold mineralization apart from showing a spatial association in the host rocks. Native gold poses an even greater problem because it almost always shows textural evidence indicating a later timing than these proxies (e.g., Hastie, Kontak and Lafrance 2020), such as gold-filling fractures that crosscut sulphide minerals and quartz (Photo 10.1).

Compilations of gold deposit research (McCuaig and Kerrich 1998; Bateman and Bierlein 2007; Goldfarb and Groves 2015) show a wide variety of elements associated with gold (e.g., silver, arsenic, copper, boron, bismuth, mercury, molybdenum, lead, antimony, selenium, tellurium, vanadium and tungsten). However, many of these elements are not necessarily unique to gold deposits; thus, the use of any, some, or all of these elements as indicators for gold evolution and deposit targeting is limited. If specific elements can be genetically linked to gold itself, then many of the questions surrounding gold deposit evolution can be truly addressed.

Gold Fingerprinting is a multi-year project that is a collaborative effort involving the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS), the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) and Metal Earth (Laurentian University). Initiated in 2019, it will develop the rigorous in-situ methodology for sample preparation and analysis that is required to characterize gold. In addition, it will provide an assessment of the elemental associations contained within native gold samples from significant deposits, with an emphasis on Ontario. This will culminate with the creation of digital map data highlighting gold geochemistry by region within Ontario. The Gold Fingerprinting project will also assist in the creation of a global gold database—freely available at no cost—which will be of interest to a wide range of users from the private, public and academic sectors. Broader implications of this project are an improved geological understanding for gold mineralization across Ontario, Canada and worldwide.

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (10) E.C.G. Hastie et al.

10-2

GOLD DEPOSITS IN ONTARIO

Ontario has long been known for having some of the richest Precambrian gold deposits in the world (Goldfarb et al. 2017; Dubé et al. 2017). The majority of Ontario’s gold deposits are hosted within Archean granite–greenstone terranes of the Superior Province, although exceptions exist outside the Superior Province (Figure 10.1; Table 10.1), including the first gold discovery of Ontario in 1866 near the town of Madoc: what would become the Richardson Mine (Boyle 1979). Within the Superior Province, the most prolific gold camps are the Red Lake, Hemlo, Timmins and Kirkland Lake camps (see Figure 10.1) from which production is in excess of 161 million ounces of gold, as of 2019 (Chadwick et al. 2020; Paterson et al. 2020; Puumala et al. 2020; van Hees et al. 2020). These gold camps have seen countless academic studies over their history; however, the equivocal nature of proxies used to research gold-forming processes has led to an incomplete understanding and an exhaustive list of gold–elemental associations.

Photo 10.1. Hand sample photographs of gold from Archean deposits in Ontario, showing that gold fills crosscutting fractures in host quartz and wall rock. A) Gold in quartz plus wall rock from the Dickenson Mine, Red Lake (sample M26912, map no.6). B) Gold in quartz from the McIntyre Mine, Timmins (sample M36549, map no.30). C) Gold in quartz from the Croesus Mine, Munro Township, east of Matheson (sample LM47273, map no.41). D) Gold in quartz from the Kerr–Addison Mine, Virginiatown (sample M38710, map no.53). Photos were taken with the permission of the Ontario Geological Survey and the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM); the sample numbers refer to the ROM sample catalogue. Scale card with cm units is 9 cm long.


10-3

Figure 10.1. Simplified bedrock geology map of Ontario (modified from Ontario Geological Survey 2011) highlighting locations of gold deposits and occurrences that are currently part of the gold fingerprinting project. Map numbers in black with orange halo reference Table 10.1, which contains sample and locational information. Detailed legend for the geology can be found in Ontario Geological Survey (2011).


10-4

Table 10.1. Gold samples from Ontario locations.

Map Number

Sample Identifiera Deposit or Occurrence Name

District or County

Township Location or Area

1 M38697 Campbell–Red Lake Mine Kenora Balmer Red Lake–Balmertown

2 M21202, M21859, M29798, M38699, M46422, M47258, TH-001

Cochenour–Willans Mine Kenora Dome Cochenour

3 M42560 Gold Eagle Mine Kenora Dome Red Lake–Cochenour

4 M38700, M38701, M47261 Madsen Mine Kenora Baird Red Lake–Madsen

5 M19712, M38702, M38703 McKenzie Mine Kenora Dome Red Lake–McKenzie Island

6 M26912, M52649, M56684 Red Lake (Dickenson) Mine Kenora Balmer Red Lake–Balmertown

7 M33211 Jackson–Manion Mine Kenora Dent not applicable 8 10486, 10488, 10490, 10492,

10493, 10494 Bobjo Mine Kenora Earngey not applicable

9 M47456 Golden Patricia Mine Kenora Kawashe Lake Area

not applicable

10 M38696 Central Patricia Mine Kenora Connell Pickle Lake–Central Patricia

11 TH-002, TH-003 Pickle Crow Kenora Connell Pickle Lake 12 E1787a, E1787b Mikado Mine Kenora Glass Lake of the

Woods 13 M8805 Laurentian Mine Kenora Boyer Lake

Area Gold Rock

14 M7289 Hawk Bay occurrence Rainy River Sawbill Bay Area

Hawk Bay

15 M19095 Ardeen (Kerry) Mine Thunder Bay Moss not applicable 16 SH-001 Harkness–Hays Mine Thunder Bay Priske Schreiber 17 M38705, M44035 MacLeod–Cockshutt Mine Thunder Bay Ashmore Geraldton–

MacLeod 18 M38706, M38707, M46420 Hardrock Mine Thunder Bay Ashmore Geraldton–

MacLeod 19 HG-001 David Bell Mine Thunder Bay Bomby Hemlo–Struthers 20 M38688, M38689, M38690B,

M38691, M38692, M40521 Darwin Mine Algoma McMurray Wawa

21 M38685, M38686a, M38686b Parkhill Mine Algoma McMurray Wawa 22 M38687 Deep Lake Mine Algoma McMurray Wawa 23 M39362 Regnery (Forge Lake) Mine Algoma Cowie not applicable 24 11916, 11917, M17410, 228874 Kenty Mine Sudbury Swayze not applicable 25 M17012, M18401, M36485 Jowsey prospect (Wire Gold) Cochrane Carscallen Timmins 26 M48036 Dixon claims Cochrane Tisdale Timmins 27 9634, M19776, M22631,

M33209, M33210, M38693, M47259, M47260

Hollinger Mine Cochrane Tisdale Timmins

28 M13399, M15118a, M15118b Vipond Mine Cochrane Tisdale Timmins 29 M41069 Schumacher Mine Cochrane Tisdale Timmins–

Schumacher aItalicized “Sample Identifiers” indicate sample is from the ROM collection and uses the ROM catalogue number.


10-5

Table 10.1, continued

Map Number

Sample Identifiera Deposit or Occurrence Name

District or County

Township Location or Area

30 9006, M8559, M9689, M14564, M15652, M18877, M24273a, M24273b, M24274, M24276, M36549, M44313

McIntyre Mine Cochrane Tisdale Timmins

31 M16668 Coniaurum Mine Cochrane Tisdale Timmins–Schumacher

32 M46421 Vedron Mine Cochrane Tisdale Timmins 33 M27622 Paymaster Mine Cochrane Tisdale Timmins 34 M8675, M14630, M22580,

M22581, M22582, M22583, M22586, M22588

Dome Mine Cochrane Tisdale Timmins–South Porcupine

35 M22584, M22637 Preston (Preston East Dome) Mine

Cochrane Tisdale Timmins

36 M38695 Porcupine Reef Mine Cochrane Whitney Timmins–South Porcupine

37 M21177 Broulan Mine Cochrane Whitney Timmins–South Porcupine

38 M41877 Pamour Mine Cochrane Whitney Timmins–South Porcupine

39 PK-001 Hoyle Pond Cochrane Hoyle Timmins–South Porcupine

40 M55935 Aquarius Mine Cochrane Macklem Timmins– Legare Lake

41 LM47273, M13995, M36623, M36624, M36625, M36727, M36728, M40586

Croesus Mine Cochrane Munro Matheson

42 M36726 Caswell claims Sudbury MacMurchy Shining Tree 43 TMLR-001, TMLR-002,

TMLR-003 Bjorkman occurrence Temiskaming Midlothian Matachewan

44 M19881, M19882, M22337, M38716

Ashley Mine Temiskaming Bannockburn Matachewan

45 M39322 Young–Davidson Mine Temiskaming Powell Matachewan 46 M38715 Macassa Mine Temiskaming Teck Kirkland Lake 47 M12313, M13815, M24804 Teck–Hughes Mine Temiskaming Teck Kirkland Lake 48 M12266, M38713 Lake Shore Mine Temiskaming Teck Kirkland Lake 49 M8553a, M8553b, M8837,

M38718 Toburn (Tough–Oakes) Mine Temiskaming Teck Kirkland Lake

50 11825, M42651 Upper Canada Mine Temiskaming Gauthier Kirkland Lake–Dobie

51 M42652 Upper Beaver Mine Temiskaming Gauthier Kirkland Lake–Dobie

52 E2669 Gold King occurrence Temiskaming Hearst Larder Lake 53 11875, M22577, M38709,

M38710, M38711 Kerr–Addison Mine Temiskaming McGarry Virginiatown

54 M32671, M32679, M32887, M43340

Vermilion Mine Sudbury Denison Sudbury

55 M43564 Crystal Mine Sudbury Rathbun Sudbury–Skead 56 M3686 Bannockburn Mine Hastings Madoc Bannockburn 57 8429 Richardson Mine Hastings Madoc Eldorado 58 M22918 Sophia (Diamond) Mine Hastings Madoc Queensborough aItalicized “Sample Identifiers” indicate sample is from the ROM collection and uses the ROM catalogue number.


10-6

THE GEOCHEMISTRY OF GOLD

Traditionally, research that focussed on native gold directly has had issues in determining what gangue phases (i.e., inclusions) are mechanically held within gold versus what elements are chemically present in native gold (Warren and Thompson 1944; Boyle 1979), particularly without the use of in-situ techniques. In general, such research indicates that the following are present in native gold: silver, copper, mercury, iron, arsenic, antimony, bismuth, tellurium, selenium, palladium, platinum and rhodium (Boyle 1979), but this list of elements requires testing to validate their association with gold using modern in-situ methods. Most electron microprobe studies on native gold can only confirm the presence of silver, copper and mercury because of detection limits (Desborough 1970a, 1970b; Desborough et al. 1971; Guindon 1982; McTaggert and Knight 1993; Townley et al. 2003; Hastie, Kontak and Lafrance 2020).

Advancement in direct in-situ analysis of native gold by laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP–MS; Watling et al. 1994; Standish et al. 2013; Velasquez 2014; Green 2015; Tetland et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2019) and development of atom probe tomography (APT) in gold deposit research (Fougerouse et al. 2016) provide an opportunity to examine major and trace element associations of native gold at much lower detection limits and assess the spatial variation of elements at the micro- and nano-scales.

Utilization of LA-ICP–MS enables the microscale (<100 μm) trace element (~1 ppb) and isotopic analysis of many materials. This is typically accomplished by using a deep ultraviolet pulsed laser to vaporize materials of interest and analyzing the products in a mass spectrometer. The ability to accurately determine elemental and isotopic signatures associated purely with gold by LA-ICP–MS is limited by sample preparation (e.g., contamination and/or inclusions) and, more importantly, the quality and availability of calibration reference materials, both of which will be addressed by this project in detail.

Atom probe tomography can provide three-dimensional (3-D) analysis of materials at the atomic scale. A small portion of the sample is cut out and removed from a thin section using a focussed ion beam. It is then prepared in the form of a very sharp tip approximately 100 nm in diameter (a human hair is ~65 000 nm for comparison). Atoms from the tip are then ionized one by one and accelerated toward a time of flight (TOF) position sensitive detector, allowing the production of 3-D atom-by-atom reconstructions. These enable visualization of the distribution of trace elements within a sample, assessment of the coupling of elements at grain boundaries and assists interpreting data collected by other techniques, such as LA-ICP–MS. Atom probe tomography has been used extensively in material science and, more recently, is now being applied to geological applications (Fougerouse et al. 2016).

When used in conjunction with scanning electron microscope energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM–EDS) and electron microprobe analysis (EMPA), these methods can be used to understand true gold-elemental associations both qualitatively and quantitatively while screening contaminants that are not truly associated with native gold.

If the elements unequivocally associated with gold can be determined in different geologic environments, then a fundamental baseline can be created. From a geological perspective, this baseline could provide elemental vectors for exploration, metallurgical data for processing ore and, importantly, improve our understanding of gold-forming processes. Many other disciplines can also benefit from a gold geochemistry database, including archeology and forensic science (Watling et al. 1994; Dussubieux and van Zelst 2004; Standish et al. 2013), gold used in modern medical techniques (Park et al. 2019; Sindhwani et al. 2020), as well as innovative and/or as yet unknown end-users.


10-7

SAMPLE SELECTION AND METHOD DEVELOPMENT

Work thus far has included characterizing 144 gold samples from 58 locations across Ontario (see Figure 10.1; see Table 10.1) that represent significant gold deposits and occurrences. Sample selection and compilation will continue with an initial goal of greater than 1000 samples for the database. A large portion of these samples have been, and will be, sourced from the ROM collection (see Photo 10.1) and the initial samples have also assisted in method development for the project. Although the main focus of the project centres on gold deposits from Ontario, samples from across Canada and the world from the ROM collection will be examined for comparative purposes and to create the global gold database as part of the OGS–ROM–Metal Earth collaboration. Using samples from previous OGS projects, in conjunction with future outreach to the academic and private sectors (e.g., prospectors and industry), will also be part of the project in order to enable maximum Ontario coverage for the gold database and digital map data. In return, the project will provide free analyses to those individuals and groups willing to participate and donate small native gold samples (i.e., minimum 2–5 mm in diameter) with locational context. These data will be released to individuals and companies upon analysis completion and verification of quality assurance and quality-control (QA/QC) data.

Photo 10.2. Reflected light, secondary electron (SE) and backscattered electron (BSE) images of gold samples used in method development. A) Reflected light image of the same gold grain at different preparation stages, testing different polishing strategies to minimize scratches and contamination. B) A BSE image of gold grain from the Preston deposit, Timmins, showing analysis points for electron microprobe analysis characterization and evaluation as an in-house standard. C) Reflected light image of gold showing ablation pits from LA-ICP–MS testing at different operating conditions to determine optimal working ranges. D) A BSE image of the same gold shown in C with perspective rotated to 60° from horizontal.


10-8

To develop a rigorous protocol of analysis and QA/QC, the project is evaluating every aspect of sample collection (see Photo 10.1), preparation, polishing (Photo 10.2A), contamination, in-house standard development of natural materials (Photo 10.2B; Preston gold deposit), evaluation of synthetic reference materials (Au-RM1, AuRM2), evaluation of operating conditions and ablation characteristics (Photos 10.2C and 10.2D) and careful step-by-step analysis to document each sample. The data will also be assessed using a metric for locational confidence in order to evaluate the relevance an individual sample has to a region versus a specific deposit.

Once gold samples from critical areas throughout Ontario, Canada and the world have been carefully sampled, documented and analyzed by SEM–EDS, EMPA and LA-ICP–MS, the data collected will be interpreted with exiting data sets to 1) fingerprint gold from different settings and or deposits types and 2) refine models for gold-forming processes. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals on various aspects of the project and will culminate with the release of both a publication on the gold geochemistry of Ontario (digital map data, digital data and report) by the OGS and the initial release of a gold database (freely available at no cost) through the Mineral Exploration Research Centre (MERC) at the Harquail School of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project is made possible by the collaborative effort of the Ontario Geological Survey, Royal Ontario Museum and Metal Earth Initiative through the Mineral Exploration Research Centre and Harquail School of Earth Sciences at Laurentian University. Special thanks to Katherine Dunnell at the Royal Ontario Museum for her hard work in organizing and sampling material from the collection. Special thanks are also offered to Transition Metals Corp., Laurion Mineral Exploration Inc., Tom Hart, Peter Karelse and Sheree Hinz for donating samples to the current data set shown above. Thanks to R.M. Easton and S. Préfontaine, OGS, for their revisions to this summary.

REFERENCES Bateman, R. and Bierlein, F.P. 2007. On Kalgoorlie (Australia), Timmins-Porcupine (Canada), and factors in intense

gold mineralisation; Ore Geology Reviews, v.32, p.187-206.

Boyle, R.W. 1979. The geochemistry of gold and its deposits; Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 280, 584p.

Butt, C.R.M. and Hough, R.M. 2009. Why gold is valuable; Elements, v.5, no.5, p.277-280.

Chadwick, P.J., Péloquin, A.S., Suma-Momoh, J., Daniels, C.M., Hinz, S.L.K., Kennedy, C.A., Streit, L. and Todd, R.M. 2020. Report of Activities 2019, Resident Geologist Program, Kirkland Lake Regional Resident Geologist Report: Kirkland Lake and Sudbury Districts; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6367, 143p.

Clarke, F.W. 1920. The data of geochemistry, 4th ed.; United States Geological Survey, Bulletin 695, 832p.

Desborough, G.A. 1970a. Silver depletion indicated by microanalysis of gold from placer occurrences, western United States; Economic Geology, v.65, p.304-311.

——— 1970b. Distribution of silver and copper in placer gold derived from the northeastern part of the Colorado mineral belt; Economic Geology, v.65, p.937-944.

Desborough, G.A., Heidel, R.H., Raymond, W.H. and Tripp, J. 1971. Primary distribution of silver and copper in native gold from six deposits in the western United States; Mineralium Deposita, v.6, p.321-334.

Dubé, B., Mercier-Langevin, P., Ayer, J., Atkinson, B. and Monecke, T. 2017. Orogenic greenstone-hosted quartz-carbonate gold deposits of the Timmins-Porcupine camp; Reviews in Economic Geology, v.19, p.51-79.


10-9

Dussubieux, L. and van Zelst, L. 2004. LA-ICP-MS analysis of platinum-group elements and other elements of interest in ancient gold; Applied Physics A, v.79, p.353-356.

Fougerouse, D., Reddy, S.M., Saxey, D.W., Rickard, W.D.A., van Riessen, A. and Micklethwaite, S. 2016. Nanoscale gold clusters in arsenopyrite controlled by growth rate not concentration: Evidence from atom probe microscopy; American Mineralogist, v.101, p.1916–1919.

Goldfarb, R.J., André-Mayer, A-S., Jowitt, S.M. and Mudd, G.M. 2017. West Africa: The world’s premier Paleoproterozoic gold province; Economic Geology, v.112, p.123-143.

Goldfarb, R.J. and Groves, D.I. 2015. Orogenic gold: Common or evolving fluid and metal sources through time; Lithos, v.233, p.2-26.

Guindon, D.L. 1982. The geochemistry of free gold and its application to exploration; unpublished MSc thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 125p.

Green, C. 2015. LA-ICP-MS methodology for analysis of native gold grains; unpublished BSc thesis, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, 25p.

Hastie, E.C.G., Kontak, D.J. and Lafrance, B. 2020. Gold remobilization: Insights from gold deposits in the Archean Swayze greenstone belt, Abitibi Subprovince, Canada; Economic Geology v.115, no.2, p.241-277.

Hough, R.M. and Butt, C.R.M. editors. 2009. Gold; Elements, v.5, no.5, p.277-313.

Liu, H., Beaudoin, G., Makvandi, S. and Jackson, S. 2019. Geochemical signature of native gold from various Au-bearing deposits – implications for mineral exploration; extended abstract, 15th SGA Biennial Meeting, August 27–30, Glasgow, United Kingdom, Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits, Proceedings, v.2, p.675-678.

McCuaig, T.C. and Kerrich, R. 1998. P-T-t-deformation-fluid characteristics of lode gold deposits: Evidence from alteration systematics; Ore Geology Reviews, v.12, p.381-453.

McTaggart, K.C. and Knight, J.B. 1993. Geochemistry of lode and placer gold of the Cariboo district, B.C.; British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines, Petroleum Resources, Open File 1993-30, p.1-26.


Park, S., Lee, W.J., Park, S., Choi, D., Kim, S. and Park, N. 2019. Reversibly pH-responsive gold nanoparticles and their applications for photothermal cancer therapy; Scientific Reports, v.9, article 20180. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56754-8

Paterson, W.P.E., Ravnaas, C., Lewis, S.O., Paju, G.F., Fudge, S.P., Daniels, C.M. and Pettigrew, T.K. 2020. Report of Activities 2019, Resident Geologist Program, Red Lake Regional Resident Geologist Report: Red Lake and Kenora Districts; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6363, 112p.

Puumala, M.A., Campbell, D.A., Paju, G.F., Daniels, C.M. Fudge, S.P., Pettigrew, T.K. and Dorado-Troughton, M. 2020. Report of Activities 2019, Resident Geologist Program, Thunder Bay South Regional Resident Geologist Report: Thunder Bay South District; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6365, 105p.

Sindhwani, S., Syed, A.M., Ngai, J., Kingston, B.R., Maiorino, L., Rothschild, J., MacMillan, P., Zhang, Y., Rajesh, N.U., Hoang, T., Wu, J.L.Y., Wilhelm, S., Zilman, A., Gadde, S., Sulaiman, A., Ouyang, B., Lin, Z., Wang, L., Egeblad, M. and Chan, W.C.W. 2020. The entry of nanoparticles into solid tumours; Nature Materials, v.19, p.566-575.

Standish, C., Dhuime, B., Chapman, R., Coath, C., Hawkesworth, C. and Pike, A. 2013. Solution and laser ablation MC-ICP-MS lead isotope analysis of gold; Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, v.28, p.217-225.


10-10

Tetland, M., Greenough, J., Fryer, B., Hinds, M. and Shaheen, M.E. 2017. Suitability of AuRM2 as a reference material for trace element microanalysis of native gold; Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, v.41, p.689-700.

Townley, B.K., Hérail, G., Makasaev, V., Palacios, C., de Parseval, P., Sepulveda, F., Orellana, R., Rivas, P. and Ulloa, C. 2003. Gold grain morphology and composition as an exploration tool: Application to gold exploration in covered areas; Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, v.3, p.29-38.

van Hees, E.H., Bousquet, P., Suma-Momoh, J., Daniels, C.M., Hinz, S.L.K., Boucher, C., Sword, P., Wang, L., Fudge, S.P., Millette, A. and Patterson, C. 2020. Report of Activities 2019, Resident Geologist Program, Timmins Regional Resident Geologist Report: Timmins and Sault Ste. Marie Districts; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6366, 160p.

Velasquez, A. 2014. Trace element analysis of native gold by laser ablation ICP-MS: A case study in greenstone-hosted quartz-carbonate vein ore deposits, Timmins, Ontario; unpublished MSc thesis, The University of British Columbia, Okanagan, British Columbia, 58p.

Warren, H.V. and Thompson, R.M. 1944. Minor elements in gold; Economic Geology, v.39, p.457-471.

Watling, R.J., Herbert, H.K., Delev, D. and Abell, I.D. 1994. Gold fingerprinting by laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry; Spectrochimica Acta, v.49B, no.2, p.205-219.


11-1

11. Summary of Geophysical Projects and Activities

D.R.B. Rainsford1, S. Biswas1 and T.O. Larsen2

1Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section, Ontario Geological Survey, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5

2Department of Geological Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6

INTRODUCTION

Two airborne geophysical surveys, commissioned by the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS), were completed early in 2020. The Sturgeon River area airborne magnetic gradiometer survey and the Biscotasing area time-domain electromagnetic (TDEM) and magnetometer survey, both located in northeastern Ontario (Figure 11.1) were concluded in February. Plans to fly a helicopter-borne TDEM and magnetometer survey over the Saganash greenstone belt, also located in northeastern Ontario (see Figure 11.1), are far advanced and it is anticipated that a survey contract will be awarded by the end of 2020.

Geophysical services, including imaging, data compilation interpretation and modelling, were provided in support of bedrock mapping, groundwater and Resident Geologist programs. Over the course of the summer, methods-development work was done to develop scripts to automate pseudo-line gridding of magnetic gradiometer data.

SUPPORT FOR THE BEDROCK GEOLOGY MAPPING PROGRAM

Geophysical support of the bedrock geology mapping program was provided for 8 projects. The suite of interpretation products was expanded with the addition of ternary magnetic images, magnetic tilt derivatives, horizontal gradients and magnetic edge picks. These products were created in the expectation of a typical field season, which did not materialize because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, it is anticipated that they will be put to use once field work resumes. As reported last year (Rainsford and Biswas 2019), the use of improved colour palettes and the direct importation of Geosoft® project files into ArcGIS® software have enhanced the imagery and streamlined the transfer to users.

The pseudo-line gridding technique, described last year (Rainsford and Biswas 2019), was applied to the Renfrew (Ontario Geological Survey 2014), Ramsey–Algoma (Ontario Geological Survey 2019) and Sturgeon River (Ontario Geological Survey 2020a) magnetic gradiometer surveys to create significantly more detailed images than was possible using standard processing methods.

Geophysical support was provided for the following new or ongoing bedrock mapping projects: • Goodchild Lake bedrock geology mapping project • Hyman–Trill townships bedrock geology mapping project • Straw Lake bedrock geology mapping project

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (11) D.R.B. Rainsford et al.

11-2

Figure 11.1. Locations of geophysical surveys published during 2020 and planned surveys. Abbreviations: AM, airborne magnetic; TDEM, time-domain electromagnetic.


11-3

Table 11.1. Summary of airborne geophysical data released by the Ontario Geological Survey in 2020.

Publication Survey Name Year of Survey Survey Type Line-Kilometres GDS 1088 Sturgeon River area 2020 Airborne magnetic 51 101 GDS 1087 Biscotasing area 2020 Airborne magnetic and electromagnetic 6146

Abbreviation: GDS, Geophysical Data Set.

• northern Swayze area bedrock geology mapping project • eastern Ramsey–Algoma granitoid complex bedrock geology mapping project • Trapnarrows Lake area bedrock geology mapping project • Blind River area bedrock geology mapping project • Sudbury Basin geology map update

ACQUISITION OF NEW AIRBORNE GEOPHYSICAL DATA A helicopter-borne, magnetic and (TDEM) survey, comprising approximately 4747 line-kilometres, is

planned to be flown over the Saganash Lake area in north-central Ontario in early 2021 (see Figure 11.1). The survey will cover an area of 826 km2. The Saganash greenstone belt is located just west of the Kapuskasing Structural Zone and is part of the Wawa Subprovince. The area, which contains occurrences of gold, iron, zinc, copper and nickel, has not been mapped geologically in detail since 1958 (McMurchy 1960). The newly acquired geophysical data will be used to assist future bedrock geology mapping in the area, as well as aid in mineral exploration and land use planning. It is expected that the survey data and maps will be published in late 2021.

GEOPHYSICAL DATA RELEASES FOR 2020 Two geophysical data sets were published (Table 11.1) in 2020. The survey locations are shown in

Figure 11.1. A high-resolution magnetic gradiometer survey was flown for the OGS, using 3 fixed-wing aircraft, in the Sturgeon River area. The survey was completed in February 2020 and the digital data and maps were released in September 2020 (Ontario Geological Survey 2020a). Preliminary interpretations of the survey results are discussed by Easton, Rainsford and Préfontaine (this volume). A helicopter-borne magnetic and (TDEM) survey was flown for the OGS over the Biscotasing greenstone belt area. The survey flying was completed in February 2020 and the digital data and maps were released in October 2020 (Ontario Geological Survey 2020b).

SUPPORT FOR THE GROUNDWATER PROGRAM Work continued on two-dimensional (2-D) integrated gravity and seismic modelling to support the

Niagara Peninsula three-dimensional (3-D) sediment mapping project (Figure 11.2; Burt 2017). The objective of the modelling is to characterize the depth and shape of the bedrock surface and, where possible, features within the overlying Quaternary sediments. The model-derived bedrock surface can help identify possible aquifers hosted within buried-bedrock valleys. The modelling was done using the results of a ground gravity survey, comprising 6828 stations, acquired in 2013 (Ontario Geological Survey 2014). Preliminary modelling results, along the 10 km north-trending Morris Road profile, are presented in Figure 11.3. The ground surface is highest in the north, corresponding with the Niagara Falls moraine (189 m asl), and slopes gently down toward the Welland River (172 m asl) in the central portion of the profile. Shallow P- and S-wave seismic data cover the southern half of the profile, extending down to bedrock at approximately 120 m asl (Dieticker et al. 2019). In addition to seismic data, logs from continuously cored boreholes (Burt 2015, 2016, 2017), are being used to constrain the gravity models.


11-4

Observed gravity anomalies are caused by lateral density contrasts in the subsurface at various depths, from the near-surface to the basement. For this study, the residual Bouguer gravity was calculated using a density of 2.1 g/cc. The Morris Road Bouguer gravity profile starts with a low at the north end, a broad high in the centre and a smaller low to the south (see Figure 11.3A). The maximum amplitude is approximately 2.0 mGal with a wavelength of 8 km. Using GM-SYS 2-D modelling software, the observed wavelengths and amplitudes of the gravity anomalies were reproduced using isolated bodies or layers with contrasting densities. The resulting model is just one possible representation of the subsurface geology. As gravity models are non-unique, multiple models fitting the same data were created and assessed. The best model was chosen based on geological observations, (i.e., surface and borehole) and other geophysical information (i.e., seismic sections), and is illustrated in Figure 11.3.

Figure 11.2. Location of the Niagara Peninsula 3-D sediment mapping project study area showing underlying Paleozoic bedrock (modified from Armstrong and Dodge 2007). A profile along Morris Road is discussed in the text. A profile along Bell Road was described in Rainsford and Biswas (2018).


11-5

Table 11.2. Simplified lithological units, descriptions and rock unit density used in the Morris Road model.

Lithology Description from Borehole Logs 1 Density 2 (g/cc) O

verb

urde

n Clay Clayey silt to clay with some ice-rafted debris 1.743 Saturated sediment Saturated silt and fine sand 1.600 Halton diamicton Variably stone-poor to somewhat stony, silt to clay diamicton 1.820 Older drift Stony silt to sand till, saturated sand and gravel 2.020

Bed

rock

Salina Group Gypsum, shale and dolostone 2.781 Lockport Group Locally cherty and bituminous dolostone, limestone and shale 2.630 3 Clinton–Cataract groups Shale, sandstone, dolostone and limestone 2.627 Queenston Formation Shale 2.666 Grenville basement N/A 2.730 – 2.820 Upper crust N/A 2.800

Background N/A 2.100 1Abbreviation: N/A = not applicable. 2Densities of shallower rock types (<-900 m) from Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (2016, p.68-69). Densities for deeper rock types

(>-900 m) are estimated for this region. 3Density of Lockport Group from Raven et al. (2011, p.135).

Figure 11.3. A) Top panel shows the observed and calculated residual Bouguer gravity profile along the Morris Road. B) Shallow part of the modelled cross-section of the profile. Note that the vertical scale indicating elevation is in metres. Mean sea level indicated by “0”. The densities of the lithologic units in g/cc are noted in parentheses. Description of materials from the borehole logs is provided in Table 11.2. C) Deeper part of the modelled cross section showing inferred Grenville basement features. Note that the vertical scale is in kilometres.


11-6

The Morris Road profile is underlain by Lockport Group variably bituminous to vuggy dolostone in the north and Salina Group gypsum, shale and dolostone in the south (see Figure 11.3B). The bedrock units in this region have been observed to have a gentle dip to the south (Armstrong 2017). Based on the modelling results, the elevation of the top of the bedrock has gentle undulations varying between 178 m asl in the north to 164 m asl in the south. The elevation of the top of the Lockport Group bedrock is constrained using the gravity data. The elevation of the top of the Salina Group bedrock fits the bedrock interpretation in the seismic section closely. However, some features were smoothed to achieve better fit with the observed gravity data. The Grenville basement is approximately 1000 m below the surface (Ontario Geological Survey 2011) in the area. Density contrasts in the Grenville basement (see Figure 11.3C) were used to match the long wavelengths of the gravity data. A lower density feature in the Grenville basement north of 1.25 km on the profile is used to match the gravity low of the profile at the northern end. A higher density feature in the Grenville basement between profile distances 2.0 km and 5.6 km is used to match the broad high at the centre of the gravity profile. For simplification, such variation in the Grenville basement densities is attributed to its heterogeneity and high-density areas likely represent rocks of more mafic composition. The characteristics and thicknesses of shallow Quaternary sediment layers are constrained by continuously cored boreholes BH04 and BH11, located 1 km north and 1 km west, respectively, of the gravity profile and by ongoing sediment modelling (A.K. Burt, Ontario Geological Survey, personal communication, 2020) (see Figure 11.3). The density of the layers and their corresponding descriptions are noted in Table 11.2. A thickening of the lower density clay layer between profile distances 2.3 km and 3.2 km is related to the corresponding gravity low. The dip in the gravity profile at 6 km is related to contrasting densities between the Lockport Group and Salina Group, changes in Paleozoic bedrock relief surface and thickening of the lower density Quaternary sediment layers. The valley features shown in Clinton Group–Cataract Group and Queenston Formation bedrock around profile distance 5.6 km, are consistent with the 3-D Paleozoic geology model (Carter et al. 2019) of the area. However, as the difference in densities of these deeper bedrock formations is small, the effect of the valley is not discernable in the gravity data. The gravity low around profile distance 8.4 km is related to the lower elevation of the higher density Salina Group bedrock and the corresponding thickening in the lower density Quaternary sediment layers.

PSEUDO-LINE GRIDDING AUTOMATION

Following on from the successful testing (Rainsford and Biswas 2019) of the pseudo-line gridding technique, proposed by C.D. Hardwick (Hardwick 1999) for magnetic gradiometer data, a project was undertaken by one of the authors (T.O.L.) to develop scripts to help automate the process. The previous tests involved performing numerous processing steps manually, and it was apparent that there was an opportunity to streamline the process by linking these steps algorithmically.

Two separate scripts were developed to run consecutively using Python 3.7 operating within Geosoft® Oasis montaj™ geophysical processing software. The Python scripts, which were written using the PyCharm integrated development environment by JetBrains S.R.O., call on multiple commands found in Geosoft’s GXPY and GXAPI site classes along with Geosoft’s executables (GXs), to automate most of the previously required manual steps. The newly written scripts simply prompt the user to input a few necessary variables and the processing is then carried out in the background. The scripts create 3 new databases: 2 of which are temporary and are used only for intermediate calculations, and 1 output database that contains the original, measured magnetic intensity values and 2 new sets of pseudo-lines with extrapolated magnetic intensity values calculated using the measured horizontal gradient (Figure 11.4). The processing sequence and function of the scripts are summarized in Figure 11.5. The output database can then be gridded using any standard gridding method, although the best results have been obtained using the minimum curvature algorithm (Briggs 1974).


11-7

Figure 11.4. Calculation of extrapolated total magnetic intensity (TMI) from the measured TMI and horizontal gradient (Hgrad). In this example, a 50 m pseudo-line offset distance is used.

Figure 11.5. Flow diagram showing the pseudo-line processing sequence and the function of the 2 newly developed scripts.


11-8

The scripts reduce the amount of time from about 2 hours to complete the steps manually down to about 10 minutes. The reduction in processing time gives the user more opportunity to try different pseudo-line offset distances (one of the user-input variables) in order to obtain an optimal gridding result. A comparison of conventionally gridded and pseudo-line enhanced gridded data magnetic data for part of the Separation Lake area (Ontario Geological Survey 2017) is shown in Figure 11.6. Even at the reduced scale of this figure, the improved sharpness of the pseudo-line gridded data is apparent.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Several enquiries from clients, received during the year, concerned the compatibility of geophysical data sets, published by the OGS, with Quantum GIS (QGIS) software. Whereas freely downloadable plugins from Geosoft® allow geophysical data to be imported directly into ArcGIS® and MapInfo GIS software platforms, no equivalent plugin is available for QGIS. However, the geophysical data sets are still fully useable with QGIS software. As all geophysical data are published in ASCII as well as Geosoft® binary formats, users can import the ASCII products into QGIS instead of the binary equivalents. For example, with QGIS, databases in .XYZ or .CSV formats can be imported into tables and ASCII grid files (published in .GXF format) will open directly using the “Add Raster” tool. Additional products, such as GeoTIFF images and .DXF vector files, published with most geophysical data sets, are also directly loadable into QGIS.

The availability of geophysical and other geoscience data collected by the OGS can be viewed geographically and downloaded using the OGSEarth application (www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth). The OntarioGeophysics.KML file is a convenient tool for data discovery. The embedded links allow users to download geophysical data.

Figure 11.6. A comparison of airborne magnetic gradiometer data A) gridded conventionally and B) pseudo-line enhanced gridded data created with the use of the automated scripts. Two areas of heightened detail are outlined by white boxes. The data were excerpted from the Separation Lake survey (Ontario Geological Survey 2017). Colour and distance scales are the same for both images.




11-9

The Geophysical Survey Index (www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth/geophysical in GIS-compatible format) continues to be maintained and updated with each new release of geophysical data.

Free downloads of geophysical data are also available from the OGS online data warehouse—GeologyOntario (www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/geologyontario). Hard-copy (paper) reports and maps, and physical media (CD or DVD) of digital data are also available for a nominal fee through the Publication Sales outlet:

Tel: 705-670-5691 (local)Toll-free: 1-888-415-9845 ext. 5691 (Canada and United States)Fax: 705-670-5770E-mail: [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Abigail Burt (Quaternary Geoscientist, Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section) and Frank Brunton (Geoscientist, Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section) are thanked for their geological input regarding the gravity modelling project. Kei Yeung (Geoscience Applicationist, Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section) is thanked for the help with managing the files associated with the 3-D geological model of the Paleozoic bedrock of southern Ontario. Pat Gervais (Drafter, Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section) is thanked for the contributions on the figures.

REFERENCES Armstrong, D.K. 2017. Paleozoic geology of the Welland–Fort Erie area, southern Ontario; Ontario Geological

Survey, Preliminary Map P.3811, scale 1:50 000.

Armstrong, D.K. and Dodge, J.E.P. 2007. Paleozoic geology of southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 219.

Briggs, I.C. 1974. Machine contouring using minimum curvature; Geophysics v.39, p.39-48.

Burt, A.K. 2015. Quaternary stratigraphy of the Niagara Peninsula revealed with three-dimensional mapping; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2015, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6313, p.35-1 to 35-17.

——— 2016. The Niagara Peninsula in three dimensions: A drilling update; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2016, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6323, p.30-1 to 30-13.

——— 2017. Digging deep on the Niagara Peninsula: a drilling update; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2017, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6333, p. 24-1 to 24-16.

Carter, T.R., Brunton, F.R., Clark, J.K., Fortner, L., Freckelton, C., Logan, C.E., Russell, H.A.J., Somers, M., Sutherland, L. and Yeung, K.H. 2019. A three-dimensional geological model of the Paleozoic bedrock of southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Groundwater Resources Study 19 / Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8618. https://doi.org/10.4095/315045

Dietiker, B., Pugin, A.J-M., Burt, A., Crow, H.L., Cartwright, T. and Brewer, K. 2019. High-resolution seismic reflection profiles for groundwater studies in the Niagara Peninsula region, Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6358 / Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8561, 2019, 49p. https://doi.org/10.4095/314730

http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth/geophysical

http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth/geophysical

http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/geologyontario


https://doi.org/10.4095/315045

https://doi.org/10.4095/314730


11-10

Hardwick, C.D. 1999. Gradient-enhanced total field gridding; 69th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1999, p.381-384.

McMurchy, R.C. 1960. Saganash Lake area, District of Cochrane; Ontario Department of Mines, Map 1960a, scale 1:63 360.

Ontario Geological Survey 2011. Regional structure and isopach maps of potential hydrocarbon-bearing strata for southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 276.

——— 2014. Ontario geophysical surveys, ground gravity data, grid and point data (ASCII and Geosoft® formats) and vector data, Niagara area; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1073.

——— 2017. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic gradiometer and gamma-ray spectrometric data, grid and profile data (Geosoft® formats) and vector data, Separation Lake area; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1083b.

——— 2019. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic and gamma-ray spectrometric data, grid and profile data (ASCII and Geosoft® formats) and vector data, Ramsey–Algoma area, Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1086.

——— 2020a. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic data, grid and profile data (ASCII and Geosoft® formats) and vector data, Sturgeon River area, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1088.

——— 2020b. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys airborne magnetic and electromagnetic geophysical survey, Biscotasing area, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1087.

Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (OSSGA) 2016. Materials reference guide; Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, Mississauga, Ontario, 78p.

Rainsford, D.R.B. and Biswas, S. 2018. Summary of geophysical projects and activities; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2018, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6350, p.16-1 to 16-10.

——— 2019. Summary of geophysical projects and activities; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2019, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6360, p.15-1 to 15-9.

Raven, K., McCreath, D., Jackson, R., Clark, I., Heagle, D., Sterling, S. and Melaney, M. 2011. Descriptive Geosphere Site Model: OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository for low & intermediate level waste; Nuclear Waste Management Organization, Toronto, Ontario, NWMO DGR-TR-2011-24, 435p., available from https://ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/17520/49820/site_model.pdf [last accessed December 1, 2020] [note: this is not available from www.nwmo.ca/en/Reports]

https://ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/17520/49820/site_model.pdf

https://ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/17520/49820/site_model.pdf

https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Reports/


12-1

12. Project FN-19-001. Far North Terrain Mapping in the Pickle Lake–Cat Lake Area, Northwestern Ontario: Preliminary Indicator Mineral Results

C. Gao1 and K.H. Yeung1


INTRODUCTION

Field work in support of remote predictive surficial mapping of the Pickle Lake–Cat Lake area was completed during the summer of 2019. Currently, work is ongoing to produce a series of 10 Quaternary geological maps at 1:100 000 scale for the study area (Figure 12.1). During the field work, over 80 bulk till samples (~10 kg each) were collected for recovery of indicator minerals and geochemistry (Gao et al. 2019). Laboratory analyses are pending, but the analytical results for indicator minerals are available and the intent of this article is to briefly communicate some of the initial results, for example, gold grains because of their close relevance to mineral exploration.

The study area is located on Precambrian terrain consisting of bedrock hills and ridges with intervening lakes, fens and bogs. A prominent northwest-aligned end moraine (Agutua moraine) occurs within the map area, with an elevation of up to 430 m asl and local relief exceeding 100 m (Gao et al. 2019). A dense boreal forest, consisting predominantly of spruce (Picea), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), poplar (Populus tremuloides, P. balsamifera), tamarack (Larix laricina) and white birch (Betula papyrifera), covers the region. The bedrock consists of Archean granitic and supracrustal metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks in the English River, Uchi and Berens River subprovinces (Sage and Breaks 1982). Several past-producing gold mines exist in the project area, all located in the Pickle Lake and Meen–Dempster greenstone belts, for example, the Albany River, Pickle Crow, Central Patricia, Central Patricia #2, Dona Lake and Muskegsagagen Lake–Golden Patricia mines. The North Caribou greenstone belt, which hosts the Musselwhite gold mine, extends into the project area from the north.

QUATERNARY GEOLOGY

The Quaternary deposits contain till, glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits of the Late Wisconsinan below the recent surface peat. A sandy till and a stony till occur in this region. The sandy till is silty sand and, locally, sandy silt textured, with a moderate stone content and a matrix that often reacts to 10% HCl acid. The clasts consist primarily of locally derived granitic and metavolcanics rocks and far-travelled Proterozoic argillite and greywacke and Paleozoic carbonate from the Hudson Bay Basin to the northeast. The stony till is extremely bouldery and contains few far-travelled Proterozoic and Paleozoic erratics, with a non-calcareous sand matrix. Within the map area, it occurs mostly in areas north of the Agutua moraine, on bedrock terrains with thin drift, as well as in hummocky ground and minor moraines. Both tills likely developed during the various phases of the Late Wisconsinan (Gao et al. 2019).

12-2

The regional ice flow was toward the southwest at around 230° azimuth as determined from small erosional features, including striae, crescentic fractures and crescentic gouges on bedrock outcrops and intermediate-scale roches moutonnées, as well as from large-scale drumlins numerous in this region. The drumlins in the western part of the map area are oriented to the west-southwest (around 240° azimuth), suggesting a slight shift of ice flow. Crescentic fractures at one locality record an older, westward ice flow (260° azimuth). However, no till deposits associated with this ice-flow event have been recognized.

Glaciofluvial sand and gravel deposits occur mostly in eskers, moraines and kames. Eskers are numerous and align, in general, with the regional ice-flow direction to the southwest. The Agutua moraine is a large end moraine and consists mainly of sand and gravel deposits. Glaciolacustrine deposits, attributed to glacial Lake Agassiz, consist of offshore or basinal silt and clay and nearshore and beach sand, including lag boulders. Lag boulders or boulder pavements are common on wave-washed surfaces, including low-lying till plains, bedrock-dominated terrains, and the crests of drumlins and hummocky ground moraine. Relic shoreline features, for example, beach ridges and lake bluffs, were observed on kames, moraines and eskers. Well-developed shorelines on a large esker south of Tutu Lake in the northwestern corner of the map area indicate a former lake level at least at 469 m asl, comparable to the previously proposed 472 m asl by Prest (1963). With this lake level, most of the map area was likely

Figure 12.1. Status of the Far North terrain mapping project in Ontario.

12-3

submerged. However, Prest (1963) observed the absence of lag boulders and suggested that more than half of the map area in the south remained ice covered until after the lake level dropped. This concept has been widely used in the subsequent map compilations and geological model syntheses (e.g., Prest, Grant and Rampton 1968; Barnett 1992; Teller and Leverington 2004). However, contrary to Prest’s (1963) notion, lag boulders were found to be common in that region, providing evidence for wave-base erosion and winnowing under lacustrine conditions (Gao et al. 2019).

After the drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz, where a local sand source existed, for example, on the flanks of moraines and eskers, eolian sand dunes developed. They are mostly parabolic in shape and are best seen in the Pipestone River Provincial Park. The dunes are presently stabilized by a dense forest consisting primarily of jack pine. Clearance of the forest may destabilize the dunes, as seen along Highway 599 where a few exposed dunes have been reactivated.

INITIAL RESULTS OF REGIONAL TILL SAMPLING

A total of 86 samples were collected, mostly in the southern part of the map area, to assess the suitability of drift prospecting techniques within the study area and to help assess the regional mineral potential (Gao et al. 2019). They consist primarily of till material, including a few sand and gravel samples collected from eskers and modern riverbeds. Most of the till samples came from the sandy till (Table 12.1). The samples for indicator minerals were analyzed at IOS Services Géoscientifiques inc. in Chicoutimi, Quebec. The sample preparation and the methods for counting gold and other heavy mineral grains was a two-step process as summarized below.

1. The <1 mm fraction was collected after wet sieving of a ~10 kg sample. This fraction was fed to a shaking table via a fluidized-bed receptacle and, during the feeding, a 0.1–0.25 g microconcentrate containing <0.25 mm gold and other very heavy minerals was obtained. The overflow of the fluidized bed went to the shaking table, where a table preconcentrate was obtained subsequently. This microconcentrate is suggested to have a much better recovery of 0.05 mm and smaller sized gold grains (~3×) than that collected conventionally from the shaking table (Girard and Neron 2018). However, the recovery rate for other heavy minerals in the microconcentrate remains undetermined. The microconcentrate was dry sieved into 0.25–0.05 mm and <0.05 mm fractions. The coarser fraction was visually counted for gold grains under a stereomicroscope and the finer fraction subjected to automated counting of gold and other heavy minerals, such as tungsten (W)-mineral and platinum group (PG)-mineral grains under a scanning electron microscope (SEM).

2. The table preconcentrate was sieved into 1–0.25 mm and <0.25 mm fractions, with the latter stored for future use. The 1–0.25 mm faction was then washed with acid and subjected to heavy liquid separation in a lithium polytungstate solution with a specific gravity at 3.2. Using a hand magnet, magnetite and other ferromagnetic minerals were removed from the heavy mineral concentrate (HMC) obtained. The remaining nonferromagnetic HMC was further separated into various paramagnetic fractions for visual isolation of heavy minerals. Gold grains isolated at this stage, if any, were added to the total number of the gold grain counts.

The total gold grains and other heavy minerals isolated from the microconcentrate are shown in Tables 12.2 and 12.3 and Figures 12.2 to 12.4. The highest gold grain count is 25 (sample 19-CG-246). All the samples that contain more than 11 gold grains (>95th percentile) were obtained within the greenstone belts (see Figure 12.2). The samples together suggest a low background value of 7 gold grains (75th percentile) per 10 kg of sample material in the project area. Fourteen till samples were previously collected down-ice from and at the past-producing Dona Lake gold mine and they all returned a low number of gold grains (0–6 counts) (Barnett 2008). Samples 19-CG-019, 19-CG-039 and 19-CG-041 of the current study are overlapping and very close to the previous samples 06-PJB-020, 06-PJB-012 and

12-4

06-PJB-025, respectively. Similar to the previous samples (3–6 gold grains), they exhibit low gold grain counts no higher than the background value (3–5 grains). Platinum group-mineral grains are rare, with most of the samples being barren of such minerals (see Table 12.3). Sample 19-CG-222 has the highest count of 4 PG-mineral grains. In contrast, numerous W-mineral scheelite grains up to 294 were isolated in the samples, as were U- and Th-mineral grains (up to 54 grains) (see Figures 12.3 and 12.4). These anomalous sample sites may warrant further investigation to characterize possible dispersal plumes that vector to bedrock source(s). The recovery of significant scheelite grains is interesting, in light of the association of scheelite within the quartz veins that host the Pickle Crow gold deposit (Ferguson 1966; Ontario Geological Survey 2020).

Table 12.1. Sample locations.

Sample Number UTM Zone Easting (m) (NAD83)

Northing (m) (NAD83)

Material Sampled

2019-CG-004 15N 692922 5709824 Till, sandy 2019-CG-006 15N 696297 5709868 Till, sandy 2019-CG-017 15N 694668 5700360 Till, sandy 2019-CG-019 15N 694232 5697734 Till, sandy 2019-CG-020 15N 682736 5650630 Sand and gravel, glaciofluvial 2019-CG-023 15N 686869 5657914 Till, sandy 2019-CG-029 15N 695049 5666421 Till, sandy 2019-CG-031 15N 695217 5665105 Till, sandy 2019-CG-033 15N 698055 5667678 Till, sandy 2019-CG-035 15N 694001 5672606 Sand and gravel, glaciofluvial 2019-CG-037 15N 693298 5682589 Till, sandy 2019-CG-038 15N 693195 5687813 Till, sandy 2019-CG-039 15N 692835 5691543 Till, sandy 2019-CG-040 15N 697550 5696521 Till, sandy 2019-CG-041 15N 695483 5696857 Till, sandy 2019-CG-042 15N 698655 5711033 Sand and gravel, glaciofluvial 2019-CG-044 15N 707522 5722569 Sand and gravel, glaciofluvial 2019-CG-049 15N 618221 5811895 Till, sandy 2019-CG-057 15N 635591 5801708 Till, sandy 2019-CG-060 15N 640434 5801486 Till, stony 2019-CG-083 15N 687483 5709711 Sand and gravel, glaciofluvial 2019-CG-084 15N 694520 5671238 Till, sandy 2019-CG-085 15N 696336 5665360 Till, sandy 2019-CG-095 15N 674470 5819375 Till, sandy 2019-CG-108 16N 315501 5683366 Till, sandy 2019-CG-110 16N 318565 5694356 Till, sandy 2019-CG-113 16N 344529 5683155 Till, sandy 2019-CG-122 15N 613634 5695443 Till, sandy 2019-CG-124 15N 618056 5691913 Till, sandy 2019-CG-130 15N 642044 5686357 Till, sandy 2019-CG-133 15N 648363 5682615 Till, sandy 2019-CG-135 15N 652113 5680705 Till, sandy 2019-CG-138 15N 653977 5677399 Till, sandy 2019-CG-142 15N 634387 5689517 Sand and gravel, glaciofluvial 2019-CG-143 15N 634395 5689537 Till, sandy 2019-CG-144 15N 625557 5675142 Till, sandy 2019-CG-147 15N 627814 5692739 Till, sandy

Abbreviations: NAD83, North American Datum 1983; UTM, Universal Transverse Mercator.

12-5


Sample Number UTM Zone Easting (m) (NAD83)

Northing (m) (NAD83)

Material Sampled

2019-CG-148 15N 628227 5694449 Till, sandy 2019-CG-154 16N 357916 5805319 Till, sandy 2019-CG-155 16N 348154 5805776 Till, stony 2019-CG-157 16N 351553 5790104 Till, sandy 2019-CG-170 16N 293552 5705694 Till, sandy 2019-CG-171 15N 706672 5704705 Till, sandy 2019-CG-172 15N 692454 5817183 Till, stony 2019-CG-186 15N 677351 5681831 Till, sandy 2019-CG-190 15N 620140 5695253 Till, sandy 2019-CG-194 15N 659885 5692419 Till, sandy 2019-CG-195 15N 660017 5688031 Till, sandy 2019-CG-196 15N 680648 5662526 Till, sandy 2019-CG-201 16N 358584 5723730 Till, sandy 2019-CG-205 15N 686309 5680504 Till, sandy 2019-CG-209 15N 609191 5658672 Till, sandy 2019-CG-211 15N 607990 5664486 Till, sandy 2019-CG-215 15N 660256 5666180 Till, sandy 2019-CG-217 15N 668403 5716693 Till, sandy 2019-CG-222 15N 663870 5755039 Till, sandy 2019-CG-230 15N 702189 5699725 Till, sandy 2019-CG-232 16N 304510 5676767 Stream sediment, modern 2019-CG-245 15N 630558 5809589 Till, sandy 2019-CG-246 15N 705415 5659210 Till, sandy 2019-CG-247 15N 709746 5669608 Stream sediment, modern 2019-CG-250 16N 300124 5817165 Till, sandy 2019-CG-252 16N 299283 5809432 Till, stony 2019-CG-253 15N 682640 5685776 Till, sandy 2019-CG-254 15N 678093 5657122 Till, sandy 2019-CG-256 15N 695533 5729317 Till, sandy 2019-CG-260 15N 694015 5709730 Till, sandy 2019-CG-275 16N 318041 5747162 Sand and gravel, glaciofluvial 2019-CG-309 15N 610440 5747599 Till, sandy 2019-CG-313 15N 573733 5694499 Beach sand, modern 2019-CG-315 15N 578950 5670376 Till, sandy 2019-CG-316 15N 587270 5667026 Till, sandy 2019-CG-318 15N 582150 5668671 Till, sandy 2019-CG-319 15N 582001 5668706 Till, sandy 2019-CG-321 15N 703030 5729142 Stream sediment, modern 2019-CG-323 15N 683471 5683344 Till, sandy 2019-CG-324 15N 672398 5673277 Till, sandy 2019-CG-325 15N 667332 5669401 Sand and gravel, glaciofluvial 2019-CG-327 15N 679938 5667493 Till, sandy 2019-CG-329 15N 676021 5663461 Till, sandy 2019-CG-330 15N 670644 5660690 Till, sandy 2019-CG-331 15N 663375 5660299 Till, sandy 2019-CG-332 15N 654928 5657013 Till, sandy 2019-CG-333 15N 671476 5664539 Till, sandy

Abbreviations: NAD83, North American Datum 1983; UTM, Universal Transverse Mercator.

12-6

Table 12.2. Summary of gold grain counts.

Sample Number

Lab Number Visual count (50-1000 µm)

Automated count (0-50 µm)

Total Pristine Modified Reshaped

19-CG-004 107921004 1 6 7 3 3 1 19-CG-006 107921006 2 6 8 3 2 3 19-CG-017 107921017 1 7 8 0 5 3 19-CG-019 107921019 1 3 4 0 1 3 19-CG-020 107921020 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-023 107921023 1 1 2 1 1 0 19-CG-029 107921029 0 5 5 2 3 0 19-CG-031 107921031 1 8 9 1 8 0 19-CG-033 107921033 0 3 3 0 2 1 19-CG-035 107921035 1 10 11 2 5 4 19-CG-037 107921037 0 1 1 0 1 0 19-CG-038 107921038 3 8 11 3 6 2 19-CG-039 107921039 0 5 5 2 1 2 19-CG-040 107921040 0 3 3 0 2 1 19-CG-041 107921041 0 3 3 1 1 1 19-CG-042 107921042 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-044 107921044 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-049 107921049 0 2 2 1 0 1 19-CG-057 107921057 0 5 5 4 1 0 19-CG-060 107921060 1 1 2 0 2 0 19-CG-083 107921083 2 3 5 2 2 1 19-CG-084 107921084 0 1 1 0 1 0 19-CG-085 107921085 2 4 6 2 2 2 19-CG-095 107921095 0 1 1 1 0 0 19-CG-108 107921108 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-110 107921110 0 3 3 0 2 1 19-CG-113 107921113 0 3 3 2 1 0 19-CG-122 107921122 0 3 3 2 1 0 19-CG-124 107921124 1 1 2 0 2 0 19-CG-130 107921130 1 7 8 3 4 1 19-CG-133 107921133 0 9 9 1 5 3 19-CG-135 107921135 1 2 3 0 2 1 19-CG-138 107921138 3 14 17 4 9 4 19-CG-142 107921142 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-143 107921143 1 1 2 0 1 1 19-CG-144 107921144 1 4 5 1 2 2 19-CG-147 107921147 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-148 107921148 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-154 107921154 0 4 4 2 2 0 19-CG-155 107921155 0 2 2 1 1 0 19-CG-157 107921157 3 4 7 2 5 0 19-CG-170 107921170 0 6 6 2 2 2 19-CG-171 107921171 0 5 5 0 5 0 19-CG-172 107921172 0 9 9 3 3 3 19-CG-186 107921186 0 9 9 1 6 2 19-CG-190 107921190 1 2 3 0 1 2 19-CG-194 107921194 1 1 2 0 0 2 19-CG-195 107921195 0 7 7 0 5 2 19-CG-196 107921196 0 5 5 1 2 2

12-7

Table 12.2, continued. Summary of gold grain counts.

Sample Number




19-CG-201 107921201 0 2 2 1 1 0 19-CG-205 107921205 1 6 7 1 5 1 19-CG-209 107921209 1 3 4 2 2 0 19-CG-211 107921211 2 5 7 1 3 3 19-CG-215 107921215 3 10 13 0 11 2 19-CG-217 107921217 1 4 5 1 3 1 19-CG-222 107921222 0 6 6 1 5 0 19-CG-230 107921230 2 5 7 0 5 2 19-CG-232 107921232 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-245 107921245 0 6 6 5 1 0 19-CG-246 107921246 8 17 25 8 13 4

Figure 12.2. Proportional dot plot of gold grains based on 75th, 90th, 95th, 98th and >98th percentiles.

12-8


Sample Number




19-CG-247 107921247 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-250 107921250 1 13 14 9 3 2 19-CG-252 107921252 0 3 3 1 2 0 19-CG-253 107921253 0 4 4 0 3 1 19-CG-254 107921254 0 8 8 2 6 0 19-CG-256 107921256 3 7 10 3 5 2 19-CG-260 107921260 4 14 18 11 3 4 19-CG-275 107921275 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-309 107921309 0 3 3 2 0 1 19-CG-313 107921313 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-315 107921315 0 3 3 1 2 0 19-CG-316 107921316 0 8 8 1 6 1

Figure 12.3. Proportional dot plot of scheelite grains based on 75th, 90th, 95th, 98th and >98th percentiles.

12-9


Sample Number




19-CG-318 107921318 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-319 107921319 0 6 6 2 2 2 19-CG-321 107921321 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-323 107921323 4 11 15 5 9 1 19-CG-324 107921324 0 1 1 1 0 0 19-CG-325 107921325 0 1 1 1 0 0 19-CG-327 107921327 0 3 3 0 1 2 19-CG-329 107921329 1 9 10 1 8 1 19-CG-330 107921330 0 4 4 0 4 0 19-CG-331 107921331 0 5 5 1 4 0 19-CG-332 107921332 3 4 7 2 5 0 19-CG-333 107921333 0 4 4 3 1 0

Figure 12.4. Proportional dot plot of U- and Th-mineral grains based on 75th, 90th, 95th, 98th and >98th percentiles.

12-10


apping Section (12) C

. Gao and K

.H. Yeung

Table 12.3. Summary of heavy mineral grain counts from the microconcentrate.

Sample Number

Lab Number

Bi- Minerals

Scheelite Other W-Minerals

Hg-Minerals

Ag-Minerals

Mn-Minerals

Galena Sphalerite Baddeleyite Nb-Minerals

Ta-Minerals

U/Th-Minerals

19-CG-004 107921004 0 18 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 6 19-CG-006 107921006 1 37 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 17 19-CG-017 107921017 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 19-CG-019 107921019 0 40 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 19-CG-020 107921020 1 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 19-CG-023 107921023 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 19-CG-029 107921029 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 19-CG-031 107921031 0 26 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 13 19-CG-033 107921033 0 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 16 19-CG-035 107921035 2 44 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 33 19-CG-037 107921037 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 19-CG-038 107921038 1 88 32 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 17 29 19-CG-039 107921039 2 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 19 19-CG-040 107921040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 19-CG-041 107921041 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16 19-CG-042 107921042 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19-CG-044 107921044 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 19-CG-049 107921049 2 76 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 26 19-CG-057 107921057 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 7 22 19-CG-060 107921060 2 68 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 25 19-CG-083 107921083 0 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 19-CG-084 107921084 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 15 19-CG-085 107921085 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 19-CG-095 107921095 4 5 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 10 19-CG-108 107921108 0 11 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 19-CG-110 107921110 0 25 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 12 19-CG-113 107921113 0 84 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 29 19-CG-122 107921122 0 103 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 17 19-CG-124 107921124 0 99 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 14 19-CG-130 107921130 0 187 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 54 19-CG-133 107921133 0 74 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 22 19-CG-135 107921135 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

12-11



. Gao and K

.H. Yeung

Table 12.3, continued. Summary of heavy mineral grain counts from the microconcentrate.

Sample Number

Lab Number

Bi- Minerals


Hg-Minerals

Ag-Minerals

Mn-Minerals


Ta-Minerals

U/Th-Minerals

19-CG-138 107921138 0 186 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 24 22 19-CG-142 107921142 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 19-CG-143 107921143 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 19-CG-144 107921144 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 19-CG-147 107921147 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19-CG-148 107921148 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-154 107921154 0 58 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 19-CG-155 107921155 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 19-CG-157 107921157 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 19-CG-170 107921170 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 19-CG-171 107921171 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 19-CG-172 107921172 0 180 6 0 0 0 0 0 13 24 22 31 19-CG-186 107921186 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 10 8 8 19-CG-190 107921190 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 19-CG-194 107921194 0 35 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 30 19-CG-195 107921195 0 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 36 19-CG-196 107921196 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 19-CG-201 107921201 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-205 107921205 0 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11 19-CG-209 107921209 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 15 19-CG-211 107921211 0 136 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 4 19-CG-215 107921215 0 38 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 19-CG-217 107921217 0 51 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 21 19-CG-222 107921222 0 49 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 19 19-CG-230 107921230 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 19-CG-232 107921232 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 19-CG-245 107921245 0 13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 15 19-CG-246 107921246 0 84 23 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 32 30 19-CG-247 107921247 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19-CG-250 107921250 0 155 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 54 19-CG-252 107921252 0 61 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 21

12-12



. Gao and K

.H. Yeung

Table 12.3, continued. Summary of heavy mineral grain counts from the microconcentrate.

Sample Number

Lab Number

Bi- Minerals


Hg-Minerals

Ag-Minerals

Mn-Minerals


Ta-Minerals

U/Th-Minerals

19-CG-253 107921253 0 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 24 19-CG-254 107921254 1 14 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 15 19-CG-256 107921256 0 44 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 19-CG-260 107921260 0 71 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 23 19-CG-275 107921275 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 19-CG-309 107921309 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 13 19-CG-313 107921313 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 19-CG-315 107921315 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 19-CG-316 107921316 0 56 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 23 19-CG-318 107921318 11 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 19-CG-319 107921319 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 19-CG-321 107921321 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 19-CG-323 107921323 0 192 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 15 35 19-CG-324 107921324 0 294 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 19 19-CG-325 107921325 0 109 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 19-CG-327 107921327 0 49 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 24 19-CG-329 107921329 0 161 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 24 20 19-CG-330 107921330 0 92 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 16 19-CG-331 107921331 0 26 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 15 19-CG-332 107921332 0 138 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 19-CG-333 107921333 0 92 10 3 1 0 1 0 1 4 20 26

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (12) C. Gao and K.H. Yeung

12-13

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Mishkeegogamang First Nation, Eabametoong First Nation, Nibinamik First Nation, Neskantaga First Nation, Weagamow First Nation, Cat Lake First Nation, Slate Falls First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, McDowell Lake First Nation and North Spirit Lake First Nation for allowing us to map on their traditional territory. Natacha Fournier and Réjean Girard of IOS Services Géoscientifiques inc. made comments on the heavy mineral results and Julien Bonin from the Ontario Geological Survey drafted the figures. Ontario Parks is thanked for authorization to conduct field work and sampling in the provincial parks. Richard Dyer reviewed the manuscript with helpful comments.

REFERENCES Barnett, P.J. 2008. Till compositional database: Dona Lake Mine area, Pickle Lake, Ontario; Ontario Geological

Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 234.

Barnett, P.J. 1992. Quaternary geology of Ontario; Chapter 21 in Geology of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, Part 2, p.1011-1090.

Ferguson, S.A. 1966. Geology of Pickle Crow Gold Mines Limited and Central Patricia Gold Mines Limited, No. 2 Operation; Ontario Department of Mines, Miscellaneous Paper 4.

Gao, C., Yeung, K.H., Ho, K.K.-Y., Meagher, H.M. and Wolfe, T.N. 2019. Field studies in support of remote predictive mapping in the Pickle Lake–Cat Lake area, Far North of Ontario; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2019, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6360, p.16-1 to 16-11.

Girard, R. and Neron A. 2018. Automated minerology: A quantum leap in drift exploration; Toronto Geological Discussion Group, Tuesday, November 6, 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZQ9xHmyc0s&t=786s [accessed September 15, 2020].

Ontario Geological Survey 2020. Mineral Deposit Inventory; Ontario Geological Survey, Mineral Deposit Inventory (September 2020 update), online database.

Prest, V.K. 1963. Red Lake–Lansdowne House area, northwestern Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 63-6, 21 p, and Map 4-1963 and Map 5-1963, scale 1:506 880.

Prest, V.K., Grant, D.R. and Rampton, V.N. 1968. Glacial map of Canada; Geological Survey of Canada, Map 1253A, scale 1:5 000 000.

Sage, R.P. and Breaks F.W. 1982. Geology of the Pickle Lake–Cat Lake area, districts of Kenora and Thunder Bay; Ontario Geological Survey, Report 207, 255p.

Teller, J.T. and Leverington, D.W. 2004. Glacial Lake Agassiz: A 5000-year history of change and its relationship to the δ18O record of Greenland; Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.116, p.729-742.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZQ9xHmyc0s&t=786s


13-1

13. Project NE-18-001. Quaternary Geology Mapping in the “Great Clay Belt” of Northeastern Ontario

A.S. Marich1


INTRODUCTION

The “great clay belt” occupies much of northeastern Ontario, yet little is understood about the timing of events which led to its formation. The purpose of this project was to expand the existing knowledge of the surficial geology in this part of Ontario, as well as to provide highly detailed mapping which would aid in the Ontario Ministry of Agricultural Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) updates to agricultural suitability mapping, to encourage the development of new agricultural ventures. Previous work in the area was at a reconnaissance scale (1:506 880 and 1:100 000 scales) and focussed on mapping surface sediments in a regional context, whereby much of the required detail for municipal planning, aggregate resource mapping and mineral exploration, for example, was lost (Boissonneau 1965, 1966; Lee 1989a, 1989b, 1989c; Lee and Scott 1989a, 1989b, 1989c). The current project has resulted in the publication of 5 Quaternary geology maps, at a scale of 1:50 000, spanning an area along the Highway 11 corridor between Kapuskasing and Iroquois Falls (Preliminary Maps P.3836–3840: Marich 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2020a, 2020b). The availability of high-resolution aerial photography and LiDAR digital elevation models (DEMs) have aided in the production of the most detailed mapping in the region to date.

The study area encompasses an area of greater than 4800 km2 within the “great clay belt” of northeastern Ontario (Figure 13.1). The study area is represented by 5 National Topographic Series (NTS) maps, at 1:50 000 scale, Kapuskasing (42 G/8), Smooth Rock Falls (42 H/5), Cochrane (42 H/3), Abitibi (42 H/2) and Iroquois Falls (42 A/15); in this article, references to these NTS map areas by area name, for example, “Cochrane map area”, will omit “NTS”. Field work was conducted during the summers of 2016 through 2019, and a total of 5000 observations were made of the surficial materials and landforms, and 52 till and 20 esker sand samples were collected (Marich 2016, 2017, 2018). The till and sand samples were collected for heavy mineral analysis, and the till samples were analyzed for the suite of major and trace elements, carbonate content and grain size. All methods followed standard field collection and laboratory protocols used by the Ontario Geological Survey. Additional detail regarding the analyses and results can be found in forthcoming report and digital data publications by the author (Marich, in press-a, in press-b).

The study area is located within a region of very subtle topography that is a result of deposition of fine-textured sediments within a large proglacial lake: in this case, glacial Lake Barlow–Ojibway, which later merged with glacial Lake Agassiz to the west. These proglacial lakes had a very strong influence on the deposition of sediments and the development of landforms in the region.

Occurrences of base and precious metals in bedrock have been observed throughout the study area, but very little exploration work has been conducted over the last couple of decades. The sampling

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (13) A.S. Marich

13-2

Figu

re 1

3.1.

Stu

dy a

rea l

ocat

ion

and

loca

tions

of f

ield

obs

erva

tions

and

sam

plin

g co

nduc

ted

durin

g th

e su

mm

ers o

f 201

6 to

201

9.


13-3

conducted for this study has provided some additional data regarding geochemistry and heavy mineral content of tills in the region, which may be useful to the mineral exploration community. One sample site in particular returned gold results (mentioned herein) of possible exploration interest that may be worthy of follow up.

BEDROCK GEOLOGY

The bedrock geology of the study area is dominated by both supracrustal and intrusive suites and their gneissic and migmatized equivalents of Archean age. To the southeast, the study is underlain by parts of the Abitibi Subprovince, the Quetico Subprovince in the central part of the study area, and the Kapuskasing Structural Zone and the Wawa gneiss domain to the northwest. The oldest rocks in the region, located in the southern portions of the Cochrane and Abitibi map areas and throughout the Iroquois Falls map area, are Mesoarchean (3.2–2.8 Ga) metavolcanic rocks, consisting of dacite and andesitic flows, tuffs and breccias with minor chert and iron formation (Figure 13.2). The central part of the study area is underlain by highly metamorphosed metasedimentary rocks, consisting of paragneiss and migmatites, wacke, siltstone, arkose, slate, marble, chert and iron formation (Ontario Geological Survey 2011).

In the southeast corner of the Kapuskasing map area are migmatized supracrustal rocks, including metavolcanic rocks and lesser metasedimentary rocks as well as mafic gneisses. These rocks form part of the Kapuskasing Structural Zone, for which the eastern boundary is east of the Kapuskasing map area and the western boundary (which trends northeast) is located east of the town of Kapuskasing (Ontario Geological Survey 2011).

Locally, within the Cochrane map area and throughout much of the central Iroquois Falls map area, are massive granodioritic to granitic intrusive rocks. Archean mafic and ultramafic intrusive rocks are located to the southwest in the Cochrane map area and around the rim of massive granodioritic rocks in the Iroquois Falls map area (Ontario Geological Survey 2011) (see Figure 13.2).

QUATERNARY GEOLOGY

Glacial Deposits and Associated Landforms

A simple stratigraphic sequence was observed within the study area. Although each stratigraphic unit was not observed at every location, the relative position of these units with respect to one another did not change. The sequence is as follows (from oldest to youngest): 1) pre-Wisconsinan sediments, 2) Matheson Till, 3) ice-contact stratified deposits associated with Matheson Till, 4) Cochrane Till, 5) glaciolacustrine deposits and 6) non-glacial organic materials.

Sediments older than Wisconsinan age were not observed during this study, but have been described in the literature for this part of Ontario. These sediments were rarely encountered in a series of boreholes drilled from Timmins, to the east and north of Kapuskasing (Smith 1992). The older sediments that have been described include 3 tills interbedded with silt and sand overlain by an interglacial peat and organic-rich silt and clay (the Sangamonian Missinaibi Formation) (Skinner 1973; Smith 1992; Dubé-Loubert et al. 2013). The Missinaibi Formation is a significant regional interglacial marker that has been attributed to Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e, approximately 130 000 to 115 000 years ago (e.g., Dalton et al. 2016).


13-4

Figu

re 1

3.2.

Bed

rock

geo

logy

of t

he H

ighw

ay 1

1 co

rrido

r bet

wee

n K

apus

kasin

g an

d Ir

oquo

is Fa

lls (m

odifi

ed fr

om O

ntar

io G

eolo

gica

l Sur

vey

2011

).


13-5

Table 13.1. Average content of various lithologies in the pebble fraction of the Matheson and Cochrane tills.

Material Type Cochrane Till (n=35) Matheson Till (n=12) Intermediate to Felsic Intrusive Rocks (%) 6.3 32.2 Mafic Intrusive Rocks (%) 1.1 5.3 Intermediate to Felsic Volcanic Rocks (%) 0.9 0.0 Basalt (%) 7.6 9.4 Foliated Metamorphic Rocks (%) 1.3 0.0 Hornfels (%) 0.3 0.2 Quartz (%) 0.7 1.3 Carbonate (%) 50.8 19.0 Sandstone (%) 9.7 3.9 Fine-textured Sedimentary Rocks (%) 4.1 6.5 Chert (%) 0.6 0.0 Unknown (%) 2.5 3.3 Number of Pebbles 81 137

The oldest sedimentary unit observed within the study area is the Matheson Till. The till was observed at 12 locations, always to the south or southeast of a topographic high and sitting directly on bedrock. Matheson Till is a pale grey, silty sand diamicton with approximately 5 to 10% granule- to pebble-sized clasts, predominantly of Precambrian rock types (Table 13.1). Many clasts are striated, bulleted and/or faceted and are mostly subrounded. Matheson Till varies in thickness significantly throughout the region, but, within the study area, the maximum thickness observed was 2 m. A series of streamlined landforms in the southeast corner of the Kapuskasing map area are composed of reworked Matheson Till resulting from the ice movement responsible for the deposition of Cochrane Till (described below).

Ice-contact stratified deposits associated with Matheson Till have been identified throughout the study area. They are most commonly observed in a series of large and continuous esker systems that cross the study area and extend well south of it (Figure 13.3) (Marich 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2020a, 2020b). Sediment thickness within these eskers is 20 m or greater based on face heights in sand and gravel pits and are commonly draped with several metres of fine-textured glaciolacustrine sediments. The eskers consist primarily of variably textured sands with minor gravel. Gravel beds are commonly open work and range in grain size from granule to gravel to small boulders. Clasts are locally derived Precambrian lithologies, as well as far-travelled Paleozoic lithologies from the Hudson Bay Lowland. These include cobbles from the Proterozoic Omarolluk formation (omars), which are likely from the Belcher Islands in southern Hudson Bay. These dark grey greywacke cobbles contain deep circular cavities resulting from the preferential dissolution of carbonate concretions (Prest, Donaldson and Mooers 2000). Structures observed in the ice-contact stratified deposits include ripples, truncated laminae, heavy mineral accumulations at the base of ripples and some highly deformed sections. Subaqueous fans were also observed within the study area. Several of these occur along the length of esker ridges as broad bulbous mounds, marking stillstand positions of the retreating ice margin within the proglacial lake. A large subaqueous fan at least 3 km wide is located south of Remi Lake in the Kapuskasing map area.

The next sediment in the sequence is Cochrane Till. It is a fine-textured clayey silt diamicton, averaging 29% sand, 51% silt and 19% clay with minor (<5%) granule- to cobble-sized clasts. Clasts are predominantly of carbonate lithologies and are subangular and faceted (see Table 13.1). The till is commonly massive with some inclusions of undeformed silt and clay, although some blocky and fissile examples exist. The till owes its fine texture to the incorporation of large volumes of glaciolacustrine sediments during the advance of the ice sheet. On at least one, if not multiple, occasions, the Laurentide ice sheet surged into and south of the glacial Lake Barlow–Ojibway basin (e.g., Hughes 1965; Veillette 1994), disturbing and subsequently entraining glaciolacustrine sediments. Three facies of Cochrane Till were observed during this study: deformation till facies, lodgement till facies and subaquatic flow facies.


13-6

Figu

re 1

3.3.

Im

age

show

ing

the l

ocat

ions

of e

sker

s ide

ntifi

ed w

ithin

the

study

are

a. T

he h

igh-

reso

lutio

n di

gita

l ele

vatio

n su

rfac

e (“

hills

hade

”) i

s bas

ed o

n Pr

ovin

cial

dig

ital

elev

atio

n m

odel

dat

a fro

m M

inist

ry o

f Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es (2

013)

.


13-7

The deformation facies is massive and structureless and is often difficult to distinguish from the associated glaciolacustrine sediments. Generally, the till is more massive and contains a greater number of clasts than the glaciolacustrine sediments. The lodgement till facies is found lower in the stratigraphic sequence and is compact, blocky and fissile. Finally, the subaquatic flow-till facies is softer than the other facies and contains silt and clay lenses, and minor silt caps, as well as ice-rafted debris. The Cochrane Till was observed most commonly at surface on topographic highs; elsewhere, it is capped with fine-textured glaciolacustrine sediments. The thickness of this unit may exceed 35 to 40 m in some locations, based on water-well records in the area.

Deep-water glaciolacustrine sediments, consisting of massive to laminated silt and clay, as well as varved sediments, occupy much of the Highway 11 corridor. These sediments are carbonate rich (effervesce with 10% HCl), and are often greater than 1 m thick and possibly up to 30 m thick (based on water-well records). Varved silts and clays were observed throughout the study area and are commonly interbedded with massive clayey silt to silty clay. The varves consist of distinct dark grey clay (winter) beds and pale tan silt (summer) beds (Photo 13.1). Varve couplets vary in thickness from 0.5 cm to greater than 5 cm, and a maximum of 25 couplets were counted at any sample location. The thickness of these couplets varies across the study area. The varve couplets tend to thin upward indicating a decrease in sedimentation resulting from a retreating ice margin during their cycle of deposition (e.g., Stroup, Lowell and Breckenridge 2013). Thin beds of ice-rafted debris were commonly observed and, within these beds, red granules were regularly observed. It is suggested that these granules are derived from the Silurian Kenogami River Formation, a red mudstone that crops out approximately 250 km directly north along the Albany River (Bajc, Lee and Yeung 2014; Gao, Lee and Yeung 2015). Iceberg keel marks are the dominant landform associated with glaciolacustrine sediments in the region. Thousands of these features were identified on LiDAR DEMs and they occur throughout the study area cutting into surface materials in great swaths. These linear depressions on the land surface are a result of grounded icebergs being pushed along the lakebed by prevailing winds (Photo 13.2). These features vary in length and width, with widths ranging from a couple of metres to approximately a half kilometre, and lengths ranging from several metres to several kilometres. It is common for iceberg keel marks to dramatically change orientation along their lengths. This occurs with shifts in wind direction and when an iceberg is deflected off a topographic high and continues to cut into the surface sediments. The orientation of keel marks can appear random upon initial observation, but, regionally, their predominant direction is to the southeast, suggesting a prevailing northwesterly wind direction. This wind direction is reflected in the orientation of parabolic dunes located to the east of the study area within the Burntbush area (Gao 2013) and to the south near Timmins (Boissonneau 1965, 1966.)

Peat, with varying degrees of decomposition, has been observed throughout the study. Since much of northeastern Ontario is flat, low lying, and most of the overlying sediment is fine textured, wetlands occupy a large proportion of the study area. These wetlands are dominated by open low shrub bogs with an abundance of moss (Geo-analysis Ltd. 1986). Peat thicknesses range between 0 and greater than 6 m.

Glacial History

The landscape and surficial sediments of northeastern Ontario are a direct result of glacial and deglacial events. The oldest deposits are generally of a pre–Late Wisconsinan age. The series of 3 tills interbedded with sands may be associated with a fluctuating Illinois Episode ice sheet (Skinner 1973). Following this glaciation was an ice-free period in which the Missinaibi Formation as deposited (approximately 130 000 to 71 000 years ago) (Skinner 1973; Dalton et al. 2016). Organic deposits are commonly found underlying till of the Hudson Bay Lowland. Most have ages older than 50 000 years old. Recent studies suggest there may have been a second ice-free period during MIS 3 (29 000 to 57 000 years ago), but additional work is required to constrain the timing of this event because it would require a significant adjustment to the ice margin which is not currently supported by the deep-sea isotope records.


13-8

Photo 13.1. Varves: dark grey clay (winter beds) and pale tan silt (summer beds) located in a ditch southeast of Moonbeam.

Photo 13.2. Subaerial photograph showing intersecting iceberg keel marks now occupied by a meandering stream, southeast of Kapuskasing.


13-9

Wisconsinan-age glacial events are well documented in the region and several ice-flow events and glacial lake stages have been identified (e.g., Hughes 1965; Boissonneau 1966; Veillette 1994; Smith 1992; Evans 2011). At the last glacial maximum (25 000 years ago), glacial ice extended well south of the study area into the northern United States. Retreat began in northeastern Ontario approximately 10 000 years ago (Breckenridge et al 2012; Dyke 2004). Prior to this initial retreat stage, Matheson Till was deposited. As the ice began to retreat from the area, the large esker systems traversing the study area formed (Boissonneau 1966). Initially, glacial Lake Barlow formed in the southern part of the Hudson Bay watershed followed by the development of glacial Lake Ojibway to the north of glacial Lake Barlow and the 2 lakes coalesced after the ice had retreated well to the north (Veillette 1994).

The resulting glacial Lake Barlow–Ojibway occupied an area greater than 230 000 km2 (e.g., Agterberg and Banerjee 1969). Varve chronologies indicate that the large lake existed for approximately 2110 years (Breckenridge et al 2012; Hughes 1965; Hardy 1976; Antevs 1925). The ice front continued to retreat northward until it reached the Pinard moraine and glacial Lake Barlow–Ojibway expanded to well north of the study area. The timing of this ice retreat and the following events is unclear. It has been proposed that several cycles of advance and retreat of the ice margin into the proglacial lake occurred (the Cochrane readvances).

The final retreat and break up of ice out of the study area occurred around 8470 years ago (Andrews, Shilts and Miller 1983; Roy et al. 2011) based on radiocarbon analyses of marine shells overlying the youngest glaciolacustrine sediments. The Tyrell Sea expanded into northern Ontario because there was no longer ice to act as a dam against flow of water from Hudson Bay into the isostatically depressed Barlow–Ojibway basin. It is thought that the final drainage of glacial Lake Barlow–Ojibway occurred catastrophically after an ice dam failed to the north in the vicinity of James Bay. An estimated volume of 114 000 km3 of cold fresh water from the coalesced glacial Lake Agassiz and glacial Lake Barlow–Ojibway basin was discharged into the Tyrell Sea, raising sea level by 30 cm (Veillette 1994). This discharge has been proposed as a trigger for the 8200 cal yr BP climate event (Barber et al. 1999; Bauer, Ganopolski and Montaya 2004; Alley and Agustsdottir 2005), which resulted in a decrease in global temperatures for several centuries.

APPLIED QUATERNARY GEOLOGY

The thick sequences of drift (particularly clay) within the study area has hindered mineral exploration, therefore, the region is largely underexplored for mineral potential. A fulsome assessment of mineral potential utilizing glacial drift methods was beyond the scope of this study. The work required to fully assess the possible mineral deposits in the area would include a systematic drift prospecting program, including reverse circulation drilling (>5 m drift) or trenching (<5 m drift) to target the older tills, in particular, Matheson Till. The Matheson Till is locally derived and was developed from glacial scouring of bedrock and, therefore, can more reliably reflect the composition of the underlying (and up-ice direction) bedrock. The younger Cochrane Till (developed from glacier ice scouring a landscape of drift materials, including lake clays) and esker sands have much broader source areas that limit their usefulness for backtracking to potential bedrock sources. The last flow directions of ice depositing the Matheson Till were south and southeast, therefore, drift prospecting activities should look to the north and northwest of the samples containing the highest analytical values.

As part of this study, Matheson Till and esker sand samples were analyzed for gold grain counts, metamorphic/magmatic sulphide indictor mineral (MMSIMs1), and kimberlite indicator mineral (KIMs) grains. Matheson Till and Cochrane Till were analyzed for major and trace element geochemistry. The results were plotted and samples with relatively higher values for each analyte were identified

1 MMSIM is a registered trademark of Overburden Drilling Management Limited, Nepean, Ontario.


13-10

(Marich, in press-a, in press-b). The significance of the relatively higher concentrations is uncertain, but may be helpful if combined with other lines of evidence, such as the results of modern alluvium sampling undertaken by the OGS in the early 2000s (Ontario Geological Survey 2001a, 2001b).

Despite the limited geochemical data set for this study, perhaps the most compelling results worthy of follow-up consideration is for the area in the vicinity of sample ASM-17-0694 within the northeast quadrant of the Abitibi map area (see Figure 13.1). This sample returned relatively high gold and base metal pathfinder concentrations and was notable with respect to gold grains, MMSIMs and KIMs. The complete set of results and a more detailed interpretation will be available in 2 forthcoming publications (Marich, in press-b, in press-a, respectively).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge Colin Roth, Aidan Buyers, Samantha Primmer, Monique Rhule, Neil McClenaghan, Jason Hinde, James Thayer, Alex Hegel and Aaron Bustard for their exceptional assistance in the field. Thanks also goes to helicopter pilots, Andy Brunet, Dan Steckly and Dan Kennedy with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Andy Bajc provided ongoing discussions of the landforms and sediments encountered along Highway 11 and completed a technical review of this report; his insights on the formation of the various landforms and glacial history of the area were greatly appreciated. Drafting of figures was completed by Julien Bonin. Sonia Préfontaine and Lise Robichaud aided in the interpretation of bedrock formations encountered in the study area and Jose Pallot helped prepare samples for laboratory analyses. The author would also like to thank Moose Cree First Nation, Brunswick House First Nation, Northern Lights Métis and Mushkegowuk Council for allowing field work in their traditional territory. Finally, thanks go to local landowners and aggregate pit operators for allowing access to their properties.

REFERENCES Agterberg, F.P. and Banerjee, I. 1969. Stochastic model for the deposition of varves in glacial Lake Barlow–

Ojibway, Ontario, Canada; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.6, p.625-652.

Alley, R.B. and Agustsdottir, A.M. 2005. The 8k event: Cause and consequences of a major Holocene abrupt climate change; Quaternary Science Reviews, v.24, p.1123-1149.

Andrews, J.T., Shilts, W.W. and Miller, G.J. 1983. Multiple deglaciations of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, Canada, since deposition of the Missinaibi (Last-Interglacial?) Formation; Quaternary Research, v.19, p.18-37.

Antevs, E. 1925. Retreat of the last ice sheet in eastern Canada; Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 146, 142p.

Bajc, A.F., Lee, V.L. and Yeung, K.H. 2014. Field studies in support of terrain mapping and aggregate resource assessment, James Bay Lowland, Ontario; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2014, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6300, p.23-1 to 23-9.

Barber, D.C., Dyke, A., Hillaire-Marcel, C., Jennings, A.E., Andrews, J.T., Kervin, M.W., Bilodeau, G., McNeely, R., Southon, J., Morehead, M.D. and Gagnon, J.-M. 1999. Forcing the cold event of 8,200 years ago by catastrophic drainage of Laurentide lakes; Nature, v.400, p.344-348.

Bauer, E., Ganopolski, A. and Montoya, M. 2004. Simulation of the cold climate event 8200 years ago by meltwater outburst from Lake Agassiz; Paleoceanography, v.19, no.3, article PA3014, 13p. doi.org/10.1029/2004PA001030.

Boissonneau, A.N. 1965. Algoma–Cochrane, surficial geology; Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Map S365, scale 1:506 880.


13-11

——— 1966. Glacial history of northeastern Ontario I. The Cochrane–Hearst area; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.3, p.550-578.

Breckenridge, A., Lowell, T.V., Stroup, J.S. and Evans, G. 2012. A review and analysis of varve thickness records from glacial Lake Ojibway (Ontario and Quebec, Canada); Quaternary International, v.260, p.43-54.

Dalton, A.S., Finkelstein, S.A., Barnett, P.J. and Forman, S.L. 2016. Constraining the Late Pleistocene history of the Laurentide Ice Sheet by dating the Missinaibi Formation, Hudson Bay Lowlands, Canada; Quaternary Science Reviews, v.146, p.288-299.

Dubé-Loubert, H., Roy, M., Allard, G., Lamothe, M. and Veillette, J.J. 2013. Glacial and nonglacial events in the eastern James Bay Lowlands, Canada; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.50, p.379-396.

Dyke, A.S. 2004. An outline of North American deglaciation with emphasis on central and northern Canada; in Quaternary glaciations—Extent and chronology, Part II: North America; Developments in Quaternary Sciences, v.2, p.373-424.

Evans, G.L. 2011. Ice margin and sediment fluctuations recorded in the varve stratigraphy of Lake Ojibway; unpublished MSc thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, 53p.

Gao, C. 2013. Quaternary geology, Burntbush area, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3770, scale 1:100 000.

Gao, C., Lee, V.L. and Yeung, K.H. 2015. Field studies in support of remote predictive mapping in the Missisa Lake area, Far North of Ontario; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2015, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6313, p.27-1 to 27-12.

Geo-analysis Ltd. 1986. Peat and peatland evaluation of the Cochrane–Kapuskasing area; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5541, 545p.

Hardy, L. 1976. Contribution à l’étude géomorphologique de la portion québécoise des basses terres de la Baie de James; unpublished PhD thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, 264p.

Hughes, O.L. 1965. Surficial geology of part of the Cochrane District, Ontario, Canada; in International Studies on the Quaternary, 7th International Quaternary Association (INQUA) Congress, Geological Society of America, Special Paper 84, p.535-565.

Lee, H.A. 1989a. Northern Ontario Engineering Geology Terrain Study, Iroquois Falls, data base map; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 5027, scale 1:100 000.

——— 1989b. Northern Ontario Engineering Geology Terrain Study, Smooth Rock, data base map; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 5036, scale 1:100 000.

——— 1989c. Northern Ontario Engineering Geology Terrain Study, Little Abitibi, data base map; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 5037, scale 1:100 000.

Lee, H.A. and Scott, S.A. 1989a. Northern Ontario Engineering Geology Terrain Study, Hearst, data base map; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 5087, scale 1:100 000.

——— 1989b. Northern Ontario Engineering Geology Terrain Study, Guilfoyle Lake, data base map; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 5090, scale 1:100 000.

——— 1989c. Northern Ontario Engineering Geology Terrain Study, Kapuskasing, terrain conditions for pipeline construction; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 5091, scale 1:100 000.

Marich, A.S. 2016. Quaternary geological mapping along the Highway 11 corridor, northeastern Ontario; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2016; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6323, p.23-1 to 23-7.

——— 2017. Quaternary geological mapping of the Highway 11 corridor, northeastern Ontario: An update; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2017, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6333, p.20-1 to 20-12.


13-12

——— 2018. An update on multi-year Quaternary geological mapping along the Highway 11 corridor, northeastern Ontario; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2018; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6350, p.19-1 to 19-10.

——— 2019a. Quaternary geology of the Cochrane area, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3838, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2019b. Quaternary geology of the Abitibi area, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3839, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2019c. Quaternary geology of the Iroquois Falls area, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3840, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020a. Quaternary geology of the Kapuskasing area, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3836, scale 1:50 000.

——— 2020b. Quaternary geology of the Smooth Rock Falls area, northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3837, scale 1:50 000.

Marich, A.S., in press-a. Quaternary geology mapping in the “great clay belt” of northeastern Ontario: A study of sediments and glacial landforms along the Highway 11 corridor from Kapuskasing to Iroquois Falls; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6369.

——— in press-b. Results of till and esker sand sampling in the “great clay belt” of northeastern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 392.

Ministry of Natural Resources 2013. Provincial digital elevation model, 30 m resolution; Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Provincial Mapping Unit, Land Information Ontario (LIO) Data Set, available on Land Information Ontario.

Ontario Geological Survey 2001a. Results of modern alluvium sampling, Kapuskasing–Fraserdale area, northeastern Ontario: Operation Treasure Hunt—Kapuskasing Structural Zone; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6044, 146p.

Ontario Geological Survey 2001b. Results of modern alluvium sampling, Kapuskasing–Fraserdale area, northeastern Ontario: Operation Treasure Hunt—Kapuskasing Structural Zone; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 68.


Prest, V.K., Donaldson, J.A. and Mooers, H.D. 2000. The omar story: The role of omars in assessing glacial history of west-central North America; Géographie physique et Quaternaire, v.54, p.257-270.

Roy, M., Dell’Oste, F., Veillette, J.J., de Vernal, A., Hélie, J.-F. and Parent, M. 2011. Insights on the events surrounding the final drainage of Lake Ojibway based on James Bay stratigraphic sequences; Quaternary Science Reviews, v.30, p.682-692.

Skinner, R.G. 1973. Quaternary stratigraphy of the Moose River Basin, Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 225, 77p.

Smith, S.L. 1992. Quaternary stratigraphic drilling transect, Timmins to the Moose River Basin, Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 415, 94p.

Stroup, J.S., Lowell, T.V. and Breckenridge, A. 2013. A model for the demise of large, glacial Lake Ojibway, Ontario and Quebec; Journal of Paleolimnology, v.50, p.105-121.

Veillette, J.J. 1994. Evolution and paleohydrology of glacial lakes Barlow and Ojibway; Quaternary Science Reviews, v.13, p.945-971.


14-1

14. Project NE-16-001. The Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry Project: Investigating the Controls on Groundwater Chemistry in Crystalline Silicate Rock Terrain in Northeastern Ontario

K.M. Dell1


INTRODUCTION

In 2016, a study was initiated in northeastern Ontario, in part to determine if the methods employed in the Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry Project (AGGP) in southern Ontario could successfully delineate the effect of Precambrian host rock lithology on groundwater chemistry. Field work involved collection of groundwater in a broad band extending from Blind River in the west to Mattawa in the east and included Manitoulin Island (Figure 14.1). The area encompasses approximately 37 000 km2 and a total of 437 samples were collected: 112 samples from overburden-completed wells and 325 samples from wells finished in bedrock. For a summary of the geologic setting of the study area, see Dell, Francis and Hamilton (2017) and Dell and Francis (2018).

The AGGP in southern Ontario delineated many natural trends related to geology. Paleozoic sedimentary rocks of southern Ontario are easily weathered and some of the trends and controls on groundwater chemistry identified were a result of minerals dissolving directly into groundwater. In northern Ontario, the crystalline silicate rock is less easily weathered and fractured and, therefore, changes in water chemistry are further from equilibrium and, thus, are subtler and are not obviously related to geology. Since completion of field work in 2018 and in advance of the publication of the northern Ontario AGGP Miscellaneous Release—Data (MRD), efforts have focussed on characterizing the controls on groundwater geochemistry in the crystalline igneous and metamorphic rock terrain of the study area. Thus far, interpretation suggests that groundwater geochemistry is dominated by factors including glacial sedimentary drift thickness, deep brine mixing, road salt influence, pH effects and, for some parameters, lithology.

METHODS

This section summarizes the methods used for data interpretation. For a description of the general field and analytical methods employed by the AGGP, see Hamilton, Brauneder and Mellor (2007) and Hamilton and Brauneder (2008).

To elucidate the strongest geochemical trends in the study area, principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the data set by transforming multiple variables into uncorrelated principal components. This multivariate statistical tool reduces dimensionality in large data sets while ranking the principal

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (14) K.M. Dell

14-2

Figu

re 1

4.1.

The

nor

ther

n O

ntar

io A

mbi

ent G

roun

dwat

er G

eoch

emist

ry P

roje

ct st

udy

area

show

ing

bedr

ock

and

over

burd

en sa

mpl

e loc

atio

ns a

nd g

ener

al b

edro

ck g

eolo

gy.

Bedr

ock

geol

ogy

from

Ont

ario

Geo

logi

cal S

urve

y (2

011)

. U

nive

rsal

Tra

nsve

rse

Mer

cato

r (U

TM) c

o-or

dina

tes a

re p

rovi

ded

usin

g N

orth

Am

eric

an D

atum

198

3 (N

AD

83) i

n Zo

ne 1

7.


14-3

components by the percentage of variability they describe in the data. Only samples collected from bedrock wells in Precambrian aquifers were included in the PCA. Samples collected from Precambrian aquifers in southern Ontario between Orillia and Kingston were added to the analysis to increase the sample population. The PCA was performed with ioGAS™ software on 40 parameters from 328 samples. A more detailed description of the PCA methods will be published elsewhere.

One of the stronger influences indicated by the PCA suggests a surface water influence and rapid recharge of groundwater. The second strongest component (or second principal component (PC2)) controlling variability in the data exhibits a positive score for chloride (Cl−). To determine the source of salinity in this component, data were plotted on a Cl−–Cl/Br bivariate plot. Samples that load positively for PC2 (the “surface influence/rapid recharge” component) plot along the road salt–halite mixing line indicating that a significant percentage of variability in the data is related to anthropogenic input. As the focus of this study is to present natural geochemical processes in northern Ontario groundwater, bedrock aquifer samples with values of greater than 600 Cl:Br mass ratio, that trend along the halite mixing line, were removed prior to subsequent interpretations following the PCA (Figure 14.2). In total, 50 such samples were removed prior to the box and whisker analysis.

Figure 14.2. Log-log graph of chloride concentration (ppm Cl−) versus the Cl/Br mass ratio. Data are sized by nickel concentration (in ppb Ni) and samples points are coloured to show well type and samples affected by road salt influence. Binary mixing lines between dilute groundwater and seawater and dissolved halite are reproduced after Katz, Eberts and Kauffman (2011). Binary mixing lines between dilute groundwater and Appalachian Basin brine are reproduced after Smal (2016).


14-4

Following removal of the road salt–influenced samples, the remaining samples were assigned to geological groups based on the most recent provincial-scale geological compilation (Ontario Geological Survey 2011), for the purpose of assessing the impact of lithology on groundwater geochemistry. To the extent possible, the existing geologic classification was simplified, to minimize the number of categories, while maximizing the number of samples in each category. The final geologic groups into which samples were assigned were the following: 1) Grenville Province, 2) Huronian Supergroup, 3) Whitewater Group, 4) Sudbury Igneous Complex (SIC) and 5) Superior Province. To investigate the effect that glacial drift cover has on the groundwater chemistry, groups were further divided into the subcategories i) drilled overburden wells, ii) dug or bored wells, iii) bedrock wells with thin (<5 m) drift and iv) bedrock wells with thick (>5 m) drift cover. Drift thickness was derived from a combination of the Water Well Information System (Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks), field observations and well owner knowledge. Groups with only 1 sample were removed. Box and whisker plots were generated that displayed the concentration range for each parameter in the AGGP data set by geological grouping and examined to determine other factors affecting groundwater chemistry in the assigned geologic groups. Samples collected from Paleozoic aquifers on Manitoulin Island were excluded from this interpretation and will be considered separately at a later time.

PRELIMINARY INTERPRETATIONS

Brine Influence The first principal component (PC1) determined by the PCA accounts for approximately 20% of the

total variance in the data set and has a geochemical elemental assemblage that suggests a deep brine–meteoric groundwater interaction. This interpreted “brine component” is characterized by high concentrations of strontium, boron, lithium, molybdenum and fluoride (F−) and elevated concentrations of many parameters including bromide (Br−), sulphate (SO4

2−) and rubidium. The groundwater samples with strong positive PC1 scores show a trend along the Appalachian Basin brine mixing line (Smal 2016) on a Cl−–Cl/Br bivariate plot. Many samples collected from wells in the Grenville Province have high positive scores in the brine component and, west of Lake Nipissing, a discrete zone of brine influence forms a northeast-to-southwest linear trend. Another group of samples that load positively in the brine component was collected from bedrock wells near the centre of the Sudbury Basin over the argillites and greywackes of the Onwatin and Chelmsford formations. The brine influence in this distinct group may result from lengthy flow systems and residence times as groundwater recharged at the elevated margins of the Sudbury Basin migrates toward the centre of the basin under confining glaciolacustrine clays.

Road Salt Influence As previously mentioned, the second principal component (PC2) determined by the PCA is

interpreted to represent rapid recharge and surface influence. The positive loadings of this component are chloride (Cl−), acidity and dissolved organic carbon. When plotted on a Cl−–Cl/Br bivariate plot, samples that load positively in the second principal component trend along the halite or “road salt” mixing line. Positive loadings in PC2 are higher in samples located close to major highways. Figure 14.2 illustrates elevated nickel concentrations in samples influenced by road salt mixing. The cause of the elevated nickel concentrations in these samples is yet to be determined.

pH The concentrations of many groundwater parameters in northeastern Ontario appear to be controlled

partly by the pH of groundwater, which, in turn, correlates with well type and drift cover. Therefore, it is necessary to characterize the effect of drift cover and well type on pH before exploring pH as a geochemical


14-5

control. Dug or bored overburden wells and bedrock wells with thin overlying drift deposits have water with the lowest average pH values, with mean values ranging from 5.94 to 6.67 and 6.88 to 7.21, respectively (Figure 14.3A). The acidic conditions exhibited by waters of both well type groups are likely a result of rapid infiltration of low pH surface water where there are no upper confining layers or long flow paths to naturally attenuate the acidity of surface water. This geochemical response indicative of rapid recharge also includes higher average tritium and/or oxidized phases, such as dissolved oxygen (DO) and nitrate. Bedrock wells with drift thickness greater than 5 m host groundwater with slightly basic pH values ranging from 7.22 to 7.70 across all the geologic groups (see Figure 14.3A). With thickening Quaternary deposits, the opportunity for longer residence times increases, thereby reducing the prevalence of rapid recharge and permitting buffering or metabolization of organic acids.

pH values among the well type groups inversely correlates with the concentrations of multiple metals in the data set, especially aluminum and copper (Figures 14.3A, 14.3B and 14.3C). These metals show higher concentrations in acidic groundwater from dug or bored wells or bedrock wells with thin drift and lower concentrations in slightly basic groundwater from drilled overburden wells or bedrock wells with thick overlying drift deposits (see Figures 14.3A, 14.3B and 14.3C). This relationship is likely a combination of increased metal mobility under acidic conditions, and the effect of enhanced mineral dissolution by acidic waters in bedrock and soils during infiltration. As the water moves deeper into the aquifers, pH values increase, limiting mobility of copper and aluminum. Conversely, there is a strong positive correlation between pH values and average molybdenum concentrations (Figure 14.3D). Groundwater samples with higher average pH from bedrock aquifers with thick drift have mean molybdenum concentrations ranging from 1.10 to 7.87 ppb Mo compared to the lower pH thin drift bedrock well samples that have concentrations ranging from 0.62 to 2.18 ppb Mo. In oxidizing environments, molybdenum readily forms molybdate oxyanions that are soluble in alkaline conditions. A possible mechanism for the positive correlation between molybdenum concentrations and pH in this data set may be the inhibition of molybdate oxyanion adsorption onto aquifer mineral surfaces in near neutral to slightly basic conditions (Smedley and Kinniburgh 2017). The opposite process of desorption of molybdate ions from mineral surfaces as conditions change from acidic to near neutral or slightly basic may also occur. The observed molybdenum depletion at low pH values may also be related to the increased solubility of aluminum and subsequent co-precipitation with aluminum as (oxy)hydroxides (Ge et al. 2019).

Lithology Groundwater chemistry in the study area is dominantly controlled by factors other than lithology,

but some relationships exist between the concentrations of certain parameters and the assigned geologic groups. In several cases, this may be coincidental. Concentrations of strontium and barium in groundwater samples collected from Grenville Province bedrock wells are higher than all other rock type groups. The elevated concentrations of these parameters may be related to the mineralogy of the granites and gneisses of the Grenville Province. However, strontium and barium concentrations in groundwater are notably higher from bedrock wells covered by thin drift than by thick drift, whereas sulphate (SO4

2−) concentrations are elevated in groundwater from bedrock wells covered by thick drift (Figures 14.4A, 14.4B and 14.4C). This inverse relationship between Sr/Ba and sulphate may suggest that the concentrations of barium and strontium are controlled by the solubility of celestite (SrSO4) and barite (BaSO4). Groundwater samples from bedrock wells with thin overlying surficial deposits have lower sulphate concentrations and are undersaturated with respect to celestite/barite, allowing strontium and barium ions to remain in solution. As sulphate concentrations increase in the deeply buried aquifers with potentially longer residence times, dissolved barium and strontium concentrations are lowered as barite and celestite become supersaturated and precipitate. In both environments, samples are undersaturated with respect to barite and celestite because, in the thicker drift environment, the current concentrations would reflect post-precipitation conditions.


14-6

Figure 14.3. Box plots comparing several parameters from groundwater wells in the northeastern Ontario study area and their variations according to pH. Boxes are coloured by well type and drift thickness. Horizontal axis is number of wells assigned to specific geological “groups”. Vertical axis is concentration: A) pH, B) aluminum (ppb Al), C) copper (ppb Cu) and D) molybdenum (ppb Mo).


14-7

Figure 14.4. Box plots comparing several parameters from groundwater wells in the northeastern Ontario study area and their variations according to lithology. Boxes are coloured by well type and drift thickness. Horizontal axis is number of wells assigned to specific geological “groups”. Vertical axis is concentration: A) strontium (ppb Sr), B) barium (ppm Ba), C) sulphate (ppm SO42−) and D) bicarbonate (ppm HCO3−).


14-8

Preliminary interpretation suggests that some non-coincidental lithological influences may also occur. Groundwater hosted in the sedimentary rocks of the Whitewater Group in the Sudbury Basin have the highest bicarbonate (HCO3

−) concentrations compared to adjacent geologic groups (Figure 14.4D). This geochemical response may be related to the carbonaceous argillite of the Onwatin Formation, as well as the Chelmsford Formation which hosts carbonate-rich concretions (Ames et al. 2009).

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

The geochemical trends in northeastern Ontario are controlled by different factors including drift thickness, salinity sources and pH. While the effect of lithology is subtle, some geochemical responses correlate with the assigned geologic groups. Ongoing work will investigate how the geochemical controls introduced here affect each parameter in the data set, as well as exploring other factors influencing geochemistry in the study area. This work will utilize geochemical modelling of the end members of the principal component groups to determine mineral saturation indices. Future work may also employ tools, such as strontium isotope analysis, as well as other multivariate statistical methods, such as hierarchical cluster analysis, to further characterize the controls on groundwater chemistry in Ontario’s north. This work will support the upcoming publication of the northern Ontario AGGP data.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dokis First Nation, Wahnapitae First Nation, Atikameksheng Anishnawbek First Nation, Nipissing First Nation, Henvy Inlet First Nation, Magnetawan First Nation, Zhiibaahaasing First Nation, Sheshegwaning First Nation, Aundeck Omni Kaning First Nation, Wikwemikong First Nation, Thessalon First Nation, Mississauga First Nation, Serpent River First Nation and Sagamok First Nation for allowing us to map on their traditional territory. The opportunity to visit many of these communities and spend the day sampling water wells and springs with the help and guidance of staff who specialize in water was truly beneficial to the project. The tour of the new water plant facility at Aundeck Omni Kaning First Nation was educational for me and the summer students and we appreciated the experience. Dr. Stewart Hamilton, Ontario Geological Survey, is thanked for his knowledgeable review, edits and contributions regarding this report; and the northern Ontario AGGP project as a whole.

REFERENCES Ames, D.E., Stoness, J.A. and Rousell, D.H. 2009. Whitewater Group; in A field guide to the geology of Sudbury,

Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6243, p.37-43.

Dell, K.M. and Francis, M.A. 2018. The ambient groundwater geochemistry project: North Bay Area; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2018, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6350, p.24-1 to 24-10.

Dell, K.M., Francis, M.A. and Hamilton, S.M. 2017. The Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry Project: Manitoulin Island and North Shore areas; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2017, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6333, p.26-1 to 24-10.

Ge, X., Vaccaro, B.J., Thorgersen, M.P., Poole, F.L., Majumder, E.L., Zane, G.M., De León, K.B., Lancaster, W.A., Moon, J.W., Paradis, C.J., von Netzer, F., Stahl, D.A., Adams, P.D., Arkin, A.P., Wall, J.D., Hazen, T.C. and Adams, M.W.W. 2019. Iron‐ and aluminium‐induced depletion of molybdenum in acidic environments impedes the nitrogen cycle; Environmental Microbiology, v.21, p152-163.

Hamilton, S.M. and Brauneder, K. 2008. The ambient groundwater geochemistry project: Year 2; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2008, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6226, p.34-1 to 34-7.


14-9

Hamilton, S.M., Brauneder, K. and Mellor, K.J. 2007. The Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry Project: Southwestern Ontario; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2007, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6213, p.20-1 to 20-9.

Katz, B.G., Eberts, S.M. and Kauffman, L.J. 2011. Using Cl/Br ratios and other indicators to assess potential impacts on groundwater quality from septic systems: A review and examples from principal aquifers in the United States; Journal of Hydrology, v.397, no.3, p.151-166.


Smal, C.A. 2016. Natural and anthropogenic sources controlling regional groundwater geochemistry in the Niagara Peninsula; unpublished MSc thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, 288p.

Smedley, P.L. and Kinniburgh, D.G. 2017. Molybdenum in natural waters: A review of occurrence, distributions and controls; Applied Geochemistry, v.84, p.387-432.


15-1

15. Project SO-20-001. Subsurface Correlation of the Silurian Clinton and Medina Groups, Southwestern Ontario

R.H. Paterson1, F.R. Brunton1,2, J. Jin1, A.R. Phillips3 and K.H. Yeung2

1Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6G 2V4 2Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section, Ontario Geological Survey, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5 3President, Clinton-Medina Group, Inc., 487 Sunmills Drive SE, Calgary, Alberta T2X 2N8

INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the initiation of a subsurface-focussed study that describes select formations of the early Silurian Clinton and Medina groups under eastern and central Lake Erie and onshore in southwestern Ontario. This study forms part of a MSc thesis by the senior author at The University of Western Ontario and is supported by several agencies, including the Ontario Geological Survey, and the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library in London, Ontario, through the MITAC Accelerate Program at The University of Western Ontario (for details, see “Acknowledgments”).

The Clinton and Medina groups comprise siliciclastic (sandstone and shale) and minor carbonate sedimentary rocks that crop out and subcrop along the Niagara Escarpment and occur in subsurface across parts of southwestern Ontario. Although stratigraphic studies of Silurian strata began in the Niagara region more than 150 years ago (Williams 1919; Bolton 1953, 1957, 1965; Sanford 1969; Brett et al. 1995), there is still much detailed work to be done (Figures 15.1 and 15.2). The Clinton and Medina groups comprise various formations, which in descending order, include Clinton Group: DeCew, Rochester, Irondequoit, Rockway, Williamson, Merritton, Reynales, Neagha formations; and Medina Group: Kodak, Cambria, Thorold, Grimsby, Devils Hole, Ball’s Falls, Power Glen, Cabot Head and Whirlpool formations (for the evolution of stratigraphic nomenclature, refer to Telford 1978; Johnson et al. 1992; Brett et al. 1995; Brunton et al. 2017; Brett, Brunton and Calkin 2018; see Figures 15.1 and 15.2). The Grimsby, Thorold and Whirlpool formations are important natural gas reservoirs that occur both onshore and offshore in southwestern Ontario (most of the larger pools occur under Lake Erie; Figure 15.3).

The Ordovician–Silurian boundary occurs within this stratigraphic interval, but the precise position of the boundary is currently being re-evaluated (Schröer et al. 2016). The interplay between forebulge migration phases (short-lived tectonic activity), and paleoclimatic and paleogeographic conditions associated with this boundary interval (glaciations, global sea-level changes, marine invertebrate mass extinctions) resulted in complex and rapidly changing depositional environments on the far-field side of the Appalachian foreland basin of Laurentia (now southwestern Ontario; Brett, Goodman and LoDuca 1990; Brett et al. 1995; Ettensohn and Brett 2002; Ettensohn et al. 2002; Ettensohn 2008; Brunton et al. 2012; Jin et al. 2013; Jin, Zhan and Wu 2018).

This study will focus on the sedimentologic–stratigraphic and contact relationships of the Whirlpool, Cabot Head/Power Glen, Grimsby and Thorold formations. Some of the formations in this succession do

Earth Resources and Geoscience Mapping Section (15) R.H. Paterson et al.

15-2

not have adequate type section descriptions and, therefore, confusion exists in relating the vertical changes in lithofacies to the geophysical log signatures in the boreholes. This study aims to improve the regional lithostratigraphy of these units in the subsurface of southwestern Ontario by combining detailed core logging and drill-cuttings descriptions, with field observations of key locations in the outcrop belt. The study will involve the integration of geophysical log data with core analyses of the 20 to 30 most complete regional stratigraphic successions in order to provide improved quality assurance–quality control (QA/QC) protocols for mapping this succession from the outcrop belt into subsurface across southwestern Ontario.

PREVIOUS WORK

The historical development of the stratigraphic nomenclature for the lower Silurian siliciclastic succession in southwestern Ontario is both confusing and complex (see Winder 1961; Beards 1967; Martini 1971, 1974a, 1974b; Martini and Salas 1983; Martini and Kwong 1985; Rickard 1975; Telford 1978; Duke and Brusse 1987; Brett et al. 1995; Armstrong and Carter 2010; Cramer et al. 2011; see Figure 15.1). Armstrong and Carter (2006, 2010) represent the first attempt in more than 4 decades to update Beards’ (1967) doctoral work to merge outcrop stratigraphic nomenclature with subsurface nomenclature. A total of 1635 wells have been drilled in Lake Erie in the 53 years since 1967.

Figure 15.1. Selected early Silurian stratigraphic nomenclature for Niagara Escarpment region of southern Ontario (Brunton and Brintnell 2020; see discussions in Brunton 2008, 2009; Brunton and Piersol 2009; Brunton, Turner and Armstrong 2009; Brunton et al. 2012). Abbreviations: “OGS 1992” refers to Johnson et al. (1992). Group names are in bold, Formation names are in upper and lower case, Member names are italicized. Cramer et al. (2011) designated the entire early Silurian succession in southwestern Ontario as the Niagaran Series. Note, other stratigraphic units are mentioned in the text (from Brett 1983; Brett, Goodman and LoDuca 1990; Brett et al. 1995; Brett, Brunton and Calkin 2018).


15-3

Over the past 5 years (2015 to 2019), the Ontario Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Canada (NRCan) and staff at the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library have collaborated to update the Paleozoic lithostratigraphy (Brunton et al. 2017) and produce the first three-dimensional (3-D) geological model of the Phanerozoic geology of south-central and southwestern Ontario (>1400 m of strata covering 110 000 km2; Carter et al. 2017, 2019). A key part of this regional study involves an assessment of lithofacies variability of the early Silurian succession in order to develop criteria to pick formational rank contacts (QA/QC involving integration of core, cuttings and geophysical analyses) and to further improve upon the current lithostratigraphic chart of the Paleozoic geology (Brunton et al. 2017; Brunton and Brintnell 2020).

GEOLOGICAL SETTING The bedrock geology of southern Ontario comprises upwards of 1400 m of Paleozoic sedimentary

strata that range from upper Cambrian to Carboniferous (Mississippian) (Johnson et al. 1992; Armstrong and Carter 2010). Present-day southern Ontario was positioned in subtropical latitudes during the depositional and erosional history of the Clinton and Medina successions (Johnson et al. 1992; Jin et al. 2013; Jin, Zhan and Wu 2018). Historical views of the regional Paleozoic geology have discussed 2 major

Figure 15.2. Upper Ordovician and early Silurian Paleozoic stratigraphy and simplified Quaternary geology of the Niagara Peninsula region, southwestern Ontario (modified from Haynes 2000; Brunton and Brintnell 2020). Recent changes in the position of the Ordovician–Silurian boundary and significance of the Devils Hole Formation (quartz arenitic sandstones) and Ball’s Falls Formation (dolostone) are discussed in text. The Cabot Head, Devils Hole and Ball’s Falls formations and the younger Merritton and Rockway formations have been added. The latter 2 units were incorrectly correlated with the Reynales Formation in western New York. The Lockport Group and Gasport, Goat Island and Eramosa formational rank rock units are recognized. The Guelph Formation is generally not found at or near the edge of the Niagara Escarpment or cuesta margin in the Niagara region.


15-4

sedimentary basins: the Appalachian foreland basin located to the south and the intracratonic Michigan structural basin to the northwest (Johnson et al. 1992; Armstrong and Carter 2006, 2010; see alternative views of Michigan structural basin described by Brunton and Brintnell (2020)). The Appalachian Basin is an elongate, composite mixed siliciclastic-carbonate–filled foreland basin that records the long-lived interplay between tectonics, paleogeographic change and cyclic sedimentation–erosion that spans hundreds of millions of years and records parts of 2 Wilson cycles (opening and closing of ocean basins: see Ettensohn 2008).

The depositional environment during the early Silurian consisted of shallow epeiric seas and deltaic environments, reflecting diverse environments from nonmarine sandstones to marine shales and shallow marine carbonates (Brett et al. 1995; Brunton and Brintnell 2020). This succession accumulated on the far-field side of the Appalachian foreland basin within a regionally extensive ramp on the Laurentia craton that was subjected to sea-level drawdown during the Late Ordovician and early Silurian glacial and interglacial phases, and episodic forebulge migration tectophases and associated sea-level fluctuations (Brett, Goodman and LoDuca 1990; Cheel 1991; Brett et al. 1995; Brunton et al. 2012; Brunton and Brintnell 2020). Geographically, the northern flank of the Appalachian foreland basin is present in southern Ontario, with many of the strata of the Clinton and Medina groups showing thinning and pinch outs (representing subregional disconformities) from east-central Lake Erie into southwestern Ontario (Martini 1971, 1974a, 1974b; Duke and Brusse 1987; Brett, Goodman and LoDuca 1990; Cheel 1991; Brett et al. 1995; Brunton et al. 2012; Brunton et al. 2017; Brunton and Brintnell 2020).

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 20 to 30 priority cored wells and select secondary wells, based on siliciclastic units associated with hydrocarbon plays, will be selected from the more than 260 cored wells that penetrate this succession, in order to undertake more detailed lithofacies analyses and for the development of QA/QC criteria to classify formational rank picks on the surrounding wells that have only geophysical logs and/or drill cuttings records (Figure 15.3; Table 15.1). Emphasis will be on clustered wells in both onshore and offshore pools to assess variations in lithofacies and establish a stratigraphic architecture. This information, along with well data found in the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library database, will be used as a guideline for creating criteria unique to the geographic extent of the key formations in the 2 groups.

This work will involve the integration of core and geophysical log–derived porosity–permeability data, in combination with detailed lithofacies descriptions, to determine the criteria to describe the stratigraphic architecture of the units of the Clinton and Medina groups. This work will include the development of criteria to identify sequence boundaries on a local to subregional scale. Formation-rank picks will be based upon lithologic variations, sedimentary structures, and the presence of erosional or weathering features and secondary minerals and variations in porosity and/or permeability and/or grain density. Formation top-pick criteria will be tested to provide type sections for key formations in the Clinton and Medina groups. This work will enable development of subregional cross sections and data input into ArcGIS® layers for use in exploration and future lithostratigraphic studies.

Because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, core examination and outcrop logs were not carried out during the field season. The summer field season involved data compilation and geophysical log extraction of wells, literature review and the development of selection criteria to enable core logging and photography to commence. Now that access to the cores and outcrops are possible, the 20 to 30 priority cored wells and select secondary wells will be logged and photographed at the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library during the fall and winter of 2020–2021 (see Table 15.1). Some key outcrops will be examined in October–November 2020. Core will be logged and lithological contacts at the formational rank will be matched with geophysical log signatures to determine criteria for distinguishing Clinton


15-5

Group and Medina Group architecture on a subregional basis. After criteria have been determined for the formations, these data will aid in the refinement of the lower Silurian stratigraphy and to update the 3-D geometry of the stratigraphic units and development of isopach maps.

This project will provide improved criteria for formational rank picks and forms part of the mandate of the Ontario Geological Survey to continuously update the 3-D Paleozoic geology of southern Ontario. Detailed stratigraphic and sedimentologic examination of the lower Silurian siliciclastic units will enable improved correlations between the subsurface and the subcrop and outcrop belts at the formational rank and may provide improved understanding of oil and gas exploration plays.

Figure 15.3. Distribution map of a) priority and secondary wells (blue dots) with porosity and/or permeability data within the Clinton and Medina groups used in the thesis study (wells listed in Table 15.1); b) all exploration wells (yellow dots) within the Clinton and Medina groups, as identified in the Ontario Petroleum Data System; c) additional wells (green dots) that will assist with regional correlations; and d) Clinton and Medina groups gas pools (pale pink fill) (data from Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, London, Ontario). The key cored wells will be used to create the QA/QC protocols for selecting formational rank contacts in order to improve the regional stratigraphic relationships of the lower Silurian siliciclastic rocks. More than 10 000 oil and gas exploration wells (not all indicated) penetrate parts of the lower Silurian strata in southwestern Ontario.


15-6

Table 15.1. Priority and secondary wells selected for subsurface stratigraphic study of Clinton and Medina groups under eastern and central Lake Erie and onshore in southwestern Ontario (see Figure 15.3 (blue dots) for generalized well locations). Cores will be photographed and logged in detail to carry out lithostratigraphic analyses of key formations (Thorold, Grimsby, Cabot Head/Power Glen and Whirlpool) that will enable improved regional correlations. Photographed cores have been logged and formation contacts compared to picks summarized in Form 7 records in the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, London, Ontario.

Licence No. Name Core No. Photos? Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W)

Prio

rity

Cor

es

T002940 Shawnee UBR N.Walsingham 2-10-VII 103 No 42.689917 −80.560778 T003011 CPOG Haldimand No.1, Lake Erie 131-G-4 146 No 42.471973 −79.969498 T003723 Consumers' 32271, Wainfleet 2-2-III 173 No 42.924577 −79.292114 T003853 Anschutz, Lake Erie 22-S-4 229 No 42.770766 −79.520797 T002401 Consumers' Pan Am 13022, Lake Erie 155-Y-3 292 No 42.335377 −80.749466 T003582 Consumers' 13217, Lake Erie 120-H-3 317 No 42.470922 −80.878161 T003433 Consumers' 13164, Lake Erie 157-M-2 337 No 42.380302 −80.878113 T003792 Anschutz, Lake Erie 92-N-3 371 No 42.537794 −80.312474 T004008 Place Anschutz, Lake Erie 19-X-1 683 No 42.762577 −79.803898 T004805 Anschutz #4, Lake Erie 162-T-4 694 No 42.353103 −81.253852 T005582 Consumers' 13755, Lake Erie 220-W-4 766 No 42.174185 −81.371415 T005858 Pembina #4, Lake Erie 67-F-4 774 No 42.636778 −79.904361 T002523 Consumers' Pan Am 13036, Lake Erie 118-M-2 808 No 42.465602 −81.042642 T002521 Consumers' Pan Am 13044, Lake Erie 123-R-2 809 No 42.437189 −80.633263 T002721 Consumers' Pan Am 13062, Lake Erie 124-D-3 848 No 42.483383 −80.566509 T006572 Pembina #2, Lake Erie 65-E-2 916 No 42.662697 −80.078964 T002759 Consumers' Pan Am 13057, Lake Erie 56-E-3 999 Yes 42.65088 −80.913745 T002803 Consumers' Amoco 13102, Lake Erie 96-D-1 1001 Yes 42.577272 −80.634566 T007738 Pembina, Lake Erie 24-V-1 1012 No 42.763228 −79.353905 T007753 Pembina, Lake Erie 39-Y-3 1013 No 42.669174 −79.580631 T008269 Pembina East, Lake Erie 26-S-1B 1039 No 42.78042 −79.1869 T008155 Pembina, Lake Erie 72-O-1 1040 No 42.63237 −79.483887 T002777 Consumers' Amoco 13100, Lake Erie 126-P-2 1064 No 42.449409 −80.41642

Sele

ct S

econ

dary

Cor

es

T003834 Anschutz, Lake Erie 89-D-3 106 No 42.56838 −80.061757 T003814 Anschutz Welland 7-Y, Lake Erie 7-Y-1 107 No 42.846169 −79.404242 T003414 Consumers' 13153, Lake Erie 122-J-3 273 No 42.468895 −80.676011 T003217 Consumers' 13089, Lake Erie 123-T-1 306 No 42.441889 −80.590103 T003409 Consumers' 13148, Lake Erie 96-V-1 341 No 42.512008 −80.608841 T003829 Consumers' 13291, Lake Erie 155-J-3 386 No 42.387148 −80.679604 T003439 Consumers' 13170, Lake Erie 94-M-3 438 No 42.537895 −80.45919 T003955 Anschutz, Lake Erie 6-R-4 656 No 42.854226 −79.287293 T003957 Anschutz, Lake Erie 5-X-2 677 No 42.845836 −79.228746 T003989 Anschutz, Lake Erie 8-V-1 679 No 42.845714 −79.437181 T004792 Anschutz #3, Lake Erie 162-G-3 695 No 42.386795 −81.31257 T005864 Pembina #3, Lake Erie 41-P-3 773 No 42.686767 −79.74629 T002615 Consumers' Pan Am 13018, Lake Erie 183-N-4 802 No 42.283688 −81.054033 T001436 M & M Lake Erie No.750-56, Lake Erie 44-S-1 831 No 42.694529 −79.938541 T002564 Consumers' Pan Am 13035, Lake Erie 101-K-3 834 No 42.533992 −81.009307 T002418 Consumers' Pan Am 13023, Lake Erie 156-C-1 836 Yes 42.408383 −80.79152 T006794 Pembina #4, Lake Erie 62-T-4 914 No 42.604927 −80.256462 T003274 Consumers' 13138, Lake Erie 158-H-1 977 No 42.393652 −80.957607 T007602 Telesis 13922, Lake Erie 95-H-4 1011 No 42.55808 −80.539007 T008266 Pembina East, Lake Erie 26-M-1A 1037 No 42.794753 −79.204095 T008286 Pembina East, Lake Erie 39-T-2 1038 No 42.696169 −79.512053 T008113 Pembina, Lake Erie 21-X-2 1041 No 42.759555 −79.647645 T008122 Pembina, Lake Erie 71-I-3 1043 No 42.640506 −79.53019 T008522 Pembina Central, Lake Erie 184-I-2 1062 No 42.313939 −80.947083


15-7

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study forms part of a MSc thesis by the senior author (RHP) at The University of Western Ontario and is supported by several agencies: the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS); a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) grant to Dr. Jisuo Jin at The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario; the Ontario Petroleum Institute (OPI); and the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library in London, Ontario, through the MITAC Accelerate Program at The University of Western Ontario. This article fulfills part of the requirements for the MITAC Accelerate Program. The authors thank Jordan Clark (Manager of Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library) for co-ordinating access to library, digital records, and core handling and photography.

REFERENCES Armstrong, D.K. and Carter, T.R. 2006. An updated guide to the subsurface Paleozoic stratigraphy of southern

Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6191, 214p.

——— 2010. The subsurface Paleozoic stratigraphy of southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 7, 301p.

Beards, R.J. 1967. Guide to the subsurface Palaeozoic stratigraphy of southern Ontario; Ontario Department of Energy Resources Management, Paper 67-2, 19p.

Bolton, T.E. 1953. Silurian formations of the Niagara Escarpment in Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 53-23, 19p.

——— 1957. Silurian stratigraphy and paleontology of the Niagara Escarpment in Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 289, 145p.

——— 1965. Pre-Guelph, Silurian formations of the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario; in Geology of Central Ontario, Michigan Basin Geological Society, Field Trip Guidebook, p.55-80.

Brett, C.E. 1983. Sedimentology, facies and depositional environments of the Rochester Shale (Silurian; Wenlockian) in western New York and Ontario; Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v.53, p.947-971.

Brett, C.E., Brunton, F.R. and Calkin, P.E. 2018. Sequence stratigraphy and paleontology of the classic Upper Ordovician–Silurian succession in Niagara County, New York – with supplement on Quaternary geology of western New York; Association of Earth Science Editors, 52nd Annual Meeting, September 26–29, 2018, Niagara Falls, New York, Field Trip Guidebook, 191p.

Brett, C.E., Goodman, W.M. and LoDuca, S.T. 1990. Sequences, cycles, and basin dynamics in the Silurian of the Appalachian Foreland Basin; Sedimentary Geology, v.69, p.191-244.

Brett, C.E., Tepper, D.H., Goodman, W., LoDuca, S.T. and Eckert, B.-Y. 1995. Revised stratigraphy and correlations of the Niagaran Provincial Series (Medina, Clinton and Lockport groups) in the type area of western New York; United States Geological Survey, Bulletin 2086, 66p.

Brunton, F.R. 2008. Preliminary revisions to the Early Silurian stratigraphy of Niagara Escarpment: Integration of sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology and hydrogeology to delineate hydrogeologic units; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2008, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6226, p.31-1 to 31-18.

Brunton, F.R. 2009. Update of revisions to Early Silurian stratigraphy of Niagara Escarpment: Integration of sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology and hydrogeology to delineate hydrogeologic units; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2009, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6240, p.25-1 to 25-20.


15-8

Brunton, F.R. and Brintnell, C. 2020. Early Silurian sequence stratigraphy and geological controls on karstic bedrock groundwater flow zones, Niagara Escarpment region and the subsurface of southwestern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Groundwater Resources Study 13.

Brunton, F.R., Brintnell, C., Jin, J. and Bancroft, A.M. 2012. Stratigraphic architecture of the Lockport Group in Ontario and Michigan – A new interpretation of Early Silurian “basin geometries” and “Guelph pinnacle reefs”; in Proceedings, Ontario Petroleum Institute, 51st Annual Conference, Niagara Falls, Ontario, v.51, Technical Paper 8, p.1-37.

Brunton, F.R., Carter, T., Logan, C., Clark, J., Yeung, K., Fortner, L., Freckelton, C., Sutherland, L. and Russell, H.A.J. 2017. Lithostratigraphic compilation of Phanerozoic bedrock units and 3D geological model of southern Ontario; abstract in Regional-scale groundwater geoscience in southern Ontario: An Ontario Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Canada, and Conservation Ontario Geoscientists open house, Guelph, Ontario, March 1–2, 2017, Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8212, p.3. doi:10.4095/299759

Brunton, F.R. and Piersol, J. 2009. Karst and Niagara Escarpment bedrock aquifer/aquitard mapping of southern Ontario: A core workshop; in Groundwater and Geology – Foundation for Watershed Planning, Latornell Conference, November 17, 2009, Alliston, Ontario.

Brunton, F.R., Turner, E. and Armstrong, D. 2009. A guide to the Paleozoic geology and fossils of Manitoulin Island and northern Bruce Peninsula, Ontario, Canada; Canadian Paleontology Conference, Field Trip Guidebook No.14, 77p.

Carter, T.R., Brunton, F.R., Clark, J., Fortner, L., Freckelton, C.N., Logan, C.E., Russell, H.A.J., Somers, M., Sutherland, L. and Yeung, K.H. 2017. Status report on three-dimensional geological and hydrogeological modelling of the Paleozoic bedrock of southern Ontario; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2017, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6333, p.28-1 to 28-15.

——— 2019. A three-dimensional geological model of the Paleozoic bedrock of southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Groundwater Resources Study 19 / Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8618. doi.org/10.4095/315045

Cheel, R.J. ed. 1991. Sedimentology and depositional environments of Silurian strata of the Niagara Escarpment, Ontario and New York; Geological Association of Canada–Mineralogical Association of Canada–Society of Economic Geologists, Joint Annual Meeting, Toronto 1991, Field Trip B4 Guidebook, 99p.

Cramer, B.D., Brett, C.E., Melchin, M.J., Männik, P., Kleffner, M.A., McLaughlin, P.I., Loydell, D.K., Munnecke, A., Jeppsson, L., Corradini, C., Brunton, F.R. and Saltzman, M.R. 2011. Revised correlation of Silurian Provincial Series of North America with global and regional chronostratigraphic units and δ13Ccarb chemostratigraphy; Lethaia, v.44, p.185-202.

Duke, W.L. and Brusse, W.C. 1987. Cyclicity and channels in the upper members of the Medina Formation in the Niagara Gorge; in Sedimentology, stratigraphy and ichnology of the Lower Silurian Medina Formation in New York and Ontario, Eastern Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Guidebook for the 1987 Annual Field Trip, p.46-65.

Ettensohn, F.R. 2008. The Appalachian foreland basin in eastern United States; Chapter 4 in The sedimentary basins of the United States and Canada, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Sedimentary Basins of the World, v.5, p.105-179.

Ettensohn, F.R. and Brett, C.E. 2002. Stratigraphic evidence from the Appalachian Basin for continuation of the Taconian orogeny into Early Silurian time; Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, v.27, p.279-288.

Ettensohn, F.R., Hohman, J.C., Kulp, M.A. and Rast, N. 2002. Evidence and implications of possible far- field responses to Taconian Orogeny: Middle-Late Ordovician Lexington Platform and Sebree Trough, east-central United States; Southeastern Geology, v.41, p.1-36.

Haynes, S.J. 2000. Geology and Wine 2. A geological foundation for terroirs and potential sub-appellations of Niagara Peninsula wines, Ontario, Canada; Geoscience Canada, v.27, p.67-87.


15-9

Jin, J., Harper, D.A.T., Cocks, R.M., McCausland, P.J.A., Rasmussen, C.M.O. and Sheehan, P.M. 2013. Precisely locating the Ordovician equator in Laurentia; Geology, v.41, p.107-110.

Jin, J., Zhan, R. and Wu, R. 2018. Equatorial cold-water tongue in the Late Ordovician; Geology, v.46, p.759-762.

Johnson, M.D., Armstrong, D.K., Sanford, B.V., Telford, P.G. and Rutka, M.A. 1992. Paleozoic and Mesozoic geology of Ontario; Chapter 20 in Geology of Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, Part 2, p.907-1008.

Liberty, B.A. and Bolton, T.E. 1971. Paleozoic geology of the Bruce Peninsula area, Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 360, 163p.

Martini, I.P. 1971. Regional analysis of sedimentology of Medina Formation (Silurian), Ontario and New York; American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v.55, p.1249-1261.

——— 1974a. Deltaic and shallow marine Lower Silurian sediments of the Niagara Escarpment between Hamilton, Ont. and Rochester, N.Y. – A field guide; Maritime Sediments, v.10, no.2, p.52-66.

——— 1974b. Environments of deposition of the Medina (Grimsby) Formation, and exploration for hydrocarbons; in Proceedings, Ontario Petroleum Institute, 13th Annual Conference, London, Ontario, v.13, Technical Paper 7, 18p.

Martini, I.P. and Kwong, J.K.P. 1985. Depositional characteristics and resources potential of the Whirlpool Sandstone, Lower Silurian, Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5549, 69p.

Martini, I.P. and Salas, C. 1983. Depositional characteristics of the Whirlpool Sandstone, Lower Silurian, Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5363, 124p.

Rickard, L.V. 1975. Correlation of the Silurian and Devonian rocks in New York State; New York State Museum and Science Service, Map and Chart Series no.24, 16p.

Sanford, B.V. 1969, Silurian of southwestern Ontario; in Proceedings, Ontario Petroleum Institute, 8th Annual Conference, Toronto, Ontario, v.8, Technical Paper 5, 44p.

Schröer, L., Vandenbroucke, T.R.A., Hints, O., Steeman, T., Verniers, J., Brett, C.E., Cramer, B.D. and McLaughlin, P.I. 2016. A Late Ordovician age for the Whirlpool and Power Glen formations, New York; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.53, p.739-747.

Telford, P.G. 1978. Silurian stratigraphy of the Niagara Escarpment, Niagara Falls to the Bruce Peninsula; in Toronto ’78 Field Trips Guidebook, Geological Society of America–Geological Association of Canada–Mineralogical Association of Canada, Joint Annual Meeting, p.28-42.

Williams, M.Y. 1919. The Silurian geology and faunas of Ontario Peninsula, and Manitoulin and adjacent islands; Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 111, 195p.

Winder, G.C. 1961. Lexicon of Paleozoic names in southwestern Ontario; University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, 121p.

This page left blank intentionally

Geoscience Laboratories


16-1

16. Summary of Quality-Control Data for the Geoscience Laboratories Methods GFA-PBG, XRF-M01, XRF-M02, XRF-T02, XRF-T03, XRF-T04, XRF-T05 and XRF-W01

J.C. Hargreaves1 and O.M. Burnham1

1Geoscience Laboratories, Ontario Geological Survey

INTRODUCTION

This article summarizes the results of analyses for quality-control samples for the Geoscience Laboratories’ methods GFA-PBG, XRF-M01, XRF-M02, XRF-T02, XRF-T03, XRF-T04 and XRF-T05. The GFA-PBG test method is used to determine gold (Au) in geological samples using lead fire-assay with gravimetric finish. The X-ray fluorescence (XRF) method XRF-M01 is designed for analysis of major elements in geological samples after fusion to produce glass beads. Prior to April 1, 2017, only the total Loss on Ignition (LOI) at 1000°C was offered as part of the XRF-M01 analyte suite. As of April 1, 2017, both total Loss on Ignition (LOI) at 1000°C (equivalent to the LOI prior to April 1, 2017) and Loss on Ignition (LOI) at 105°C in N2 have been included in XRF-M01 reports. Method XRF-M02 is a complementary XRF test method and an add-on to the XRF-M01, providing data for the trace elements cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, strontium, vanadium, zinc and zirconium (Co, Cu, Pb, Ni, Sr, V, Zn and Zr) in the glass beads. Lead, strontium and zirconium (Pb, Sr and Zr) were added to the XRF-M02 test method package April 1, 2018. Details of the XRF-M01 and XRF-M02 methods can be found in Keating and Burnham (2012).

Test methods XRF-T02 to XRF-T05 are XRF methods for the analysis of trace elements in pressed powder pellets prepared from geological samples using a binder of polyvinyl alcohol (Keating and Burnham 2013). The XRF-T02 method provides results for arsenic, bromine, copper, gallium, lead, molybdenum, nickel, niobium, rubidium, strontium, thorium, uranium, yttrium, zinc and zirconium (As, Br, Cu, Ga, Pb, Mo, Ni, Nb, Rb, Sr, Th, U, Y, Zn and Zr). The XRF-T03 method provides barium, cerium, cesium, chromium, cobalt, lanthanum, manganese, scandium and vanadium (Ba, Ce, Cs, Cr, Co, La, Mn, Sc and V). The XRF-T04 method provides results for silver (Ag) and cadmium (Cd) (Keating 2018). In May 2019, a fourth method code (XRF-T05) was created as an administrative shortcut to allow clients to submit samples for analysis by the XRF-T02 and XRF-T03 test methods and have the results of both test methods presented in one report. There is no difference between the methods used for analyses performed under method XRF-T05 and under the 2 component methods. The quality-control data obtained by the 3 methods are therefore presented together. Since 2017, the Geoscience Laboratories have also offered test method XRF-W01, an XRF method for the analysis of chlorine (Cl) in pressed pellets prepared from geological samples using a micropowder wax binder. Currently, only Cl is offered by this method, but the method could eventually be expanded to include other light trace elements (e.g., fluorine (F) and sulphur (S)).

Geoscience Laboratories (16) J.C. Hargreaves and O.M. Burnham

16-2

The quality-control data for the GFA-PBG method are summarized for August 11, 2014, to March 3, 2020, and capture results obtained since a summary was last published (Hargreaves 2014) (Table 16.1). The quality-control data for the XRF-M01 (Table 16.2), XRF-M02 (Table 16.3), XRF-T02 (Table 16.4), XRF-T03 (see Table 16.4) and XRF-T05 (see Table 16.4) test methods are summarized from August 4, 2015, to March 5, 2020. They also capture results obtained since the test methods were last summarized (Hargreaves 2015). The quality-control results for the XRF-T04 test method are summarized from May 23, 2018, to February 7, 2020, and capture data obtained since the method was developed and first offered to clients April 1, 2018 (Table 16.5). The quality-control results for the XRF-W01 test method are summarized from April 1, 2017, to December 19, 2019, and capture results obtained from the original method development (Table 16.6).

In Tables 16.2 to 16.6, data are presented for both in-house and certified (inter-laboratory) reference materials. Whereas both types of reference material are prepared from fresh aliquots during Pb fire-assay analysis (GFA-PBG), to preserve the limited supply of many of the inter-laboratory reference materials used during the XRF analysis, only in-house reference materials are freshly prepared for analyses by methods XRF-T02, XRF-T03, XRF-T04, and XRF-T05; analyses of inter-laboratory reference materials by these methods are performed on existing fused beads and pressed pellets. As a result, the variations shown for both types of reference material analyzed by method GFA-PBG and the in-house reference materials analyzed by XRF-T02, XRF-T03, XRF-T04, and XRF-T05 represent the total variability of the method (including preparation reproducibility), but those shown for the certified reference materials by XRF-T02, XRF-T03, XRF-T04, and XRF-T05 represent variability resulting from instrument performance alone.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank Natalie Chretien, Brent Handford, Victoria Hingst and Glenna Keating, Geoscience Laboratories, for their help in preparing this article.

REFERENCES Gladney, E.S. and Roelandts, I. 1990a. 1988 Compilation of elemental concentration data for CCRMP reference

rock samples SY-2, SY-3 and MRG-1; Geostandards Newsletter, v.14, p.373-458.

——— 1990b. 1988 Compilation of elemental concentration data for USGS geochemical exploration reference materials GXR-1 to GXR-6; Geostandards Newsletter, v.14, p.21-118.

Hargreaves, J.C. 2014. Summary of quality-control data for the Geoscience Laboratories methods FEO-ION, GFA-PBG, IAW-200, ICW-100 and IRC-100; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2014, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6300, p.39-1 to 39-4.

——— 2015. Summary of quality-control data for the Geoscience Laboratories methods CTK-100, SGT-R01, IMP-200, XRF-M01, XRF-M02, XRF-T02 and XRF-T03; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2015, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6313, p.39-1 to 39-11.

Jochum, K.P., Weis, U., Schwager, B., Stoll, B., Wilson, S.A., Haug, G.H., Andreae, M.O. and Enzweiler, J. 2016. Reference values following ISO guidelines for frequently requested rock reference materials; Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, v.40, p.333-350.

Keating, G.L. 2018. Calibration for silver and cadmium trace analysis of geological samples by wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence at the Geoscience Laboratories; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2018, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6350, p.30-1 to 30-7.


16-3

Keating, G.L. and Burnham, O.M. 2012. Revision of the calibration for major element analysis of geological samples by wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence at the Geoscience Laboratories; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2012, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6280, p.39-1 to 39-4.

——— 2013. Revision of the calibration for trace element analysis of geological samples by wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence at the Geoscience Laboratories; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, 2013, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6290, p.46-1 to 46-6.

Lynch, J. 1990. Provisional elements values for eight new geochemical lake sediment and stream sediment reference materials LKSD-1, LKSD-2, LKSD-3, LKSD-4, STSD-1, STSD-2, STSD-3, STSD-4; Geostandards Newsletter, v.14, p.153-167.

——— 1999. Additional provisional elemental values for LKSD-1, LKSD-2, LKSD-3, LKSD-4, STSD-1, STSD-2, STSD-3 and STSD-4; Geostandards Newsletter, v.23, p.251-260.

Ring, E.J. 1993. The preparation and certification of fourteen South African silicate rocks for use as reference materials; Geostandards Newsletter, v.17, p.137-158.

Table 16.1. Summary of results obtained by the GFA-PBG method for in-house and certified reference materials from August 11, 2014 to March 3, 2020.

Material Provider Description Ag (oz silver/ton) Au (oz gold/ton) In-House Reference Materials PJV-2 In-house Rock Powder 0.03 ± 0.16 (236) 0.268 ± 0.011 (239) Certified Reference Materials PM-928 WCM Minerals Au and Ag Ore 1.32 ± 0.25 (6) 0.117 ± 0.007 (6) Certificate‡

1.77 ± 0.05 0.13 ± 0.01

(55.18 ± 1.63 g/t) (4.19 ±0.23 g/t) SQ47 Rocklabs Synthetic Rock Blend 3.29 ± 0.30 (103) 1.166 ± 0.018 (105) Certificate†

3.57 ± 0.07 1.16 ± 0.01

(122.3 ± 2.3 µg/g) (39.88 ± 0.29 µg/g) SQ88 Rocklabs Synthetic Rock Blend 4.56 ± 0.29 (129) 1.148 ± 0.028 (131) Certificate†

4.69 ± 0.06 1.16 ± 0.01

(160.8 ± 2.1 µg/g) (39.72 ± 0.29 µg/g)

Notes: Compiled data given as mean ± 1 standard deviation of results (number of measurements). ‡ Certificate value is average ± 1 standard deviation of the mean. † Certificate value is average ± 95% confidence interval on the inter-laboratory mean.


16-4

Table 16.2. Summary of major element analyses obtained by the XRF-M01 method for in-house reference materials and certified reference materials (August 4, 2015 to March 5, 2020). All values are in weight % (wt %).

Material Provider Description Al2O3 (wt %)

BaO (wt %)

CaO (wt %)

In-house Reference Materials LK NIP-1 In-house Diabase Sill 15.39 ± 0.11 (236) 0.0160 ± 0.0018 (236) 10.21 ± 0.07 (236) LLH-1 In-house Rhyolite 10.96 ± 0.08 (17) 0.0055 ± 0.0012 (17) 3.296 ± 0.025 (17) MRB-29 In-house Basalt 12.72 ± 0.10 (20) 0.0313 ± 0.0017 (20) 9.16 ± 0.04 (20) NPD-1 In-house Diabase 13.76 ± 0.08 (180) 0.0301 ± 0.0019 (180) 7.97 ± 0.07 (180) ODL-1 In-house Dolomitic Limestone 2.250 ± 0.016 (192) 0.0061 ± 0.0021 (192) 26.38 ± 0.10 (192) OKUM-1 In-house Ultramafic Komatiite 8.01 ± 0.05 (265) < 0.004 7.80 ± 0.07 (265) OPEG-1 In-house Evolved Pegmatite 14.40 ± 0.09 (22) 0.0102 ± 0.0016 (22) 0.508 ± 0.006 (22) ORCA-1 In-house Rhyolite 12.67 ± 0.08 (215) 0.0424 ± 0.0014 (215) 1.138 ± 0.011 (215) QS-1 In-house Calcareous Shale 14.27 ± 0.08 (80) 0.0403 ± 0.0014 (80) 8.03 ± 0.04 (80) RAFT-2 In-house Sediment 7.19 ± 0.04 (11) 0.0329 ± 0.0010 (11) 1.006 ± 0.007 (11) RV-1 In-house Melagabbro 15.82 ± 0.11 (113) 0.0253 ± 0.0013 (113) 8.92 ± 0.03 (113) Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite 16.91 ± 0.09 (305) 0.1237 ± 0.0017 (305) 5.166 ± 0.021 (305) Certificate‡ 16.91 ± 0.21 0.127 ± 0.004 5.20 ± 0.13 BCS-353 BAS Portland Cement 3.75 ± 0.03 (28) 0.035 ± 0.005 (28) 65.00 ± 0.18 (28) Certificate 3.77 ± 0.07 N/A 64.8 ± 0.2 BCS-368 BAS Dolomite 0.1576 ± 0.0007 (8) < 0.004 30.69 ± 0.07 (8) Certificate 0.17 N/A 30.8 BHVO-2 USGS Basalt 13.65 ± 0.08 (279) 0.0130 ± 0.0029 (279) 11.39 ± 0.10 (279) Certificate‡ 13.5 ± 0.2 0.0145 ± 0.0015 11.4 ± 0.2 GSP-2 USGS Granodiorite 14.94 ± 0.09 (249) 0.1481 ± 0.0018 (249) 2.077 ± 0.016 (249) Certificate‡ 14.9 ± 0.2 0.150 ± 0.005 2.1 ± 0.06 IF-G GIT-IWG Iron Formation 0.140 ± 0.029 (4) < 0.004 1.526 ± 0.004 (4) Certificate† 0.15 ± 0.02 0.00017 ± 0.00005 1.55 ± 0.03 MRG-1 CANMET Gabbro 8.40 ± 0.07 (9) 0.0039 ± 0.0022 (9) 14.78 ± 0.04 (9) Certificate1 8.47 ± 0.28 0.0068 ± 0.0026 14.70 ± 0.34 SARM-40 MINTEK Carbonatite 0.387 ± 0.004 (112) 0.049 ± 0.004 (112) 50.3 ± 0.5 (112) Certificate2‡ 0.410 ± 0.085 0.035 ± 0.014 49.77 ± 1.65 STSD-1 CANMET Stream Sediment 8.82 ± 0.08 (10) 0.0663 ± 0.0011 (10) 3.639 ± 0.009 (10) Certificate3 9.0 ± 0.3 0.070 ± 0.006 3.6 ± 0.3 SY-3 CANMET Syenite 11.61 ± 0.05 (6) 0.0490 ± 0.0019 (6) 8.256 ± 0.025 (6) Certificate1 11.76 ± 0.30 0.050 ± 0.008 8.25 ± 0.18 SY-4 CANMET Diorite Gneiss 20.88 ± 0.11 (165) 0.0380 ± 0.0015 (165) 8.02 ± 0.09 (165) Certificate† 20.69 ± 0.08 0.0380 ± 0.0006 8.05 ± 0.04 UB-N ANRT Serpentine 2.866 ± 0.014 (174) < 0.004 1.211 ± 0.010 (174) Certificate† 2.90 ± 0.08 0.0030 ± 0.0003 1.20 ± 0.03

Notes: Compiled data given as the mean ± 1 standard deviation of results (number of measurements). †Certificate value is the recommended working value ± its 95% confidence interval. ‡Certificate value is the average ± 1 standard deviation of the laboratory means. *Provisional or indicative values. N/A: data not available.

References: 1Gladney and Roelandts (1990a); 2Ring (1993); 3Lynch (1990). Abbreviations: ANRT = Association National de la Recherche Technique; BAS = Bureau of Analysed Samples Ltd.;

CANMET = Canadian Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology; GIT-IWG = Group International de Travail – International Working group; MINTEK = Council for Mineral Technology, South Africa; USGS = United States Geological Survey.


16-5


Material Provider Description Cr2O3 (wt %)

Fe2O3Total

(wt %) K2O

(wt %) In-house Reference Materials LK NIP-1 In-house Diabase Sill 0.0229 ± 0.0017 (236) 13.56 ± 0.06 (236) 0.475 ± 0.009 (236) LLH-1 In-house Rhyolite 0.0140 ± 0.0012 (17) 1.748 ± 0.012 (17) 1.618 ± 0.014 (17) MRB-29 In-house Basalt 0.0397 ± 0.0013 (20) 13.51 ± 0.06 (20) 0.712 ± 0.007 (20) NPD-1 In-house Diabase 0.0162 ± 0.0025 (180) 12.71 ± 0.06 (180) 1.365 ± 0.014 (180) ODL-1 In-house Dolomitic Limestone < 0.002 2.715 ± 0.014 (192) 0.73 ± 0.04 (192) OKUM-1 In-house Ultramafic Komatiite 0.363 ± 0.008 (265) 11.90 ± 0.06 (265) 0.056 ± 0.011 (265) OPEG-1 In-house Evolved Pegmatite 0.0244 ± 0.0017 (22) 0.416 ± 0.006 (22) 3.093 ± 0.020 (22) ORCA-1 In-house Rhyolite 0.0107 ± 0.0021 (215) 2.912 ± 0.015 (215) 2.146 ± 0.031 (215) QS-1 In-house Calcareous Shale 0.0104 ± 0.0010 (80) 6.42 ± 0.03 (80) 4.406 ± 0.029 (80) RAFT-2 In-house Sediment 0.0087 ± 0.0005 (11) 4.67 ± 0.04 (11) 1.067 ± 0.007 (11) RV-1 In-house Melagabbro 0.0339 ± 0.0011 (113) 10.29 ± 0.06 (113) 0.687 ± 0.013 (113)

Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite 0.0021 ± 0.0007 (305) 6.69 ± 0.04 (305) 2.899 ± 0.011 (305) Certificate‡ 0.0025 ± 0.0003 6.69 ± 0.1 2.88 ± 0.11 BCS-353 BAS Portland Cement 0.0179 ± 0.0017 (28) 4.753 ± 0.024 (28) 0.41 ± 0.04 (28) Certificate N/A 4.82 ± 0.06 0.49 ± 0.02 BCS-368 BAS Dolomite 0.0055 ± 0.0004 (8) 0.2209 ± 0.0012 (8) 0.01356 ± 0.00026 (8) Certificate <0.01 0.23 N/A BHVO-2 USGS Basalt 0.0416 ± 0.0016 (279) 12.42 ± 0.09 (279) 0.520 ± 0.007 (279) Certificate‡ 0.0409 ± 0.0028 12.3 ± 0.2 0.52 ± 0.01 GSP-2 USGS Granodiorite 0.0031 ± 0.0010 (249) 4.885 ± 0.025 (249) 5.383 ± 0.023 (249) Certificate‡ 0.0029 ± 0.0009 4.9 ± 0.16 5.38 ± 0.14 IF-G GIT-IWG Iron Formation < 0.002 56.3 ± 0.6 (4) 0.0103 ± 0.0029 (4) Certificate† 0.00058 ± 0.00015 55.85 ± 0.22 0.012 ± 0.008 MRG-1 CANMET Gabbro 0.075 ± 0.005 (9) 17.98 ± 0.07 (9) 0.1838 ± 0.0025 (9) Certificate1 0.063 ± 0.012 17.94 ± 0.39 0.18 ± 0.03 SARM-40 MINTEK Carbonatite 0.0077 ± 0.0015 (112) 2.664 ± 0.009 (112) 0.0149 ± 0.0026 (112) Certificate2‡ 0.0051* 2.75 ± 0.14 0.030 ± 0.026* STSD-1 CANMET Stream Sediment 0.0084 ± 0.0011 (10) 6.38 ± 0.04 (10) 1.261 ± 0.022 (10) Certificate3 0.0098 ± 0.0013 6.48 ± 0.13 1.25 ± 0.07 SY-3 CANMET Syenite < 0.002 6.460 ± 0.019 (6) 4.202 ± 0.014 (6) Certificate1 0.0016 ± 0.0009 6.49 ± 0.16 4.23 ± 0.12 SY-4 CANMET Diorite Gneiss < 0.002 6.261 ± 0.023 (165) 1.612 ± 0.018 (165) Certificate† 0.00175 ± 0.00015 6.21 ± 0.03 1.66 ± 0.02 UB-N ANRT Serpentine 0.344 ± 0.008 (174) 8.297 ± 0.031 (174) 0.0207 ± 0.0020 (174) Certificate† 0.336 ± 0.015 8.34 ± 0.10 0.02 ± 0.01





16-6


Material Provider Description MgO (wt %)

MnO (wt %)

Na2O (wt %)

In-house Reference Materials LK NIP-1 In-house Diabase Sill 7.29 ± 0.06 (236) 0.1907 ± 0.0018 (236) 2.431 ± 0.030 (236) LLH-1 In-house Rhyolite 0.136 ± 0.005 (17) 0.0259 ± 0.0017 (17) 0.30 ± 0.03 (17) MRB-29 In-house Basalt 6.31 ± 0.05 (20) 0.1837 ± 0.0019 (20) 2.48 ± 0.03 (20) NPD-1 In-house Diabase 4.77 ± 0.04 (180) 0.1888 ± 0.0019 (180) 2.723 ± 0.025 (180) ODL-1 In-house Dolomitic Limestone 17.54 ± 0.13 (192) 0.1786 ± 0.0016 (192) 0.050 ± 0.022 (192) OKUM-1 In-house Ultramafic Komatiite 21.41 ± 0.15 (265) 0.1823 ± 0.0020 (265) 1.143 ± 0.020 (265) OPEG-1 In-house Evolved Pegmatite 0.099 ± 0.009 (22) 0.0361 ± 0.0010 (22) 4.48 ± 0.05 (22) ORCA-1 In-house Rhyolite 0.487 ± 0.010 (215) 0.0599 ± 0.0023 (215) 4.65 ± 0.05 (215) QS-1 In-house Calcareous Shale 3.61 ± 0.03 (80) 0.1013 ± 0.0012 (80) 0.162 ± 0.014 (80) RAFT-2 In-house Sediment 0.769 ± 0.004 (11) 0.0865 ± 0.0009 (11) 1.046 ± 0.014 (11) RV-1 In-house Melagabbro 9.09 ± 0.06 (113) 0.1690 ± 0.0017 (113) 2.180 ± 0.028 (113)

Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite 1.773 ± 0.013 (305) 0.0999 ± 0.0012 (305) 4.243 ± 0.030 (305) Certificate‡ 1.79 ± 0.03 0.099 ± 0.003 4.19 ± 0.13 BCS-353 BAS Portland Cement 2.429 ± 0.018 (28) 0.2063 ± 0.0023 (28) 0.093 ± 0.010 (28) Certificate 2.42 ± 0.05 N/A 0.10 ± 0.01 BCS-368 BAS Dolomite 20.47 ± 0.08 (8) 0.0611 ± 0.0008 (8) < 0.02 Certificate 20.9 0.06 N/A BHVO-2 USGS Basalt 7.30 ± 0.06 (279) 0.1713 ± 0.0021 (279) 2.257 ± 0.023 (279) Certificate‡ 7.23 ± 0.12 0.1666 ± 0.0052 2.22 ± 0.08 GSP-2 USGS Granodiorite 0.969 ± 0.009 (249) 0.0411 ± 0.0018 (249) 2.833 ± 0.020 (249) Certificate‡ 0.96 ± 0.03 0.0413 ± 0.0026 2.78 ± 0.09 IF-G GIT-IWG Iron Formation 1.917 ± 0.026 (4) 0.036 ± 0.009 (4) 0.035 ± 0.013 (4) Certificate† 1.89 ± 0.04 0.042 ± 0.003 0.032 ± 0.01 MRG-1 CANMET Gabbro 13.51 ± 0.11 (9) 0.1731 ± 0.0012 (9) 0.734 ± 0.017 (9) Certificate1 13.55 ± 0.32 0.17 ± 0.01 0.74 ± 0.08 SARM-40 MINTEK Carbonatite 1.885 ± 0.018 (112) 0.1827 ± 0.0027 (112) 0.041 ± 0.015 (112) Certificate2‡ 1.97 ± 0.29 0.18 ± 0.01 0.05 ± 0.21* STSD-1 CANMET Stream Sediment 2.202 ± 0.018 (10) 0.4930 ± 0.0019 (10) 1.849 ± 0.027 (10) Certificate3 2.21 ± 0.11 0.50 ± 0.04 1.75 ± 0.04 SY-3 CANMET Syenite 2.636 ± 0.028 (6) 0.328 ± 0.004 (6) 4.09 ± 0.04 (6) Certificate1 2.67 ± 0.13 0.32 ± 0.02 4.12 ± 0.15 SY-4 CANMET Diorite Gneiss 0.530 ± 0.007 (165) 0.1095 ± 0.0015 (165) 7.08 ± 0.09 (165) Certificate† 0.54 ± 0.01 0.108 ± 0.001 7.1 ± 0.05 UB-N ANRT Serpentine 35.33 ± 0.22 (174) 0.1241 ± 0.0015 (174) 0.117 ± 0.020 (174) Certificate† 35.21 ± 0.18 0.12 ± 0.01 0.10 ± 0.04





16-7


Material Provider Description Nitrogen LOI 105 (wt %)

P2O5 (wt %)

SiO2 (wt %)


Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite 0.92 ± 0.12 (224) 0.492 ± 0.006 (305) 59.13 ± 0.29 (305) Certificate‡ N/A 0.48 ± 0.02 59.3 ± 0.7 BCS-353 BAS Portland Cement < 0.05 0.086 ± 0.007 (28) 20.39 ± 0.17 (28) Certificate N/A 0.077 ± 0.004 20.5 ± 0.2 BCS-368 BAS Dolomite < 0.05 0.0056 ± 0.0021 (8) 0.927 ± 0.004 (8) Certificate N/A N/A 0.92 BHVO-2 USGS Basalt < 0.05 0.278 ± 0.006 (279) 50.05 ± 0.24 (279) Certificate‡ N/A 0.27 ± 0.02 49.9 ± 0.6 GSP-2 USGS Granodiorite 0.12 ± 0.07 (160) 0.299 ± 0.006 (249) 66.6 ± 0.4 (249) Certificate‡ N/A 0.29 ± 0.02 66.6 ± 0.8 IF-G GIT-IWG Iron Formation < 0.05 0.0613 ± 0.0007 (4) 40.8 ± 0.3 (4) Certificate† N/A 0.063 ± 0.014 41.20 ± 0.15 MRG-1 CANMET Gabbro < 0.05 0.066 ± 0.005 (9) 39.04 ± 0.15 (9) Certificate1 N/A 0.08 ± 0.03 39.12 ± 0.54 SARM-40 MINTEK Carbonatite < 0.05 1.945 ± 0.016 (112) 3.037 ± 0.023 (112) Certificate2‡ N/A 2.05 ± 0.08 3.08 ± 0.18 STSD-1 CANMET Stream Sediment 4.37 ± 0.21 (9) 0.387 ± 0.006 (10) 43.11 ± 0.30 (10) Certificate3 N/A 0.38 ± 0.02 42.5 ± 0.5 SY-3 CANMET Syenite 0.06 ± 0.10 (3) 0.547 ± 0.003 (6) 59.40 ± 0.29 (6) Certificate1 N/A 0.54 ± 0.03 59.68 ± 0.41 SY-4 CANMET Diorite Gneiss 0.06 ± 0.07 (105) 0.135 ± 0.005 (165) 50.10 ± 0.24 (165) Certificate† N/A 0.131 ± 0.004 49.9 ± 0.1 UB-N ANRT Serpentine 1.69 ± 0.10 (100) 0.012 ± 0.005 (174) 39.62 ± 0.17 (174) Certificate† N/A 0.04 ± 0.02 39.43 ± 0.15





16-8


Material Provider Description TiO2 (wt %)

Total (wt %)

Total LOI 1000 (wt %)


Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite 1.032 ± 0.007 (305) 99.9 ± 0.4 (305) 1.34 ± 0.13 (305) Certificate‡ 1.05 ± 0.22 N/A BCS-353 BAS Portland Cement 0.145 ± 0.008 (28) 97.7 ± 0.5 (28) 0.3 ± 0.7 (28) Certificate N/A N/A BCS-368 BAS Dolomite < 0.01 99.44 ± 0.15 (8) 46.91 ± 0.00 (8) Certificate < 0.01 46.7 BHVO-2 USGS Basalt 2.750 ± 0.025 (279) 100.3 ± 0.4 (279) −0.576 ± 0.018 (279) Certificate‡ 2.73 ± 0.04 N/A GSP-2 USGS Granodiorite 0.659 ± 0.006 (249) 99.5 ± 0.5 (249) 0.75 ± 0.06 (249) Certificate‡ 0.66 ± 0.02 N/A IF-G GIT-IWG Iron Formation < 0.01 99.5 ± 0.7 (4) −1.31 ± 0.12 (4) Certificate† 0.014 ± 0.008 1.1* MRG-1 CANMET Gabbro 3.813 ± 0.009 (9) 99.7 ± 0.4 (9) 0.929 ± 0.006 (9) Certificate1 3.77 ± 0.15 N/A SARM-40 MINTEK Carbonatite 0.029 ± 0.010 (112) 99.7 ± 0.7 (112) 39.15 ± 0.13 (112) Certificate2‡ 0.05 ± 0.01 N/A STSD-1 CANMET Stream Sediment 0.662 ± 0.004 (10) 99.5 ± 0.5 (10) 30.60 ± 0.19 (10) Certificate3 0.75 ± 0.07 31.6 ± 0.1 SY-3 CANMET Syenite 0.145 ± 0.004 (6) 98.6 ± 0.4 (6) 0.93 ± 0.09 (6) Certificate1 0.15 ± 0.02 N/A SY-4 CANMET Diorite Gneiss 0.2875 ± 0.0022 (165) 99.3 ± 0.4 (165) 4.25 ± 0.09 (165) Certificate† 0.287 ± 0.003 4.56 ± 0.07 UB-N ANRT Serpentine 0.099 ± 0.005 (174) 100.1 ± 0.4 (174) 12.07 ± 0.18 (174) Certificate† 0.11 ± 0.01 12.06*





16-9

Table 16.3. Summary of trace element analyses obtained by the XRF-M02 method for in-house reference materials and certified reference materials (August 4, 2015 to March 5, 2020). All values are in ppm.

Material Provider Description Co (ppm)

Cu (ppm)

Pb (ppm)

Ni (ppm)

In-house Reference Materials LK NIP-1 In-house Diabase Sill 61 ± 4 (62) 167 ± 11 (62) < 35 151 ± 15 (62) LLH-1 In-house Rhyolite < 12 < 60 N/A < 30 MRB-29 In-house Basalt 51 ± 5 (6) 159 ± 16 (6) N/A 105.7 ± 2.2 (6) NPD-1 In-house Diabase 46.7 ± 3.0 (50) 149 ± 13 (50) 114.5 ± 0.7 (5) 60 ± 4 (50) ODL-1 In-house Dolomitic Limestone < 12 < 60 < 35 < 30 OKUM-1 In-house Ultramafic Komatiite 93 ± 4 (111) < 60 < 35 928 ± 19 (111) OPEG-1 In-house Evolved Pegmatite < 12 < 60 < 35 < 30 ORCA-1 In-house Rhyolite < 12 < 60 < 35 < 30 QS-1 In-house Calcareous Shale 16 ± 4 (34) < 60 < 35 37 ± 4 (34) RAFT-2 In-house Sediment 53.1 ± 1.6 (4) 659 ± 13 (4) N/A 1,110 ± 40 (4) RV-1 In-house Melagabbro 75 ± 4 (39) 2,027 ± 58 (39) < 35 573 ± 12 (39)

Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite 15 ± 3 (105) < 60 < 35 < 30 Certificate‡ 16 ± 1 53 ± 4 13 ± 1 19 ± 3 BCS-353 BAS Portland Cement < 12 < 60 < 35 73.1 ± 1.3 (9) Certificate N/A N/A N/A N/A BCS-368 BAS Dolomite < 12 < 60 N/A < 30 Certificate N/A 3 61 < 4 BHVO-2 USGS Basalt 46 ± 4 (87) 125 ± 10 (86) < 35 121 ± 4 (87) Certificate‡ 45 ± 3 127 ± 7 N/A 119 ± 7 GSP-2 USGS Granodiorite < 12 < 60 41.4 ± 2.5 (31) < 30 Certificate‡ 7.3 ± 0.8 43 ± 4 42 ± 3 17 ± 2 IF-G GIT-IWG Iron Formation 18 ± 14 (3) < 60 N/A < 30 Certificate† 29 ± 5 10 ± 2 4 ± 2 22.5 ± 3.0 MRG-1 CANMET Gabbro 90 ± 4 (6) 136.1 ± 2.4 (6) N/A 203 ± 8 (6) Certificate1 87 ± 7 134 ± 14 10 ± 4 196 ± 23 SARM-40 MINTEK Carbonatite 13 ± 4 (38) < 60 < 35 < 30 Certificate2‡ 20.0 ± 11.5* 10.0 ± 3.5* 20 ± 22* 25 ± 34* STSD-1 CANMET Stream Sediment 14.9 ± 2.4 (4) < 60 41.1 ± 2.4 (3) < 30 Certificate3 17 ± 1 36 ± 4 35 ± 3 24 ± 5 SY-3 CANMET Syenite 18 ± 5 (5) < 60 134 ± 97 (2) < 30 Certificate1 8.8 ± 2.4 17 ± 5 133 ± 22 11 ± 4 SY-4 CANMET Diorite Gneiss < 12 < 60 < 35 < 30 Certificate† 2.8 ± 0.2 7 ± 1 10 ± 1 9 ± 1 UB-N ANRT Serpentine 105 ± 4 (62) < 60 < 35 2,030 ± 51 (62) Certificate† 100 ± 12 28 ± 3 13 ± 3 2,000 ± 80





16-10


Material Provider Description Sr (ppm)

V (ppm)

Zn (ppm)

Zr (ppm)

In-house Reference Materials LK NIP-1 In-house Diabase Sill 164.0 ± 2.7 (27) 284 ± 4 (62) 109 ± 4 (62) 86.0 ± 3.1 (27) LLH-1 In-house Rhyolite N/A 8 ± 5 (5) < 40 N/A MRB-29 In-house Basalt N/A 310 ± 4 (6) 115.9 ± 1.0 (6) N/A NPD-1 In-house Diabase 170.5 ± 1.4 (5) 267 ± 4 (50) 217 ± 12 (50) 111 ± 5 (5) ODL-1 In-house Dolomitic Limestone 68.5 ± 1.0 (43) 19.2 ± 2.0 (76) 61.8 ± 2.0 (76) 30.5 ± 1.3 (43) OKUM-1 In-house Ultramafic Komatiite 16.4 ± 1.1 (24) 172 ± 5 (111) 70.8 ± 2.6 (111) 21.4 ± 1.9 (24) OPEG-1 In-house Evolved Pegmatite 44.7 ± 1.2 (2) < 8 < 40 < 10 ORCA-1 In-house Rhyolite 82 ± 49 (29) 13 ± 12 (62) 58 ± 7 (62) 238 ± 42 (29) QS-1 In-house Calcareous Shale 112.9 ± 1.1 (21) 110.1 ± 3.0 (34) 77.8 ± 1.9 (34) 158.0 ± 2.5 (21) RAFT-2 In-house Sediment N/A 42.2 ± 1.5 (4) 149.3 ± 1.9 (4) N/A RV-1 In-house Melagabbro 338.3 ± 1.8 (27) 105.5 ± 2.5 (39) 134 ± 25 (39) 22.5 ± 2.1 (27)

Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite 649.2 ± 2.4 (35) 117 ± 4 (105) 93.3 ± 1.4 (105) 224.7 ± 3.1 (35) Certificate‡ 658 ± 17 120 ± 5 86 ± 8 230 ± 4 BCS-353 BAS Portland Cement 1,875 ± 4 (8) 46.7 ± 1.4 (9) 203.7 ± 1.7 (9) 65 ± 13 (8) Certificate N/A N/A N/A N/A BCS-368 BAS Dolomite N/A < 8 78.1 ± 0.4 (3) N/A Certificate 75 N/A 83 N/A BHVO-2 USGS Basalt 389.5 ± 2.8 (32) 317 ± 8 (87) 108.4 ± 1.4 (87) 168.7 ± 2.3 (32) Certificate‡ 389 ± 23 317 ± 11 103 ± 6 172 ± 11 GSP-2 USGS Granodiorite 237.2 ± 1.5 (31) 49.9 ± 3.1 (73) 117.8 ± 1.4 (73) 562 ± 4 (31) Certificate‡ 240 ± 10 52 ± 4 120 ± 10 550 ± 30 IF-G GIT-IWG Iron Formation N/A < 8 < 40 N/A Certificate† 3 ± 1 2 ± 1 20 ± 4 1 ± 0.2 MRG-1 CANMET Gabbro N/A 543 ± 3 (6) 208.8 ± 0.8 (6) N/A Certificate1 266 ± 13 526 ± 33 191 ± 15 108 ± 16 SARM-40 MINTEK Carbonatite 1,626 ± 9 (20) 29.1 ± 1.9 (38) < 40 106 ± 11 (20) Certificate2 1,600 ± 150 27 ± 5.5 25 ± 7 87 ± 16 STSD-1 CANMET Stream Sediment 183.8 ± 1.0 (3) 89.6 ± 2.0 (4) 178.2 ± 2.1 (4) 228 ± 4 (3) Certificate3 170 ± 42 98 ± 15 178 ± 16 218 ± 34 SY-3 CANMET Syenite 297.55 ± 0.07 (2) 45 ± 3 (5) 247.0 ± 1.8 (5) 352.5 ± 1.6 (2) Certificate1 302 ± 18 50 ± 9 244 ± 14 320 ± 40 SY-4 CANMET Diorite Gneiss 1,195 ± 5 (24) 8 ± 3 (57) 99.8 ± 1.8 (57) 576 ± 12 (24) Certificate† 1.191 ± 12 8 ± 1.6 93 ± 2 517 ± 16 UB-N ANRT Serpentine < 8 64 ± 4 (62) 84.0 ± 2.8 (62) < 10 Certificate† 9.00 ± 1.85 75 ± 9 85 ± 7 4 ± 1




Geoscience Laboratories (16)

J.C. Hargreaves and O

.M. Burnham

16-11

Table 16.4. Summary of trace element analyses obtained by the XRF-T02, XRF-T03 and XRF-T05 method codes for in-house reference materials and certified reference materials (August 4, 2015 to March 5, 2020). All values are in ppm.

Material Provider Description As (ppm) Ba (ppm) Br (ppm) Ce (ppm) Co (ppm) Cr (ppm) In-house Reference Materials LK NIP-1 In-house Diabase Sill < 6 147 ± 4 (137) < 1.2 15 ± 4 (135) 55.6 ± 1.8 (137) 165 ± 7 (137) LLH-1 In-house Rhyolite 150.2 ± 2.8 (3) 31.4 ± 2.4 (3) < 1.2 70 ± 4 (3) 1.83 ± 0.25 (3) 120 ± 43 (3) MRB-29 In-house Basalt < 6 311 ± 4 (18) < 1.2 50 ± 4 (18) 49.6 ± 0.5 (18) 269 ± 4 (18) NPD-1 In-house Diabase < 6 282 ± 6 (67) 2.9 ± 0.8 (91) 32 ± 5 (62) 43.0 ± 2.7 (67) 125 ± 9 (63) ODL-1 In-house Dolomitic Limestone 54.8 ± 1.4 (94) 57 ± 3 (85) 13 ± 3 (84) 30 ± 3 (74) 9.8 ± 0.6 (85) 16.7 ± 2.0 (75) OKUM-1 In-house Ultramafic Komatiite < 6 < 8 < 1.2 < 15 86.0 ± 1.7 (142) 2,489 ± 35 (140) OPEG-1 In-house Evolved Pegmatite 25.2 ± 1.6 (14) 24 ± 4 (13) < 1.2 < 15 < 1.3 155 ± 8 (13) ORCA-1 In-house Rhyolite < 6 355 ± 6 (126) < 1.2 50.1 ± 3.1 (126) 4.0 ± 1.0 (126) 61 ± 5 (126) QS-1 In-house Calcareous Shale 7.0 ± 1.2 (23) 367 ± 8 (20) < 1.2 79 ± 5 (20) 16.2 ± 0.6 (20) 80 ± 13 (20) RV-1 In-house Melagabbro < 6 226 ± 5 (69) < 1.2 < 15 67.0 ± 2.2 (69) 248 ± 7 (69) Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite < 6 1,161 ± 15 (159) < 1.2 71 ± 4 (159) 15.6 ± 0.6 (159) 16.2 ± 1.3 (159) Certificate‡ 0.67 ± 0.121 1,140 ± 32 0.131 68 ± 3 16 ± 1 17 ± 2 BHVO-2 USGS Basalt < 6 123 ± 7 (167) < 1.2 36 ± 4 (161) 44.1 ± 0.8 (167) 305 ± 5 (163) Certificate‡ 0.70 ± 0.141 130 ± 13 0.30 ± 0.011 38 ± 2 45 ± 3 280 ± 19 GSD-11 IGGE Stream Sediment 190.0 ± 2.0 (14) 242.9 ± 2.3 (11) < 1.2 54 ± 4 (11) 7.9 ± 0.6 (11) 40.6 ± 1.3 (11) Certificate ǂ 188 ± 13 260 ± 17 2.2 ± 0.5 58 ± 4 8.5 ± 0.8 40 ± 3 GSP-2 USGS Granodiorite < 6 1,361 ± 27 (134) < 1.2 396 ± 31 (131) 7.4 ± 0.8 (134) 18.4 ± 1.3 (132) Certificate‡ N/A 1,340 ± 44 N/A 410 ± 30 7.3 ± 0.8 20 ± 6 GXR-4 USGS Copper Mill-head 107.8 ± 1.5 (13) 1,582 ± 18 (8) < 1.2 114 ± 4 (8) 12.8 ± 0.4 (8) 65.7 ± 1.0 (8) Certificate2‡ 98 ± 7 1,640 ± 70 0.5* 102 ± 13 14.6 ± 0.9 64 ± 4 STSD-2 CANMET Stream Sediment 40.7 ± 1.7 (80) 525 ± 9 (66) 1.9 ± 0.4 (73) 83 ± 4 (60) 20.7 ± 0.6 (68) 110.2 ± 2.1 (63) Certificate3,4 42 ± 3 540 ± 43 4 ± 1 93 ± 10 19 ± 2 116 ± 13 SY-3 CANMET Syenite 24.2 ± 0.9 (3) 491 ± 8 (3) < 1.2 2,167 ± 4 (3) 16.1 ± 1.6 (3) < 9 Certificate5 18.8 ± 2.6 450 ± 70 N/A 2230 ± 200 8.8 ± 2.4 11 ± 6 SY-4 CANMET Diorite Gneiss < 6 356 ± 6 (52) 230.8 ± 2.3 (65) 123 ± 5 (52) 5.2 ± 0.6 (52) 11.3 ± 1.3 (52) Certificate† 0.1-2* 340 ± 5 217 ± 14* 122 ± 2 2.8 ± 0.2 12 ± 1 TDB-1 CANMET Diabase < 6 250 ± 6 (89) 2.3 ± 0.4 (97) 37 ± 5 (84) 43.5 ± 0.9 (89) 260 ± 4 (85) Certificate† 2.5 ± 0.5* 241 ± 13 N/A 41 ± 4 47 ± 4* 251 ± 13 Notes: Compiled data given as means ±1 standard deviation of results (number of measurements).

†Certificate value is the recommended working value ± its 95% confidence interval; ǂ Certificate value is average ± 99% confidence interval on the inter-laboratory mean. ‡Certificate value is the average ± 1 standard deviation of the laboratory means. *Provisional or indicative values. N/A: data not available.

References: 1Jochum et al. (2016); 2Gladney and Roelandts (1990b); 3Lynch (1990); 4Lynch (1999); 5Gladney and Roelandts (1990a). Abbreviations: CANMET = Canadian Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology; IGGE = Institute of Geochemical and Geophysical Exploration;

USGS = United States Geological Survey.



.M. Burnham

16-12


Material Provider Description Cs (ppm) Cu (ppm) Ga (ppm) La (ppm) Mn (ppm) Mo (ppm) In-house Reference Materials LK NIP-1 In-house Diabase Sill < 7 156 ± 3 (168) 20.4 ± 0.4 (170) < 7 1,475 ± 11 (135) < 0.8 LLH-1 In-house Rhyolite 8.5 ± 1.7 (3) 45.9 ± 1.4 (3) 16.23 ± 0.21 (3) 37 ± 3 (3) 174.4 ± 3.0 (3) 1.93 ± 0.31 (3) MRB-29 In-house Basalt < 7 140.0 ± 3.0 (19) 20.58 ± 0.31 (19) 20.4 ± 2.2 (18) 1,401 ± 6 (18) 0.78 ± 0.18 (19) NPD-1 In-house Diabase < 7 138 ± 3 (95) 19.2 ± 0.4 (92) 14.1 ± 2.4 (62) 1,394 ± 14 (66) 0.9 ± 0.6 (91) ODL-1 In-house Dolomitic Limestone < 7 27.0 ± 1.8 (94) 3.09 ± 0.28 (83) 12.9 ± 1.9 (74) 1,482 ± 9 (85) < 0.8 OKUM-1 In-house Ultramafic Komatiite < 7 42.8 ± 2.3 (166) 9.3 ± 0.3 (162) < 7 1,374 ± 9 (141) < 0.8 OPEG-1 In-house Evolved Pegmatite 138 ± 3 (13) < 9 32.4 ± 0.5 (14) < 7 241 ± 4 (13) < 0.8 ORCA-1 In-house Rhyolite < 7 < 9 15.37 ± 0.28 (154) 21.9 ± 1.5 (126) 435 ± 4 (126) 2.99 ± 0.20 (154) QS-1 In-house Calcareous Shale 6.7 ± 2.0 (20) < 9 19.4 ± 0.5 (23) 40.5 ± 2.4 (20) 775 ± 13 (20) 0.71 ± 0.26 (23) RV-1 In-house Melagabbro < 7 1,731 ± 18 (79) 15.4 ± 0.3 (79) < 7 1,340 ± 9 (69) < 0.8

Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite < 7 50.5 ± 1.6 (200) 20.1 ± 0.3 (200) 41.8 ± 2.0 (159) 796 ± 5 (159) 2.05 ± 0.27 (200) Certificate‡ 1.16 ± 0.08* 53 ± 4 20 ± 1 38 ± 1 770 ± 20 N/A BHVO-2 USGS Basalt < 7 133.0 ± 2.1 (198) 22.0 ± 0.5 (194) 11.6 ± 2.5 (161) 1,343 ± 13 (165) 3.7 ± 0.4 (193) Certificate‡ 0.099 ± 0.0101 127 ± 7 21.7 ± 0.9 15 ± 1 1,290 ± 40 4.07 ± 0.441

GSD-11 IGGE Stream Sediment 15.0 ± 1.5 (11) 76.4 ± 0.9 (14) 17.09 ± 0.22 (14) 28.2 ± 1.5 (11) 2,479 ± 8 (11) 6.29 ± 0.14 (14) Certificate ǂ 17.4 ± 0.8 79 ± 3 18.5 ± 0.9 30 ± 2 2,490 ± 84 5.9 ± 0.6 GSP-2 USGS Granodiorite < 7 40.2 ± 1.5 (160) 21.6 ± 0.4 (159) 187 ± 14 (131) 310 ± 42 (133) 2.5 ± 0.4 (158) Certificate‡ 1.2 ± 0.1* 43 ± 4 22 ± 2 180 ± 12 N/A 2.1 ± 0.6* GXR-4 USGS Copper Mill-head < 7 6,478 ± 73 (13) 17.22 ± 0.28 (13) 73.6 ± 2.5 (8) 145.4 ± 2.3 (8) 330.9 ± 2.6 (13) Certificate2‡ 2.8 ± 0.3 6,520 ± 550 20 ± 7 64.5 ± 0.9 N/A 310 ± 60 STSD-2 CANMET Stream Sediment 12.7 ± 1.9 (60) 50.4 ± 2.7 (80) 21.9 ± 0.4 (74) 53.7 ± 1.6 (60) 1,101 ± 14 (67) 12.96 ± 0.26 (73) Certificate3,4 12 ± 1.4 47 ± 5 24 ± 4 59 ± 6 1,060 ± 60 13 ± 2 SY-3 CANMET Syenite < 7 15.4 ± 1.4 (3) 28.87 ± 0.23 (3) 1,487 ± 8 (3) 2,573 ± 7 (3) 4.1 ± 0.3 (3) Certificate5 2.5 ± 0.5 37 ± 5 27 ± 4 1340 ± 140 2500 ± 140 1.5 ± 1.0 SY-4 CANMET Diorite Gneiss < 7 < 9 34.4 ± 0.5 (65) 62.3 ± 2.3 (52) 849 ± 6 (52) < 0.8 Certificate† 1.5 ± 0.1 7 ± 1 35 ± 1 58 ± 1 N/A 0.2 – 3* TDB-1 CANMET Diabase < 7 305 ± 6 (102) 22.5 ± 0.4 (97) 13.3 ± 2.5 (84) 1,495 ± 14 (89) 0.98 ± 0.25 (97) Certificate† N/A 323 ± 15 21 ± 2* 17 ± 2* 1,577 ± 76* 1.6 ± 0.7*

Notes: Compiled data given as means ±1 standard deviation of results (number of measurements). †Certificate value is the recommended working value ± its 95% confidence interval; ǂ Certificate value is average ± 99% confidence interval on the inter-laboratory mean. ‡Certificate value is the average ± 1 standard deviation of the laboratory means. *Provisional or indicative values. N/A: data not available.





.M. Burnham

16-13


Material Provider Description Nb (ppm) Ni (ppm) Pb (ppm) Rb (ppm) Sc (ppm) Sr (ppm) In-house Reference Materials LK NIP-1 In-house Diabase Sill 3.66 ± 0.20 (170) 142.5 ± 1.2 (170) 1.8 ± 0.5 (171) 13.07 ± 0.26 (170) 31.7 ± 1.1 (135) 162.7 ± 1.0 (170) LLH-1 In-house Rhyolite 82 ± 4 (3) 3.7 ± 0.6 (3) 9.87 ± 0.31 (3) 73.4 ± 0.5 (3) < 4 31.63 ± 0.15 (3) MRB-29 In-house Basalt 12.35 ± 0.21 (19) 111.8 ± 0.8 (19) 3.8 ± 0.4 (19) 15.28 ± 0.22 (19) 30.8 ± 1.3 (18) 308.2 ± 1.5 (19) NPD-1 In-house Diabase 5.09 ± 0.20 (92) 61.9 ± 2.1 (96) 101.4 ± 1.6 (96) 48.0 ± 0.6 (96) 32.7 ± 1.3 (62) 170.3 ± 1.6 (96) ODL-1 In-house Dolomitic Limestone 1.62 ± 0.21 (83) 10.2 ± 1.1 (94) 15.4 ± 0.5 (94) 23.26 ± 0.26 (94) 8.1 ± 2.2 (75) 65.4 ± 0.5 (94) OKUM-1 In-house Ultramafic Komatiite < 0.7 906 ± 6 (166) < 1.7 1.22 ± 0.21 (164) 26.9 ± 0.9 (137) 14.62 ± 0.20 (164) OPEG-1 In-house Evolved Pegmatite 59.2 ± 2.2 (14) < 1.6 2.6 ± 0.4 (14) 3,548 ± 26 (14) < 4 48.3 ± 0.4 (14) ORCA-1 In-house Rhyolite 10.75 ± 0.30 (154) 4.2 ± 0.4 (154) 3.5 ± 0.4 (154) 51.8 ± 0.5 (154) 5.0 ± 0.7 (126) 68.8 ± 0.4 (154) QS-1 In-house Calcareous Shale 14.0 ± 0.3 (23) 38.4 ± 0.5 (23) 8.1 ± 0.4 (23) 132.3 ± 1.6 (23) 15.4 ± 0.7 (20) 107.9 ± 1.2 (23) RV-1 In-house Melagabbro < 0.7 509 ± 5 (79) 4.2 ± 0.4 (79) 19.70 ± 0.30 (79) 26.8 ± 0.9 (69) 330.5 ± 1.9 (79)

Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite 13.49 ± 0.23 (200) 18.2 ± 0.4 (200) 13.5 ± 0.4 (200) 68.4 ± 0.5 (200) 13.8 ± 0.7 (159) 645.4 ± 2.0 (200) Certificate‡ 15 ± 1 19 ± 3 13 ± 1 68.6 ± 2.3 13 ± 1 658 ± 17 BHVO-2 USGS Basalt 17.74 ± 0.27 (194) 122.7 ± 1.4 (199) 1.8 ± 1.0 (200) 9.87 ± 0.23 (199) 31.3 ± 1.1 (161) 383.0 ± 1.9 (199) Certificate‡ 18 ± 2* 119 ± 7 1.65 ± 0.051 9.8 ± 1.0 32 ± 1 389 ± 23 GSD-11 IGGE Stream Sediment 26.32 ± 0.18 (14) 14.8 ± 0.3 (14) 663.3 ± 2.4 (14) 402.7 ± 1.1 (14) 5.4 ± 0.5 (11) 28.89 ± 0.19 (14) Certificate ǂ 25 ± 3 14.3 ± 1.0 636 ± 22 408 ± 11 7.4 ± 0.4 29 ± 4 GSP-2 USGS Granodiorite 26.9 ± 0.6 (159) 16.1 ± 0.5 (161) 41.8 ± 0.5 (161) 242.5 ± 1.8 (161) 6.4 ± 1.0 (131) 236 ± 4 (161) Certificate‡ 27 ± 2 17 ± 2 42 ± 3 245 ± 7 6.3 ± 0.7 240 ± 10 GXR-4 USGS Copper Mill-head 10.28 ± 0.20 (13) 37.73 ± 0.30 (13) 51.0 ± 0.4 (13) 150.2 ± 0.6 (13) 6.7 ± 1.0 (8) 225.0 ± 0.6 (13) Certificate2‡ 10 ± 2 42 ± 6 52 ± 6 160 ± 10 7.7 ± 0.6 221 ± 26 STSD-2 CANMET Stream Sediment 21.3 ± 0.4 (74) 61.1 ± 0.7 (81) 79.7 ± 0.7 (81) 101.7 ± 1.0 (79) 15.1 ± 0.8 (60) 434 ± 3 (79) Certificate3,4 20 ± 3 53 ± 6 66 ± 4 104 ± 10 16 ± 2 400 ± 65 SY-3 CANMET Syenite 196.4 ± 0.7 (3) 3.0 ± 0.6 (3) 146.5 ± 0.7 (3) 211.60 ± 0.26 (3) 8.3 ± 0.6 (3) 308.1 ± 0.5 (3) Certificate5 148 ± 39 11 ± 4 133 ± 22 206 ± 21 6.8 ± 2.3 302 ± 18 SY-4 CANMET Diorite Gneiss 12.7 ± 0.8 (65) 6.9 ± 0.5 (65) 10.5 ± 0.4 (65) 55.7 ± 0.5 (65) 3.9 ± 0.9 (52) 1,187.8 ± 3.1 (65) Certificate† 13 ± 1 9 ± 1 10 ± 1 55 ± 1.5 1.1 ± 0.1 1,191 ± 12 TDB-1 CANMET Diabase 11.00 ± 0.29 (97) 90.0 ± 1.1 (102) 14.4 ± 0.6 (103) 21.26 ± 0.27 (102) 35.8 ± 1.1 (85) 221.9 ± 1.0 (102) Certificate† N/A 92 ± 6 17 ± 3* 23 ± 2* 36 ± 3* 230 ± 24*






.M. Burnham

16-14


Material Provider Description Th (ppm) U (ppm) V (ppm) Y (ppm) Zn (ppm) Zr (ppm) In-house Reference Materials LK NIP-1 In-house Diabase Sill < 1.5 < 1.6 285.3 ± 2.9 (135) 22.3 ± 0.4 (170) 98.5 ± 1.2 (168) 81.9 ± 1.0 (170) LLH-1 In-house Rhyolite 31.3 ± 0.7 (3) 6.47 ± 0.23 (3) 4.4 ± 0.5 (3) 50.7 ± 0.3 (3) 26.4 ± 0.6 (3) 107.00 ± 0.20 (3) MRB-29 In-house Basalt 2.4 ± 0.5 (19) < 1.6 304 ± 4 (18) 27.0 ± 0.4 (19) 108.6 ± 0.6 (19) 174.0 ± 1.2 (19) NPD-1 In-house Diabase 3.9 ± 0.6 (92) < 1.6 271 ± 3 (66) 25.1 ± 0.4 (92) 223 ± 4 (95) 110.0 ± 2.4 (96) ODL-1 In-house Dolomitic Limestone 1.7 ± 0.5 (83) < 1.6 19.7 ± 1.1 (85) 12.6 ± 0.3 (84) 55.0 ± 0.9 (94) 26.9 ± 0.6 (93) OKUM-1 In-house Ultramafic Komatiite < 1.5 < 1.6 173.6 ± 1.8 (141) 9.50 ± 0.31 (164) 62.6 ± 0.8 (166) 18.00 ± 0.21 (166) OPEG-1 In-house Evolved Pegmatite < 1.5 1.7 ± 0.5 (14) 4.3 ± 0.9 (13) 3 ± 5 (14) 14.9 ± 1.7 (14) < 1.8 ORCA-1 In-house Rhyolite 4.5 ± 0.5 (154) < 1.6 10.0 ± 0.8 (126) 72.1 ± 0.4 (154) 50.4 ± 0.9 (154) 259.0 ± 1.7 (154) QS-1 In-house Calcareous Shale 10.5 ± 0.7 (23) 2.6 ± 0.4 (23) 116.0 ± 2.1 (20) 28.9 ± 0.5 (23) 75.8 ± 1.1 (23) 159.4 ± 2.0 (23) RV-1 In-house Melagabbro < 1.5 < 1.6 112.4 ± 1.3 (69) 5.8 ± 0.4 (79) 94.9 ± 1.1 (79) 16.2 ± 1.2 (79)

Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite 6.0 ± 0.7 (200) 1.8 ± 0.5 (200) 113.2 ± 1.4 (159) 19.6 ± 0.3 (200) 88.0 ± 0.7 (200) 241.1 ± 1.8 (200) Certificate‡ 6.1 ± 0.6 1.88 ± 0.16 120 ± 5 20 ± 1 86 ± 8 230 ± 4 BHVO-2 USGS Basalt 1.4 ± 0.7 (194) < 1.6 315 ± 3 (165) 25.8 ± 0.4 (194) 105.6 ± 1.8 (198) 175.0 ± 1.6 (199) Certificate‡ 1.2 ± 0.3* 0.41 ± 0.031 317 ± 11 26 ± 2 103 ± 6 172 ± 11 GSD-11 IGGE Stream Sediment 22.3 ± 0.5 (14) 8.52 ± 0.26 (14) 44.6 ± 0.6 (11) 44.3 ± 0.9 (14) 381.9 ± 1.3 (14) 146.2 ± 1.4 (14) Certificate ǂ 23.3 ± 1.2 9.1 ± 0.9 47 ± 3 43 ± 5 373 ± 14 153 ± 13 GSP-2 USGS Granodiorite 107.3 ± 2.0 (159) < 1.6 49 ± 6 (133) 25.7 ± 0.6 (159) 120.7 ± 1.2 (160) 561 ± 5 (161) Certificate‡ 105 ± 8 2.40 ± 0.19 52 ± 4 28 ± 2 120 ± 10 550 ± 30 GXR-4 USGS Copper Mill-head 23.4 ± 0.6 (13) 5.5 ± 0.5 (13) 87.5 ± 0.9 (8) 15.1 ± 0.5 (13) 48.4 ± 0.5 (13) 217.2 ± 0.4 (13) Certificate2‡ 22.5 ± 1.6 6.2 ± 0.13 87 ± 5 14 ± 4 73 ± 7 186 ± 25 STSD-2 CANMET Stream Sediment 15.6 ± 0.7 (74) 18.5 ± 0.6 (73) 103.5 ± 1.5 (67) 38.7 ± 0.4 (76) 269 ± 4 (80) 188.9 ± 2.0 (81) Certificate3,4 17.2 ± 1.3 18.6 ± 1.0 101 ± 10 37 ± 6 246 ± 21 185 ± 9 SY-3 CANMET Syenite 962.8 ± 0.8 (3) 627.2 ± 1.7 (3) 47.3 ± 0.5 (3) 714.9 ± 0.4 (3) 258.1 ± 0.5 (3) 337.0 ± 0.7 (3) Certificate5 1003 ± 83 650 ± 55 50 ± 9 718 ± 81 244 ± 14 320 ± 40 SY-4 CANMET Diorite Gneiss 2.1 ± 0.8 (65) < 1.6 6.2 ± 0.9 (52) 124.8 ± 0.6 (65) 94.2 ± 0.8 (65) 508 ± 4 (65) Certificate† 1.4 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.1 8 ± 1.6 119 ± 2 93 ± 2 517 ± 16 TDB-1 CANMET Diabase 2.7 ± 0.8 (97) < 1.6 457 ± 4 (89) 35.3 ± 0.4 (98) 139.5 ± 2.3 (102) 164.5 ± 1.6 (101) Certificate† 2.7 ± 0.3 1.0 ± 0.1* 471 ± 21* 36 ± 4* 155 ± 11 156 ± 20*





16-15

Table 16.5. Summary of results obtained by the XRF-T04 method for in-house and certified reference materials from May 23, 2018 to February 7, 2020.

Material Provider Description Ag (ppm) Cd (ppm) In-House Reference Materials ODL-1 In-house Dolomitic Limestone < 1.5 < 4 PJV-2 In-house Rock Powder 1.9 ± 0.8 (20) < 4

Certified Reference Materials BHVO-2 USGS Basalt < 1.5 < 4 Certificate1† 0.089 ± 0.037 0.152 ± 0.049 NIST-8607 NIST Tungsten Ore 13.4 ± 1.6 (2) 25.9 ± 0.7 (2) Certificate† 8.3 ± 0.9 26.1 ± 0.9 OREAS 45d OREAS Ferruginous Soil < 1.5 < 4 Certificate 0.153* 0.053* OREAS 600 OREAS Ag-Cu-Au Ore 23.6 ± 1.0 (20) < 4 Certificate‡ 24.3 ± 0.9 3.37 ± 0.32 OREAS 601 OREAS Ag-Cu-Au Ore 48.3 ± 0.8 (2) 6.7 ± 0.4 (2) Certificate‡ 49.4 ± 1.5 7.86 ± 0.53 WPR-1a CANMET PGE-bearing Peridotite 2.1 ± 0.6 (6) < 4 Certificate‡ 1.02 ± 0.10 0.598 ± 0.086

Notes: Compiled data given as the mean ± 1 standard deviation of results (number of measurements). †Certificate value is the recommended working value ± its 95% confidence interval. ‡Certificate value is the average ± 1 standard deviation of the laboratory means. *Provisional or indicative values.

Reference: 1Jochum et al. (2016). Abbreviations: CANMET = Canadian Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology;

NIST = National Institute of Standards & Technology; OREAS = Ore Research & Exploration; USGS = United States Geological Survey.

Table 16.6. Summary of results obtained by the XRF-W01 method for in-house and certified reference materials from April 1, 2017 to December 19, 2019.

Material Provider Description Cl (ppm) In-House Reference Materials LK-NIP-1 In-house Diabase Sill 458 ± 26 (2) OKUM-1 In-house Ultramafic Komatiite 68 ± 14 (7) ORCA-1 In-house Rhyolite < 50 QS-1 In-house Calcareous Shale 69 ± 12 (5) Certified Reference Materials AGV-2 USGS Andesite 59.0 ± 2.8 (2) Certificate1‡ 68* GSD-11 IGGE Stream Sediment 312 (2) Certificateǂ 290 ± 26 MRG-1 CANMET Gabbro 162 ± 8 (3) Certificate2 170 ± 30 SY-3 CANMET Syenite 140.0 ± 2.8 (2) Certificate2 150 ± 30

Notes: Compiled data given as the mean ± 1 standard deviation of results (number of measurements). ‡Certificate value is the average ± 1 standard deviation of the laboratory means. †Certificate value is the average ± 99% confidence interval on the inter-laboratory mean. *Provisional or indicative values.

References: 1Jochum et al. (2016); 2Gladney and Roelandts (1990a). Abbreviations: CANMET = Canadian Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology;

IGGE = Institute of Geochemical and Geophysical Exploration; USGS = United States Geological Survey.

Index of Authors (with corresponding article numbers)

B Beneteau, S.B., 1 Biswas, S., 11 Brunton, F.R., 15 Burnham, O.M., 16

D Dell, K.M., 14 Duguet, M., 8 Dyer, R.D., 4

E Easton, R.M., 4, 6, 9

G Gao, C., 12 Gibson, H.L., 10

H Hamilton, M.A., 7 Hamilton, S.M., 4 Hargreaves, J.C., 16 Hastie, E.C.G., 10 Hechler, J.H., 4

J Jin, J., 15

L Larsen, T.O., 11 Levesque, M.D., 3

M Marich, A.S., 13 Metsaranta, R.T., 7

N Nadeau, J.E., 2

P Paterson, R.H., 15 Petrus, J.A., 10 Phillips, A.R., 15 Préfontaine, S., 4, 5, 6

R Rainsford, D.R.B., 4, 6, 11

S Schmidt, L.C., 3

T Tait, K.T., 10

Y Yeung, K.H., 12, 15

Metric Conversion Table

Conversion from SI to Imperial Conversion from Imperial to Sl

SI Unit Multiplied by Gives Imperial Unit Multiplied by Gives LENGTH

1 mm 0.039 37 inches 1 inch 25.4 mm 1 cm 0.393 70 inches 1 inch 2.54 cm 1 m 3.280 84 feet 1 foot 0.304 8 m 1 m 0.049 709 chains 1 chain 20.116 8 m 1 km 0.621 371 miles (statute) 1 mile (statute) 1.609 344 km

AREA 1 cm2 0.155 0 square inches 1 square inch 6.451 6 cm2

1 m2 10.763 9 square feet 1 square foot 0.092 903 04 m2

1 km2 0.386 10 square miles 1 square mile 2.589 988 km2

1 ha 2.471 054 acres 1 acre 0.404 685 6 ha VOLUME

1 cm3 0.061 023 cubic inches 1 cubic inch 16.387 064 cm3

1 m3 35.314 7 cubic feet 1 cubic foot 0.028 316 85 m3

1 m3 1.307 951 cubic yards 1 cubic yard 0.764 554 86 m3

CAPACITY 1 L 1.759 755 pints 1 pint 0.568 261 L 1 L 0.879 877 quarts 1 quart 1.136 522 L 1 L 0.219 969 gallons 1 gallon 4.546 090 L

MASS 1 g 0.035 273 962 ounces (avdp) 1 ounce (avdp) 28.349 523 g 1 g 0.032 150 747 ounces (troy) 1 ounce (troy) 31.103 476 8 g 1 kg 2.204 622 6 pounds (avdp) 1 pound (avdp) 0.453 592 37 kg 1 kg 0.001 102 3 tons (short) 1 ton(short) 907.184 74 kg 1 t 1.102 311 3 tons (short) 1 ton (short) 0.907 184 74 t 1 kg 0.000 984 21 tons (long) 1 ton (long) 1016.046 908 8 kg 1 t 0.984 206 5 tons (long) 1 ton (long) 1.016 046 9 t

CONCENTRATION 1 g/t 0.029 166 6 ounce (troy) /

ton (short) 1 ounce (troy) /

ton (short) 34.285 714 2 g/t

1 g/t 0.583 333 33 pennyweights / ton (short)

1 pennyweight / ton (short)

1.714 285 7 g/t

OTHER USEFUL CONVERSION FACTORS Multiplied by

1 ounce (troy) per ton (short) 31.103 477 grams per ton (short) 1 gram per ton (short) 0.032 151 ounces (troy) per ton (short) 1 ounce (troy) per ton (short) 20.0 pennyweights per ton (short) 1 pennyweight per ton (short) 0.05 ounces (troy) per ton (short)

Note: Conversion factors in bold type are exact. The conversion factors have been taken from or have been derived from factors given in the Metric Practice Guide for the Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Industries, published by the Mining Association of Canada in co-operation with the Coal Association of Canada.

ISSN 0826-9580 (print) ISBN 978-1-4868-4843-0 (print) ISSN 1916-6117 (online) ISBN 978-1-4868-4844-7 (PDF)

OFR 6370 Summary of Field Work and Other Activities 2020

Documents

Transcript of OFR 6370 Summary of Field Work and Other Activities 2020