Palaeoproterozoic to Mesoproterozoic Geology of North Queensland

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Correlating Georgetown and Mt Isa Successions10080MountMountIsaIsaInlierInlierLeichhardt Superbasin 100Leichhardt SuperbasinMount Mount Isa Isa Inlier Inlier7 samples;7 samples;n=466n=466EasternEasternSuccessionSuccessionlowstandlowstand66samples;samples;n=419n=41980Number6040Relative probabilityNumber6040Relative probability2020020Georgetown Inlierlower Etheridge Group3 samples; n=227060Georgetown InlierUpper upper Etheridge Group3 samples; n=216 n=21650Number1510Relative probabilityNumber4030Relative probability2051001500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900Age (Ma)01500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900Age (Ma)
Correlating Georgetown and Mt Isa SuccessionsMaximum depositional ages for the Etheridge Group are similar to those ofthe Soldiers Cap and Mt Isa Groups and deformation events appear tocorrelate BUT ……•The provenance of the lower Etheridge Group is very different to any Mt IsaInlier Proterozoic sediments.•The provenance of the upper Etheridge Group is similar to Mount Isa Inlier,but requires an E-W event between ~1660 and 1640 Ma to bring these terranestogether.Other differences between Georgetown and Mt Isa:•Normal geothermal gradient (clockwise P-T-t with superimposed high templowpressure event) vs dominantly high geothermal gradient (anti-clockwiseP-T-t) (e.g. Boger & Hansen, 2004; Cihan et al., 2006; Rubenach 1992)•Intensity of N-S folding decreases westwards towards Mt Isa•E-W vs N-S directed structural grain (e.g. O’Dea et al., 1997)•S-type vs I- and A-type magmatism at ~1555 Ma (e.g. Black & McCulloch, 1990;Wyborn et al., 1992)•Any rigorous geodynamic model needs to take these differences intoaccount
Page 1 and 2:
Australian GovernmentGeoscience Aus
Page 3 and 4:
Tasman LineCOENINLIERDeep crustalse
Page 5 and 6:
50 kmSurface Geology - Georgetown r
Page 7 and 8:
Proterozoic Stratigraphic Units - S
Page 9 and 10:
Bernecker Creek Formation• Calcar
Page 11 and 12:
Daniel Creek Formation• Very fine
Page 13 and 14:
Dead Horse Metabasalt• Aphyric th
Page 15 and 16: Corbett Formation• Predominantly
Page 17 and 18: Lane Creek Formation• Mudstone an
Page 19 and 20: Cobbold Metadolerite• Mostly sill
Page 21 and 22: Cobbold Metadolerite• Mostly sill
Page 23 and 24: Townley Formation• Mudstone, silt
Page 25 and 26: Heliman Formation• Mudstone and s
Page 27 and 28: Langdon River Mudstone• Laminated
Page 29 and 30: Proterozoic Stratigraphic Units - S
Page 31 and 32: Langlovale Group• Malacura Sandst
Page 33 and 34: Palaeoproterozoic-Mesoproterozoic S
Page 35 and 36: Croydon Volcanic Group• Dominated
Page 37 and 38: Inorunie Group• Unconformably ove
Page 39 and 40: Proterozoic Stratigraphic Units - S
Page 41 and 42: Einasleigh Metamorphics• Psammope
Page 43 and 44: Einasleigh Metamorphics• Psammope
Page 45 and 46: Proterozoic solid geology - Georget
Page 47 and 48: Proterozoic structural domains & so
Page 49 and 50: Robertson River areaDeformation & m
Page 51 and 52: Deformation & metamorphismLangloval
Page 53 and 54: Palaeoproterozoic-Mesoproterozoic S
Page 55 and 56: Other Proterozoic Inliers - norther
Page 57 and 58: Tasman LineCOENINLIEROther Proteroz
Page 59 and 60: Other Proterozoic Inliers - Yambo
Page 61 and 62: Other Proterozoic Inliers - Coen•
Page 63 and 64: Correlations between InliersEtherid
Page 65: Correlating Georgetown and Mt Isa S
show all

Palaeoproterozoic to Mesoproterozoic Geology of North Queensland

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?