|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| JOURNAL HOME | HELP | CONTACT PUBLISHER | SUBSCRIBE | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Discussions |

Newcrest Mining Limited, Level 2, 20 Terrace Road, East Perth, WA 6004, Australia
Centre for Ore Deposit Research, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia
Newcrest Mining Limited, Cadia Road, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia
Corresponding author: e-mail address, wilsonal@newcrest.com.au
| The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below. |
Sir: In his commentary on the Wilson et al. (2003) paper on the Ridgeway alkalic porphyry Au-Cu deposit, Smith (2005) highlights some of the difficulties in distinguishing between zones of propylitic alteration that characterize the distal portions of porphyry (and other) hydrothermal systems and mineralogically similar assemblages related to regional low-grade burial metamorphism. This problem has long been recognized, and explorers and researchers of porphyry deposits have to contend with it on a daily basis. The problem has recently been reviewed by Gifkins et al. (2005), who provide criteria to help discriminate between hydrothermal and metamorphic mineral assemblages in altered volcanic rocks.
Smith (2005) highlights that some of the subgreenschist facies metamorphic
assemblages documented throughout the Ordovician volcanic sequence of the wider
Ridgeway-Cadia region (zones 1, 2, and 3 of Smith, 1969) are mineralogically
similar to distal (inner propylitic, outer propylitic, and sodic) hydrothermal
alteration zones documented from Ridgeway and other porphyry deposits of the
Cadia district (Tedder et al., 2001; Holliday et al., 2002). However, these
distal alteration zones are precisely thatzones of alteration that have a
near-concentric distribution around the
| JOURNAL HOME | HELP | CONTACT PUBLISHER | SUBSCRIBE | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |