Economic Geology

Vol. 73, 1978, pp. 1539-1555

Varietiesof GraniticUraniumDepositsandFavorable
ExplorationAreasin the EasternUnited States
JOHNJ. W. ROGERS, PAUL C. RAGLAN'D,
RICHARDK. NISHIMORI,
JEFFREYI•. GREENBERG,ANDSTEVEN'
A. HAUCK

Abstract

Primary uranium depositsformed by granitic magmascan be classifiedon two bases:

petrologle processof ore formation and tectonic occurrence. The processesof ore
œormation can be subdivided as follows:

1. $yngenetic,orthomagmaticdisseminations.
2. High-temperature,late-magmaticdeposits,including pegmatitestage deposits,such
as the pegmatite-alaskitedepositsof R6ssing, .Bancroft,and Crocker Well; contact
metasomaticdeposits,including occurrencesof garnetiferous skarns around pegma-
tite-alaskite bodies; high-temperature vein deposits, commonly associatedwith
quartz-fluorite veins; and autometasomaticdeposits, including many of the dis~
semihatedand local concentrationsin albite-riebeckitegranites.
3. Local pegmatitesformed by in situ melting of country rocks.
Basedon occurrence,granitic uranium depositscan be describedin the context of two
ideal end members: (1) anatectic, mignmtitic, pegmatite-alaskitebodies formed by re-
mobilization of preexisting basement--a type example is the R6ssing depositof Namibia
(South West Africa )--limited geochemicalinformationsuggeststhat thesedepositshave
very low Th/U ratios, are probably rich in elementsthat are concentratedby surface
processes,and may have high initial S7$r/S6$r ratios; and (2) post-tectonic,alkali-rich
(including albite-riebeckite)granitesin stocksprobablyderived directly from mantle or
deep crustal levels in the form of aliapiriemagmas--limitedgeochemicalevidencesug-
geststhat thesedepositshave Th/U ratios> 1 and are rich in elementsthat form late
differentiates during magmatic and deuteric processes;some bodies have low initial
SVSr/SOSrratios.
The precedingconsiderationspermit the selectionof sevenareas in the eastern United
States that are most favorable for the developmentof uranium depositsin crystalline,
dominantlygranitic, rocks: (1) the Lithonia Gneissof Georgia; (2) the northernNorth
Carolina Blue Ridge (GrandfatherMountain;vindowand Crossnoreplutons); (3) the
central and northern Virginia Blue Ridge (Irish Creek tin district and RobertsonRiver
and LovingstonFormations;(4) the Raleighbelt of North Carolinaand Virginia; (5)
the 300-m.y.-oldplutonbelt of Georgia,South Carolina,North Carolina,and Virginia;
(6) portionsof the White Mountain Magma Seriesof New England; and (7) the
molybdenum-copper
province of Maine.

Introduction in graniteshaverecentlybeenreviewedby Moreau

(1977).
THE expandingsearchfor uranium ore in the United
States has extendedto many types of depositsin
The presentauthorshaveconducted
a 2-yearin-
addition to the conventional sandstone ores that have
vestigation of economicuranium concentrationsin
igneousrocks. Two reports have been issuedas a
beenmostproductivein the past. A numberof the
resultof thiswork. Xishimoriet al. (1977) discuss
differenttypesof ore deposits,and the problemsin- the theoreticalbasisfor explorationfor uranium in
volved in their use, have been discussedin recent
symposia andsummaries(e.g., I.A.E.A., 1977; Jones, graniticrocks,and Greenberg et al. (1977) apply
1977; Ruzicka, 1977). In particular,the develop- thesecriteriato theidentification
of zonesof potential
ment of the massiveRSssingdeposit(Berning et al., economic interest in the eastern United States.
1976) of South West Africa (Namibia) has given Uraniumis a mobileelement. In internalpro-
impetusto the explorationof crystallinerocks. Arm- cessesin the earth (generallyin the reduced,tetra-
strong (1974) predictsthat low-gradeporphyry-type valent,form) it is classified
as a lithophilicelement
depositsin igneousrockswill becomemajor sources and tends to accumulate in the later differentiates of
of uraniumin the future. Someaspectsof uranium igneousmelts. It may oxidize to the hexavalent
1539
1540 ROGERS, R./tGL./tND,NISHIiIIORI, GREENBERG../tND H./tUCK

stateas tl•c co•nplcxuranylion (I[().zI 2,) whichgen- within an ig•cous body will obviously rc,qrict the
erally permits even more extensiveseparationinto ore to the pluton. ]n homogeneous plutonsthe ore
fluid and volatile phases. The tendency of hexa- may be distributed throughout much of the body,
valent uranium to forln fluoride and carbonate com-
allowingthe entire pluton to be mined,generallyfor
plexesmay enhancethis accumulation. In sediments, low-grade,large-tonnageore. In differentiatedplu-
these complex ions are easily moved, thus causing tons the ore may be restrictedto specificrock types,
the ultimateformationof sedimentaryuraniumores. generallythe more siliceousand alkali-rich varieties.
All metalsposegeologicproblemsfor the explora- Similarly, contact metasomatic,pegmatitic,hydro-
riohist. The mobilityof uranium,however,addseven thermal,etc., depositsall have specificshapes,tenors
more complexities. In fact, the adage that "ore is of ore, and relationshipsto pluton and country rocks.
where you find it" may not be applicableto most A second major reason for understandingthe
surficial explorationfor uranium owing to surface origin of a uranium depositis connectedwith the
leaching,transportation,and redeposition,which can surface mobilization of uranium mentioned in the
easilyremoveall indicationsof ore depositsat depth Introduction. If surface measurements of uranium
and leave no ground or air radiometric or rock concentrations are not reliable indicators of ore at
sample anomalies. Conversely,shallow accumula- depth,then it is necessaryto discoversomeelements
tions of surfaceuranium may yield false signatures associated
with uranium that are lessreadily leached
of nonexistentburied deposits. during weatheringand may remain as pathfinders
Thus, in the searchfor uranium in igneousrocks, for economicconcentrationsof uranium at depth.
the geologistgains an advantagewith an under- The metals associated with uraniumclearlydepend
standingof the fundamental geologicandgeochemical on the processof deposition.For example,primary
processes that concentrateuraniumand the environ- uraniumin normalmembersof batholithicsequences
ments in which ore is most likely to occur. The should be closely associatedwith high concentra-
absence of conventional surface anomalies cannot be tionsof thorium; thus,high Th concentrations
in sur-
usedto condemnpotential explorationarea, nor can facerocksmay indicateU enrichmentat depth.Con-
simpleairborneradiometry1napsbe usedas an indi- ßversely,vein and pneumatolyticdepositsmight showa
cation of detailed location. closeassociationof U and Mo (which is also an ac-
This paperis dividedinto threeparts. First is an companimentof U in sonhesedimentaryores), in
overview of the basic igneous processesthat cause which case Mo anomaliesmight be a useful path-
concentrationof uranium and the typesof rocks in finder for uranium.
whichthesedeposits are mostlikely to occur.Second
is a discussion of the source of uranium and the tec-
General9eochemistryof uranium
tonic environmentsin which uraniuln-rich igneous
rocksare likely to form. Third is an application
of Uranium geochemistry has beensummarizedin a
theseprinciplesto the delineationof favorablebelts variety of places(Rogers and Adalns, 1969a and b;
for uranium explorationin crystallinerocksin the I. A. E. A., 1970, 1974). The most important as-
eastern United States. pectsfrom the standpointof the ore geologistare:
This paperis restrictedto a discussionof those 1. The uranous(U +•) ion has a radiusof 0.89 A
depositsin which high-uraniumconcentrations are and fits very poorly into the latticesof major rock-
causedby magmaticprocesses.Thesedepositsin- forming minerals. Thus, it tends to accumulatein
cludesyngenetic
occurrences in granitesand occur- residualmagmasduring igneousdifferentiation.The
rences in which extensive uranium mineralization in uranium may then crystallizein late-stageprimary
wall rocks is presumablycausedby fluids formed minerals such as zircon, allanite, sphene,xenotime,
during the magmaticcrystallizationprocess. The pyrochlore,or, where sufficientlyconcentrated,in
paper does not cover the closelyrelated topic of sonhemember of the uraninite-pitchblende(UOe-
vein deposits,includingsuch well-knownsuitesas UO2+,•) series. Sonheprimary depositsalso contain
the Hercynianmassifsof Franceand variousdeposits uranothorianite,(U, Th)O2; davidite (a complex
of centralEurope. Hydrothermaldepositshavebeen hydrous iron-uranium-rareearth-titaniumoxide);
reviewedby Rich et al. (1977). and brannerite(principallyuraniumtitanate).
2. Instead of crystallizingin primary minerals
Uranium in Igneous Processes within the maglnaticrock itself, the uranium may be
There are two practicalreasonswhy it is necessary sufficientlysegregatedinto volatile phasesso that it
to understand the mode of formation of a uranium is distributedby late-stageprocesses or escapesfrom
deposit. One is that the methodof formationhas a the magmachamberin pegmatitic,pneumatolytic, and
major influenceon the shapeand magnitudeof the high-temperature hydrothermal fluids. Minerals
deposit.Primarycrystallizationof uraniumminerals commonlyassociatedwith this stage of deposition
 GR•INITIC U DEPOSITS IN THE E•ISTERN U.S. 1541

and other uranyl silicatesiu minor amounts. referredto as pegmatitedepositsin this classification.
3. In late-stage, water-rich fluids, uranium is Metasomaticdepositsof uranium (type 2B) as-
wholly or partly oxidizedto the hexavalentform. sociatedwith intrusiveigneousrocksare most likely
Depositionof partiallyoxidizedmaterialcommonly formedl)y the actionof ore-carryingfluids or vapors
formspitchblende(UO2+x) in veinsor hydrotherm- emanatingfrom magmas. Used here, the term meta-
ally disseminated deposits. Veins and broaderdis- somaticuranium depositappliesmainly to carbonate
seminations may alsocontainuranylmineralssimilar or mafic igneouscountry rocks that have undergone
to thoseof sedimentary depositsand includevarious metasomaticreplacementduring ore deposition;an
silicates,phosphates,carbonates,etc. equivalent term would be contact replacementde-
4. Uranimn and thorium are closelyassociated iu posit. The depositat Mary Kathleen, Australia, has
most primary magmaticrocks,but separationgradu- been proposedas an important exampleof this type
ally occursduring igneousdifferentiation. Thus, the of deposit (Hughes and Muuro, 1965), although
Th/U ratio commonlyincreasesfrom 2 to 3 in Hawkins (1975) suggeststhat the uranium in the
mafic rocks to values of 5 to 6 in the more differ- depositmay have been mobilized from preexisting
entiatedplutonsof an igneoussequence. Some of sedimentary rocks during metamorphism. Other
thisseparation may be the resultof uraniumlossinto examplesof contact replacementare the uranium-
late-stagefluids,in part becauseof oxidationof the rich skarnsat Bancroftand R6ssing.
uranium. Thorium is lessefficientlyseparatedinto High-temperaturevein deposits(type 2C) grada-
vein fluids,and thus primary igneousdepositstend tional into pegmatiticand metasomaticuranium de-
to have Th/U ratios much higher than pegmatites positsare distinguished from pegmatiticdepositson
and veins. the basis of mineralogy. Pegmatite depositsare
mineralogicallyvery similar to their associated
intru-
Classificationof processes sive mass,and vein-type depositslack someor all of
Based on the precedingconsiderations, Table 1 the rock-formingmineralsof the associated igneous
showsthe possibletypes of igneousprocesses that intrusive. For example, pegmatite uranium de-
could lead to an economic concentration of uranium. positsat Crocker\Vell, Australia,grade into quartz
The table also predictsthe generalform of the de- vein depositsas feldspardecreases in the pegmatite
posit and indicatesexamplesof actualdeposits. assemblage.
Syngeneticuranium depositsin igneousrocks Autometasomatic deposits(type 2D) form during
(type 1 in Table 1) form duringthe orthomagmaticthe alteration of igneous intrusives by their own
stageof crystallizationof magmas.the stageduring uranium-richfluidsand vapors. Albitizationor silici-
whichapproximately90 percentof the magmacrys- ficationcommonlyaccompauies this type of deposit.
tallizes. Uranium-beariugminerals crystallizeat or Metamorphic pegmatitesformed by local, in situ
about the sametime as the other mineral components meltingof crustalrocks(type 3) evolvewhenuranif-
of the host rock and are distributed in a disseminated erous metamorphic rocks undergo partial melting
fashion. and form small pocketsof uraniferousmagma. This
Uranium depositsformedfrom late magmaticdif- type of mineralizationoccurs specificallyat Mt.
ferentiatesand associatedfluids and vaporsare sub- I•aurier, Canada (Allen, 1971; Kish, 1975).
dividedinto four genetictypesin Table 1. Deposits Uranium depositsat the contactof someigneous
formed during the pegmatitestageof crystallization intrusivesare composedentirely of secondaryura-
(type 2A) comprise deposits in pegmatites, alaskitic nium minerals, as at Austin, Nevada (Sharp and
pegmatites,or aplites that apparentlycrystallized Hetland, 1954). At the Midnite mine, Washington
after the main body of magmafrom late-stage,vola- (Xash and Lehrman, 1975; Nash, 1977), ore-grade
tile-rich differentiates. In many cases,thesedeposits concentrations are causedlargely by secondarypro-
are concentrated near the marginsof the bodies.This cesses,but soaking of the contact area around the
groupincludessomeof the largestigneousuranium principal igneousintrusive body may have caused
depositsin the world,suchas R6ssing,Bancroft,and high-temperatureformation of protore from mag-
Crocker Well. matically derived fluids. These depositsare not
Somepegmatiteuraniumdepositshaveundergone discussedin this paper becauseso much of the con-
mineral replacementor growth becauseof alteration centrationprocessappearsto have been causedby
by magmaticfluids or vaporsand are metasomatic low-temperaturefluids.
depositsin the strictest sense: see, for example,
descriptionsin Berning et al. (1976) of the R6ssing lqelationshipof processesto experimentalstudies
alaskitic pegmatites. However, sincethese"meta- The depositsdiscussed in the precedingclassifica-
somaticpegmatite"deposits generallyretainthe min- tion have formed through a considerablespectrum
1542 ROGERS, R.4GLZfND, NISIII:]IORI, GREENBERG, zlND HMUCK

Tzm. i,• 1. Gcnctic Classification of t'l'anium l)cposit,• in Intl,•ivc lg]]eous Rocks

1. Syngeneticdisseminations
of uranium in igneousrocksformedduring the orthomagmaticstageof crystallization
Characteristics: Primary uranium-bearing minerals such as uraninite, sphene,zircon, monazite, allanire, and pyrochlore
disseminatedthrough unaltered, nonpegmatitic igneousrocks.
Form of deposit:Has shapeof igneousbody; may be localizedin specificzonesif body is differentiated.
Examples:
Granites
Conway Granite, New Halnpshire (Billings and Keevil, 1946; Hurley, 1956; Rogers, 1964; Rogers et al., 1965);
Granite Mts., Wyoming (Malan, 1972; Stuckless, 1977); Silver Plume Granites, Colorado (Phair and Gottfried,
1964); and granitic and alkalic rocks in the easternSeward Peninsula,Alaska (Miller and Bunker, 1976)
Alkaline rocks
Lovoze. ro massif,Kola Peninsula,USSR (Gerasimovskyet al., 1968); Ililnaussaq,Greenland (Sorenson,1970; Bohse
et al., 1974); and Pocosde Caldas, Brazil (Ramos and Fraenkel, 1974)
Carbonatites
Oka and Lake Nippising,Canada (Rowe, 1958); Phalaborwa,SouthAfrica (Verwoerd,1967; yon Backstr6m,1974);
and Tapira (Sobrinho,1974) and Araxa (Maciel and Cruz, 1973), Brazil

2. Late-stage,high-temperaturedepositsformed from late lnagmaticdifferentiatesand associatedfluidsand vapors

A. Deposits formed during the pegmatite stageof crystallization
Characteristics:Pegmatites,aplites, alaskitic pegmatitesranging in texture from pegmatitic to aplitic; may show
evidenceof replacement(metasomatism)due to attack by late-stagemagmaticfluidsand vapors; primary uranium
minerals such as uraninite, davidire, uranothorianite, or brannerite disseminated through host rock; uraniferous
Zr, Ta, Nb, etc., minerals in alkaline pegmatites.
Form of deposit: May have shapeof pluton; commonlylocalizedalong contacts,cupolas,etc.
Examples:
Granites
R6ssing,South West Africa (Berninget al., 1976); Bancroft,Ontario (Satterly, 1957; Cunningham-Dunlop,
1967; Robinson, 1960); Olary district including Crocker Well, Australia (Campana, 1956; Raynet, 1960);
Wheeler Basin, Colorado (Young and Hauff, 1975); and Currais Novos, Brazil (Ramosand Fraenkel, 1974)
Alkaline rocks
Pegmatitesand lujavrites at Ilimaussaq,Greenland(Sorenson,1970; Bohseet al., 1974)
B. Contact metasomaticdepositsin country rocksadjacent to igneousintrusions
Characteristics:Mineral replacementapparently causedby the reaction of magmatic fluids with country rock;
depositsoccurmostcommonlyin calcareousrocksat igneouscontacts(skarns).
Form of deposit: Irregular bodies along contacts.
Examples:
Depositsin pyroxenites
and skarnsat Bancroft,Ontario(Satterly,1957);skarnsat R6ssing,
South\VestAfrica
(Berninget al., 1976); and Mary Kathleen,Australia (Hughesand Munro, 1965)
C. High-temperatureveindepositsgradational
into metasomatic
andpeglnatiteuraniumdeposits
Characteristics:
Distinguishedfrom pegmatiteuraniumdepositsby lack of someor all mineralscommonlyfound
in igneouspegmatites;distinguished
frommetasomaticdepositsby vein morphology.
Form of deposit: Veins
Examples:
Quartz-fluorite
veinsat R6ssing,
SouthWestAfrica(Bern!ng
et al., 1976);calcite-fiuorite-apatite
veinsat Ban-
croft, Ontario (Satterly,1957);brannerite-rich
quartz vmnsat CrockerWell, Australia(Campanaand King,
1958);carbonate-hematite-fluoriteveinsat BokanMr., Alaska(MacKevett, 1963);and carbonate-fluorite
veins
at Oka carbonatite, Canada (Rowe, 1958)
D. Autometasomatic deposits
Characteristics:
Disseminations
of prilnary uraniummineralsin nonpegmatiticigneoushost rocks;crystallization
of uraniummineralsis speculatedto be approximatelycontemporaneous with autometasomatic alterationby
magmaticvaporsor fluids.
Form of deposit:May have shapeof pluton, but commonlylocalizednear contacts.
Examples:
Ross-Adams
deposit,BokanMt., Alaska(MacKevett,1963);and KaffoValley,Nigeria(McKay et al., 1952;
Bowden and Turner, 1974)

3. Pegmatitedeposits
formedby local,in situ,partialmeltingof uraniferous
countryrock
Characteristics:
No associated
comaglnatic pluton;pegmatites apparently
formedby partialmeltingof layersof biotite
gneiss.
Form: Localized concentrationsin metamorphic sequences.
Examples:
Mr. Laurier,Canada(Alien,1971;Kish,1975);andThackaringa
belt,NewSouth\Vales(WillisandStevens,
1971)
 GR.4NITIC U DEPOSITS IN THE E•tSTERN U.S. 1543

TYPE OF PHASES ASSOCIATEDURANIUM

CRYSTALLIZATION PRESENT PRODUCTS DEPOSITS

ORTHOMAGMATIC XLS + MELT PHANERITIC RX URANIUM-RICHGRANITES

FROM MAGMA
AND MELT+ XLS

AQUEOUS
FLUID +GAS HIGH-P

PEGS
I LOW-P
PEGMATITE-ALASKITE-
MIGMATITE BODIES

FROMAQUEOUS APLITES •

FLUID
ORFLUIDS HIGH-P
LOW-P I • CONTACT
ANDMETASOMATIC
AUTOMETASOMATIC
• ZONES

XLS
+ XLS
+ •• I •
•

GAS
I LIQUID
• I + •o
QUARTZ-FLUOR
CALCITE VEINS

I VAPOR• I >
,,

FIG. 1. Relationshipsbetweenprocessesof uranium ore formation and cooling of granitic

melts. Portions of the diagram are modified from Jahns and Burnham (1969). The sub-
division between high-pressure generation of a homogeneousgas phase and low-pressure
fractionationinto separatevapor and liquid phasesis about 1 kb (Luth and Tuttle, 1968). Pro-
gressivechangewith cobling is shown from orthomagmatic,high-temperaturecrystallization to
low-temperatureprecipitation from hyslrousphases. Uranium depositsare formed primarily
during high-temperature, high-pressure crystallization from hydrous gas phasesin pegmatite-
alaskite-migmatitebodiesand also during hydrothermal (vein and autometasomatic)activity at
lower temperatures and pressures.

ranging from magmaticcrystallizationthrough peg- somatism,and hydrothermalalteration. The fluids

matitic and pneumatolyticprocessesto vein-type
deposition. This spectrumcan be explainedin terms
of evidenceobtainedfrom a variety of studieson the
relationships between silicate melts and volatile
phases.
Experimentalstudiesby Tuttle andBowen(1958),
Luth and Tuttle (1968), Jahns and Burnham
(1969), and Whitney (1975) subdivide granite
crystallizationinto threegeneralstages: (1) crystal-
lization of liquidus crystals from the silicate melt
(liquid + crystals); (2) crystallizationof liquidus
mineralsand active generationof an aqueousfluid or
vapor phase (hereaftercalledthe fluid phase) from
the coexistingmelt (liquid + crystals+ fluid); and
(3) subsolidusstagereactions,after completedcrys-
tallizationof the silicatemelt (crystalsq- fluid).
The main body of intrusive granite crystallizes
during stage 1. Development of pegmatites and
aplites can begin with either stage 1 or 2; however,
Jahns and Burnham (1969) suggestthat the pro-
cessesinvolvedin stage2 are essentialto the origin
of pegmatites. Steps 2 and 3 can bring about im-
portant exchanges of materials between the fluid
phase,the early formed crystals,and the wall rock.
These effects can inchide metasomatism,autameta-
separatedfrom granitemelts during crystallization
are generallybelievedto be important contributors
to hydrothermalore deposits(see Holland, 1972,
for a reviewof thistheory). Figure1, adaptedfrom
Jahns and Burnham (1969), illustratesthe various
stagesof granite crystallizationand correlatesthem
with the resultantrock types;the varioustypesof
uraniumdepositsthat wouldlikelybe formedat each
stageof the processare also shown.
Variationsin pressure,
temperature,
watercontent,
and volatilecontentof the magmacausedifferences
in the durationand tilningof thesethreestagesof
granitecrystallization.At low pressures
(lessthan
1 kb), graniteswith 3 to 4 percentinitial water con-
tent will exsolvea fluid phaseat sufficiently
high
temperaturesabovethesolidus sothatcrystals,
liquid,
and fluid coexistover a large temperature range
(X¾hitney, 1975). Secondboiling,the earlyrelease
of hydrothermalfluidsfrom magmas,is believedto
explaincertainfeaturesof porphyrycopperdeposits
and is probablyimportantfor uranium ore formation.
At higherpressures(5-10 kb), the behaviorof •va-
ter-tmdersaturated
granitesis quite different; the
followingare someof the differences
betweenhigh-
and l•w-pressuregranitecrystallization.
1544 ROGERS, RAGLAND, NISHIMORI, GREENBERG,AND H•UCK

1. At high fluid pressures,dissolvedsilicatesolids suresin excessof about 1 kb may accountfor the

are moresolublein the fluid phase,and fluid and melt affiliation of pegmatitic, metasomatic,and vein de-
are more miscible(Tuttle and Bo•ven,1958). positsin the vicinity of batholithsat Bancroft.
2. At high fluid pressures,the compositionof the
Source and Tectonic Environments oœ
dissolvedsolids in the fluid approachesthe com-
positionof the coexistinggranite melt; at low pres- Uranium Deposits
sures, the compositionof the dissolvedsolids ap- A knowledgeof the petrologicprocesses described
proachesSiO= (Luth and Tuttle, 1968). aboveis necessaryin order to predict the detailed
3. At pressuresin excessof about 1 kb and water- locationof uranium in and around specificintrusive
undersaturatedconditions,the fluid phase is not bodies. In order to determinebroad regionswhich
exsolveduntil the melt and crystalsare at a tem- mightbe fruitful for reconnaissance exploration,it is
perature that is approximately 20øC above the necessaryto understandthe relationship between
solidus. Crystals,liquid,and fluid thuscoexistovera uranium concentration,the source of the uranium,
narrow temperaturerangeabovethis pressure.How- and the tectonicenvironmentin which the igneous
ever, crystals,liquid, and fluid coexist over a large body occurs. Among the most important distinc-
temperature range at pressuresbelow about 1 kb tions to make is the one between those areas in which
(Whitney, 1975). uraniumhas beenreleaseddirectlyfrom the mantle
Uraniferouspegmatiticgranitesat depositssuchas into the igneoussequenceand thoseareasin which
Bancroft and R6ssing may have formed as a con- uraniumhasbeenderivedby remobilization of earlier
sequence of stage2 of granitecrystallization(crystals crustal materials.
+ liquid + vapor). The RiSssingdepositis discussed
more completelyin a later section,but several fea- Separationof uranium from the mantle
tures which may be explained by high-pressure The mechanismby which uranium is releasedfrom
crystallizationof hydrousgranite magma shouldbe the mantleis unclearandhasmanypuzzlingaspects.
mentioned here. Much of the problemcanbe demonstrated
by a brief
1. Becausethe solids dissolvedin the fluid phase discussion
of Th-U-Pb systematicsin volcanicrocks.
pegmatitesand Most basalts(and gabbros)of islandarcs,mid-ocean
are similar to granitein composition,
alaskites can crystallize from this phase. The ridges, and other areas of direct mantle derivation
uranimn concentratedin the fluid phase can then containPb isotoperatios that have evolvedin mantle
fashionin thepegmatites regionsin whichthe Th/U ratio hasattaineda pres-
crystallizein a disseminated
under the appropriateredox and temperaturecondi- ent value of 3.5 to 4 (e.g., Tatsumoto,1966, 1969;
tions. Churchand Tatsmnoto,1975); this Th/U ratio
2. The fluid phaseat higher pressures(greater is also characteristic of chondritic meteorites and
than5 kb) cancontainonlyabout10 percentgranitic appearsto be the primordialratio for the entire earth.
solids(Luth andTuttle.1968,p. 544). Furthermore, Oceanicandarc tholeiiticrocks,however,commonly
Luth and Tuttle statethat "the vapor changesfrom haveTh/U ratiosof 1 to 2, thussignifying a prefer-
granitecomposition to 96+ percentsilicaasthetem- ential release of uranium relative to thorium from
peraturedropsa few degrees."Thus,oncevoided the mantleinto the derivedmeltduringpartialmelt-
of thesegraniticsolids,the remainingfluid at lower ing.
temperaturecould constitutea more "normal," Preferential release of uranium relative to thoriron
quartz-rich,hydrothermal solution,giving rise to may be explainableby a comparisonof the relative
hydrothermal vein deposits;hydrothermal vein de- bondingenergiesbetweenoxygenandthetxvocations.
posits grade into pegmatitedepositsat Bancroft. Althoughthe U +* ion is slightlysmaller(0.89 A)
While the granitic solidsare still in solution,the thanthe Th+* (0.95 A), andthusmightbe expected
fluidphasecouldactasa granitizing,metasomatizingto remainselectively in solidphases,thereare major
agent. At R6ssing,the alaskitesallegedlygre•vas a differences in electronegativity
of the U +* (1.7) and
consequence of metasonmtism (Bernluget al., 1976); Th+* (1.3); (Pauling'selectronegativity values).
moreover,the •vall rocks surroundingthe alaskites Assigning the O--øion a radius of 1.40 A and an
apparentlywere altered by a granitizing, meta- electronegativityof 3.5 permits the use of the fol-
somatizingfluid, and it has been suggestedthat lowingequation(Damon, 1968) for the calculation
"granitizingfluids saturatedand replacedalready of bondingenergy:
migmatizedcountryrock" (Berning et al., 1976,p. 330 Z•(1 -- e-ø.2•a•)
361). BE=
R
3. The narrow temperaturerange (lessthan 20øC)
that separatesthe magmatic,pegmatitic,and hydro- whereBE: bondingenergy,Z• = chargeon cation,
thermal stagesof crystallizationof granitesat pres- /x = electronegativity
differencebetweencation and
 GRANITIC U DEPOSITS IN THE EASTERN U.S. 1545

anion,and R. = sumof cationand unionradii (inter- hydrothermaldeposits,pitis the possibilitythat some

atomicdistance). The restiltsof this calculationare siliciclnagmasmay be sufficientlyenrichedin ura-
bondingenergiesof 320 kcal/molefor U +• and 394 nium that the primary, crystallizedrock itself could
kcal/molefor Th+•. If the bondingenergywith be a sourceof low-grade,disseminatedore.
oxygenis the critical factor in determiningthe re-
lease of elementsfrom solid phases,the uranium Relationshipof uranium depositsto geologicage
would be expectedto be releasedpreferentiallyto Relationshipsof uranium depositsto geologicage
thorium, thus explainingthe relatively low Th/U and/or processesof crustal evolution have been
ratiosin primary maficrocks. The tendencyof the discussedby a number of writers (e.g., Robertson,
Th/U ratio to increasetowardthe later differentiates 1974; Xishimori et al., 1977; Robertsonand Tilsley,
of igneoussequences is oppositeto thepredictionthat 1977). One of the bestexamplesof an age relation-
would be made on the basis of bondingenergy cal- ship is the concentrationof uranium in basal Pro-
culations,but the ratio may be largely controlledby terozoicconglomerates, which has been attributed to
lossof hexavalenturaniumfrom the magmachamber a variety of processes,suchas changein atmospheric
during igneousdifferentiation. compositionat the end of the Archeart or release of
In short,there is a poorlyunderstood mechanism uranium from the earth's interior during an end-of-
by which uranium is releasedfrom the mantle into Archeartorogenicpulse. Uranium depositsare also
liquid and fluid phases. •¾here these phasesare common in Grenville-age terranes (e.g., Bancroft,
mafic magmas,the concentrationin the crystallized Ontario) and in Pan-African orogenicbeltsof 500 to
rocks is generallylow (1 ppm or less), and sig- 600 m.y. age (e.g., R6ssing,Nambia; easternEgypt;
nificant concentrationof uranium must depend on Currais Novos, Brazil). The reasonsfor the con-
crystallizationdifferentiationor possiblyeven liquid centrationof uranium depositsat a particular time
ilnmiscibility (Philpotts, 1976). This differentia- are unknown,but theymaybe relatedto the necessity
tion producesrockswith uraniumconcentrations up for accumulatingradioactiveelementsin the upper
to a maximum of a few tens ppm and having Th/U mantle and lower crust for considerable periodsof
ratiosin thevicinityof 5. Concentrationsof uranium time in order to supplythe energyneededfor world-
high enoughto be economicprobablycan be obtained wide orogenicpulses.
in such rocks only by separationof uranium into One very significantobservationhas been the
late-stagevolatile phasesand localizeddeposition absenceof uranium depositsfrom Arcbean terranes.
from hydrothermalfluids. This absencecorrelateswith the generallylesslitho-
It is possible
thaturaniumnmybereleased fromthe philic compositionof the Arcbean crust than of the
mantlenotonlyintomagmasbut directlyintovolatile Proterozoic crust (e.g., Eade and :Fahrig, 1971).
phases.Thispossibility by the evidence One explanation for this observationcould be that
is supported
cited above for the ease of separationof uranium mantle differentiation and crustal evolution occurred
from the mantle. Such broad release of uranium only to a limited extent in the Arcbean and generally
mightbe expectedto yieldareasof regional,moderate did not producelithophile-rich,granitic crust in sig-
uranium mineralization,with the possibilityof high nificant amounts. An alternative explanationis that
concentration in localized zones of favorable struc- Arcbean crust was originally as uraniferous as
ture or wall-rock lithology. younger crusts but lost mobile elements such as
uranium during later orogenicactivity.
3[obilizationof uraniumby crustalreactivation
Mobilization of uranium from preexisting crustal Tcctmticclassification of i,qneousuranium deposits
rocks is the secondlikely possibilityfor a sourceof Basedon thesegeneralconceptsfor the generation
mineralizingfluids. In particular, sedimentarypro- of uranium-richmaterials,a classification
canbe pro-
cesseshave the ability to concentrateuranium into posedfor igneousuranium depositsthat placesthe
certain rocks (e.g., organic-rich shales) and to process of uranium mineralization in its tectonic
separateit from thorium (e.g., into organic-rich setting. For this purpose, two end members of
shalesand other rocksof low Th/U ratios). Anatec- igneous depositshave been established: the Bokan
tic processes may then operateeither on primary, Mountain depositof southernAlaska, which is con-
felsic igneousrocks containingmoderate levels of sidered to be an ideal example of mantle-derived
uranium enrichmentor on sediments,which may con- uranium: and the R•3ssingdeposit of South Wrest
tain moderateto high initial uranium concentrations. Africa (Namibia), which is consideredto be an ideal
Theseanatecticprocesses may eitherproducevolatile, example of anatecticremobilizationof preexisting
mineralizingphasesor felsic magmas,which could sialic crustal material. The identifying character-
later differentiate to fluids. In either case, there is isticsof thesedepositsare shownin Table 2.
the possibilityfor the developmentof regionalor local BokanM'ountain: The BokanMountaindepositof
1546 ROGERS, RAGLAND, NISHIMORI, GREENBERG, AND HA UCK

T•tBLE 2. Summary of Principal Differencesbetween the R6ssingand Bokan Mountain

Models for Granitic Uranium Deposits

Characteristic R6ssing Model Bokan Mt. Model

Lithology Pegmatite-alaskite-gneiss;anatectic Alkaline and/or peralkaline granite; as-

granite and migmatite sociated syenites; commonly albite-
riebeckite granite
Derivation Reworked and recycled sialic crust Mantle or Iower crust
Initial Sr isotope ratios Generally greater than 0.710 Generally less than 0.710
Th/U ratios Generally less than 1.0 Generally greater than 1.0
Levels of erosion Deep Shallow
Levels of emplacement Catazonal Epizonal
Tectonic stage Syntectonic Post-tectonic
Age Commonly Proterozoic to early Paleozoic Any age (post~Archean)
Tectonic setting Orogenic Anorogenic or post-orogenic
Metamorphic rank of country rocks Middle- to upper-amphibolite Any rank (including unmetamorphosed)

southeastern Alaska is associated with a Mesozoic As indicatedabove,Bokan Mountain and many

intrusion of peralkalinealbite-riebeckitegranite. The post-tectonicplutonsare consideredto be mineraliza-
pluton is a post-tectonicplug intruding geosynclinal tion sitesof uraniumderivedfairly directlyfrom the
sedimentsof upper Proterozoicand lower Paleozoic mantle. There is, of course, no absoluteproof of
age (Churkin and Eberlein, 1977). Four types of this sourceof uranium,and the proposalis basedon
uraniumdepositshavebeenrecognizedby MacKevett the following considerations.
(1963) in .the Bokan Mountain area: (1) primary 1. The Bokan Mountain plutonshowsno evidence
disseminationsand segregationsof uranium minerals of havingbeenproducedby localanatexis,in strong
in the peralkalinegranite--it appearsthat the min- contrastto the stratigraphicallyrestrictedmigmatites
erals becamemore concentratedin the later phases of the R6ssingarea (describedbelow). The nature
of crystallization,possiblyas a result of magmatic of the crust into which the Bokan Mountain pluton
hydrothermalactivity; (2) primary mineralization was intruded is uncertain. Churkin and Eberlein
(syngenetic)in the aplitesand pegmatitesassociated (1977) cite limited evidencethat the southernpart
with thegranite; (3) secondary hydrothermaldeposi- of Prince of Wales Island, containingBokan Moun-
tion (epigenetic)in veins and fractureswith some tain, containstrondhjemiticigneousrocks,as old as
replacement; and (4) secondary hydrothermal 700 m.y.,intrusiveintoearliergeosynclinal sediments.
depositionin poresof clasticsedimentaryrocks. This observationmight indicatedevelopmentof a
With very few exceptions,the uranium deposits sialic crust in late Proterozoic time, which would be
are in or near the granitestock. The exceptionsin- consistentwith the generaltendencyof alkalineigne-
clude prospectsin an older seriesof pegmatitesas- ous rocksto intrude areasof crustalstability.Eugeo-
sociatedwith quartzmonzonite-granodiorite and one synclinalactivity in the area, however,continuedat
prospectin a fracturedmafic dike. There can be leastthroughthe lower Paleozoic,which raisesques-
little doubt, however, that the main source of the tionsas to the degreeof crustalstabilityin any por-
uranium is the peralkalinegranite. The ore-forming tion of the southeastern Alaska area. Thus, although
processmay havetakenplacein two stagesor it may it is conceivable that sialic crust was available for
have acted in a continuousprogression. MacKevett anatecticor sedimentaryrecycling to produce the
(1963) discussed a two-stageprocessin which a Bokan Mountain magma, there is far less evidence
peralkalinegranite of anomalousuranium content for suchan origin than there is for the RSssingarea
initially crystallizedto form the types 1 and 2 con- and similar miglnatitic, syntectonicterranes. There-
centrations. Sometimelater, hydrothermalactivity fore the presentwriters considerthat the mostlikely
moved uranium-rich solutionsinto the surrounding origin for the Bokan Mountain magma is either a
country rocks and thus produced types 3 and 4 partial melting of the mantle or a partial melting
deposits, whichare the principaluraniumoccurrences of sedimentsformedby the erosionof eugeosynclinal,
in the Bokan Mountain area. The contrastingcon- mantle-derived,volcanic and plutonic rocks. The
tinuous processrequires the hydrothermalenrich- lack of cratonic contribution and the mantle source of
ment system from granite to country rock to be such eugeosynclinalassemblageshas been discussed
originally magmatic. That is, the same magmatic by Rogers and McKay (1972).
flnids that causedthe primary uranium ore min- 2. Insofar as chemical evidence is available, the
eralizationwithin the granite also producedmineral- Th/U ratio of the Bokan Mountainpluton appears
ized aplitesand pegmatitesand enrichedthe country to be high (greater than 1). A Th/U ratio greater
rock in uranium. than 1 is generally characteristicof such mantle-
 GRANITIC U DEPOSITS IN THE E,4,S'TERN U.5'. 1547

derived volcanicrocks as mid-oceanridge basaltsand The principal cvidcncethat man.• oœthe g•anitcs
continentaltholelites (Rogers and Adams, 1969a). in the deeplyerodedportionof the Damaran belt are
Conversely,Th/U ratiosgreaterthan 1 are not found anatectic and/or syntectic is the stratigraphic re-
in magmaticrocksproducedby local anatexis,as at strictionof two of the major intrusivetypes. One of
R6ssing. Too muchrelianceshouldnot be placedon the older granites (G4) is the major host of the
Th/U ratios of surfacesamples,however,owing to uranium depositsand is restrictedprinmrily to the
the continualmobilizationof uranium by ground Xosib MetasedimentaryGroup, with some meta-
water in near-surfacerocks (e.g., Stuckless,1977). morphismof marblesin the overlyingR6ssingFor-
3. As discussedabove, substantialreleaseof ura- mation and nilnor intrusion into younger metasedi-
nium from the mantleappearsto be a commonpro- mentary rocks. The developmentof skarns along
cess.
contactsof G4 and the R6ssingmarbles,plusthe con-
4. Some post-tectonicplutons with geochemical formity of overlyingmetasediments with the R6ssing
similaritiesto Bokan Mountain have initial *YSr/S6Sr Formation,indicatesthat G4 postdatesmost of the
ratiosof 0.705 and lower (see Table 3 and discussion sedimentationin the area, and thus its restriction to
in next section). These low ratios indicate deriva- the Nosib Group is prestonablythe result of very
tion of the magmasby partial meltingof the mantle local anatectic derivation of the G4 melt. The G4
or primitive, possiblylower, crust with low Rb/Sr granite at R6ssingalso has a high *YSr/SøSrinitial
values. Strontium isotopic data, however, are not ratioof 0.734 (Kr6ner andHawkesworth,1977).
availablefor Bokan Mountain.Wenner et al. (1978) High uranium concentrationsare associated•vith
have found low •sO/•O initial ratios in some 300- the G4 granites. Thesegranitesconsistprimarilyof
m.y.-old,possiblymantle-derived,plutonsof the Ap- quartz and alkali feldsparswith minor biotite. Mafic
palachianpiedmont,which may be Bokan Mountain- mineralsare sufficientlyscarcein most samplesthat
type with respectto uranium potential. The low the G4 has been referred to as an alaskite. Anhedral
•sO/•O ratios are generally correlatedwith loxv textures predominate,and the grain size is highly
initial sYSr/S6Srratios. Oxygen isotopedata, how- variable,becomingpegmatiticin manyplaces. There
ever, are also lacking for Bokan Mountain, and the is no readilydiscernible patternof grain-sizevaria-
usefulnessof this geochemicalcriterion is not yet tion.
clear. The uranium in the G4 granite is very irregularly
RSssing: The RSssing deposit of South West distributed. Uranium valuesrange upxvardfrom 30
Africa (Nantibia) occursin the Damaranorogen,a ppm to 1,000 ppm or more, and Th/U ratios are
northeast-southwest-striking belt most recently de- very low (<<1). High concentrationsof U are
formed in Pan-African time, about 500 m.y. ago. particularly noted near contacts with the biotite
(Clifford, 1967; Jacob,1974). The orogenextends schistsof the Khan MetasedimentaryFormation,and
between older cratons to the southeast and northwest. in some contact zones uranium has been added to the
The belt is approximately400 km wide, and the Khan Formation by fluids from the granite. Much
regionaltrend is northeast-southwest
in all portions. of the high-uraniumgranitecontainsslightlyhigher
The southeastern one-third of the width of the belt is concentrations of biotite than the remainder of the
a graywackeassemblage
that may be ensimatic,but granite. Particularly high concentrations
of uranium
evidenceof suturing between the cratons on either are commonlyassociatedwith smoky quartz because
side has not been found within the exposedportions of the development of the smokyappearanceby radia-
of the belt. tion damage. Uranium is also commonlyassociated
The northwestern two-thirds of the Damaran with reddish, ferruginous zones, although it is not
orogencontainsa wide variety of rock types. The clear whether these discolorations are causedby
entire area appearsto be underlainby preexisting maglnaticor weatheringprocesses.
(possiblyArcheart) sialicbasement,now exposedat Reported mineralogy at R6ssing indicates that
numerous places as mantled gneiss domes. The about60 percentof the uraniumis in primary min-
basementis overlain by quartzites,arkoses,marbles, erals (chiefly uraninite) and 40 percentin a large
and other shallow-water sediments that have noxv variety of secondaryminerals. The extent to which
been metamorphosedto moderate- to high-rank the variability of uranium concentrationsin the
gneissesand schists. The belt appearsto pitch to variousgranitesis causedby primaryor by secondary
the northeast, thus exposing deeper levels of the processesis unknown. Furthermore, there is no
orogentoward the southwest,near the coast. High clear evidenceto indicate whether the secondary
uranium concentrationsoccur in the more deeply uranium mineralizationis hypogeneor supergene.
erodedportionsof the orogen,wherebasementrocks, Most of the uranium values in the Khan Formation
high-rank metasedimentaryrocks, and anatectic near its contactwith G4 are in secondaryminerals
granitesare closelyintermingled. insteadof uraninite,and thus it seemslikely that at
 1548 ROGERS,RAGLAND, NISHIMOR[, GREENBERG,AND H.4UCK

k'a.•t.,•,lmmc
of t],' .•,cc•lary •li.qrilm•i• is caused lmx'cl•{'t'•lctt'cclivc•ttlring llm c;,rlv l•i.5•,,ry,ff tl,c
latemagmaticprocesses.A numberof workers(e.g., cartlband igneonsnraniumdel)ositsare unknownin
Jacob and •ambleton-Jones, 1977), however, em- Arcbean rocks.
phasizethe importanceof supergeneactivity. Table 3 showsa number of igneous-related ura-
nium deposits and their principal characteristics.
Significanceand examples Many of themcomparecloselywith BokanMountain
As indicatedin the precedingdiscussion,recogni- or RGssing, thusindicatingthe generalvalidityof the
tion of the sourceof the igneousbodyand of tectonic two-foldclassification.Somedeposits,however,have
conditions during its formation is important for characteristics intermediate between those of the two
explorationpurposes. In general,only vein-typede- end-membervarieties. In particular:
positswill be of major importancein areasof post- 1. Depositsin Wheeler Basin, Colorado(Young
tectonicplutonsof the Bokan Mountain type, whereas and Hauff, 1975), showmanyelements of similarity
disseminated depositsmay be found in R•ssing-type to RGssing. They occur in gneiss-migmatiteter-
bodies. ranes,are concentrated in zonesthat havebeenhighly
Both the Rbssingand Bokan Mountain types of injectedby the 1.4-b.y.-oldSilver Plume Granite,
depositsform only under conditionsthat permit and occurin rocksin the upperamphibolitefaciesof
considerable fractionation of uranium from initial naetamorphism. Principal uranium concentrations
source rocks. At R6ssing, this fractionation has are in biotitic massesscatteredthroughoutthe in-
consisted of igneous differentiation following ex- jection zone. The major uranium mineral is urani-
tensivecrustalreworking during the complexhistory nite, with minor uranophaneand other uranyl min-
of the Damaran orogenicbelt, which may involve erals. The only significant differences between
several cyclesof igneouscrystallization,sedimenta- WheelerBasinand RGssing are that the Th/U ratio
tion, metamorphism,and anatexis. At Bokan Moun- of the Silver Plume host rock at XVheeler Basin is
tain, the fractionationhas beenaccomplished by the high (as muchas 10; Phair and Gottfried,1964) in
productionof a highly differentiated,alkali-rich,and contrastwith the very low Th/U ratio (< 1) in the
peralkaline melt and an ultimate releaseof volatiles. GagranitesnearR6ssing;and that, whereasR6ssing
Neither of thesefractionationmechanisms appearsto wasformedin an area of ensialiccrustalreactivation,
this process has not been identified at XVheeler
TABLE 3. Examples of Granitic Urauium Deposits Basin.

Bokan Mountain 2. The Conway Granite of New Hampshire is the

1. Cretaceous granites of Seward Peninsula, Alaska (Miller,
1972; Miller and Bunker, 1976; Staatz and Miller, 1976)
2. Early Tertiary and some Precambrian (Pikes Peak')
plutons in Front Range, Colorado (Wells, 1960; Phair
and Gottfried, 1964; Phair and Jenkins, 1975)
3. White Mr. Magma Series, New England (Billings and
Keevil, 1946; Adams et al., 1962; Rogers, 1964; Rogers
et al., 1965)
4. Younger Granite at Kaffo Valley, Nigeria (McKay et al.,
1952; Bowden and Turner, 1974)
5. Younger Granites of Red Sea Hills, Egypt (Hussein et al.,
1970; Hussein and E1 Kassas, 1970)
R6ssing
1. Wheeler Basin, Colorado (Young and Hauff, 1975)
2. Charlebois Lake, Saskatchewan (Mawdsley, 1952; Lang
et al., 1962; Beck, 1970)
3. Bancroft, Ontario (Satterly, 1957; Robinson, 1960; Lang
et al., 1962; Cunningham-Dunlop, 1967)
4. North shore of St. Lawrence River, Quebec, including
Sept Iles, Bale Johan Beetz, etc. (Baldwin, 1970)
5. Crocker Well, Olary district, Australia (Campana, 1956;
Campana and King, 1958; Johnson, 1958; Raynet,
1960; Thompson, 1965)
6. Six Kangaroos area of Cloncurry-Mt. Isa District, Aus-
tralia (Brooks, 1960; Carter et al., 1961)
7. Nanambu, Nimbuwah, and Rum Jungle complexes of
Katherine-Darwin area, Australia (Dodson et al., 1974;
Ayers and Eadington, 1975)
8. Currais Novos, Brazil (Favali, 1973; Ramos and Fraenkel,
1974)
9. Minor gneiss and mlgmatite in Laborador uranium area
(Beavan, 1958; Gandhi et al., 1969)
principal member of the Mesozoic, post-tectonic
XVhite Mountain Magma Series, which occursin a
variety of ring dikes and plugs throughout New
England. The granite has a number of similarities
to Bokan Mountain, includingits post-tectonicintru-
sion into a former geosynclinalterrane and a high
Th/U ratio. The Conway Granite, however, is
dominantly potassic,rather than sodic; also, per-
alkalinity is shown by other membersof the series
rather than by the Conway Granite. The Conway
Granite is largely a potential thorium resource
(Adams et al., 1962), and uranium concentrations
rarely exceed20 ppm. It is possiblethat somesmaller
bodiesof the White Mountain Series, which are also
more sodicand peralkaline,may be better potential
uranium sources(e.g., four bodiesin Vermont dis-
cussedin a later section).
3. The albite-riebeckitegranitesof Kaffo Valley,
Nigeria, are similar to Bokan Mountain in virtually
all petrologic respects, including post-tectonicin-
trusion, sodic and peralkaline character, vein and
disseminateduranium deposits, and high Th/U
ratiosin hostrocks. The Kaffo Valley granites,how-
ever, were intruded into a craton stabilizedin Pro-
terozoictime, whereasthe Bokan Mountain pluton
intrudeda terraneof uncertaincrustalcharacteristics;
 GRANITIC U DEPOSITS IN THE E.4STERN U.S. 1549

activity, l,,wcver, 1)crsistc(lin tile r•,cl<s. The ;[l'Ca,ll•c11,lllaV lit' all CXatlq,lc•,f ilw
cugc•,,•y•cliJ•al
Bokan Mountain area at least througllout h)wcr direct rclcasc of uranium œro•n the mantle in volatile
Paleozoictime. Both the Kaffo Valley and Bokan phases.
Mountain areaswere apparentlycrustallystabilized
Igneous Uranium in the Eastern United States
at the time of intrusion, which may be the only re-
quirementfor the developmentof the igneoushost The precedingsectionscan be summarizedin the
rock. form of a setof criteria that can be usedto judge the
Another possiblyanomalouscharacteristic of the favorability of an area for uranium explorationand
Kaffo Valley plutonmay be its initial a*Sr/SøSrratio. the varieties of depositsthat the area may contain.
The ratio has not been determinedfor Kaffo Valley These criteria are the following.
itself,but measurements on an apparentlycorrelative General (for all types of deposits):
body (Arno) of the Nigerian Younger Granite suite 1. Belts or regionsof broadly similar geologicfea-
yield an initial a*Sr/SøSrratio of 0.7212 (Bowden tures in which nranimn nfineralizationhas already
and Turner, 1974). This high ratio contradictsthe been reported in several (preferably numerous)
conceptof mantle derivation of the pluton. Unfor- areas. Although, as discussedabove,the mobility of
tunately,no strontiumisotopework hasbeendoneon uranium makes it impossibleto predict uranium
the Bokan Mountain pluton,and thus adequatecom- concentrationsat depth from surfacemeasurements,
parisonscannot be made. geologicallyhomogeneousareas that do not contain
4. Uranium depositsassociated with the Younger reported uranium occurrencessomewhere must be
Granitesof the Red SeaH/Ils of Egypt are enigmatic. considered less favorable than those that do.
The Younger Graniteswere formedin Pan-African 2. Abundance of silicic and alkali-rich intrusive
time (500-600 m.y. ago), have low initial s*Sr/•Sr rocks. Uranium tendsto concentratein thesehighly
ratiosof 0.702to 0.706,are highlypotassic,
and range. differentiatedrock types.
from peralmninousto slightly peralkaline (Rogers 3. Presenceof suitablestructural traps and wail-
et al., 1978). They are clearlypost-tectonic
andthus rock lithology to prolnote depositionfrom volatile
mightbe expectedto comparewith BokanMountain. 1)hases.
MeasuredTh/U ratios,however,are approximately 4. Abnndanceof fluorite or other fluorine-bearing
2 (Rogerset al., 1978), whichis clearlyin the range phases. These mineralsindicate the availability of
of mantle-derivedmagmaticrocks but considerably fluorine,which apparentlyaids in the distributionof
lower than the 4 to 6 expectedof highly potassic uranium because of the formation of uranium-fluoride
granites(Rogersand Adams,1969a). complexes.
The lower-than-expectedTh/U ratios in the 5. Post-Archeanageof the magmaticactivity. As
Younger Graniteslead to interestingspeculationsdiscussed previously,for somereasonArcheau rocks
concerning the sourceof the nranimnfor the entire are impoverishedin lithophilic elements such as
area. Completemineralogicalstudieson the occur- uranium.
rence of the uranium have not been made, but radio-
metric surveysclearly showthat uraniumminerals R6ssing-typedeposits:
are disseminated
throughthe morefelsicgranitesand 1. Occurrence in zones of crustal remobilization;
in broad zonesin the surroundingwall rocks. If the ensialic belts deformed between cratens or era(on
uranium mineralization in the wall rocks resultedfragments. The high concentrationof uranium in
from uranium-bearing fluidsescapingfrom adjoining these depositsapparentlyhas its original sourcein
granites,then the Th/U ratio in the sourcegranite sialic crustal rocks.
should increaseas a result of the uranium loss; this 2. Medimn- to high-rank metamorphic terranes
processhas been proposedto explain the general (amphibolitefacies). The depositscan form only in
for morefelsicigneousrocksto havehigher areasof migmatizationand anatexis.
tendency
Th/U ratiosthan moremarievarieties(Rogersand 3. Pegmatitic,highly silicicgranitesand pegmatite
Adams,1969a,b). Thus, Th/U ratiosof 2, instead (likes and veins, in which the uranium-bearingvola-
of the expected4 to 6, in the Younger Granitespre- tile phasescan concentrate.Metasomaticallyaltered
sumablyindicatethat the uranimn in the area was pegmatitesare of particular interest.
not derived from the plutons themselves. One 4. Contact zones of pegmatite-aplite-alaskite
explanation is that the entirearea,includingplutons bodies. These zonesare areasof particular concen-
and wall rocks,was soakedin uranium-bearingfluids tration of volatiles; in some casesparticularly high
structurallyassociated with the granitesbut derived concentrations of uranium are associated with biotitic
from some source at depth. This processwould zones.
explain both the comparativelylow Th/U ratios of 5. High initial s;Sr/•6Sr ratiosindicativeof crustal
the granitesand the dissemination of uraniumin wall remobilization.
15,50 ROGERS, R.4GL.4ND, N[SHhl•ORI r, GREENBERG, .4ND H.4UCK

•,. Commonly
a•st•ciatcd
ttuorinc(Grcenbcrgct aI., Mountain windo•v,which seemsto fit a R/sssing
1977). model; and the Crossnoreplutons,which have prop-
ertiesof both R6ssingand Bokan Mountain.
Bokan •[ountain-typedeposits: The Grandfather Mountain window contains up to
1. Post-tectonic
plutonsintrudingany variety of 6,000 m of arkoses,siltstones,shales,and conglom-
wall rocks. Possiblymost importantin areas of erates(GrandfatherMountainFormation)overlying
former ensimaticgeosynclinal activity. a varietyof granites,gneisses,
and augengneisses of
2. Sodicplutons,generallywith high concentra- Grenville age (about 1,000 m.y.). All rocks ap-
tionsof albite; possiblyperalkaline(shownby pres- parently underwentlow-rank metamorphism about
enceof riebeckite,etc.). 350 m.y. agoand nov½
appearas a windowthrough
3. Abundance of favorable structures and wall-
the major Blue Ridge thrust sheet. A more com-
rocklithologies.Mostof thesedeposits
are probably plete descriptionof the geologyis given by Bryant
veinsand hydrothermaldisseminations. and Reed (1970).
4. Major pathfinderelements
may be thorium,nio- Uranium occursin variouswaysin the Grandfather
bium, and fluorine. Mountain windo•v. The \Vilson Creek Gneiss con-
Basedon thesecriteria,a generalsurveyhas been tains uraninite-filledjoints in shearedpegmatites
madeof crystallineterranesin the easternUnited localizedalong phyllonitezones. Heavy mineral
States; the detailsare reportedby Greenberget al. beds in the Grandfather Mountain Formation (as
(1977). Sevenareashavebeenchosen ashavingthe well as the ChilhoweeGroup of an overlyingthrust
greatestpossiblepotentialfor •urther uraniumex- sheet)containmetamict zirconandallanire.Abun-
ploration (Fig. 2). danceof thesemineralsin generallyarkosicrocksis
R6ssing types: one of the criteria listed by Dennisonand Wheeler
1. the Lithonia Gneissof Georgia; (1975) for potential
sandstone-typeuraniumores.
2. the northern North Carolina Blue Ridge The Crossnore plutonic-volcanic
groupcontainsa
MountainwindowandCrossnoreseriesof peralkalinegranitesand gabbrosintrusive
(Grandfather
plutons); intothe BlueRidgebasement complex.The granites
3. the central and northern Virginia Blue Ridge arechemicallysimilarto volcanicrocksof the Grand-
(Irish Creektin districtand Robertson River father Mountainand Mt. RogersFormations(Ran-
andLovingstonFormations);and kin, 1975) andare characterized by the presenceof
4. theRaleighbeltof North CarolinaandVirginia. aegerineand/or riebeckitewith commonaccessory
Bokan Mountain-type deposits:
fluorite. The granitesare alsorich in Nb, Y, and
rare earth elements. Although the granites have
1. the 300-m.y.-oldplutonbelt of Georgia,South manyof the properties
of BokanMountaindeposits,
Carolina,North Carolina,and Virginia; they also have initial s•Sr/S•Srratios of 0.7125
2. portionsof the \Vhite MountainMagmaSeries (Odom and Fullagar,1971), indicativeof crustal
of New England; and reworking. Geochronologic studiesof the granites
3. themolybdenum-copper province
of Maine. areinconsistent
(Rankin,1970;OdomandFullagar,
As discussedbelow,the placingof someof theseareas 1971) but generallyagreeon a late Precambrian
age.
into the R6ssingor B.okanMountain categoryis Rankin (1975) believesthatthe serieswasassociated
problematical,
andsomeareasappear both with crustal rifting.
to contain
types. The centralandnorthernVirginia BlueRidgecon-
The Lithonia Gneissis a layeredgranitic gneiss tainstwo areasof potentialuraniumdeposits:the
containing numerous peglnatites andshowing fiuidal Irish Creektin district,RockbridgeCounty;and the
structure. It is in the sillimanitegrade of metamor- Robertson River Formation and Lovingston Gneiss
metamor- in Greene,Madison,andRapahannock
phisre. The gneissprobablyrepresents Counties.
phisinof Precambrian-early
Paleozoic rocksabout The Irish Creek tin district is formed in a pre-
4.50m.y.ago (Butler,1972); it hasbeenintruded sumedPrecambrianhypersthene granodioriteintru-
StoneMountainGranite,which siveintoquartz-feldspar
by thepost-tectonic gneisses.The granodiorite
hasan Rb-Sr isochronageof 291 m.y. and an initial is olderthantheregionalmetamorphism. Tin occurs
87Sr/86Sr
ratioof 0.725,indicatingits probable
deri- as cassiterite
in quartzveinsand greisens.
Fluorine
vationby anatexisof the LithoniaGneiss(¾Vhitneyis abundantin the area, occurringas fiuorapatitein
et al., 1976). A numberof radioactivity anomaliesthegraniteandasfluoritein thegreisens andveins.
are found in the Lithonia Gneiss and related rocks A morecomplete description
is givenby Koschmann
(HigginsandZietz,1975). et al. (1942) andGlasset al. (1958).
The northernNorth CarolinaBlue Ridge contains The Robertson River Formation is a massive,fine-
two areasof particularinterest: the Grandfather grained
granitewithvariableamounts
of hornblende
 GR•NITIC U DEPOSITSIN THE EASTERNU.S. 1551
BELTS OF •

,¾• PRE•IAN
GNEISS
TERRANES
ß 1• CROSSNORE
PLUTONI
C-•PLCAN
IC
BELT

/ YONAZITE
BELT N
• '• ]•00-M,Y,-OLD
(•N
PLUTONS
APPALACHIANS)

., ,. •'&'•,
,,• SOkFFHEASTERN
PIEZIvoN'r
,•,j•?..•,
t.1,,, HIGH-C4RADE
BELT
..;3½½.}:;
LIT.tufA
GNEISS
Z• I•rlITE NT. NAGtqA
SERIES

ß.• NEWENG• ALKALINEPROVINCE

(• NEW
ENG•
PE(•'4ATITE
DISTRICTS

•,•o [qAINE
•O-CU
PROVINCE

• i OLIVERIAN
GNEISS
(N•3R•RN D(lv•S
APPALACHIANS)

•/• • SOUTHERN
AND CENTRAL
APPALACHIAN PE(•'4ATI TES

•[As 2-1qAXltl• I:AVORABILIIZf•

I C.
iNEOUS URANI LI•

A-1 LITI4•NIA GNEISS

•-2 NORT1-ERN
N,C, BLUERIDGE

A-3 CENTRAL
• NOR•RN VA, BLUERIDGE
TECTONIC DIVISIONS
A-q RALEIGHB•LT

B-1 300-mW,-Ok• PLUTONS 1-Bz BREVARD

ZONE
•r-2 •ITE NT, NAGtqA
SERIES
2 PINE Mr, BELT
•r-J MAIN•MO-CU
PROVINCE
• KIOKEEBELT

SLATEBELT

KINGSMr, B•LT

6 INNERPIEIJIMOI•r

7 BLUERIDC,
E BASF_t'!•NT

8 •FATI•_R Mr,

9 SALIRATOV•I
Mr, ANTICLIN(IRILI•

lO ca•Lo• BELT

il RALEIGHBELT

12 BALTIt'I3RE
GNEISSD(]•!ES

]• PENNSYLVANIA
HIGHLANDSj
READING HILLS

1L•NEWJERSEY• HLDSON
HIGHI_AI•3S

0 200 Km
I ,

16 BERKSHIRE
HILLSj HOUSATONIC
HIGHLANDS

1• GREEN
MT, MASSIF

18 ADIRONDACK
Mrs,

Fid. 2. Tectonicindex map of the easternUnited Statesshowingareas of maximumfavor-

ability for igneousuraniumdeposits.The sevenspecificareasof principalinterestare shown
by arrowsandare discussed morecompletely in the text. Belts of possible
uraniumpotential
investigated by the writersare shoxvn
by varioussymbols.Major, readilyrecognizable,tectonic
divisions are shown by numbers.

and biotite(Allen, 1963) and an ageof about700 (Rankin, 1975, 1970); thusit hassortiesinlilaritics
m.y. Someportions of thegranitecontainaegerine to nearby Crossnore-type plutons. Its post-tectonic
and/or riebeckiteand abundantaccessory fluorite character might 1)lace it in the Bokan Mountain
1552 ROGERS,R.,4GL.4ND,
NœSHIMOR[,GREENBERG,
.4ND H.,4UCK

category,but no informationis availableon Th/U not particularly abundant in the Conway Granite
or Sr isotopic ratios. (10-15 ppm; Rogers, 1964), but a number of iso-
The LovingstonGneissis a quartz-biotiteaugen lated plutons in Vermont belongingto the \Vhite
gneisswidely distributedin the northern Virginia MountainSeriesare more sodic,showminor molyb-
Blue Ridge (Allen, 1963). It is foliated,gradational denuln mineralization, and have radiometric anom-
into manywall rocks,and clearlysyntectonic.Mona- alies. These smallerbodiesmay be very similar to
zite and allanite are disseminatedin the unit, and Bokan Mountain and include: Mt. Monadnock
radioactivity anomalies are known. Thus, the (Wolff, 1929; Chapman,1954); Mt Ascutney(Daly,
LovingstonGneissmay fit fairly closelywith a 1903; Chapmanand Chapman,1940); Cuttingsville
R6ssing-typemodel. (Eggleston, 1918; Laurent and Pierson, 1973); and
The Raleigh belt of Xorth Carolinaand Virginia Barber Hill (Laurent and Pierson, 1973).
consistsof high-rank (up to kyanite-grade)gneiss The molybdenum-copperprovince in Maine has
and schistintruded by severalsyntectonicgranites. formed in the vicinity of a number of granitic to
The plutonshavebeendatedin the rangeof 300 to quartz monzoniticintrusions. Magmatic activity in
450 m.y., and one pluton has an initial 8rSr/søSr the area appearsto have occurredthroughoutmuch
ratioof 0.7141(Fullagar,pers.conminn.),indicating of Ordovicianto Devoniantime (Spoonerand Fair-
possibleorigin by anatexis. Pegmatitesare common bairn, 1970). At the Catheart Mountain Mo-Cu
throughoutthe belt. Most of the featuresof R6ssing- deposit,Schmidt (1974) describedan epizonalor
type depositsare present. subvolcanictype of igneouseraplacement. Green-
The 300-m.y.-oldplutonsof Georgia,South Caro- berget al. (1977) list a numberof high-levelplutons
lina, Xorth Carolina, and Virginia are post-tectonic in Maine that were apparentlyformed in the general
and representthe last major thermal event in the age range and that showmolybdenummineralization
southern Appalachians (Fullagar and Butler, in associatedwith pegmatitesand fluorite. The suiteas
press). There are approximately 20 plutons con- a whole is hard to define, but many of the plutons
sisting of typical calc-alkaline,coarse- to medium- appear to have characteristicssimilar to those of
grained granite intrusive into rock types of all meta- Bokan Mountain.
morphicgrades. Most graniteshave initial s7Sr/SøSr The variousareasand rock types listed aboveare
ratiosof 0.702 to 0.705 (Fullagar, 1971; Fullagar certainly not the only ones of promisefor uranium
and Butler, in press), but a few plutonshave initial exploration in the eastern United States. The
ratiosgreaterthan 0.710. Molybdenum-copper min- writers feel,however,that they are wherethe present
eralizationis associated with four plutons (with low evidenceindicates maxinmm potential for major
initial strontium isotoperatios), and uranium con- discovery.
tentsup to 12 ppm have beenmeasuredin the Sparta
Acknowledgments
Graniteof Georgia(\Vanger, 1972; Garvey,1975).
Different portions of the Sparta pluton, however, Work discussedin this paper was supportedby
have initial s*Sr/SoSrratios as high as 0.744 (Fulla- contract E(05-1)-1661 from the Energy Research
gar and Butler, in press). The high strohtitaniso- and DevelopmentAdministration(now Department
tope ratios and calc-alkalinecharacter of somebodies of Energy), administered by the Bendix Field
indicatethat theseplutonsdo not fit all aspectsof the EngineeringCorporation,awardedto the University
Bokan Mountain model. of Xorth Carolinaat ChapelHill. The writers wish
The White Mountain Magma Series is a suite of to thank Dr. Hans Adler (Departmentof Energy.
Mesozoic,post-tectonicring dikes and isolatedplu- Germantown) for initial supportand organizationof
tonsin New England. Rock typesrangefrom gabbro the project. During the course of this work the
to granite; some of the rocks are peralkaline,con- writers have received great assistancefrom many
taining riebeckite, and most rocks are alkali-rich. personson the staffs of the Department of Energy
Initial s•Sr/S%r ratios are low (about 0.706; Foland and Bendix in Grand Junction,Colorado. A number
et al., 1971), and the Th/U ratiosare high (Rogers, of colleagues at the Universityof Xorth Carolinaat
1964). Ages of the various intrusive complexes Chapel Hill have also contributed valuable ideas and
range from 235 to 100 m.y., and Foland and Faul information. In addition, the writers ;vould like to
(1977) shoxvthat the distributionof ages doesnot thank the following people: R. Alexander, I. E1
supportpreviousproposalsthat the \Vhite Mountain Kassas, E. E1 Shazly, Z. Hassan, R. Jacob, A.
Seriesrepresentsa Mesozoicplume track. The Con- KrSner, C. Reilly, R. Schick,J. yon Backstrbm,and
way Granite is the largestrock bodyin the seriesand P. Woodhouse.
has been proposedas a low-grade thorium resource ]-)EP.\RTMENT OF •EOLOGY
on the basis of its average concentrationof about UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL
50 ppm thorium (Adams et al., 1962). Uranium is CHAPELHILL, NORTH CAROLINA27514
 GI2,4NIT[C U DEPOSITS IN THE E,4STERN U.S. 1553

R. 14. N. ^N•, S. ,.'\. l[. ['•r.s•.;N'r ,\DI)IiESN:
UNION CARBIDE METALS DIVISION
GRANDJUNCTION,COLORADO
81501
July 25, 1978
REFERENCES
Adams, J. A. S., Kline, M.-C., Richardson,K. A., and
Rogers, J. J. W., 1962, The Conway Granite of New
Hampshire as a major low-grade thorium resource: Natl.
Acad. Sci. Proc., v. 48, p. 1898-1905.
Allen, J. N., 1971, The genesisof Precambrianuranium de-
posits in eastern Canada, and the urauiferouspegmatites Damon, P. E., 1968, Behavior of some elements during
of Mont Laurier, Quebec: Unpub. M.Sc. thesis,Queen's
Univ., Kingston, Ontario.
Allen, R. M., Jr., 1963, Geology of Greene and Madison Dennison,J. M., and Wheeler, W. H., 1975,Stratigraphy of
Counties:Virginia Div. Mineral Resources Bull. 78, 102 p.
Armstrong, F. C., 1974, Uranium resourcesof the future--
"porphyry"uranium deposits,in Formationof uraniumore
deposits: Vienna, Internat. Atomic Energy Agency, p.
625-635.
Ayers, D. E., and Eadington,P. J., 1975, Uranium min- Dodson,
eralization in the South Alligator River valley: Min-
eralium Deposita, v. 10, p. 27-41.
Bald•vin, A. B., 1970, Uranium and thoriron occurrenceson
the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence: Canadian
Mining Metall. Bull., v. 63, p. 699-707.
Beavan, A. P., 1958, The Labrador uranium area: Geol.
Assoc. Canada Proc., v. 10, p. 137-145.
Beck, L. S., 1970, Genesis of uranium in the Athabasca Eggleston, J. W., 1918, Eruptive rocks at Cuttingsville,
region and its significancein exploration: Canadian Inst.
Mining Metallurgy Trans., v. 73, p. 59-69.
Berning, J., Cook, R., Hiemstra, S. A., and Hoffman, U.,
1976, The RiSssinguranium deposit, South West Africa:
Ecox. G•oL., v. 71, p. 351-368.
Billings, M.P., and Keevil, N. B., 1946, Petrography and
radioactivity of four Paleozoic magma series in New
Hampshire: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 57, p. 797-828.
Bohse, H., Rose-Hansen, J., Sorenson, H., Steenfelt, A.,
Lovborg, L., and Kunzendorf, H., 1974, On the behavior of
uranium during crystallization of magmas--with special
emphasis on alkaline magmas, in Formation of uranium
ore deposits: Vienna, Internat. Atmnic Energy Agency, p.
49-60.
Bowden, P., and Turner, D.C., 1974, Peralkaline and as-
sociated ring-dike complexes in the Nigeria-Niger prov-
ince, West Africa, in Sorenson,H., ed., The alkaline rocks:
New York, John Wiley, p. 330-351.
Brooks, J. M., 1960, The uranium depositsof northwestern
Queensland: QueenslandGeol. Survey, Pub. 297, 48 p.
Bryant, Bruce, and Reed, J. C., Jr., 1970, Geology of the Garvey, M. J., 1975, Uranium, thorium, and potassium
Grandfather Mountain window and vicinity, North Caro-
lina and Tennessee: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 615,
190 p.
Butler, J. R., 1972, Age of Paleozoic regional metamorphism
in the Carolinas, Georgia, and Tennessee,southern Ap-
palachians: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 272, p. 319-333.
Campana, Bruno, 1956, Granite, orogenies, and mineral
genesis in the Olary province (South Australia): Geol. Glass, J. J., Koschmann, A. H., and Vhay, J. S., 1958, Min-
Soc. Australia Jour., v. 4, p. 1-12.
Campana, Bruno, and King, D., 1958, Regional geology and
mineral resourcesof the Olary province: South Australia
Geol. Survey Bull. 34, p. 1-91.
Carter, E. K., Brooks, J. H., and Walker, K. R., 1961, The
Precambrian mineral belt of northwestern Queensland:
Australian Bur. Mineral Resources,Geology Geophysics
Bull. 51, p. 228-234.
Chapman, R. W., 1954, Criteria for the mode of emplacement Hawkins, B. W., 1975, Mary Kathleen uranium deposit, i•
of the alkaline stockat Mount Monadhock,Vermont: Geol.
Soc. America Bull., v. 65, p. 97-114.
Chapman, R. W., and Chapman, C. A., 1940, Cauldron sub-
sidence at Ascutney Mountain, Vermont: Geol. Soc. Higgins, M. W., and Zietz, Isidore, 1975, Geologic inter-
America Bull., v. 51, p. 191-212.
Church, S. E., and Tatsumoto, Mitsunobu, 1975, Lead iso-
tope relations in oceanic ridge basalts from the Juan de Holland, H. D., 1972, Granites, solutions,and base metal de-
Fuca-Gorda Ridge area, N. E. Pacific Ocean: Contr.
Mineralogy Petrology, v. 53, p. 253-279.
('l•urkiu, Michael, Jr., mid El,{'rlchb (L I)., 1977, Al•cic•d
borderland tcrranes of the North American Cordillera--
Correlation and microplate tectonics: Geol. Soc. America
Bull., v. 88, p. 769-786.
Clifford, T. N., 1967, The Damaran episode in the upper
Proterozoic-lowerPaleozoicstructural history of southern
Africa: Geol. Soc. America Spec. Paper 92, 100 p.
Cunningham-Dunlop,P. K., 1967, Geology of economicura-
niferous pegmatitesin the Bancroft area, Ontario: Unpub.
Ph.D. dissertation,Princeton Univ., 160 p. (University
Microfilms •68-8915).
Daly, R. A., 1903,The geologyof AscutneyMountain, Ver-
mont: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 209, 122 p.
magmatic crystallization: Geochim.et Cosmochim.Acta,
v. 32, p. 564-567.
PrecambrianthroughCretaceousstrata of probablefluvial
origin in southeastern United Statesand their potentialas
uranium host rocks: SoutheasternGeology,Spec. Pub. 5,
210 p.
R. G., Needham,R. S., Wilkes, P. G., Page, R. W.,
Smart, P. G., and Watchman, A. L., 1974, Uranium min-
eralization in the Rum Jungle-Alligator River province,
Northern Territory, Australia, in Formation of uranium
ore deposits:Vienna, Internat. Atomic Energy Agency,p.
551-567.
Eade, K. E., and Fahrig, W. F., 1971,Chemicalevolutionary
trends of continentalplates--a preliminary study of the
Canadianshield: CanadaGeol. Survey Bull. 179, 51 p.
Vermont: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 45 (4th series), p. 377-410.
Fayall, J. C., 1973, Mineralizacao uranifera na area do geo-
synclinedo Serido: CongresoBrasileiro do Geologico,v.
1, no. 1, p. 48-49.
Foland, K. A., and Faul, Henry, 1977, Ages of the White
Mountain intrusives--New Hampshire, Vermont, and
Maine, U.S.A.: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 277, p. 888-904.
Foland, K. A., Quinn, A. W., and Giletti, B. J., 1971, K-Ar
and Rb-Sr Jurassic and Cretaceousages for intrusives of
the White Mountain magma series,northern New England:
Am. Jour. Sci., v. 270, p. 321-330.
Fullagar, P. D., 1971, Age and origin of plutohie intrusions
in the Piedmont of the southeastern Appalachians: Geol.
Soc. America Bull., v. 82, p. 2845-2862.
Fullagar, P. D., and Butler, J. R. (in press), 325- to 265-
m.y.-old granitic plutons in the Piedmont of the southeast-
ern Appalachians: Am. Jour. Sci.
Gandhi, S.S., Grasty, R. L., and Grieve, R. A. F., 1969,
The geology and geochronologyof the Makkovik Bay area,
Labrador: Canadian Jour. Earth Sci., v. 6, p. 1019-1035.
abundancesin rocks of the Piedmont of Georgia: Unpub.
Master's thesis, Univ. Florida, Gainesville, 95 p.
Gerasimovsky, hr. I., Volkov, V. P., Kogarko, L. N.,
Polyakov, A. I., Saprykina, T. V., and Balashov, Y. A.,
1968, The geochemistry of the Lovozero alkaline massif:
Canberra, Australian Natl. Univ. Press, 395 p. (English
translation by D. A. Brown).
erals of the cassiterite-bearingveins at Irish Creek, Vir-
ginia, and their parageneticrelations: EcoN. GEOL.,v. 53,
p. 65-84.
Greenberg, J. K., Hauck, S. A., Ragland, P. C., and Rogers,
J. J. W., 1977, A tectonic atlas of uranium potential in
crystalline rocks of the eastern U.S.: Grand Junction,
U.S. Dept. Energy, Open-File Rept. GJBX-69(77), 94 p.
Knight, C. L., ed., Economic geology of Australia and
Papua New Guinea. 1. Metals: Victoria, Australasian
Inst. Mining Metallurgy, p. 398-402.
pretation of aeromagnetic and aeroradioactivity maps of
northern Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey Map 1-783.
posits: EcoN. GzoL., v. 67, p. 281-301.
Hughes, F. E., and Munro, D. L., 1965, Uranium ore deposit
1554 ROGERS',
R/iGLzIND,NISHI3i'ORl',GREENBERG,
•IND [[dUCK'
at Mary Kathleen, in McAndrew, j., ed., Geology of
Australian ore deposits,2rid ed., v. 1: Commonwealth
Mining Metall. Cong., 8th, Melbourne,p. 256-263.
Hurley, P.M., 1956, Direct radiometricmeasurement
by
gamma ray scintillation spectrometer; Part II, uranium,
thorium, and potassium in common rocks: Geol. Soc.
America Bull., v. 67, p. 405-411.
Hussein,H. A., and El Kassas,I. A., 1970,Occurrenceof
someprimary uraniummineralizationat El Atshan locality,
central Eastern Desert: United Arab Republic (Egypt)
Jour. Geology,v. 14, p. 97-110.
Hussein,H. A., Faris, M. I., and Assaf, I4. S., 1970,Some
radiometric investigations at Wadi Kariem-Wadi Dabbah
area, Eastern Desert: United Arab Republic (Egypt)
Jour. Geology,v. 14, p. 13-21.
I. A. E. A., 1970, Uranium explorationgeology: Vienna,
Internat. Atomic Energy Agency, 384 p.
1974, Formation of uranium ore deposits: Vienna,
Internat. Atomic Energy Agency, 748 p.
- 1977, Recognition and evaluation of uraniferous areas'
Vienna, Internat. Atomic Energy Agency,295 p.
Jacob,R. E., 1974, Geologyand metamorphicpetrologyof
part of the Damara orogen along the Lo•ver Swakop
River, South West Africa: Cape Town, ChamberMines,
PrecambrianResearchUnit Bull. 17, 184 p.
Jacob, R. E., and Hambleton-Jones,B. B., 1977, Geological
and geochemical setting of granites in the eugeosynclinal
portion of the Damara orogen, R6ssing area, South West
Africa [abs.]: Geol. Soc. America Abstracts with Pro-
grams, v. 9, p. 1035.
Jahns, R. H., and Burnham, C. W., 1969, Experimental
studiesof pegmatite genesis; 1, A model for the derivation
and crystallization of granite pegmatites: Ecox. GEOL.,
V. 64, p. 843-864.
Johnson, W., 1958, Geological environments of some radio-
active mineral depositsin South Australia: Sydney, Aus-
tralian Atomic Energy Symposium, Sect. I, Geology, p. Philpotts, A. R., 1976, Silicate liquid immiscibility; its prob-
35-41.
Jones, M. J., ed., 1977, Geology, mining, and extractive
processingof uranium: I.ondon, Inst. Mining Metallurgy, Ra.mos,
171 p.
Kish, L., 1975, Radioactive occurrencesin the Grenville of
Quebec, Mont Laurier-Cabonga district: Quebec Dept.
Nat. Resources,Mineral Deposits Service, DP-310, 30 p.
Koschmann, A. 14., Glass, J. J., and Vhay, J. S., 1942, Tin
depositsof Irish Creek, Virginia: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull.
936-K, p. 271-296.
Kr;Sner, Alfred, and Hawkesworth, C. J., 1977, Late Pre-
cambrian eraplacement ages for R;Sssingalaskitic granite
(Damara belt) in Namibia and their significance for the
timing of metamorphic events: 20th Ann. Rept., Research
Inst. African Geology, Leeds Univ., p. 14-17.
Lang, A. H., Griffith, J. W., and Steacy, H. R., 1962, --
Canadian depositsof uranium and thorium: Canada Geol.
Survey, Econ. Geology Ser., no. 16 (2nd ed.), 324 p.
Laurent, R., and Pierson, T. C., 1973, Petrology of alkaline Rayher, E. O., 1960, The nature and distribution of uranium
rocks from Cuttingsville and Shelburne Peninsula, Ver-
mont: Canadian Jour. Earth Sci., v. 10, p. 1244-1256.
I.uth, W. C., and Tuttle, O. F., 1968, The hydrous vapor
phase in equilibrium with granite and granite magmas, in
Larsen, L. H., Prinz, M., and Manson, V., eds., Igneous Robertson, D. S., 1974, Basal Proterozoic units as fossil
and metamorphic geology: Geol. Soc. America Mere. 115,
p. 513-547.
Maciel, A. C., and Cruz, P. R., 1973, Perill analitico do
uramo: Rio de Janeiro, Minist. Minas Energia, Dept.
Nacional Producao Mineral, Bol. 27, 70 p.
MacKevett, E. A., 1963, Geology and ore deposits of the
Bokan Mountain uranium-thorium area, southeastern Robinson, S.C., 1960, Economic uranium depositsin granitic
Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1154, 125 p.
Malan, R. C., 1972, Summary report--Distribution of ura-
nium and thorium in the Precambrian of the western United Rogers, J. J. W., 1964, Statistical tests of the homogeneityof
States: U.S. Atomic Energy Comm. Rept. AEC-RD-12,
59 p.
Mawdsley, J. B., 1952, Uraninite-bearing deposits,Charlebois
Lake area, northern Saskatchewan: Canadian Mining
Metall. Bull., v. 45, p. 366-375.
McKay, R. A., Beer, K. E., and Rockingham, J. B., 1952,
Albite-riebeckitegranites of Nigeria: London, Dept. $ci.
Indus. Research,Geol. Survey and Museum Rept., GSM/
AED 95, 25 p.
Miller, T. P., 1972, Potassium-rich alkaline intrusive rocks
of western Alaska: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 83, p.
2111-2128.
Miller, T. P., and Bunker, C. M., 1976, A reconnaissance
studyof the uraniumand thorium contentsof plutonicrocks
of the southeasternSeward Peninsula, Alaska: U.S. Geol.
Survey Jour. Research,v. 4, p. 367-377.
Moreau, Marcel, 1977, L'uranium et les granitoides--essai
d'interpretation,in Jones,M. J., ed., Geology,mining, and
extractive processingof uranium: London, Inst. Mining
Metallurgy, p. 83-102.
Nash, J. T., 1977, Geology of Midnite mine uranium area,
Washington--maps,description,and interpretation: U.S.
Geol. Survey Open-File Rept. 77-592, 39 p.
Xash, J. T., and Lehrman, N.J., 1975, Geologyof the Mid-
nite uranium mine, Stevens County, Washington: U.S.
Geol. Survey Open-File Rept. 75-402, 36 p.
Nishimori, R. K., Ragland, P. C., Rogers, J. J. W., and
Greenberg,J. K., 1977,Uranium depositsin granitic rocks:
U.S. Energy Research Devel. Adm., Open-File Rept.
GJBX-13(77), 311 p.
Odom, A. L., and Fullagar, P. D., 1971, A major discordancy
between U~Pb zircon ages and Rb-Sr whole-rock ages of
Late Precambrianrocksin the Blue Ridge province [abs.]:
Geol. Soc. America Abstracts with Programs, v. 3, p. 663.
Phair, George, and Gottfried, David, 1964, The Colorado
Front Range as a uranium and thorium province,in Adams,
J. A. S., and Lowder, W. E., eds., The natural radiation
environment: Houston, Rice Univ., p. 7-38.
Pbair, George, and Jenkins, L. B., 1975, Tabulation of
uranium and thorium data on Mesozoic-Cenozoic intrusive
rocks of known chemical compositionin central Colorado:
U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Rept. 75-501, 57 p.
able extent and petrogeneticsignificance: Am. Jour. Sci.,
v. 276, p. 1147-1177.
J. R. de Andrade,and Fraenkel,M. O., 1974,Ura-
mum occurrences in Brazil, in Formation of uranium ore
deposits: Vienna, Internat. Atomic Energy Agency, p.
637-658.
Rankin, D. W., 1970, The Blue Ridge and the Reading
Prong; stratigraphy and structure of Precambrian rocks
in northwestern North Carolina, in Fisher, G. W., et al.,
eds., Studiesof Appalachian geology; central and southern:
New York, Interscience,p. 227-245.
---- 1975,The continentalmargin of easternNorth America
in the southern Appalachians; the opening and closing of
the proto-Atlantic Ocean: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 275-A, p.
298-336.
1976, Appalachian salients and recesses;Late Precam-
brian continental breakup and the opening of the Iapetus
Ocean: Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 81, p. 5605-5619.
deposits in New South Wales: New South Wales Dept.
Mines, Tech. Rept., v. 5, p. 63-101.
Rich, R. A., Holland, H. D., and Petersen,U., 1977,Hydro-
thermal uranium deposits: Amsterdam, Elsevier, 264 p.
time markers and their use in uranium production, in
Formation of uranium ore deposits: Vienna, Internat.
Atomic Energy Agency, p. 495-511.
Robertson, D. S., and Tilsley, J. E., 1977, The time-bound
character of uranium deposits [abs.]: Geol. Soc. America
Abstracts with Programs, v. 9, p. 1143.
dikes, Bancroft district, Ontario: Canadian Mineralogist,
v. 6, p. 513-521.
the radioactive components of granitic rocks, in Adams,
J. A. S., and Lowder, W. E., eds., The natural radiation
environment: Houston, Rice Univ., p. 51-62.
Rogers, J. J. W., and Adams, J. A. S., 1969a, Thorium, in
Wedepohl, K. H., ed., Handbook of geochemistry, Part
II/I: Berlin, Springer Verlag, Chap. 90, 39 p.
 , GR•INITIC U DEPOSITS
--- 1969b,Uranium, in Wedepohl, K. H., ed., Handbook of
geochemistry,Part II/I: Berlin, Springer Verlag, Chap.
92, 50 p.
Rogers, J. J. W., and McKay, S. M., 1972, Chemical evolu-
tion of geosynclinalmaterial, in Doe, B. R., and Smith,
D. K., eds., Studies in mineralogy and Precambrian
geology: Geol. Soc. America Mem. 135, p. 3-28.
Rogers, J. J. W., Adams, J. A. S., and Gatlin, Beverly,
1965,Distribution of thorium, uranium,and potassiumcon-
centrationsin three coresfrom the Conway Granite, New
Hampshire,U.S. A.: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 263, p. 817-822.
Rogers, J. J. W., Ghuma, M. A., Nagy, R. M., Greenberg,
J. K., and Fullagar, P. D., 1978,Plutonism in Pan-African
belts and the geologic evolution of northeastern Africa:
Earth Planet. Sci. Letters,v. 39, p. 109-117.
Rowe, R. B., 1958, Niobium (columbium) deposits of
Canada: Canada Geol. Survey, Econ. Geology Ser., No.
18, 108 p.
Ruzicka, V., 1977, Conceptualmodelsfor uranium deposits
and areas favourable for uranium mineralization in Canada:
Canada Geol. Survey Paper 77-1A, p. 17-25.
Satterly, J. 1957, Radioactive mineral occurrences in the
Bancroft area: Ontario Dept. Mines Ann. Rept., v. 65,
181 p.
Scblnidt, R. G., 1974, Preliminary study of rock alteration in
the Catheart Mountain Mo-Cu deposit, Maine: U.S.
Geol. Survey Jour. Research, v. 2, p. 189-194.
Sharp,B.. J., and Heftand,D. L., 1954,Preliminaryreport
on uranmm occurrencein the Austin area, Lander County,
Nevada: U.S. Atomic Energy Comm. Rept. RME-2010,
16 p.
Sobrinho, E.G., 1974, Prospecao do uranio na chamine
alcalina do Tapira-Minas Gerais: Rio de Janeiro, Minist.
Minas Energia, ComissaoNacional Energia Nuclear, Bol.
10, 16 p.
Sorenson,H., 1970, Occurrenceof uranium in alkaline igne-
ous rocks,i• Uranium explorationgeology:Vienna, Inter-
nat. Atomic Energy Agency, p. 161-168.
Spooner, C. M., and Fairbairn, H. W., 1970, Relation of
radiometric age of granitic rocks near Calais, Maine, to \Villis, J. L., and Stevens, B. P. J., 1971, The mineral indus-
the time of the Acadian orogeny: Geol. Soc.America Bull.,
v. 81, p. 3663-3670.
Staatz, M. H., and Miller, T. P., 1976, Uranium and thorium Wolff, J. E., 1929, Mount Monadhock, Vermont--a syenite
content of radioactive phasesof the Zane Hills pluton:
1,5.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 733, p. 39-41.
Stuckless,J. J., 1977, A synthesisof uranium-related studies
in the Precambrian rocks of the Granite Mountains,
•Vyoming: Grand Junction, Bendix Field Eng. Corp.,
IN THE E•ISTERN U.S. 1555
1977 NURE Geology Uranium Symposium,Sedimentary
Host Rock Sess., p. 64-77.
Tatsumoto, Mitsunobu, 1966, Genetic relations of oceanic
basaltsas indicated by lead isotopes: Science,v. 153, p.
1094-1101.
• 1969, Lead isotopesin volcanic rocks and possibleocean-
floor underthrusting beneath island arcs: Earth Planet.
Sci. Letters, v. 6, p. 369-376.
Thompson, B. P., 1965, Geological mineralogy of South
Australia, in McAndrew, J., ed., Geology of Australian ore
deposits,2nd ed., v. 1: CommonwealthMining Metallurgy
Cong., 8th, Melbourne, p. 270-284.
Tuttle, O. F., and Bowen, N. L., 1958, Origin of granite in
light of experimental studies on the system NaAISiaOs-
KA1Si:•O•-SiO•-H_oO: Geol. Soc. America Mem. 74, 153 p.
Verwoerd, W. J., 1967, The carbonatitesof South Africa and
South West Africa--a nuclear raw material investigation
primarily for the Atomic Energy Board: Pretoria, South
Africa Geol. Survey, Handbook 6, 452 p.
yon BackstrSm, J. \V., 1974, Other uranium deposits, in
Formation of uranium ore deposits: Vienna, Internat.
Atomic Energy Agency, p. 605-624.
Wanger, J.P., 1972, Relationships among uranium, thorium,
and other elements in igneous rock series from the Caro-
lina Piedmont: Unpub. Master's thesis, Univ. North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, 64 p.
Wells, J. D., 1960, Petrography of radioactive Tertiary igne-
ous rocks, Front Range mineral belt, Colorado: U.S. Geol.
Survey Bull. 1032-E, p. 223-272.
Wenner, D. B., Whitney, J. A., and Stormer, J. C., Jr.,
1978, Oxygen isotope studies of post-metamorphicgranitic
plutons from the piedmont province of Georgia [abs.]:
Geol. Soc. America Abstracts with Programs, v. 10, p. 201.
\¾hitney, J. A., 1975, Vapor generation in a quartz monzonite
magma; A synthetic model with application to porphyry
copper deposits: Ecox. GF•o•.,v. 70, p. 346-358.
Whitney, J. A., Jones, L. M., and Walker, R. L., 1976, Age
and origin of the Stone Mountain granite, Lithonia dis-
trict, Georgia: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 87, p. 1067-
1077.
try of Nexv South Wales--uranium: New South Wales
Geol. Survey Pub. 43, 58 p.
hill: Jour. Geology, v. 37, p. 1-15.
Youlag, E. J., and Hauff, P. L., 1975, An occurrenceof dis-
seminated uraninite in V•heeler Basin, Grand County,
Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Jour. Research, v. 3, p.
305-311.