©2010 Society of Economic Geologists, Inc.

Economic Geology, v. 105, pp. 1057–1070

Lithospheric, Cratonic, and Geodynamic Setting of Ni-Cu-PGE Sulfide Deposits

GRAHAM C. BEGG,1,2,† JON A.M. HRONSKY,3,4 NICHOLAS T. ARNDT,5 WILLIAM L. GRIFFIN,1
SUZANNE Y. O’REILLY,1 AND NICK HAYWARD6
1GEMOC, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia
2Minerals Targeting International PL, Suite 26, 17 Prowse St. West Perth, WA 6005, Australia
3Western Mining Services PL, Suite 26, 17 Prowse St. West Perth, WA 6005, Australia
4Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
5LGCA, UMR 5025 CNRS, Université de Grenoble, 1381 rue de la Piscine, 38401 Grenoble, France
6Teck Australia PL, Level 2, 35 Ventnor Avenue, West Perth, WA 6005, Australia

Abstract
The location of magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide deposits is related to lithospheric architecture, particularly
that of the subcontinental lithospheric mantle (SCLM). At crustal levels, this relationship is manifest by a close
proximity to craton and paleocraton margins. Deposits are associated with mafic-ultramafic rocks and many
show a close spatial relationship with a coeval large igneous province (LIP). Metal quantities and tenors
observed in deposits require segregation of a magmatic sulfide melt from a large volume of parental ultramafic
melt. Generation of these parental melts requires melting of upwelling mantle rising to depths of 100 km or
less. The timing and tectonic setting of deposits indicates that this most likely occurs when mantle plumes
impact on the base of the SCLM and are channeled laterally to areas of thinnest SCLM, where they undergo
decompression melting. Alternatively, the setting of some smaller deposits suggests that upwelling may be
induced by syn- to post-collisional lithospheric delamination.
Craton margins are generally zones of relatively thin lithosphere and are the focus of strain during regional
tectonism, providing points of dilation along active translithospheric faults. These faults facilitate melt intro-
duction into the crust. The craton margin zone of thin lithosphere and active faulting may be adjacent to a
neighboring block of continental lithosphere (paleocraton margin) or adjacent to a flanking narrow marginal
basin (underlain by asthenosphere). All deposits form during periods of active regional tectonism, most com-
monly under mildly compressional to transpressional conditions. These different settings and conditions may
result in differing depths of melting and differing depths and degrees of crustal interaction. The latter is
believed to be a key factor for the development of a metal-rich sulfide melt, which is ultimately emplaced in
the deposit environment. These variations can account for the observed range of ore and host rock types.
Most large deposits are associated with intracontinental settings or with (former) passive margins at the edge
of small marginal basins. No significant deposits are associated with the margins of large oceans or with supra-
subduction zone environments, possibly reflecting poor preservational potential or (with the latter) limitations
to plume interaction with continental lithosphere.
A craton-margin model for the genesis of magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE deposits is proposed. This model provides
a framework for further examination of deposit-forming processes and also provides a coherent predictive
framework for mineral exploration.

Introduction Hawkesworth, 1997; Lesher and Keays, 2002; Naldrett,

OBSERVATION of the spatial and temporal setting of magmatic
nickel sulfide deposits (or camps comprised of multiple de-
posits) indicates an empirical relationship with major lithos-
pheric boundaries, and more specifically, to craton margins
(e.g., Kerrich et al., 2005). This relationship remains poorly
documented in the scientific literature. Most papers on the
occurrence and origin of magmatic nickel sulfide deposits
focus on issues surrounding the magmatic system and the
segregation of magmatic sulfides. According to widely sup-
ported hypotheses, deposits form through the segregation of
an immiscible sulfide liquid from mafic or ultramafic
magma; interaction with crustal rocks is considered an im-
portant trigger to the segregation of the sulfide liquid, and
the dynamics of magma flow are considered a key factor
leading to the concentration of the ore minerals (e.g., Nal-
drett, 1989, 1992; Czamanske et al., 1995; Lightfoot and
†Corresponding author: e-mail, graham@mineralstargeting.com
0361-0128/10/3911/1057-14
2004). Less well understood is the regional setting of de-
posits in time and space and their relationship to geodynamic
environment. Deposits are commonly attributed to major
mantle melting events associated with the impact of mantle
plumes on the lithosphere and the generation of large ig-
neous provinces (LIPs; Naldrett, 1989, 2004; Pirajno, 2000;
Kerrich et al., 2005; Ernst, 2007; Begg et al., 2009a; Pirajno
et al., 2009) such as the Siberian Traps (Noril’sk-Talnakh de-
posit). To link these concepts in a way that facilitates a
greater understanding of deposit occurrence in space and
time and, in particular, to create a predictive tool for Ni, Cu,
and PGE exploration, minerals exploration industry geolo-
gists developed the “craton margin” model for the formation
of magmatic sulfide deposits.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the lithospheric-
scale setting of such deposits in space and time, including any
relationship to craton margins, and to formulate a hypothesis
that satisfactorily explains their occurrence.
Submitted: February 2, 2010
1057 Accepted: June 18, 2010
1058 BEGG ET AL.
The Craton Margin Model:
A Brief History and Description
The application of craton margin concepts to nickel explo-
ration evolved during the 1990s. It was formally developed in-
ternally by Western Mining Corporation (WMC) geologists in
1995. This process was motivated largely by the discovery of
Voisey’s Bay in 1994 by Diamond Fields Resources Inc.
Voisey’s Bay was a nickel sulfide deposit very different from
previously known deposits, in that it was hosted by gneissic
rocks rather than (potentially sulfur bearing) upper crustal
sediments. This discovery demonstrated the severe limits to
the predictive capability of the existing concepts relating to
nickel sulfide genesis at that time, which emphasized ana-
logues with known major deposits. There was a strong imper-
ative to focus on those absolutely fundamental criteria that
Voisey’s Bay had in common with other large nickel sulfide
deposits. A key feature of that deposit is its location at a major
lithospheric boundary, the margin of the Archean Nain
province and the Proterozoic Churchill province. It was rec-
ognized empirically that many other large nickel sulfide de-
posits shared a similar large-scale setting, leading to the de-
velopment of this model. At this time, other nickel explorers
were also aware of the concept and were using it in varying
degrees in their exploration. It was subsequently applied to
other areas—notably in Australia, where WMC geologists
used it to successfully target new discoveries in the West
Musgrave region (Nebo, Babel); in China, during exploration
around the margins of the north and south China cratons; and
in Africa. Currently, it is employed widely in the global nickel
sulfide exploration industry.
The basic idea behind the model is the observation that
many major magmatic sulfide deposits are located at or near
the margins of lithospheric blocks and more generally near
the margins of cratons (e.g., Kerrich et al., 2005). Cratons
make up amalgams of multiple lithospheric blocks and may
change their shape over time as lithospheric blocks are added
to or detached from them. The positions in space and time of
a large number of significant deposits are summarized in
Table 1. This list is not intended to be exhaustive but includes
the most economically significant deposits, as well as many
smaller ones. The intent is to illustrate the lithospheric setting
of, and to develop a genetic model for, most deposits of sig-
nificant size. It is important to note that the spatial resolution
with which we are able to map the position of a craton mar-
gin will depend on the quality and resolution of the available
geoscientific data and that this will vary significantly on a
global basis. We have relied heavily on published outlines,
modified with reference to these data. In this paper, we clas-
sify the spatial relationship as essentially on a craton edge if
the deposit occurs within 25 km of a mapped edge, and near
an edge if it occurs 25 to 100 km distant. We cannot discrim-
inate easily whether this difference reflects true variation in
geological process or is an artifact of the limitations of our
ability to map the margin.
Some uncertainty also relates to the three-dimensional na-
ture of these boundaries; if they have a shallow-moderate dip,
their position at the current erosional surface may be offset
from their position at the base of the crust. Note that in some
situations, the craton margins to which we refer are the old
0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1058
paleosuture zones at the edges of lithospheric domains inter-
nal to a craton, and are not necessarily the margins of cratons
as mapped today.
Figure 1, which consists of maps of parts of five continents,
shows how the locations of most of the world’s key magmatic
nickel sulfide deposits are related to the cratonic framework.
They illustrate the present-day arrangement of craton mar-
gins as they existed at the time of the various mineralizing
events. The margins are paleosutures marking sites of former
collisions. They are a combination of previously published,
well-accepted outlines (e.g., Zhao et al., 2004b) for China,
Hoffman (1988) for North America, and Rosen et al. (1994)
for Siberia), and outlines determined on the basis of geologi-
cal, geophysical, and geochronological data augmented by ex-
tensive literature review. In order to consistently depict the
spatial relationship of deposits to the structure of the lithos-
pheric mantle, the boundaries shown are interpreted to ap-
proximate their position at the base of the crust. We will dis-
cuss each of these cratons in turn.
Nickel Sulfide Deposits and the Cratonic Framework
Superior and Nain (North Atlantic) cratons
In North America, the Superior craton and the western-
most edge of the Nain craton (Fig. 1A) preserve the key as-
pects of their Proterozoic synmineral lithospheric architec-
ture. Both cratons are dominated by Archean lithospheric
blocks that are flanked by belts of Proterozoic tectonic re-
working (e.g., Hoffman, 1988). In Figure 1A, the gray area
defining the Superior craton shows its extent at ca. 1.88 Ga,
when the Thompson and Raglan deposits formed around its
margin.
The Raglan camp is associated with mafic and ultramafic
volcanic and intrusive rocks of the Chukotat Group that form
part of the east-to-west–trending Cape Smith belt (Lesher,
2007). The belt is parallel to but slightly allochthonous upon
the Superior craton margin. It is interpreted as the remnant
of a former marginal basin that included 1998 Ma oceanic
crust (preserved as the ophiolitic Watts Group; St-Onge et al.,
2000; 2009), broadly coeval bimodal volcanic rocks of the
Povungnituk Group, and finally the 1880 Ma Chukotat
Group. The latter make up part of the 1880 Ma Circum-Su-
perior LIP (Baragar and Scoates, 1981; Heaman et al., 2009),
which includes mafic volcanic rocks of both the Flaherty
Group on the Belcher Islands and mafic intrusive rocks asso-
ciated with the Thompson nickel belt (below).
The Thompson camp mineralization is associated with ul-
tramafic intrusive rocks hosted by shelf sediments of the Os-
pwagan Group along a 150 km strike length of exposed Supe-
rior craton boundary (Bleeker, 1990; Zwanzig et al., 2007).
The 1.88 Ga Molson mafic dike swarm, located inboard of the
craton margin, is believed to be coeval with mineralization
(Zwanzig et al., 2007). The craton boundary was deformed by
thrusting and sinistral slip on margin-parallel ductile faults
during final closure of the adjacent Trans-Hudson ocean by
ca. 1.80 Ga (Bleeker, 1990; White et al., 1999). The Sask mi-
crocontinent, which is well defined in geological and geo-
physical data (e.g., White et al., 2002), now abuts the margin.
The Sudbury Igneous Complex and associated nickel camp
formed within a melt sheet produced by meteor impact at ca.
 LITHOSPHERIC, CRATONIC, AND GEODYNAMIC SETTING OF Ni-Cu-PGE SULFIDE DEPOSITS 1059

TABLE 1. Setting and Approximate Timing of Significant Nickel Sulfide Camps and Deposits with Respect to Adjacent Craton Margins

Approx. deposit Coeval Associated craton ON (<25 km) Lithospheric setting of

age (Ga) Camps or deposits permissive LIP? margin or NEAR (<100 km) margin giant camps or deposits

0.34–0.25 Norilsk Yes Siberian/NEAR Intracontinental

Aguablanca Yes Microcontinent/ON
Kalatongke No Microcontinent/ON
Huangshan Yes Tarim/NEAR
Hongqilin Yes North China/NEAR
Yangliuping Yes South China/ON
Ban Phuc Yes South China/ON

0.87–0.82 Jinchuan ? North China/ON ?

Munali ? Congo/NEAR

1.11–1.07 Duluth Yes Superior/NEAR Intracontinental rift

West Musgrave Yes SAC, WAC, NAC/ON Intracontinental
Eagle Yes Superior/NEAR
Jacomynspan Yes? Kalahari/ON

1.40–1.33 Kabanga Yes? Tanzania/ON Intracontinental rift

Voisey’s Bay Yes Nain/ON Intracontinental

1.88–1.86 Thompson Yes Superior/ON Small marginal basin

Raglan Yes Superior/ON Small marginal basin
Sudbury No Superior/NEAR Intracontinental
Kotalahti ? Karelia/ON
Lynn Lake (age?) ? Sask?/NEAR?

1.98–1.92 Pechenga Yes Kola/ON? ?

Nyasukka ? Kola/NEAR?
Allarechka ? Kola/ON?

2.06–2.00 Keivitsa ? Karelia/ON ?

Platreef (Mokopane) Yes Kaapvaal/100km inside Intracontinental
Nkomati Yes No
Santa Rita ? Sao Francisco/ON

2.49 Monchegorsk Yes Kola/NEAR

2.71–2.70 Kambalda Yes Western Yilgarn/NEAR Small marginal basin

Agnew-Wiluna Belt Yes Western Yilgarn/ON Small marginal basin
Tati, Shangani, etc ? Zimbabwe subcraton?/?
Selebi-Phikwe Yes Zimbabwe/ON ?
Dumont Yes? Proto-Superior/?
Montcalm Yes? Proto-Superior/?

2.81? Windarra ? Eastern Yilgarn/NEAR

2.92 Forrestania Yes West Yilgarn/?

Lake Johnston Yes West Yilgarn/?

Notes: Lithospheric setting shown for Giant camps/deposits (larger bold type; giants are those deposits whose ultimate size will likely satisfy the >1.3 Mt
of Ni metal criterion as outlined by Schodde and Hronsky, 2006); SAC, WAC, NAC = south, west, and north Australian cratons; LIP = large igneous province,
following the definition of Bryan and Ernst (2008); the listed LIPs are those that at the time of eruption/intrusion satisfied, or were likely to have satisfied,
this definition (i.e., not necessarily well preserved)

1.85 Ga (Lightfoot et al., 2001) and its location adjacent
(about 70 km inboard) of the Superior craton margin is clearly
fortuitous. A major contribution of coeval mantle melts to the
igneous complex is ruled out by isotope data (Lightfoot et al.,
2001). The presence of the craton margin may, however, have
provided an indirect opportunity for a mantle involvement,
particularly if remelting of older mafic rocks such as the East
Bull Lake intrusive rocks or Nipissing intrusive rocks is re-
quired to explain the relatively high Ni contents of rocks of
the Sudbury Complex (Keays and Lightfoot, 2004; Naldrett,
2004).
A series of collisions impacted the Superior craton from 1.9
to 1.80 Ga (Hoffman, 1988), giving rise to proto-Laurentia.
The Nain craton is part of this amalgam, separated from the
Superior craton by the intervening southeast Churchill oro-
gen, which includes an Archean microcontinental block
known as the Core zone (Wardle et al., 2002; St-Onge et al.,
2009). At ca. 1.33 Ga, the Nain Plutonic Suite and associated
Voisey’s Bay nickel deposit formed where the north-north-
west–trending boundary between the Nain craton and the
southeast Churchill orogen, defined by the strike extension of
the Obloviak shear zone and a pronounced Moho offset (Hall

0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1059

1060 BEGG ET AL.

0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1060

 LITHOSPHERIC, CRATONIC, AND GEODYNAMIC SETTING OF Ni-Cu-PGE SULFIDE DEPOSITS 1061

et al., 2002), intersects at a high angle the east-to-west–trend-
ing, active Garder-Voisey’s Bay fault zone (Myers et al., 2008).
Transfer of melts from mantle to crust may have been facili-
tated by sinistral tectonic reactivation of this fault zone
(Myers et al., 2008), possibly linked with convergent margin
activity along the Laurentian margin to the southeast (Whit-
meyer and Karlstrom, 2007).
The intracontinental Midcontinent rift is an aulacogen that
formed at about 1.1 Ga on the southern edge of the Superior
craton concomitant with convergent margin activity in the
Grenville province in southeastern Laurentia. The rift excised
a fragment of the craton, possibly exploiting preexisting struc-
tures parallel to the craton edge. Abundant mafic mantle
magmatism along the >2000 km length of the rift includes the
Keewanawan basalts, part of a 1.1 Ga mid-Proterozoic LIP
(Shirey, 1997; Heaman et al., 2007). A series of nickel sulfide
deposits formed in mafic intrusions synchronous with this
magmatic event; these include the Duluth camp on the
northern margin of the rift and the Eagle deposit (Ding et al.,
2007) to the south of the rift. The setting of the latter is prob-
lematic; from magnetic and gravity images, it lies adjacent to
major faults parallel to the craton margin, but at least 70 km
from either of the Paleoproterozoic or Mesoproterozoic cra-
tonic boundary, as currently recognized. The crust in this re-
gion consists of Archean basement overlain by deformed Pa-
leoproterozoic passive margin supracrustals.
Siberia craton
The Siberia craton hosts one of the world’s two largest
known nickel sulfide camps, Noril’sk-Talnakh, on its north-
west margin. The coeval 251 Ma Siberian LIP is also the
world’s largest surviving continental flood basalt LIP. Figure
1B shows the architecture of the craton at the time when the
deposit formed (Rosen et al., 1994; Smelov and Timofeev,
2007). All deposits, including Noril’sk-Talnakh, lie close to a
paleocraton margin, which is flanked by domains that were
accreted and/or reworked during the Meso- to Neoprotero-
zoic (e.g., Vernikovsky and Vernikovskaya, 2001; Pisarevsky
and Natapov, 2003; Vernikovsky et al., 2003).
Cratons of China
China is host to three cratons, each with nickel sulfide de-
posits around their margins (Fig. 1C, modified from Zhao et
al., 2004b). These cratons, each with Archean basement
(Zhao et al., 2001; 2003; Zheng et al., 2006; Lu et al., 2008)
are flanked by younger orogenic belts and in geological, geo-
physical, and geomorphological data form distinctive, coher-
ent blocks.
The north China craton makes up Archean lithospheric
blocks stitched together in either the Neoarchean (Polat et
al., 2005, 2007) or the Paleoproterozoic (Zhao et al., 2001;
2003; Zhang et al., 2007). The giant ca. 832 Ma Jinchuan
nickel deposit (Zhang et al., 2009) lies on the southwest mar-
gin of the craton. Mafic intrusive rocks coeval with Jinchuan
occur along and inboard of the cratonic margin over a strike-
length of hundreds of kilometers. Geochronological investi-
gations suggest that at the time of deposit formation this mar-
gin may have been abutting the south China craton prior to
breakup of the Rodinia supercontinent (Li et al., 2003). The
north China craton margin and adjacent terranes to the south
of Jinchuan have been complicated by a postore history of
early Paleozoic rifting followed by middle Paleozoic subduc-
tion and collision. The much smaller Hongqilin deposits
formed about 20 to 50 km inboard of the poorly-defined
northeastern edge of the north China craton at ca. 216 Ma
(Wu et al., 2004). Associated mafic-ultramafic magmatism
formed broadly synchronously with A-type granite magma-
tism and coeval tholeiitic magmatism within the Tianshan-
Yinshan orogen on the northern margin of the craton follow-
ing early Triassic collision with the Jiamusi massif (Wu et al.,
2004) and during continued closure of the oceans farther to
the north (Yakubchuk, 2004). Several small deposits lie
around the western and southern edges of the south China
craton (see also Pirajno et al., 2009) and field relationships in-
dicate that these are coeval with the ca. 264 Ma Emeishan
LIP (Zhou et al., 2008), which is widely distributed across the
craton.
Cu-Ni deposits within the northwestern China segment of
the Central Asian orogenic belt formed adjacent to ancient
lithospheric blocks coeval with late- or post-orogenic A-type
granites (Han et al., 1997; Li et al., 1998). The Tarim craton
is flanked on all sides by Proterozoic and Phanerozoic orogens
(Lu et al., 2008). The Huangshan deposit lies within Paleo-
zoic convergent margin sequences 50 to 130 km to the north
of, but possibly allochthonous on, the very poorly defined
northern edge of the craton. The ca. 285 Ma deposit has been

FIG. 1. Examples of the relationship of nickel sulfide deposits to the gross lithospheric architecture of cratons (gray poly-
gons and dashed polygons) and continents. Cratonic architecture discussed in text. (A) Proterozoic deposits relative to the
Superior and Nain cratons at ca. 1.9 Ga. (B) Siberian craton. Lighter gray is area of Middle to Late Proterozoic and/or
Phanerozoic orogenic reworking and possible terrane accretion. Deposits: Ch = Chaya, Dv = Dovyren, Ik = Ikensoe, Nk =
Norilsk, SA = Sayan Area. (C) Cratons of China; flanking Phanerozoic orogens are patterned. Deposits: Ba =Baimazhai, BP
= Ban Phuc, Hq = Hongqiling, Hs = Huangshan, Jn = Jinchuan, Kt = Kalatongke, Yl = Yangliuping. (D) Cratonic architec-
ture of southern Africa, modified after Begg et al. (2009b). Archean deposits internal to the Zimbabwe Craton are not shown.
Paleoproterozoic Magondi orogen in diagonal stripes. Bushveld Complex is horizontally striped. TC = Tanzania craton; B =
Bangweulu block; ZC = Zimbabwe craton; L = Limpopo block; KC = Kaapvaal craton; MC = Maltahohe craton. (E) Pro-
terozoic deposits of Australia relative to the cratonic framework; Archean-Early Proterozoic cratonic fragments are stitched
together by Proterozoic orogens (note that the Sally Malay deposit has been recently renamed as Savannah). Black dashed
lines outline the main cratonic elements during the middle Mesoproterozoic. SAC, WAC, NAC = south, west, and north Aus-
tralian craton; KB = Kimberley block. (F) Yilgarn craton, Australia. Black dashes summarize the interpreted positions of cra-
tonic boundaries at ca. 2.70 Ga. AWB = Agnew Wiluna belt (includes Leinster, Yakabindie, Mt. Keith, and Honeymoon Well
nickel camps); BS = Black Swan nickel camp; Fs = Forrestania camp; Kb = Kambalda nickel camp; LJ = Lake Johnson nickel
camp; Wm = Widgiemooltha nickel camp; Wd = Windarra nickel camp. Nd isotope model ages of Neoarchean granitoids
from Cassidy (2006).

0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1061

1062 BEGG ET AL.
linked with the 285 to 275 Ma Tarim LIP (Borisenko et al.,
2006; Pirajno et al., 2009). The 287 Ma (Han et al., 2004)
Kalatongke nickel deposit provides an interesting example of
the lithospheric margin focus on nickel sulfide genesis. At
face value, the deposit is not associated with any known cra-
tonic margin. On closer inspection, the deposit lies on a
major, northwest-trending lithospheric boundary, the Erqis
fault, separating mid to late Paleozoic arc-related crust to the
southwest from early Paleozoic and Proterozoic crust to the
northeast. Consistently older Nd isotopic model ages, up to
1.6 Ga northeast of the fault (Wang et al., 2009), support the
existence of an ancient microcontinental block. An old micro-
continental block may also exist to the southwest beneath the
Cenozoic sedimentary cover of the Junggar basin. The de-
posit formed during tectonic reactivation associated with the
postcollisional phase of the northern China portion of the
Central Asian Orogenic Belt (Xiao et al., 2008; Song and Li,
2009).
Cratons of southern Africa
Multiple generations of nickel sulfide deposits are found in
southern Africa, which is made up of several large cratonic
blocks stitched together by Meso- to Neoproterozoic orogenic
belts. The subcomponents of these blocks assembled during
Archean and Paleoproterozoic orogenic events (see Begg et
al., 2009b, for a summary). The youngest deposit, Munali, lies
within a complex zone of superimposed Mesoproterozoic and
Neoproterozoic orogens between the Zimbabwe craton and
the adjacent Congo/Tanzania/Bangweulu block. The deposit
formed at ca. 850 Ma (age of related gabbroic intrusion; John-
son et al., 2007) during tectonic reactivation related to con-
vergent margin activity in the East African Orogen (Collins
and Pisarevsky, 2005). The small Jacomynspan deposit
formed adjacent to a cratonic triple junction on the southwest
edge of the Kaapvaal craton during Mesoproterozoic conver-
gent margin activity within the Namaqua-Natal orogenic belt.
The deposit may be coeval with the 1.11 Ga Umkondo LIP,
which is widely distributed across the Kalahari craton (Han-
son et al., 2006). The ca. 1.40 Ga Kabanga deposit (Maier et
al., 2007) formed on the edge of the Tanzania craton during
the early stages of the Kibaran orogenic event, a reactivation
of a probable Paleoproterozoic collisional orogen between the
Tanzania and Congo cratons (Begg et al., 2009b).
Two significant Paleoproterozoic deposits, the Platreef
camp and Nkomati deposit, are related to the 2.05 Ga
Bushveld Complex (Scoates and Friedman, 2008). The Pla-
treef camp is part of a series of low-grade Ni-PGM deposits
along a 100 km strike of the northern limb of the intrusion, a
prominent north-trending structure connecting with the
northern boundary of the Kaapvaal craton and extending
south to an intersection with the craton-margin-parallel
Thabazimbi-Murchison lineament (Good and de Wit, 1997)
130 km from the craton edge. The Nkomati deposit is hosted
in a small intrusion that is comagmatic with the Bushveld
Complex. It is located ca. 140 km inboard of the eastern syn-
mineral margin of the Kaapvaal craton, but may be associated
with reactivation of an ancient Archean terrane boundary par-
allel with the nearby Barberton Greenstone Belt. Aside from
the meteor-impact-related Sudbury camp, the Platreef and
Nkomati deposits are the only known global examples of
0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1062
post-Archean deposits within a coherent cratonic block close
to, or greater than, 100 km from the nearest margin.
The Selebi-Phikwe deposit formed at ca. 2.7 Ga on the
southern edge of the Zimbabwe craton slightly before the ca.
2.7 to 2.6 Ga collision with the neighboring Limpopo micro-
continent (e.g., van Reenen et al., 1995; Eglington and Arm-
strong, 2004).
Cratons of Australia
The cratonic architecture of Australia reveals a hierarchy of
cratonic elements, each restricted to a particular time period
and each responsible for the localization of nickel sulfide de-
posits (Fig. 1E; modified after Myers et al., 1996; Betts et al.,
2002; Hand et al., 2007; Williams and Betts, 2007). The coars-
est architecture (represented by the thick dashed lines) rep-
resents the main cratonic elements present in the middle
Mesoproterozoic. Late Mesoproterozoic accretion of central
Australian terranes to the north Australian craton shifted the
boundary of the latter to the south and was followed by final
collision with the other cratons by 1.1 Ga to form part of the
Rodinia supercontinent (e.g., Betts et al., 2002). The West
Musgrave camp formed at the triple junction of these three
main cratons at ca. 1.08 Ga (Seat et al., 2007) during contin-
ued postcollisional tectonism. The associated magmatism be-
longs to the Warakurna LIP, which stretches east to west over
a distance of >1500 km along the cratonic margins, including
the reactivated 1.84 Ga collisional boundary between the Yil-
garn and Pilbara cratons (Wingate et al., 2004). The Paleo-
proterozoic Sally Malay deposit, located within the Halls
Creek orogen, formed following collision of the Kimberley
cratonic block with the north Australian craton at ca. 1.83 Ga
(Griffin et al., 2000; Sheppard et al., 2001).
In the Yilgarn craton of Western Australia, cratonic archi-
tecture appears to have controlled the location of giant
Neoarchean nickel sulfide camps, including Kambalda and
the multiple camps of the Agnew Wiluna Belt. The outer
edge of the Yilgarn craton (Fig. 1E, F) has remained fixed
since 2.6 Ga (Myers et al., 1996). However, at the time of 2.71
to 2.70 Ga nickel sulfide mineralization, the final cratonic out-
line was yet to take shape; instead, two older cratonic blocks
were separated by the evolving greenstone belt terranes of
the north-to-south–trending Eastern Goldfields province.
This architecture is revealed by the Nd isotope model ages of
Neoarchean granitoids (Fig. 1F; Cassidy and Champion,
2004; Cassidy, 2006). The “hot” colors define the extent of an
older cratonic block, herein called the West Yilgarn craton,
which is flanked by the 2.71 to 2.70 Ga deposits and associ-
ated ultramafic volcanic and intrusive rocks lying in green-
stone belts on or near its eastern margin.
Internal to the West Yilgarn craton the 2.92 Ga nickel sul-
fide deposits of the Forrestania and Lake Johnston belts are
hosted by greenstone belts of a similar age, and may sit on yet
older cratonic boundaries, but the position of such bound-
aries remains cryptic in the current data.
Other deposits
Other examples of deposits not illustrated here, but known
to form on or near the margins of coherent lithospheric
blocks, include Aguablanca in Spain, Santa Rita in Brazil,
Keivitsa in Sweden, Monchegorsk in Russia, and possibly
 LITHOSPHERIC, CRATONIC, AND GEODYNAMIC SETTING OF Ni-Cu-PGE SULFIDE DEPOSITS 1063

Pechenga in Russia. The Aguablanca mineralization is associ-
ated with ca. 344 Ma mafic-ultramafic and intermediate in-
trusive rocks within the Ossa Morena zone (Ordóñez-Casado
et al., 2008), which lay on the leading edge of the Iberian ter-
rane during Variscan collision with the south Portuguese zone
(Tornos et al., 2006). The Ossa Morena and Iberian terranes
are of continental affinity and have U-Pb zircon ages between
2000 and 1700 Ma and Nd isotope model ages between 1.4
and 2.0 Ga (Nägler, 1990; Nägler et al., 1995; Fernández-
Suarez et al., 2000; De la Rosa et al., 2002). These ages sug-
gest that the underlying lower crust is at least Paleoprotero-
zoic in age, and possibly older, consistent with the presence of
a microcontinent. The deposit is associated with strike-slip
faults and thrusts active during the final stages of collision; the
sulfides are thought to have been injected as a breccia into
their present site. Seismic reflection data image large intru-
sive bodies at the boundary between the upper and lower
crust that are interpreted to be the staging chamber where
the sulfide initially accumulated (Tornos et al., 2006).
The Santa Rita deposit, Brazil, lies on the north-north-
east–trending boundary between the Archean Jequie block to
the west and the Paleoproterozoic (reworked Archean)
Itabuna-Salvador-Curaçá belt. This boundary made up the
eastern edge of the Sao Francisco craton prior to collision at
ca. 2.1 to 2.0 Ga (Barbosa and Sabate, 2002). Mineralization
occurs within a ca. 2.0 Ga, differentiated, mafic-ultramafic in-
trusion (Silva et al., 1996). The Paleoproterozoic Keivitsa de-
posit in Sweden is located within a zone of mixed Archean
and Paleoproterozoic crust on the edge of the Kola-Karelia
craton. The Monchegorsk deposit in Russia formed at ca. 2.49
Ga (Bayanova et al., 2009) adjacent to the southern edge of
the Kola craton. The Pechenga deposit in Russia, formed at
ca. 1985 Ma (Barnes et al., 2001; Bayanova and Mitrofanov,
2008) in an intracratonic rift within the Kola craton. This rift
may have formed by reactivation of an underlying paleo-
cratonic boundary that separates the ancestral Kola from a
microcontinental block to the south (basement to the Inari
terrane and Lapland granulite belt).
General Model
The observations above demonstrate a spatial relationship
between many nickel sulfide deposits and cratonic or pale-
ocratonic boundaries. In many cases the deposits are also rec-
ognized to be associated with coeval LIPs (Table 1; see Pira-
jno, 2000 for a review; Kerrich et al., 2005). Bleeker and
Ernst (2006) and Ernst and Bleeker (2010) have documented
a spatial coincidence of many LIPs (often including radiating
dike swarms) with craton boundaries. Deposit-scale investi-
gations provide evidence that large fluxes of mantle-derived,
mafic-ultramafic melts were involved in deposit genesis
(Campbell and Naldrett, 1979; discussed below) and it is
probable that translithospheric faults provided crustal access
for mantle melts. We propose a simple model to explain the
location of the deposits (Fig. 2):
1. A plume impacts beneath thick lithosphere (>150 km)
and is then channeled (via solid state flow) by the lower
boundary of the lithosphere to areas of thinner lithosphere
adjacent to a cratonic margin. The margin may have been ad-
jacent to a second thick lithospheric block as in Figure 2A or
a marginal basin as in Figure 2B.
2. The plume undergoes decompression-related medium-
to high-degree, partial melting at shallower depths (particu-
larly above 100 km), thereby producing much larger volumes
of magma than if it had not been channeled beneath thinner
lithosphere.
3. Melts travel in a focused manner into the crust along ac-
tive translithospheric faults.
4. The melts interact with crustal rocks in a much more
concentrated manner than in other geological scenarios, in-
creasing the opportunities for critical processes such as
crustal assimilation.

FIG. 2. Generalized model for the formation and localization of nickel sulfide deposits at the tectonically active margins
of thick (>150 km), spatially coherent lithospheric blocks. Two scenarios are presented, one where blocks of continental
lithosphere are juxtaposed (A), and one where there is an intervening marginal basin (B). The latter setting favors greater
decompression of the plume and less ponding and fractionation of magmas en route to the upper crust; extrusive and/or shal-
low intrusive rocks are common and typically have high MgO. Both scenarios share the common processes of: (1) Mantle
plume impact and flow towards areas of thinner lithosphere. (2) Decompression melting of plume at shallower levels. (3)
Transfer of melts into the (upper) crustal environment via active translithospheric faults and an interconnected intrusion
(sills) network. (4) Variable interaction of melts with crust. (5) Nickel sulfide precipitation and accumulation.

0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1063

1064 BEGG ET AL.
5. Nickel sulfides precipitate and accumulate in magma
conduits and/or flows.
The Model in Detail
An important characteristic of nickel sulfide deposits is that
the ore sulfides separated from, or interacted with, a large
volume of magma. We know this for two reasons: first, the sol-
ubility of sulfide in silicate liquid is relatively low, about 1,000
ppm in normal mafic magma, and this means that to form ore
containing 1 percent Ni requires that the proportion of sul-
fide to silicate liquid be 1:1,000. Second, the tenors of metals
such as Ni, Cu, and the platinum-group elements (PGE) in
ore sulfides are far higher than those predicted for sulfide
that segregated in a restricted volume of magma. To explain
the high metal tenors, Campbell and Naldrett (1979) pro-
posed that the R-factor (the silicate:sulfide mass ratio) must
have been high, ranging from about 100 in komatiite-hosted
deposits to several thousand in large, differentiated intru-
sions.
There are several ways to produce a large mass of high-
tenor sulfide: (1) The sulfide can accumulate from high-flux
magma that contains only a small fraction of sulfide, but flows
rapidly and in large volumes through the magmatic system;
(2) the sulfide could accumulate at the base of a large magma
chamber and then be injected to the site of the ore deposit
within magmatic breccias or within a crystal mush; and (3) re-
dissolution of previously separated sulfide could provide
magma with abnormally high concentrations of chalcophile
elements, which subsequently reprecipitates high-tenor sul-
fides at another location.
Another important factor is the mechanism that triggers the
segregation of the sulfide liquid. Because the solubility of sul-
fide decreases with pressure (Mavrogenes and O’Neill, 1999),
any magma that forms by melting at high pressure deep in the
mantle will be strongly undersaturated in sulfide when it as-
cends into the crust, where pressure is lower. In order for sul-
fide to segregate, (1) sulfur must be added from an external
source, (2) the solubility of sulfide must be reduced by
changes in the composition or physical state of the magma,
(3) the volume of magma that contains the sulfide must be re-
duced through, for example, the crystallization of silicate min-
erals. Naldrett (1989; 2004) and Lesher and Keays (2002)
have proposed that these changes come about when magma
interacts with rocks of the continental crust. The assimilation
of granitoids may decrease sulfide solubility or cool the
magma to cause it to crystallize, or the assimilation of sulfide-
or anhydrite-bearing sediments may add external sulfur. It is
not necessary that the proportion of sulfide to silicate magma
be high; efficient extraction or a preconcentration process
may result in the concentration of a large mass of sulfide as
high-flux magma flows through the system. Interaction with
SCLM may also be an important factor. Zhang et al. (2008)
found that LIPS showing geochemical evidence consistent
with contamination by ancient cratonic SCLM are more likely
to host magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE deposits.
With this preamble we can now discuss why the craton-
margin setting is propitious to the formation of magmatic sul-
fide deposits. In essence, this setting is one in which high-vol-
ume and high-flux mantle-derived magmas can be generated
and can interact with crustal (and lithospheric mantle) rocks.
0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00
Specific aspects of the setting that favor the formation of
magmatic sulfide deposits are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
The generation of high-volume ultramafic melts
in the mantle
The majority of magmatic sulfide deposits are found in
flows or intrusive rocks of mafic or ultramafic compositions.
The reasons for this association are diverse, but the more im-
portant are the low viscosity of such magmas, which promotes
the rapid flow and efficient separation of sulfide from silicate
liquid; their high temperatures, which facilitate assimilation
of wall rocks; and their high Ni and PGE contents, which
allow the formation of high-tenor ores. Most authors accept
that the mafic or ultramafic magmas form through melting in
a mantle plume (Campbell and Griffiths, 1990; Herzberg and
O’Hara, 2002), but the model applies equally well to other
models such as melting in hot “incubated” mantle beneath a
supercontinent (e.g., Coltice et al., 2007), or melting of up-
welling asthenosphere following delamination of lithosphere
(e.g., Elkins-Tanton and Hager, 2000; Tornos et al., 2006).
The volume and the composition of magma produced under
such conditions depend principally on two factors—the tem-
perature of the source and the level to which the source rises
before magma escapes towards the surface. Both factors di-
rectly influence the degree of melting, as illustrated in a sim-
plified phase diagram of mantle peridotite in Figure 3. Three
cases are shown in this diagram. Case A is that of a relatively
cool source in which the maximum degree of melting is only
10 percent. Case B is a hotter source which, if allowed to rise
to the surface, reaches 50 percent partial melting. Case C is
the same hot source, but here its ascent is blocked by thick
lithosphere and the maximum degree of melting is only 10
percent. The magma produced in case A has a mafic compo-
sition because the degree of melting is low and the melting
FIG. 3. Simplified phase diagram of mantle peridotite (from Herzberg and
O’Hara, 2002). The gray lines represent the paths followed by mantle mate-
rial, which ascends until it reaches the solidus, where it undergoes partial
melting. The dashed lines indicate the degree of partial melting. For the
three cases shown, the degree of partial melting and the composition of the
magma depend on the temperature of the source and the level to which it as-
cends before being blocked by the lithosphere.
1064
 LITHOSPHERIC, CRATONIC, AND GEODYNAMIC SETTING OF Ni-Cu-PGE SULFIDE DEPOSITS
takes place at low pressure. For cases B and C, the composi-
tion is ultramafic either because the degree of melting is high
(case B) or because the melting takes place at high pressure
(case C) (O’Hara, 1968; Herzberg, 1992).
The magma produced in case B is the most capable of
forming a magmatic sulfide deposit for two reasons. First, its
composition is ultramafic (and not mafic like the magma pro-
duced in case A); second, the volume of melt is large, because
about half the total source is converted to melt. Magma pro-
duced in this setting is abundant, has low viscosity, and as
such is most likely to flow rapidly and in high volumes from
its source up into the crust. It is also rich in Ni, Cu, and PGE,
like any magma produced by high-degree melting (Keays,
1995; Rehkämper et al., 1999), and is thus capable of pro-
ducing high-tenor ores.
Although the magma produced in case C is also ultramafic
(a characteristic of all melts produced at high pressure;
O’Hara, 1968), its volume is low (only 10% of that of its
source).
Putting this in the context of a craton margin, if a hot source
can ascend to shallow depths, as is the case when a plume
rises beneath the thin lithosphere adjacent to a craton, then
the conditions of case B are reproduced.
Flowage of hot mantle or magma towards the craton margin
Continental lithosphere varies in thickness between ca. 120
and 300 km (e.g., Eaton et al., 2009), with the thickest regions
occurring beneath Archean cratons (Boyd and Mertzman,
1987; Menzies, 1990; Griffin et al., 2003a, b; Begg et al.,
2009b). The thickness typically decreases to <150 km close to
the craton boundaries and in Archean lithosphere that has
been been extensively modified (tectonothermally reworked)
during Proterozoic and younger tectonothermal events (Begg
et al., 2009b; Griffin et al., 2009).
Observations from igneous provinces such as the Parana-
Etendeka, Columbia River and British Tertiary Igneous
Province led Thompson and Gibson (1991) to propose that a
mantle plume ascending beneath continental lithosphere will
flow laterally to the thinnest parts of the lithosphere, where
melting will be enhanced. This model was supported by sub-
sequent studies based on both geological (Saunders et al.,
1992; Oyarzun et al., 1997; Larson, 1997; Wilson, 1997) and
seismic (Sleep, 1996; Ebinger and Sleep, 1998; Nyblade et al.,
2000) data, and applied to the genesis of Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide
deposits by Kerrich et al. (2005). The implication is that
flowage along the base of thick cratonic lithosphere and up-
ward beneath thinner lithosphere will conduct a flux of hot
mantle material to shallower depths, thereby multiplying the
amount of partial melting and the volume of melt. In addi-
tion, any magma produced by melting beneath the thicker
parts of the lithosphere may be unable to traverse this lithos-
phere and it too might flow laterally to places where the
lithosphere is thinner and there are active faults to facilitate
melt access to the crust.
LIPs often display a concentration of volume along or at
specific segments of a craton boundary. Along with the oc-
currence of related radiating dike swarms emanating from the
margin, this is strong evidence for high flux, dynamic magma
introduction at a specific point of the margin (Bleeker and
Ernst, 2006; Ernst and Bleeker, 2010), entirely consistent
0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1065
1065
with a model of plume impact, flow, melting, and focused
melt introduction into the crust.
Passage of magma through the lithosphere
The migration of mantle melt to the crust is favored by ac-
tive, steeply-dipping, translithospheric faults. Such faults are
likely to be a feature of craton margins (e.g., White et al.,
1999), particularly during periods of transcurrent movement,
and are likely to have good vertical connectivity. In addition,
another important aspect of the cratonic margin environment
contributes to their favorability as sites for magma transport
into the crust. It is now recognized that the most important
regional control on strain rate within continents is hetero-
geneity in the thermal state of the lithosphere and that this in
turn depends primarily on the local lithospheric architecture
(Zoback and Zoback, 2009). For example, modeling (Zoback
et al, 2002) suggests that the strain rate in a rift setting, such
as might be expected at the edge of a craton is 13 orders of
magnitude greater than what is predicted for a cratonic inte-
rior. Therefore, it is predicted that cratonic margins will
strongly localize deformational strain and, consequently, re-
lated permeability to upwelling magma. In detail, magma
flow will be focused into local zones of relative low mean
stress along faults (e.g., Petford et al., 2000), analogous to the
behavior of hydrothermal fluids (e.g., Ridley, 1993). This is
likely to occur at jogs and fault intersections, and will be most
favored during periods of low to moderate strain, though this
aspect has yet to be demonstrated for most or all nickel sul-
fide deposits. Almost all deposits described in this paper
formed at times of active regional tectonism. In most cases
this tectonism involved weak far-field compression or trans-
pression, though regional extension may have been occurring
during formation of the Neoarchean deposits of the Yilgarn
craton and deposits of the Mid-Continent Rift in North
America (e.g., Duluth). Deposits at passive margins generally
postdate the passive margin sedimentary sequences and are
not intruded under the same extensional conditions.
Tectonics and the interaction between
magma and crustal rocks
The degree and site of interaction between mantle melts
and crustal rocks will be influenced by factors such as the pre-
vailing tectonic conditions; the thickness, composition, and
complexity of the crust; and the geometry of crustal faults.
This will in turn influence processes of sulfide saturation and
emplacement of sulfide ore. If magmas are emplaced into and
through thin crust, there is limited opportunity for magma
fractionation and interaction at depth. Such magmas are
likely to still be quite magnesian when emplaced into the
upper crustal environment (e.g., Archean komatiites). Crustal
assimilation and any related sulfide saturation is likely to be
best developed in the near-surface emplacement environ-
ment. Processes such as the intrusion of sills into volcanosed-
imentary piles containing reduced or evaporitic sediments (a
potential source of sulfur), or the eruption of mafic-ultramafic
lavas onto such sequences, may result in crustal contamination
and deposit formation (e.g., Naldrett, 1966; Lesher et al., 1984;
Keays and Lightfoot, 2007). This process was probably in-
volved in the formation of a large number of major deposits or
camps, including Noril’sk-Talnakh, Kambalda, Agnew-Wiluna
1066 BEGG ET AL.
Belt, Raglan, Thompson, Eagle, Pechenga, and perhaps Ka-
banga. In contrast, intrusion of mafic-ultramafic magma into
thick complex orogenic crust is likely to favor intracrustal
ponding, fractionation, and possibly crust-magma interaction,
particularly during syn-late collisional compressional tecton-
ism (e.g., Aguablanca, West Musgrave, Jinchuan) or postcolli-
sional tectonic reactivation (e.g., Voisey’s Bay). In this setting,
magmas emplaced into the upper crust are likely to be more
evolved. Magma-crust interaction is likely to have predomi-
nately occurred deeper in the crust than the final sulfide em-
placement level, consistent with typical ore textures in this
class of deposit suggestive of late injection of sulfide-rich
melts (e.g., Urvantsev, 1971; Seat et al., 2007).
Tectonic Factors
Very few deposits occur more than 80 km inboard of tec-
tonically active zones flanking cratons. The two most promi-
nent examples are Nkomati and Platreef, both of which occur
within the Kaapvaal craton and are associated in time and
space with emplacement of the Bushveld Complex (which it-
self abuts the craton margin). The giant Platreef deposit lies
on a connecting structure between the craton northern edge
and the tectonically active Thabazimbi-Murchison lineament,
a reactivated east-northeast–trending Archean terrane
boundary 130 km inboard of the margin (Good and de Wit,
1997). The active nature of these structures is likely to have
facilitated crustal access for the Bushveld mantle melts. Sim-
ilarly, the Nkomati deposit, which is located 140 km inboard
of the Kaapvaal craton eastern margin, lies close to an
Archean terrane boundary that likely extends beneath the
southern margin of the Bushveld complex and may have been
reactivated at that time. Globally, reactivation of major struc-
tures situated well inboard of craton margins is relatively rare.
Deposits within craton interiors (>200 km from margin) re-
main unknown despite good exposure within some cratons.
We invoke the involvement of a mantle plume to supply the
large quantities of melt required by genetic models of deposit
formation and also as appropriate explanation for the com-
mon association with large igneous provinces (reviewed in Pi-
rajno, 2000; Kerrich et al., 2005; Ernst, 2007; Pirajno et al.,
2009). Emslie et al. (1994) link AMCG (anorthosite-man-
gerite-charnokite-granite) suites, such as the Nain Plutonic
Suite with a mantle plume origin. In the absence of a mantle
plume, mantle melting caused by extension and decompres-
sion at a divergent margin is unlikely to contribute to deposit
formation for two reasons: First, shallow melting in these en-
vironments results in relatively small melt volumes (see dis-
cussion of Fig. 3 above). Second, no consistent relationship
exists between deposits and either actively diverging margins
or regionally extensional tectonics. In fact, the majority of de-
posits appear to form during periods when collisions, basin in-
versions, and regional compression are dominant. This is re-
flected by the coincidence of many deposits with the peak
periods of collision that appear to result in supercontinent
formation, climaxing at ca. 300 to 250 Ma, ca. 1.05 Ga, ca.
1.85 Ga, and ca. 2.65 Ga (Zhao et al., 2002, 2004a; Condie,
2004; Cawood and Buchan, 2007; Begg et al., 2009a; Li and
Zhong, 2009). This timing also renders unlikely the melting of
hot “incubated” mantle beneath a supercontinent (Coltice et
al., 2007) as a cause of deposit formation. As discussed above,
0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1066
many deposits have formed on the cusp of supercontinent ex-
istence, denying “incubation” sufficient time to be a possible
cause of melting. A plausible alternative to plume involve-
ment in some cases is melting of mantle and/or (metasoma-
tized) mantle lithosphere due to dynamic upwelling of as-
thenosphere. Such an upwelling may be triggered by
lithospheric delamination, which is possibly a common fea-
ture of syn- to late-collisional settings. This has been invoked
as the causative melting mechanism for the Hongqilin deposit
in northeastern China (Wu et al., 2004) and for weakly min-
eralized intrusive rocks in northwestern China (Chai et al.,
2008), the Kalatongke deposit of northwestern China (Song
and Li, 2009), and the Aguablanca deposit, Spain (Tornos et
al., 2006). At Hongqilin, Wu et al. (2004) found that the age
of mafic-ultramafic magmatism associated with Ni-Cu miner-
alization is 30 m.y. after the intrusion of syn-orogenic granites,
and 24 m.y. after regional metamorphism. On the basis of
geochemical investigations, they propose melting of lithos-
pheric mantle by upwelling of asthenosphere induced by
lithospheric delamination. Although it is possible that this
process played a part in the formation of some deposits, it
cannot satisfy those deposits that are precollisional (e.g.,
Agnew Wiluna Belt deposits, Kambalda, Raglan, Thompson,
Kabanga, Pechenga), or those that significantly postdate
(>100 Myr) collision (e.g., Voisey’s Bay, Duluth).
We observe that no giant magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide de-
posit is associated temporally or spatially with a proximal sub-
duction zone or magmatic convergent margin arc. Most large
deposits form within intracontinental settings or are associ-
ated with (former) passive margins at the edge of small mar-
ginal basins (Table 1). We know of no major deposits that
formed directly on the margins of large oceans or at conver-
gent margins. The former may reflect poor preservation po-
tential (deposit loss through uplift and erosion of major oro-
gens) rather than a genetic limitation. However we do
observe that in cases where a large ocean was nearby to the
deposit-hosting craton at the time of mineralization (e.g., the
Manikewan ocean north of the Superior craton during forma-
tion of the Thompson nickel camp at ca. 1.88Ga), there is ev-
idence that a microcontinent lay relatively closeby (e.g., the
Sask craton), thereby limiting the potential for deposit loss
during collision and crustal thickening. The paucity of de-
posits proximal to convergent margin arcs raises the possibil-
ity that subducted oceanic lithosphere may block (and defo-
cus?) plume ascent. Alternatively, poor preservation potential
of deposits in an active arc setting may be more significant.
Conclusions
Melts associated with most major Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide de-
posits arise from high-degree, partial melting of hot upwelling
mantle. The upwelling is most likely associated with mantle
plumes, but in some cases may result from the delamination
and sinking of lithospheric mantle at syn- to late-collisional
margins. Focusing of mantle melts by the combination of
three-dimensional architecture of the SCLM and the pres-
ence of active translithospheric faults explains the association
of LIPs and nickel sulfide deposits with active tectonic zones
adjacent to craton margins. The advantage of the craton mar-
gin setting is threefold. Firstly, thick lithosphere often domi-
nates craton interiors, whereas zones of thinner lithosphere
 LITHOSPHERIC, CRATONIC, AND GEODYNAMIC SETTING OF Ni-Cu-PGE SULFIDE DEPOSITS
are more likely adjacent to and along the cratonic margins.
This provides a natural focus for mantle plume flow along the
base of the the SCLM, followed by localized decompression
melting of the plume in the zones of thinner lithosphere. Sec-
ondly, margins of cratons are prone to focusing strain during
regional tectonism, providing points of dilation along active
structures along a corridor encompassing the margin. Thirdly,
deposits along or slightly internal to paleocraton margins in-
ternal to a continent may be better protected from uplift and
erosion during subsequent orogenesis.
Deposits generally form in syn-, late-, to postcollisional
tectonic settings, when regional tectonic conditions are more
likely to be (weakly) compressional to transpressional, and
more rarely extensional. Most large deposits formed in intra-
continental positions along a reactivated paleocraton bound-
ary, or the cratonic edge of narrow marginal basins. It is pre-
dicted that these two settings, coupled with the range of
far-field conditions, result in a wide range in the degree
depth of melt-crustal interaction. This can be used to help
understand the observed range of deposit styles and host
rock compositions.
Acknowledgments
We thank WMC Resources Ltd and BHP Billiton Ltd for
their support and acknowledge the input of former colleagues
within these companies. This work has been supported by
Discovery, SPIRT, and Linkage grants from the Australian
Research Council (S.Y. O’Reilly and W.L. Griffin). This is
contribution 664 from the Australian Research Council Na-
tional Key Centre for Geochemical Evolution and Metal-
logeny of Continents (www.gemoc.mq.edu.au).
REFERENCES
Baragar, W.R.A., and Scoates, R.F.J., 1981, The Circum-Superior belt: A Pro-
terozoic plate margin?, in Kröner, A., ed.: Precambrian plate tectonics: Am-
sterdam, Elsevier. p. 297–330.
Barbosa, J.S.F., and Sabate, P., 2002, Geological features and the Paleopro-
terozoic collision of four Archean crustal segments of the São Francisco
craton, Bahia, Brazil: A synthesis: Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciên-
cias, v. 74, p. 343–359.
Barnes, S.J., Melezhik, V.A., and Sokolov, S.V., 2001, The composition and
mode of formation of the Pechenga nickel deposits, Kola Peninsula, north-
western Russia: Canadian Mineralogist, v. 39, p. 447–471.
Bayanova, T., and Mitrofanov, F.P., 2008, Geochronology of the PGE-bearing
intrusions located in the N-E part of the Baltic Shield: Interreg-Tacis Pro-
ject Volume 1, Apatity, KSC RAS, p. 31–42.
Bayanova, T., Ludden, J., and Mitrofanov, F., 2009, Timing and duration of
Palaeoproterozoic events producing ore-bearing layered intrusions of the
Baltic Shield: Metallogenic, petrological and geodynamic implications:
London,Geological Society Special Publications, v. 323; p. 165–198.
Begg, G.C., Hronsky, J.M.A., O’Reilly, S.Y., Griffin, W.L., and Hayward, N.,
2009a, Plumes, cratons and nickel sulphide deposits, 10th Biennial SGA
Meeting of the Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits,
Townsville, Australia, 2009, Proceedings, v. 1, p. 147–148.
Begg, G.C., Griffin, W.L., Natapov, L.M., O’Reilly, S.Y., Grand, S., O’Neill,
C.J., Poudjom Djomani, Y., Deen, T., and Bowden, P., 2009b,. The lithos-
pheric architecture of Africa: Seismic tomography, mantle petrology and
tectonic evolution: Geosphere, v. 5, p. 23–50.
Betts, P.G., Giles, D., Lister, G.S., and Frick, L., 2002, Evolution of the
Australian lithosphere: Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 49, p.
661–695.
Bleeker, W., 1990, New structural-metamorphic constraints on Early Pro-
terozoic oblique collision along the Thompson nickel belt, northern Mani-
toba, in Lewry, J.F., and Stauffer, M.R., eds., The Early Proterozoic Trans-
Hudson orogen of North America: Geological Association of Canada
Special Paper 37, p. 57–74.
0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1067
1067
Bleeker, W., and Ernst, R., 2006, Short-lived mantle generated magmatic
events and their dyke swarms: The key to unlocking Earth’s paleogeo-
graphic record back to 2.6 Ga, in Hanski, E., Mertanen, S., Rämö, T., and
Vuollo, J., eds., Dyke swarms—time markers of crustal evolution: Lon-
don,Taylor and Francis/Balkema, p. 3–26.
Borisenko, A.S., Sotnikov, V.I., Izokh, A.E., Polyakov, G.V., and Obolensky,
A.A., 2006, Permo-Triassic mineralization in Asia and its relation to plume
magmatism: Russian Geology and Geophysics, v. 47, p. 166–182.
Boyd, F. R., and Mertzman, S.A., 1987, Composition and structure of the
Kaapvaal lithosphere, southern Africa, in Mysen, B.O., ed., Magmatic
processes: Physicochemical principles: Geochemical Society Special Publi-
cation 1, p. 13–24.
Bryan, S., and Ernst, R.E., 2008, Revised definition of large igneous
provinces (LIPs): Earth Science Reviews, v. 86, p. 175–202.
Campbell, I.H., and Griffiths, R.W., 1990, Implications of mantle plume
structure for the evolution of flood basalts: Earth and Planetary Science
Letters,v. 99, p. 79–93.
Campbell, I.H., and Naldrett, A.J., 1979, The influence of silicate:sulphide
ratios on the geochemistry of magmatic sulfides: ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, V.
74, p. 503–1505.
Cassidy K.F., 2006, Geological Evolution of the eastern Yilgarn craton (EYC),
and terrane, domain and fault system nomenclature: Geoscience Australia
Record 2006/05, p. 1–38.
Cassidy, K.F., and Champion, D.C., 2004, Crustal evolution of the Yilgarn
craton from Nd isotopes and granite geochronology: implications for met-
allogeny Centre for Global Metallogeny, The University of Western Aus-
tralia, Publication 33, p. 317–320.
Cawood, P.A., and Buchan, C., 2007, Linking accretionary orogenesis with
supercontinent assembly: Earth-Sciences Reviews, v. 82, p. 217–256.
Chai, F., Zhang, Z., Mao, J., Dong, L., Zhang, Z., and Wu, H. 2008, Geol-
ogy, petrology and geochemistry of the Baishiquan Ni-Cu-bearing mafic-
ultramafic intrusions in Xinjiang, northwest China: Implications for tec-
tonics and genesis of ores: Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v. 32, p.
218–235.
Collins, A.S., and Pisarevsky, S.A., 2005, Amalgamating eastern Gondwana:
The evolution of the Circum-Indian orogens: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 71,
p. 229–270.
Condie, K.C., 2004, Supercontinents and superplume events: Distinguishing
signals in the geologic record: Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors,
v.146, p. 319–332.
Coltice, N., Phillips, B.R., Bertrand, H., Ricard, Y., and Rey, P., 2007, Global
warming of the mantle at the origin of flood basalts over supercontinents:
Geology, v. 35, p. 391–394.
Czamanske, G.K., Zen’ko, T.E., Fedorenko, V.A., Calk, L.C., Budahn, J.R.,
Bullock, J.H., Jr., Fries, T.L., King, B.S., and Siems, D.F., 1995, Petrogra-
phy and geochemical characterization of ore-bearing intrusions of the No-
ril’sk type, Siberia; with discussion of their origin: Resource Geology Spe-
cial Issue 18, p. 1–48.
De la Rosa, J.D., Jenner, G.A., and Castro, A., 2002, A study of inherited zir-
cons in granitoid rocks from the South Portuguese and Ossa-Morena zones,
Iberian massif: Support for the exotic origin of the south Portuguese zone:
Tectonophysics, v. 352, p. 245–256.
Ding, X., Ripley, E.M., and Li, C., 2007, Characteristics of the parental
magma of the Eagle Ni-Cu sulfide deposit, midcontinent rift system, north-
ern Michigan: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v.
39, No. 6, p. 360.
Eaton, D.W., Darbyshire, F., Evans, R.L., Grütter, H., Jones, A.G., and Yuan,
X., 2009, The elusive lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB) beneath
cratons: Lithos, v. 109, p. 1-22.
Ebinger, C.J., and Sleep, N.H., 1998, Cenozoic magmatism throughout
east Africa resulting from impact of a single plume: Nature, v. 395, p.
788–791.
Eglington, B.M., and Armstrong, R.A., 2004, The Kaapvaal craton and adja-
cent orogens, southern Africa: a geochronological database and overview of
the geological development of the craton: South African Journal of Geol-
ogy, v. 107, p. 13–32.
Elkins-Tanton, L.T., and Hager, B.H., 2000, Melt intrusion as a trigger for
lithospheric foundering and the eruption of the Siberian flood basalts: Geo-
physical Research Letters, v. 27, p. 3937–3940.
Emslie, R.F., Hamilton, M.A., and Thériault, R.J., 1994, Petrogenesis of a
Mid-Proterozoic Anorthosite-Mangerite-Charnokite-Granite (AMCG) Com-
plex: Isotopic and chemical evidence from the Nain Plutonic Suite: Journal
of Geology, v. 102, p. 539–558.
1068 BEGG ET AL.
Ernst, R.E., 2007, Large igneous provinces in Canada through time and their
metallogenic potential: Geological Association of Canada Special Publica-
tion 5, p. 929–937.
Ernst, R.E., and Bleeker, W., 2010, Large igneous provinces (LIPs), giant
dyke swarms, and mantle plumes: significance for breakup events within
Canada and adjacent regions from 2.6 Ga to present: Canadian Journal of
Earth Sciences, (in press).
Fernández-Suarez, J., Gutiérrez-Alonso, G., Jenner, G.A., and Tubrett, M.N.,
2000, New ideas on the Proterozoic-Early Palaeozoic evolution of north-
west Iberia: Insights from U-Pb detrital zircon ages: Precambrian Re-
search, v. 102, p. 185–206.
Good, N., and de Wit, M.J., 1997, The Thabazimbi-Murchison lineament of
the Kaapvaal craton, South Africa: 2700 Ma of episodic deformation: Jour-
nal of the Geological Society, London, v. 154, p. 93–97.
Griffin, T.J., Page, R.W., Sheppard, S., and Tyler, I.M., 2000, Tectonic impli-
cations of Palaeoproterozoic postcollisional, high-K felsic igneous rocks
from the Kimberley region of northwestern Australia: Precambrian Re-
search, v. 101, p. 1–23.
Griffin, W.L., O’Reilly, S.Y., Abe, N., Aulbach, S., Davies, R.M., Pearson,
N.J., Doyle, B.J., and Kivi, K., 2003a, The origin and evolution of Archean
lithospheric mantle: Precambrian Research, v. 127, p. 19–41.
Griffin, W.L., O’Reilly, S.Y., Natapov, L.M., and Ryan, C.G., 2003b, The evo-
lution of lithospheric mantle beneath the Kalahari craton and its margins:
Lithos, v. 71, p. 215–241.
Griffin, W.L., O’Reilly, S.Y., Afonso, J.C., and Begg, G.C., 2009, The compo-
sition and evolution of lithospheric mantle: A reevaluation and its tectonic
implications: Journal of Petrology, v. 50, no. 7, p. 1185–1204.
Hall, J., Louden, K.E., Funck, T., and Deemer, S., 2002, Geophysical char-
acteristics of the continental crust along the Lithoprobe Eastern Canadian
Shield Onshore-Offshore Transect (ECSOOT): A review: Canadian Journal
of Earth Sciences, v. 39, p. 569–587.
Han, B.-F., Wang, S.-G., Jahn, B.-M., Hong, D.-W., Kagami, H., and Sun,
Y.L., 1997, Depleted-mantle magma source for the Ulungur River A-type
granites from north Xinjiang, China: Geochemistry and Nd-Sr isotopic ev-
idence, and implication for Phanerozoic crustal growth: Chemical Geology,
v. 138, p. 135–159.
Han, B-F., Ji, J-Q., Song, B., Chen, L.H., and Li, Z-H., 2004, SHRIMP zir-
con U-Pb ages and implications of the Kalatongke and Huangshandong sul-
fide-bearing mafic-ultramafic intrusions: Chinese Science Bulletin, v. 49, p.
2324–2328. (in Chinese with English abstract).
Hand, M., Reid, A.B., and Jagodzinski, L., 2007, Tectonic framework and
evolution of the Gawler craton, southern Australia: ECONOMIC GEOLOGY,
v. 102, p. 1377–1395.
Hanson, R.E., Harmer, R.E., Blenkinsop, T.G., Bullen, D.S., Dalziel, I.W.D.,
Gose,W.A., Hall, R.P., Kampunzu, A.B.,Key, R.M., Mukwakwami, J., Mun-
yanyiwa, H., Pancake, J.A., Seidel, E.K., and Ward, S.E., 2006, Mesopro-
terozoic intraplate magmatism in the Kalahari craton: A review: Journal of
African Earth Sciences, v. 46, p. 141–167.
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 Sci-
ences, v. 44, p. 1055–1086.
Heaman, L.M., Peck, D., and Toope, K., 2009, Timing and geochemistry of
1.88 Ga Molson igneous events, Manitoba: Insights into the formation of a
craton-scale magmatic and metallogenic province: Precambrian Research,
v. 172, p.143–162.
Herzberg, C., 1992, Depth and degree of melting of komatiite: Journal of
Geophysical Research, v. 97, p. 4521–4540.
Herzberg, C., and O’Hara M.J., 2002, Plume-associated ultramafic magmas
of Phanerozoic age: Journal of Petrology, v. 43, p. 1857–1883.
Hoffman, P.F., 1988, United plates of America, the birth of a craton; Early
Proterozoic assembly and growth of Laurentia: Annual Review of Earth
and Planetary Sciences, v. 16, p. 543–603.
Johnson, S.P., De Waele, B., Evans, D., Banda, W., Tembo, F., Milton, J.A.,
and Tani, K., 2007, Geochronology of the Zambezi supracrustal sequence,
southern Zambia: A record of Neoproterozoic divergent processes along
the southern margin of the Congo craton: The Journal of Geology, v. 115,
p. 355–374.
Keays, R.R., 1995, The role of komatiite and picritic magmatism and S-satu-
ration in the formation of ore deposits: Lithos, v. 34, p. 1–18.
Keays, R.R., and Lightfoot, P.C., 2004, Formation of Ni-Cu-platinum group
element sulphide mineralization in the Sudbury impact melt sheet: Miner-
alogy and Petrology, v. 82, p. 217–258.
0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1068
——2007, Siderophile and chalcophile metal variations in Tertiary picrites
and basalts from West Greenland with implications for the sulphide satu-
ration history of continental flood basalt magmas: Mineralium Deposita, v.
42, p. 319–336.
Kerrich, R., Goldfarb, R.J., and Richards, J.P., 2005, Metallogenic provinces
in an evolving geodynamic framework: ECONOMIC GEOLOGY 100TH AN-
NIVERSARY VOLUME, p. 1097–1136.
Larson, R.L., 1997, Superplumes and ridge interactions between Ontong
Java and Manihiki plateaus and the Nova-Canton Trough: Geology, v. 25, p.
779-782.
Lesher, C.M., 2007, Ni-Cu(PGE) Deposits in the Raglan area, Cape Smith
belt, New Quebec Geological Association of Canada Special Publication 5,
p. 351–386.
Lesher, C.M., and Keays, R.R., 2002, Komatiite-associated Ni-Cu-PGE de-
posits: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum, Special
Volume 54, p. 579–617.
Lesher, C.M., Arndt, N.T., and Groves, D.I., 1984, Genesis of komatiite-as-
sociated nickel sulphide deposits at Kambalda, Western Australia: A distal
volcanic model, in Buchanan, D.L., and Jones, M.J., eds., Sulphide deposits
in mafic and ultramafic rocks: London, Institution of Mining and Metal-
lurgy, p. 70–80.
Li, H.-Q., Xie, C.-F., Chang, H., Cai, H., Zhu, J.-P., and Zhou, S., 1998, Study
on metallogenetic chronology of nonferrous and precious metallic ore de-
posits in North Xinjiang, China: Geological Publishing House, p. 202–221.
(in Chinese with English abstract)
Li, Z.-X., and Zhong, S., 2009, Supercontinent-superplume coupling, true
polar wander and plume mobility: Plate dominance in whole-mantle tec-
tonics: Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, doi:10.1016/j.pepi.
2009.05.004.
Li, Z.X., Li, X.H., Kinny, P.D., Wang, J., Zhang, S., and Zhou, H., 2003,
Geochronology of Neoproterozoic syn-rift magmatism in the Yangtze cra-
ton, South China and correlations with other continents: Evidence for a
mantle superplume that broke up Rodinia: Precambrian Research, v. 122,
p. 85–109.
Lightfoot, P.C., and Hawkesworth C.J., 1997, Flood basalts and magmatic Ni,
Cu, and PGE sulphide mineralization: comparative geochemistry of the
Noril’sk (Siberian Traps) and west Greenland sequences, in Mahoney, J.J.,
and Coffin, M.F., eds., Large igneous provinces: continental, oceanic and
planetary flood volcanism: American Geophysical Union: Washington, p.
357–380.
Lightfoot, P.C., Keays, R.R., and Doherty, W., 2001, Chemical evolution and
origin of nickel Sulfide mineralization in the Sudbury Igneous Complex,
Ontario, Canada: ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, v. 96,p. 1855–1875.
Lu, S., Li, H., Zhang, C., and Niu, G., 2008, Geological and geochrono-
logical evidence for the Precambrian evolution of the Tarim craton and
surrounding continental fragments: Precambrian Research, v. 160, p.
94–107.
Mavrogenes, J.A., and O’Neill, H.St.C., 1999, The relative effects of pres-
sure, temperature and oxygen fugacity on the solubility of sulfide in mafic
magmas: Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta, v. 63, p. 1173–1180.
Maier, W.D., Peltonen, P., and Livesey, T., 2007, The ages of the Kabanga
North and Kapalagulu intrusions, western Tanzania: A reconnaissance
study: ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, v. 102, p. 147–154.
Menzies, M. A., 1990, Archaean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic lithospheres,
in Menzies, M.A., ed., Continental Mantle: Oxford: Clarendon, p. 67–86.
Myers, J.S., Shaw, R.D., and Tyler, I.M., 1996, Tectonic evolution of Pro-
terozoic Australia: Tectonics, v. 15, p. 1431–1446.
Myers, J.S., Voordouw, R.J., and Tettelaar, T.A., 2008, Proterozoic anorthosite-
granite Nain batholith: structure and intrusion processes in an active lithos-
phere-scale fault zone, northern Labrador: Canadian Journal of Earth Sci-
ences, v. 45, p. 909–934.
Nägler, T., 1990, Sm–Nd, Rb–Sr and common lead isotope geochemistry on
fine-grained sediments of the Iberian Massif: Unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Zurich,
Swiss Federal Institute Technology, 139 p.
Nägler, T.F., Schäfer, H.J., and Gebauer, D., 1995, Evolution of the western
European continental crust: implications from Nd and Pb isotopes in Iber-
ian sediments: Chemical Geology, v. 121, p. 345–357.
Naldrett, A.J., 1966, The role of sulphurization in the genesis of iron-nickel
sulphide deposits of the Porcupine district, Ontario: Canadian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy Transactions, v. 69, p. 147–155.
——1989, Ores associated with flood basalts, in Whitney, J.A., and Naldrett,
A.J., eds., Ore deposition associated with magmas: Society of Economic
Geologists: Dordrecht, p. 103–118.
 LITHOSPHERIC, CRATONIC, AND GEODYNAMIC SETTING OF Ni-Cu-PGE SULFIDE DEPOSITS
——1992, A model for the Ni-Cu-PGE ores of the Noril’sk region and its ap-
plication to other areas of flood basalt: ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, v. 87, p.
1945–1962.
——2004, Magmatic sulfide deposits: Geology, geochemistry, and explo-
ration: Springer Verlag: Heidelberg, Berlin, 727 p.
Nyblade, A.A., Owens, T.J., Gurrola, H., Ritsema, J., and Langston, C.A.,
2000, Seismic evidence for a deep upper mantle thermal anomaly beneath
east Africa: Geology, v. 28, p. 599–602.
O’Hara, M.J., 1968, The bearing of phase equilibrium studies on the origin
and evolution of basic and ultrabasic rocks: Earth Science Reviews, v. 4, p.
69–133.
Ordóñez-Casado, B., Martin-Izard, A., and Garcia-Nieto, J., 2008, SHRIMP-
zircon U-Pb dating of the Ni-Cu-PGE mineralized Aguablanca gabbro and
Santa Olalla granodiorite: Confirmation of an Early Carboniferous metal-
logenic epoch in the Variscan Massif of the Iberian Peninsula: Ore Geology
Reviews, v. 34, p. 343–353.
Oyarzun, R., Doblas, M., Lopez-Ruiz, J., and Cebria, J.M., 1997, Opening of
the central Atlantic and asymmetric mantle upwelling phenomena: impli-
cations for long-lived magmatism in western North Africa and Europe: Ge-
ology, v. 25, p. 727–730.
Petford, N., Cruden, A.R., McCaffrey, K.J.W., and Vigneresse, J.-L., 2000,
Granite magma formation, transport and emplacement in the Earth’s crust:
Nature, v. 408, p. 669–673.
Pirajno, F., 2000, Ore deposits and mantle plumes: Dordrecht, Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, 556 p.
Pirajno, F., Ernst, R.E., Borisenko, A.S., Fedoseev, G., and Naumov, E.A.,
2009, Intraplate magmatism in Central Asia and China and associated met-
allogeny: Ore Geology Reviews, v. 35, no. 2, p. 114–136.
Pisarevsky, S.A., and Natapov, L.M., 2003, Siberia and Rodinia: Tectono-
physics, v. 375, p. 221–245.
Polat, A., Kusky, T.M., Li, J.H., Fryer, B., Kerrich, R., and Patrick, K., 2005,
Geochemistry of Neoarchean (ca 2.55–2.50 Ga) volcanic and ophiolitic
rocks in the Wutaishan greenstone belt, North China craton: Implications
for geodynamic setting and continental growth: Geological Society Amer-
ica Bulletin, v. 117, p. 1387–1399.
Polat, A., Kusky, T.M., and Li, J.H., 2007, Geochemistry of Neoarchean (ca
2.55-2.50 Ga) volcanic and ophiolitic rocks in the Wutaishan greenstone
belt, North China craton: Implications for geodynamic setting and conti-
nental growth: Reply: Geological Society America Bulletin, v. 119, p.
490–492.
Rehkämper, M., Halliday A.N., Fitton J.G., Lee D.-C., Wieneke, M., and
Arndt, N.T., 1999, Ir, Ru, Pt, and Pd in basalts and komatiites: new con-
straints for the geochemical behavior of the platinum-group elements in
the mantle: Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta, v. 63, p. 3915–3934.
Ridley, J., 1993, The relations between mean rock stress and fluid flow in the
crust: With reference to vein- and lode-style gold deposits: Ore Geology
Reviews, v. 8, p. 23-37.
Rosen, O.M., Condie, K.C., Natapov, L.M., and Nozhkin, A.D., 1994,
Archean and Early Proterozoic evolution of the Siberian craton: a prelimi-
nary assessment, in Condie, K.C., ed., Archean Crustal Evolution: Elsevier,
Amsterdam, p. 411–459.
Saunders, A.D., Story, M., Kent, R.W., and Norry, M.J., 1992, Consequences
of plume-lithosphere interactions: Geological Society Special Publication,
v. 68, p. 41–60.
Schodde, R., and Hronsky, J.M.A., 2006, The role of world-class mines in
wealth creation: Society of Economic Geologists Special Publication 12, p.
71–90.
Scoates, J.S., and Friedman, R.M., 2008, Precise age of the platiniferous
Merensky reef, Bushveld Complex, South Africa, by the U-Pb zircon chem-
ical abrasion ID-TIMS technique: ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, v. 103, p. 465–471.
Seat, Z., Beresford, S.W., Grguric, B.A., Waugh, R.S., Hronsky, J.M.A., Gee,
M.A.M., Groves, D.I., and Mathison, C.I., 2007, Architecture and em-
placement of the Nebo-Babel gabbronorite-hosted magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE
sulphide deposit, West Musgrave, western Australia: Mineralium Deposita,
v. 42, p. 551–581.
Sheppard, S., Griffin, T.J., Tyler, I.M., and Page, R.W., 2001, High- and low-
K granites and adakites at a Palaeoproterozoic plate boundary in north-
western Australia: Journal of the Geological Society London, v. 158, p.
547–560.
Shirey, S.B., 1997, Re-Os isotopic composition of Midcontinent rift system
picrites: implications for plume-lithosphere interaction and enriched man-
tle sources: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 34, p. 489–503.
0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1069
1069
Silva, M.G., Martin, H., and Abram, M.S., 1996, Datação do corpo máfico-
ultramáfico da Fazenda Mirabela (Ipiaú-BA) pelo método Sm-Nd: Impli-
cações petrogenéticas e geotectônicas: Congress of Brasilian Geology 39:
Salvador, SBG, v. 6, p. 217–220.
Sleep, N.H., 1996, Lateral flow of hot plume material ponded at sublithos-
pheric depths: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 101, p. 28,065–28,083.
Smelov A.P., and Timofeev, V.F., 2007, The age of the north Asian cratonic
basement: An overview: Gondwana Research, v. 12, p. 279–288.
Song, X-Y., and Li, X-R., 2009, Geochemistry of the Kalatongke Ni-Cu-
(PGE) sulfide deposit, northwest China: Implications for the formation of
magmatic sulfide mineralization in a postcollisional environment: Mineral-
ium Deposita, v. 44, p. 303–327.
St-Onge, M.R., Scott, D.J., and Lucas, S.B., 2000, Early partitioning of Que-
bec: Microcontinent formation in the Paleoproterozoic: Geology, v. 28, p.
323–326.
St-Onge, M.R., Van Gool, J.A.M., Garde, A.A., and Scott, D.J., 2009, Corre-
lation of Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic units between northeastern
Canada and western Greenland: Constraining the precollisional upper
plate accretionary history of the Trans-Hudson orogen, London, The Geo-
logical Society Special Publications, v. 318, p. 193–235.
Thompson, R.N., and Gibson, S.A., 1991, Subcontinental mantle plumes,
hotspots, and preexisting thinspots: Geological Society of London Journal,
v. 148, p. 973–977.
Tornos, F., Galindo, C., Casquet, C., Rodrigues Pevida, L., Martínez, C.,
Martínez, E., Velasco, F., and Iriondo, A., 2006, The Aguablanca Ni-(Cu)
sulfide deposit, southwest Spain: Geologic and geochemical controls and
the relationship with a midcrustal layered mafic complex: Mineralium De-
posita, v. 41, p. 737–769.
Urvantsev, N.N., 1971, Genetic characteristics of copper-nickel deposits of
the Noril’sk region as criteria for predicting the massive ores of this type
within the Yeniseisky nickel-bearing province, in Geology and deposits of
the Noril’sk region: Noril’sk, p. 234–238 (in Russian).
Van Reenen, D.D., McCourt, S., and Smit, C.A., 1995, Are the southern and
northern marginal zones of the Limpopo belt related to a single continen-
tal collisional event?: South African Journal of Geology, v. 98, p. 489–504.
Vernikovsky, V.A., and Vernikovskaya, A.E., 2001, Central Taimyr accre-
tionary belt (Arctic Asia): Meso-Neoproterozoic tectonic evolution and Ro-
dinia breakup: Precambrian Research, v. 110, p. 127–141.
Vernikovsky, V.A., Vernikovskaya, A.E., Kotov, A.B., Sal’nikova, E.B., and Ko-
vach, V.P., 2003, Neoproterozoic accretionary and collisional events on the
western margin of the Siberian craton: new geological and geochronologi-
cal evidence from the Yenisey Ridge: Tectonophysics, v. 375, p. 147–168.
Wang, T., Jahn, B-M., Kovach, V.P., Tong, Y., Hong, D-W., and Han, B-F.,
2009, Nd–Sr isotopic mapping of the Chinese Altai and implications for
continental growth in the Central Asian Orogenic Belt: Lithos, v. 110, p.
359–372.
Wardle, R.J., James, D.T., Scott, D.J., and Hall, J., 2002, The southeastern
Churchill province: A synthesis of a Paleoproterozoic transpressional oro-
gen: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 39, p. 639-663, doi: 10.1139/
E02-004.
White, D.J., Jones, A.G., Lucas, S.B., and Hajnal, Z., 1999, Tectonic evolu-
tion of the Superior boundary zone from coincident seismic reflection and
magnetotelluric profiles: Tectonics, v. 18, p. 430–451.
White, D.J., Lucas, S.B., Bleeker, W., Hajnal, Z., Lewry, J.F., and Zwanig,
H.V., 2002, Suture-zone geometry along an irregular Paleoproterozoic mar-
gin: The Superior boundary zone, Manitoba, Canada: Geology, v. 30, p.
735–738.
Whitmeyer, S.J., and Karlstrom, K.E., 2007, Tectonic model for the Protero-
zoic growth of North America: Geosphere, v. 3, no. 4, p. 220–259.
Williams, H.A., and Betts, P.G., 2007, Imaging links between lithospheric ar-
chitecture and surface geology in the Proterozoic Curnamona province,
Australia: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 112, B07411, doi:10.1029/
2007JB004966.
Wilson, M., 1997, Thermal evolution of the Central Atlantic passive margins:
continental breakup above a Mesozoic superplume: Journal of the Geolog-
ical Society, London, v. 154, p. 491–495.
Wingate, M.T.D., Pirajno, F., and Morris, P.A., 2004, The Warakurna large ig-
neous province: a new Mesoproterozoic large igneous province in west-
central Australia: Geology, v. 32, p. 105–108.
Wu, F-Y., Wilde, SA., Zhang, G-L., and Sun, D-Y., 2004, Geochronology and
petrogenesis of the postorogenic Cu-Ni sulfide-bearing mafic-ultramafic
complexes in Jilin province, northeast China: Journal of Asian Earth Sci-
ences, v. 23, p. 781–797.
1070 BEGG ET AL.
Xiao, W-J., Han, C-M., Yuan, C., Sun, M., Lin, S-F., Chen, H-L., Li, Z-L., Li,
J-L., and Sun, S., 2008, Middle Cambrian to Permian subduction related
accretionary orogenesis of Northern Xinjiang, northwest China: Implica-
tions for the tectonic evolution of central Asia: Journal of Asian Earth Sci-
ences, v. 32, p. 102–117.
Yakubchuk, A., 2004, Architecture and mineral deposit settings of the Altaid
orogenic collage: A revised model: Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v. 23,
p. 761–779.
Zhang, J., Zhao, G., Li, S., Sun, M., Wilde, S.A., Liu, S., and Yin, C., 2007,
Polyphase deformation of the Fuping Complex, trans-north China orogen:
Structures, SHRIMP U-Pb zircon ages and tectonic implications: Journal
of Structural Geology, v. 31, p. 177–193.
Zhang, M., Kamo, S.L., Li, C., Hu, P., and Ripley, E.M., 2009, Precise U-Pb
zircon-baddeleyite age of the Jinchuan sulfide ore-bearing ultramafic in-
trusion, western China: Mineralium Deposita, doi: 10.1007/s00126-009-
0259-x.
Zhang, M., O’Reilly, S.Y., Wang, K-L., Hronsky, J., and Griffin, W.L., 2008,
Flood basalts and metallogeny: The lithospheric mantle connection: Earth-
Science Reviews, v. 86, p. 145-174.
Zhao, G., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., and Sun, M., 2001, Archean blocks and
their boundaries in the North China Supercraton: Lithological, geochemi-
cal, structural and P-T path constraints and tectonic evolution: Precam-
brian Research, v. 107, p. 45–73.
——2002, Review of global 2.1-1.8 Ga orogens: Implications for a pre-Ro-
dinia supercontinent: Earth Science Reviews, v. 59, p. 125–162.
Zhao, G., Sun, M., and Wilde, S.A., 2003, Correlations between the eastern
block of north China craton and the south Indian block of the Indian
Shield: Archean and Proterozoic link: Precambrian Research, v. 122, p.
201–233.
0361-0128/98/000/000-00 $6.00 1070
Zhao, G., Sun, M., Wilde, S.A., and Li, S., 2004a, A paleo-Mesoproterozoic
supercontinent: Assembly, growth and breakup: Earth-Science Reviews, v.
67, p. 91–123.
Zhao, G., Sun, M., Wilde, S.A., and Sanzhong, L., 2004b, Late Archean to
Paleoproterozoic evolution of the north China craton: Key issues revisited:
Precambrian Research, v. 136, p. 177–202.
Zheng, J., Griffin, W.L., O’Reilly, S.Y., Zhang, M., Pearson, N., and Pan, Y.,
2006, Widespread Archean basement beneath the Yangtze craton: Geology,
v. 34, p. 417–420.
Zhou, M-F., Arndt, N. T., Malpas, J., Wang, C.Y., and Kennedy, A.K., 2008,
Two magma series and associated ore deposit types in the Permian Emeis-
han large igneous province, southwest China: Lithos, v. 103, p. 352–368.
Zoback, M.D., Townsend, J., and Grollimund, B., 2002, Steady-state Failure
Equilibrium and deformation of intraplate lithosphere: International Geol-
ogy Review, v. 44, p. 383–401.
Zoback, M.L., and Zoback, M.D, 2009, Lithosphere stress and deformation,
in Watts, A.B., ed., Crust and lithosphere dynamics: Elsevier, p. 253–273.
Zwanzig, H.V., Macek, J.J., and McGregor, C.R., 2007, Lithostratigraphy and
geochemistry of the high-grade metasedimentary rocks in the Thompson
nickel belt and adjacent Kisseynew domain, Manitoba: Implications for
nickel exploration: ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, v. 102, p. 1197–1216.