Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
American Mineralogist Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

American Mineralogist; May 2004; v. 89; no. 5-6; p. 701-713
© 2004 Mineralogical Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kozak, P. K.
Right arrow Articles by Roselle, G. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Mineral distribution in contact-metamorphosed siliceous dolomite at Ubehebe Peak, California, based on airborne imaging spectrometer data

Patrick K. Kozak1,*, Edward F. Duke1 and Gregory T. Roselle2

1 Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota, 57701, U.S.A.
2 Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144, U.S.A.

Correspondence: * E-mail: patrick.kozak{at}sdsmt.edu

Visible and near-infrared reflectance spectra of minerals in the CaO-MgO-SiO2-H2O-CO2 system and airborne imaging spectrometer data with a spatial resolution of 3.6 m were used to map the distribution of dolomite, calcite, tremolite, serpentine, brucite, and related minerals in the Ubehebe Peak contact aureole. The results are entirely consistent with previously mapped isograds, but the high-spatial-resolution imagery offers a more accurate representation of the complex distribution of metamorphic minerals, and serves to highlight critical relationships between mineralogy and controlling factors such as stratigraphy, structure, and fluid infiltration. Rocks in the aureole are predominantly quartz-poor dolomite and limestone, and these are classified as pure dolomite or calcite, accordingly. Tremolite and serpentine (after forsterite) are largely restricted to stratigraphic units that contain siliceous dolomite, quartzite, or chert. In one area, however, tremolite and serpentine delineate a zone of retrograde hydration attributed to fluid flow along a fault. Wall rocks within 200 m of the contact and inliers of marble in the pluton contain brucite (after periclase), which documents sites of focused infiltration of H2O-rich fluid. In addition, the imagery reveals local metasomatic zones, marked by grossular-rich skarn and epidote alteration of the adjacent quartz monzonite, as well as large-scale patterns of bleaching, interpreted to define the maximum extent of fluid flow. The degree of bleaching and the intensity of plastic deformation are closely coupled; both effects increase abruptly at the forsterite isograd, which appears to represent a fundamental discontinuity with respect to chemical, physical, and mechanical processes in the aureole.







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Mineralogical Society of America