Next Article in Journal
Zircon U–Pb Geochronology, Geochemistry and Geological Significance of the Anisian Alkaline Basalts in Gejiu District, Yunnan Province
Next Article in Special Issue
Genesis of Precious Metal Mineralization in Intrusions of Ultramafic, Alkaline Rocks and Carbonatites in the North of the Siberian Platform
Previous Article in Journal
Crystal Structure Refinements of Four Monazite Samples from Different Localities
Previous Article in Special Issue
40Ar/39Ar Geochronology and New Mineralogical and Geochemical Data from Lamprophyres of Chompolo Field (South Yakutia, Russia)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/min10111029
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Newly Discovered Neoproterozoic Aillikite Occurrence in Vinoren (Southern Norway): Age, Geodynamic Position and Mineralogical Evidence of Diamond-Bearing Mantle Source

by
Dmitry R. Zozulya
1,*,
Kåre Kullerud
2,
Enrico Ribacki
3,
Uwe Altenberger
3,
Masafumi Sudo
3 and
Yevgeny E. Savchenko
1
1
Kola Science Centre, Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Science, 184209 Apatity, Russia
2
Norwegian Mining Museum, 3616 Kongsberg, Norway
3
Institute of Geosciences, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam-Golm, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2020, 10(11), 1029; https://doi.org/10.3390/min10111029
Submission received: 21 October 2020 / Revised: 11 November 2020 / Accepted: 16 November 2020 / Published: 18 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Petrology and Ores of Igneous Alkaline Rocks and Carbonatites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
During the period 750–600 Ma ago, prior to the final break-up of the supercontinent Rodinia, the crust of both the North American Craton and Baltica was intruded by significant amounts of rift-related magmas originating from the mantle. In the Proterozoic crust of Southern Norway, the 580 Ma old Fen carbonatite-ultramafic complex is a representative of this type of rocks. In this paper, we report the occurrence of an ultramafic lamprophyre dyke which possibly is linked to the Fen complex, although 40Ar/39Ar data from phenocrystic phlogopite from the dyke gave an age of 686 ± 9 Ma. The lamprophyre dyke was recently discovered in one of the Kongsberg silver mines at Vinoren, Norway. Whole rock geochemistry, geochronological and mineralogical data from the ultramafic lamprophyre dyke are presented aiming to elucidate its origin and possible geodynamic setting. From the whole-rock composition of the Vinoren dyke, the rock could be recognized as transitional between carbonatite and kimberlite-II (orangeite). From its diagnostic mineralogy, the rock is classified as aillikite. The compositions and xenocrystic nature of several of the major and accessory minerals from the Vinoren aillikite are characteristic for diamondiferous rocks (kimberlites/lamproites/UML): Phlogopite with kinoshitalite-rich rims, chromite-spinel-ulvöspinel series, Mg- and Mn-rich ilmenites, rutile and lucasite-(Ce). We suggest that the aillikite melt formed during partial melting of a MARID (mica-amphibole-rutile-ilmenite-diopside)-like source under CO2 fluxing. The pre-rifting geodynamic setting of the Vinoren aillikite before the Rodinia supercontinent breakup suggests a relatively thick SCLM (Subcontinental Lithospheric Mantle) during this stage and might indicate a diamond-bearing source for the parental melt. This is in contrast to the about 100 Ma younger Fen complex, which were derived from a thin SCLM.

1. Introduction

Although ultramafic lamprophyres (UML) are volumetrically insignificant rocks, they may play a crucial role in the understanding of deep (mantle) melting events. UML form dyke swarms and rarely pipes commonly associated with continental extension, commencing during the initial stages of continental rifts evolution. UML often occurs together with alkaline mafic-ultramafic and carbonatitic intrusive complexes [1]. UML are classified as melanocratic rocks with abundant olivine and phlogopite macrocrysts and/or phenocrysts and can be subdivided into three rock types depending on a third essential mineral [2]. (1) Alnöits are melilite-bearing UML; (2) aillikites contain primary carbonate; and (3) damtjernites are nepheline- and/or alkali feldspar-bearing. Clinopyroxene and/or richteritic amphibole might be present in all three types, whereas spinel, ilmenite, rutile, perovskite, Ti-rich garnet, titanite, apatite are typical minor and accessory phases. UML show similarities to other volatile-rich rocks, such as kimberlites, lamproites and silicocarbonatites in terms of the occurrences and mineralogy. Nevertheless, some compositional differences between the rock types and their distinctly different geodynamic settings (rift-related for UML and stable cratonic for kimberlites and lamproites) suggest that they have different magma sources and petrogeneses. Similar to kimberlites and lamproites, UML may contain diamonds [3,4,5,6,7], indicating that the depth of magma generation for UML can be in excess of 130 km.
During the period 750–600 Ma ago, the fragmentation of the supercontinent Rodinia was accompanied by voluminous continental and rift-related magmatism in both the North Atlantic Craton (NAC) and Baltica. Examples are ultramafic lamprophyres and carbonatites in NE Canada (Abloviak, Torngat of 600–580 Ma age, Aillik Bay—595–570 Ma, Saglek—570 Ma, Hebron—606 Ma, Eclipse Harbour—578 Ma, Killinek Island—576 Ma) and western Greenland (Sisimiut–Sarfartoq–Maniitsoq—610–550 Ma), as well as the carbonatite-ultramafic complexes (the Fen complex, Southern Norway—580 Ma) and kimberlites (eastern Finland—600–550 Ma) in Baltica. Several of the rocks that were emplaced during this event originated from diamond-bearing mantle depths, i.e., the Abloviak UML, northern Labrador, Canada [5,7], Sarfartoq kimberlite and UML, West Greenland [8] and the Kaavi-Kuopio kimberlites, Finland [9,10].
In this paper, the mineralogy, whole rock compositional data and the age of the recently discovered Vinoren UML dyke within the Kongsberg silver district, Kongsberg lithotectonic unit, Southern Norway, are presented. Based on the new data, the origin of the dyke and the geodynamic implications of the discovery will be discussed.

2. Geological Setting

The major part of the crust in Southern Norway is built up of Paleo- to Mesoproterozoic rocks that underwent multiphase reworking along the Fennoscandian margin during the Sveconorwegian Orogeny, between 1140 and 920 Ma ago [11,12,13]. This orogeny was one of several orogenic events worldwide that resulted in the formation of the supercontinent Rodinia, and it has been inferred to result from the collision between proto-Baltica and Amazonia (e.g., [14,15,16,17]). However, an accretionary and non-collisional model for the formation of the Sveconorwegian Orogeny has also been proposed [18,19]. The orogenic belt has been sub-divided in five orogen-parallel lithotectonic units, which are separated by major Sveconorwegian shear zones: The Eastern Segment, Idefjorden, Kongsberg, Bamble and Telemarkia units [20].
The Kongsberg silver district is situated within the Kongsberg lithotectonic unit and includes a variety of gneisses (1600–1400 Ma) and granitoids (1171–1146 Ma) [17,21]. The silver district is characterized by subvertical zones enriched in sulfides (predominantly pyrite and pyrrhotite), inferred to be of hydrothermal origin. These zones, which are called fahlbands (e.g., [22,23]), are up to 900 m wide and subparallel to the foliation of the surrounding lithologies. The fahlbands and the older lithologies are crosscut by E-W trending dolerite dikes, quartz veins and silver bearing calcite veins of Permian age [24,25,26]. Already in the early days, the miners realized that the silver mineralizations occur almost exclusively at the intersections of the calcite veins and the fahlbands (e.g., [27]). Neumann [28] referred to the mineralized veins as calcite-nickel-cobalt-arsenide-native silver veins. The veins vary from a few millimeters up to 0.5 m in thickness, although up to several meters thick zones have been observed [28]. In a recent study of the silver mineralizations, Kotková et al. [29] gave an update of the paragenetic sequence presented by Neumann [28].
The UML dyke reported here occurs in the Klausstollen adit, adjacent to the Ringnesgangen underground silver mine, S. Vinoren, which is located in the northernmost part of the Kongsberg silver district (Figure 1). The dyke strikes toward NE with a dip of approximately 35° toward NW (Figure 1). The dyke, which is about 50 cm thick, is fractured and tectonized; however, significant parts appears to be undeformed (Figure 2a). In places, the contact between the dyke and the host-rock appears as an undeformed and sharp intrusive contact. Some of the fractures within the dyke are filled with calcite.

3. Analytical Methods

3.1. Mineral Analyses

Chemical analyses of minerals from the Vinoren dyke were carried out using a Cameca MS-46 electron microprobe analyzer (EMPA) (CAMECA, Gennevilliers, France) at the Geological Institute, Kola Science Center, Apatity, Russia. The instrument was operated in a wavelength-dispersive mode at the following conditions: Acceleration voltage 22 kV, beam current 30–40 nA, 50 sec counting time. The following calibrating materials (and analytical lines) were used: Wollastonite (SiKα, CaKα), hematite (FeKα), apatite (PKα), lorenzenite (NaKα), thorite (ThMα), MnCO3 (MnKα), Y3Al5O12 (YLα), (La,Ce)S (LaLα), CeS (CeLα), Pr3Al5O12 (PrLβ1), LiNd(MoO4)2 (NdLα), SmFeO3 (SmLα), EuFeO3 (EuLα), GdS (GdLα), TbPO4 (TbLα), Dy3Al5O12 (DyLα), Ho3Ga5O12 (HoLβ1), ErPO4 (ErLα), Tm3Al5O12 (TmLα), Yb3Al5O12 (YbLα), and Y2.8Lu0.2Al5O12 (LuLα). Detection limits for Fe, Mn are 0.01%; Si, Al, Cl, Ca, K, Cl—0.02%; P, Na, Y, Sr, La, Ce, Nd—0.03%; Ba—0.05%; Nb, Zr—0.1%.
Accessory mineral identification and qualitative composition of grains and mineral inclusions less than 20–30 µm was performed using a LEO-1450 SEM (scanning electron microscope) (Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Germany) equipped with XFlash-5010 Bruker Nano GmbH EDS (energy-dispersive Xray spectroscopy). The system was operated at 20 kV acceleration voltage, 0.5 nA beam current, with 200 s accumulation time.
Materials from minerals forming possible pseudomorphs after olivine close to points analyzed by microprobe were examined by the X-ray diffraction (XRD) method (Debye-Scherer) by means of an URS-1 (Bourevestnik JSC, Saint-Petersburg, Russia) operated at 40 kV and 16 mA with RKU-114.7 mm camera and FeKα-radiation.

3.2. Whole Rock Analyses

Whole rock compositions were obtained at the Kola Science Center in Apatity, Russia. Most of the major elements were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry; TiO2 by colorimetry; K2O, Na2O, Cu, Ni, Co, Cr, V, Rb, Cs, and Li by flame photometry; FeO and CO2 by titration (volumetric analysis); and F and Cl by potentiometry using an ion-selective electrode (for the full description of the methods, see [30]).

3.3. 40Ar/39Ar Analyses

Fragment of phlogopite with diameter about 1 mm was hand-picked from one phenocrystic sample of the dyke rock, cleaned by ultrasonic bath and dried up at 40 °C. The mineral fragment was in cadmium foil. The grain was placed in a capsule made of 99.999% aluminum. The sample was irradiated for neutron activation at the CLICIT (cadmium-lined-in-core irradiation tube) facility at the Oregon State TRIGA reactor (OSTR), Oregon State University, Oregon, USA. To obtain the degree of neutron activation (J), the neutron flux monitoring mineral Fish Canyon Tuff sanidine (27.5 Ma [31,32]) was used. To correct possible interference of Ar isotopes produced by the reaction of K and Ca, crystals of K2SO4 and CaF2 were irradiated separately. Irradiation time was 4 h, and the fast neutron flux was 2.47 × 1013 n/cm2/s. After irradiation, the sample was cooled down for one month and transported to the Ar/Ar laboratory at the University of Potsdam, Germany. The sample was analyzed with a Gantry Dual Wave laser ablation system by the stepwise heating method until total melting. The system work with a 50 W CO2 laser (wavelength of 10.6 µm), using a defocused continuous laser beam with a diameter of maximum 1500 µm during 1 min for heating and gas extraction. The released sample gas was exposed to the SAES getters and cold stainless trap cooled at −90 °C through the ethanol by electric cooler in order to purify the sample gas to pure Ar for 10 min in a closed ultra-high vacuum purification line. The pure argon gas was analyzed by a Micromass 5400 noble gas mass spectrometer with high sensitivity and ultra-low background. The spectrometer operates with an electron multiplier for very small amounts of gas. During the measurements, blanks were measured every third step. The software Mass Spec, designed by Dr. Alan Deino of Berkeley Geochonology Center, Berkeley, CA, USA was used for processing the data. The recommended atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar ratio of 295.5 and the decay constants for λ(40Kβ-) = 4.962 × 10−10/yr and λ(40Ke)= 0.581 × 10−10/yr were used [33]. Used interference correction parameters are: (36Ar/37Ar)Ca = 2.73 ± 0.032 × 10−4, (39Ar/37Ar)Ca = 6.638 ± 0.263 × 10−4, (40Ar/39Ar)K = 50.966 ± 24.353 × 10−4, and (38Ar/39Ar)K = 1.1816 ± 0.00266 × 10−2. All errors correspond to 1 sigma error.

4. Results and Primary Interpretation

4.1. Petrography and Mineral Compositions

In hand specimen, the UML rock is massive and characterized by anhedral phenocrysts of phlogopite (up to 1 cm in diameter) and calcite (up to 1 mm in diameter), and rounded aggregates of a serpentine-like mineral (up to 3 mm in diameter) in a fine-grained, grey groundmass (Figure 2b,c). The groundmass (Figure 3a) is composed of phlogopite (20–25 vol.%), carbonate (20–25 vol.%), serpentine-like mineral (about 40 vol.%) and titanite (5–6 vol.%). Minor and accessory minerals are apatite (2–3 vol.%), magnetite (2–3 vol.%), rutile (1–2 vol.%), quartz (1–2 vol.%), lucasite-(Ce) [CeTi2(O,OH)6], ilmenite, garnet, spinel, zircon, barite, strontianite, celestine, godlevskite [(Ni,Fe)9S8], galena, sphalerite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, and pentlandite.
The carbonate in the groundmass is represented by almost pure calcite with <0.1 wt.% MgO (Table 1). We infer that the mineral is primary as it forms triple-junction boundaries between intergrown grains (Figure 3f). Secondary calcite occurs in aggregates with serpentine-like minerals and is characterized by high SrO content (up to 2 wt.%).
Phlogopite occurs both as phenocrysts and as grains up to 1 mm in the groundmass (Table 2). The phenocrystic phlogopite is homogenous, whereas two types of chemical zonation can be observed in the groundmass phlogopite. In back-scatter electron (BSE) images, the first type of zonation is characterized by a dark core and brighter rim of phlogopite (Figure 3e). The bright rim typically shows higher BaO than the core. The second type of zonation is represented by a few µm thick bright rims in BSE images (Figure 3e and Figure 4), reflecting elevated FeO and lower Al2O3 and MgO in the thin rims. The groundmass phlogopites are sometimes bent suggesting that the mineral already had formed when the magma was emplaced as a crystal mush.
The serpentine-like aggregates consist of a mixture of a mineral that is closer in composition to saponite than serpentine, and minor talc (Table 3). The presence of saponite has been confirmed by XRD analysis. The formation of saponite after olivine and serpentine during low-temperature hydrothermal alteration has been reported from some kimberlite occurrences (e.g., in the Arkhangelsk province, [34]).
Spinel occurs as 20–30 µm anhedral, often resorbed grains associated with rutile and lucasite-(Ce), all included in titanite (Figure 5a–d). Spinel grains often show reaction rims composed of an aggregate of calcite and saponite along the contact to the hosting titanite (Figure 5b,d). Based on the morphology and textural relationships of spinel, it is inferred that it is xenocrystic. The mineral is characterized by variable contents of Cr2O3 (13–27 wt.%), FeO (50–66 wt.%), MgO (0–7.75 wt.%), TiO2 (7–11 wt.%) and Al2O3 (4.9–6.8 wt.%) and represents presumably chromite-spinel- ulvöspinel/titanomagnetite solid solutions (Table 4; full dataset is in Supplementary Table S1). In BSE images, spinel is often zoned with darker central parts containing higher Cr2O3, MgO and Al2O3 and lower FeO, MnO and TiO2 compared to the outer parts of the grains. The average composition of the inner parts of the zoned spinel gives the formula (Mg0.44Fe0.31Ti0.21Mn0.02Ca0.01Ni0.01Zn0.01)0.99(Fe0.9Cr0.77Al0.34)2.01O4 which mainly corresponds to the spinel-chromite-ulvöspinel solid solution. The outer parts give the formula (Fe0.50Ti0.27Mn0.12Zn0.04Mg0.02Ca0.02Ni0.01)0.98(Fe1.30Cr0.47Al0.23)2O4 corresponding to the magnetite- ulvöspinel-manganchromite solid solution. Overall, the spinel studied here is similar to spinel from UML (i.e., Torngat occurrence, [35]) and differs from kimberlite and lamproite spinels by lower Cr2O3 and elevated TiO2 [36].
Titanite occurs as euhedral and subhedral grains, up to 100 µm in diameter (Figure 5). The mineral contains abundant inclusions of rutile, suggesting that titanite formed during breakdown of rutile at high activities of Si and Ca. Titanite is characterized by elevated Al2O3 (0.5–0.8 wt.%) and FeO (4.1–4.8 wt.%) (Table 5). The MgO content of titanite varies in the range 0.2–1.3 wt.%, while La2O3 + Ce2O3 shows concentrations in the range 0.3–0.5 wt.%.
Ilmenite is present as the two solid solution series geikielite-ilmenite and ilmenite-pyrophanite. The first one occurs as ca. 200 µm rounded resorbed grains with titanite rims (Figure 5e). The composition of the grains varies from core to rim mainly in MgO (from 12 to 2 wt.%), FeO (from 31 to 42 wt.%) and MnO (from 0.4 to 3.9 wt.%) (Table 5). The mineral is characterized by the presence of Al2O3 (0.44–0.57 wt.%), NiO (0.12 wt.%), Cr2O3 (up to 0.09 wt.%) and CaO (up to 0.13 wt.%). Ilmenite of similar Mg-rich composition is an indicative mineral for diamondiferous kimberlites. The compositional zonation revealed for ilmenite from the studied dyke is similar to that from Torngat UML. Ilmenite corresponding to the ilmenite-pyrophanite series (up to 16 wt.% of MnO) occurs as single 10–20 µm grains included in titanite (Figure 5f). Ilmenite compositions like this are characteristic for carbonatites.
Rutile is a relatively abundant accessory mineral, found in titanite in association with lucasite-(Ce) (Figure 5b,g,h). The replacement of rutile by titanite apparently took place during a late-magmatic carbonatization stage with high Ca- and REE-activities. Rutile is characterized by a moderate Nb2O5 content (0.4–0.6 wt.% (Table 5)) that is different from typical Nb-rich kimberlitic rutile. The associated lucasite-(Ce) belongs to the same stage and occurs as needles included in titanite. Lucasite-(Ce) is a characteristic mineral of diamondiferous lamproite, e.g., from Argyle, Western Australia [37]. Vinoren lucasite-(Ce) differs from the lamproitic mineral by elevated CaO (3.3–5.5 wt.%, Table 5).
Garnet is a secondary minor mineral formed as bud-shaped grains associated with saponite and in interstices between grains of phlogopite (Figure 6e,f). EMPA data (Table 3) indicates that the mineral is hydroandradite [Ca3Fe3+2(SiO4)3-x(OH)4x] with low to moderate TiO2 content (0.3–1.2 wt.%), in contrast to the Ti-rich garnets that is characteristic for UML.
Apatite forms elongated and needle-shaped crystals up to 250 µm long (Figure 6d). The mineral classifies as fluorapatite, but it contains significant amount of other volatile elements (F: 1.5–1.7 wt.%; Cl: 0.07–0.09 wt.%; SO3: 0.16–0.25 wt.%).
Zircon occurs as needles of about 20 µm long, assembled in subparallel aggregates (Figure 6a,b). The skeletal form of zircon indicates rapid growth of the mineral.
A Ni-Fe-S mineral phase with the composition 30.8 wt.% S, 38.9 wt.% Ni, 27.1 wt.% Fe and 3.1 wt.% Co (possibly godlevskite: (Ni,Fe)9S8), which occurs as numerous rounded grains of 1–2 µm in diameter in the saponite-talc aggregates (Figure 6c), is inferred to be an alteration product after olivine. Secondary quartz occurring in the saponite-talc aggregates is also inferred to be an alteration product after olivine. Barite and strontianite form anhedral grains, 1–3 µm in diameter, occur as inclusions in calcite. Other accessory phases that were observed (pyrite, galena, chalcopyrite, sphalerite, pentlandite, and celestine) in couple with other sulfides and sulfates indicate a relatively high S activity during the formation of the studied dyke.

4.2. Whole Rock Compositions

The studied dyke rock is characterized by low SiO2 (34–35 wt.%) and Al2O3 (5.1 wt.%), moderate TiO2 (2.75 wt.% in average) and Mg# (75), high CO2, P2O5, Ba and Sr (9.8 wt.%, 1.1 wt.%, 2500 ppm and 590 ppm in average, respectively) (Table 6). From its composition and its ultrapotassic character (K/Na = 15 in average), the Vinoren rock can be recognized as transitional between carbonatite and lamproite. The rock is different from lamproites since it is not peralkaline (Kagp < 1) nor perpotassic (K/Al < 0.7). Furthermore, carbonatites and silicocarbonatites contain at least two times higher CO2 and significantly higher Sr than the rock from Vinoren [2,7]. The studied rock has high Ni (530–550 ppm) and Cr (630–750 ppm), typical for ultramafic volatile-rich mantle-derived magmas (average concentrations from [1]: UML = 430 ppm Ni, 480 ppm Cr; kimberlites = 1050 ppm Ni, 1100 ppm Cr; lamproites = 435 ppm Ni, 510 ppm Cr). Important to notice is the high content of volatile components of the rock, such as F (0.25–0.28 wt.%), S (0.71–0.75 wt.%), H2O (2.8–3.6 wt.%), and rare alkali elements (68 ppm Rb, 10 ppm Cs).
In the compositional variation diagram MgO-Al2O3-FeOtot, the Vinoren rock plots well within the fields of kimberlite, melilitite, aillikite and alnöite, the latter two are UML (Figure 7). Compared to UML, kimberlites have higher MgO/CaO ratios, while melilitites have higher Al2O3/CaO ratios [38].

4.3. 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology

Results and measurement conditions of 40Ar/39Ar analyses of Vinoren phlogopite are given in Table 7. Plateau was not obtained. But an arithmetic average age of 686 ± 9 Ma was calculated from the last 5 steps which show very similar ages (Figure 8a). The integrated 40Ar/39Ar age is 689 ± 3 Ma. The measured Ca/K ratios were very stable, indicating that phlogopite has not been affected by alteration or degassing processes. In the normal isotope correlation diagram in Figure 8b, the data yields an age of 679 ± 6 Ma.

5. Discussion

5.1. Geochemical Constrains for Rock Affinity

From its diagnostic mineralogy (carbonate-rich, but nepheline- and/or alkali feldspar- and melilite-absent; see Section 4.1) and whole rock geochemistry (low SiO2 and Al2O3, high TiO2, CO2, P2O5, Ba and Sr; see Section 4.2), the rock is classified as aillikite. According to [2], aillikite is a carbonate-rich member of the UML group derived from a volatile-rich, potassic, SiO2-poor magma.
The affinity and a possible source of the studied rock can be constrained by comparative studies. The nearest UML occurrences of similar age and tectonic setting are from the Labrador-Greenland areas, which are the parts of NAC. Two aillikite occurrences in these areas, i.e., Aillik Bay and Torngat, were chosen for comparison as their parental magmas originated at different depths [5,35,39]. The Aillik Bay aillikites are diamond-free, whereas the Torngat rocks are diamond-bearing with accessory mineral and xenocryst assemblages indicating a deep source. The Vinoren rock shows similar contents of SiO2, Al2O3, K2O, CO2 and P2O5 as the Torngat aillikite, but lower MgO, Na2O and higher CaO (Figure 9). At the same time the studied aillikite is differing from the Aillik Bay rocks by most components. It has been proposed that the Torngat ailikite was related to partial melting of metasomatized mantle (assemblages similar to MARID = mica-amphibole-rutile-ilmenite-diopside xenoliths from kimberlites [40]) during CO2 fluxing [7]. MARID nodules and veins are highly enriched in volatiles and incompatible elements [41,42] and according to [43], they crystallize within the diamond stability field, i.e., >4 GPa. Although aillikites are rich in MgO and Ni, their low SiO2 content and high contents of alkalis and volatiles suggest that they cannot be produced by melting of pure mantle peridotite. Foley [44] suggested a vein-plus-wall-rock melting mechanism for the generation of lamproitic magma. Accordingly, potassic and hydrous lamproitic magma can be produced by remelting of phlogopite-richterite-clinopyroxene dominated veins accommodated in peridotite of subcontinental lithospheric mantle (SCLM). Later, Foley et al. [45] and Tappe et al. [39] developed a similar model for the generation of UML melts, using a phlogopite-carbonate vein assemblage with minor apatite and Ti-oxide. Their remelting can produce potassic, hybrid carbonate-ultramafic silicate magma batches corresponding to aillikite melts. This has not been directly demonstrated yet, but the process is confirmed by experimental data [43], and encouraged by proximity of diamond-bearing aillikite and model MARID (see Figure 9). Both phlogopite and K-richterite can be present in MARID assemblages. However, the extremely high K/Na of the Vinoren aillikite combined with its strongly Si-undersaturated character indicate a dominating role of phlogopite in the source, because melting of a richterite-dominated source would have given more Si-rich melts. The difference in Na and K composition between the natural products and model MARID-like material (Figure 9) can be explained by the extremely different proportions of amphibole and mica in MARID. The low MgO/CaO ratio (<1) of aillikite suggests that calcite is the dominating carbonate in the source. The high TiO2 content of aillikite (2.75 wt.%) cannot be explained by melting of Ti-rich phlogopite only, suggesting the presence of ilmenite and/or rutile in the source [46].

5.2. Mineralogical Constrains for Rock Genesis

Minerals belonging to the phlogopite, oxyspinel and ilmenite groups may give important information about the mechanisms responsible for the genesis of volatile rich ultramafic rocks.
The chemical zonation observed for the groundmass phlogopite shows high kinoshitalite and tetraferriphlogopite components along the rim of the mineral. Kinoshitalite-rich rims are characteristic of kimberlitic mica [47], while tetraferriphlogopite rims are typical of lamproitic mica [36]. The elevated BaO content in phlogopite from Vinoren (up to 2.3 wt.%) is much lower than what is observed from kimberlites, but higher than what is typical for phlogopite from aillikites. BaO content of 3.5 wt.% has been recognized in UML, including diamondiferous ones, from Australia [48,49]. The high TiO2 (4–7 wt.%) in phlogopite from Vinoren is distinctly different from phlogopite from kimberlites and orangeites, but close to the compositions of phlogopite from UML and lamproites (Figure 10). Furthermore, the Al2O3 content in Vinoren phlogopite is different from high-Al kimberlitic phlogopite and low-Al orangeitic and lamproitic phlogopite. Phlogopite from orangeites and lamproites typically shows an evolutionary trend with an increase in Fe coupled with a decrease in Al toward pure tetraferriphlogopite. For phlogopite from the Vinoren rock, this trend is very weakly developed. In conclusion, phlogopite from Vinoren shows a hybrid character with some similarities to phlogopite from kimberlites and lamproites, but it is more similar to UML phlogopite, and it shows some affinity to MARID-like phlogopite (Figure 10).
The compositional variations of ilmenite from Vinoren indicate a hybrid nature also of this mineral (Figure 11). The Mg-rich core (up to 12 wt.%) is typical for kimberlitic ilmenite, while the more marginal part of the mineral is similar ilmenite from UML. The elevated MnO content (up to 3.9 wt.%) may be considered as a result of the reaction trend in kimberlitic ilmenite as shown in Figure 11 [47,52,53]. Moreover, similar Mn-rich ilmenites have been observed as inclusions in diamonds from Brazil [54,55].
The manganoilmenite, which occurs as inclusions in titanite from the Vinoren rock, contains 11–14 wt.% MnO. Compositions in this range are typical of ilmenite from carbonatites ([53,56], and references therein). However, ilmenite from carbonatites is commonly characterized by high Nb2O5 (1.1 wt.% in average [47,56]). The manganoilmenite from Vinoren is depleted in Nb2O5 (0.2–0.4 wt.%), which is more typical for ilmenite from kimberlites (0.22 wt.% in average [56]).
Spinel from Vinoren commonly shows chemical zonation, reflecting changes in the chemical and physical conditions during mineral growth. Spinel shows Fe2+/(Fe2+ + Mg) ratios in the range 0.3–0.5 in cores and 0.85–1 in the more marginal parts. Furthermore, there are the differences in Ti/(Ti + Cr + Al) (0.1–0.2 for cores and 0.2–0.4 for host grain), Fe3+/(Fe3+ + Cr + Al) (0.4–0.5 and 0.5–0.8, respectively), Cr/(Cr + Al) (0.67–0.76 and 0.64–0.71, respectively) and Mn/(Mn + Fe2+) (0.05–0.06 and 0.13–0.24, respectively). In the diagrams Fe3+/(Fe3+ + Cr + Al) vs. Fe2+/(Fe2+ + Mg) and Fe3+/(Fe3+ + Cr + Al) vs. Fe2+/(Fe2+ + Mg), spinel cores show compositions corresponding to “magnesian ulvöspinel” and “Cr-spinel” from kimberlites (Figure 12a,b). The more marginal parts of spinel plot within the field of “titanomagnetite” from lamproites and UML. Thus, it can be inferred that the earliest spinel originated from deep “kimberlite-producing” levels, while the later spinel formed at shallower “UML” levels. The xenocrystic nature of Vinoren spinel (see Section 4.1) confirms this assumption. The marginal parts of spinel grains are usually enriched in Mn compared to the cores (Figure 12c), which is in accordance with an overall higher Mn activity at a late carbonatization stage of the Vinoren aillikite. The assemblage of magnesian ulvöspinel and Cr-spinel of kimberlitic affinity in association with Mg-ilmenite is widely recognized as an indicator for diamond ([47,58], and references therein).
Thus, phlogopite, ilmenite and spinel from the studied rock show compositions that suggest a hybrid and multistage origin of the rock. It is inferred that a primary melt originated from deep (kimberlitic) and possibly diamond-bearing mantle levels. Phlogopite compositions indicate that the melt originated from MARID-like source. During the ascend, the residual silicate melt with significant carbonate content was still reactive and resulted in the formation of ilmenite, manganilmenite and titanomagnetitic spinel at shallower (UML) mantle levels.

5.3. Possible Geodynamic Setting of Vinoren Aillikite

The North Atlantic Craton of Rodinia is composed of Archean blocks surrounded by Paleoproterozoic mobile belts covering large areas in the Northeastern Quebec, Labrador and Western Greenland ([15], and references therein). Widespread lithospheric thinning occurred throughout eastern NAC along the Laurentian margin during the Late Neoproterozoic [59,60,61,62], resulting in continental breakup and subsequent opening of the Iapetus Ocean at 600 Ma, which was associated with rift-related UML-carbonatite-kimberlite magmatism. In central Labrador, this episode of continental stretching is recorded by remnant graben structures forming the eastward continuation of the St. Lawrence valley rift system [63]. Although Baltica today is separated from Laurentia, the two continents probably shared a common drift history during the time interval 750–600 Ma.
Studies of Neoproterozoic sedimentary systems along the northwestern region of Baltica, and geochemical and geochronological studies of magmatic rocks in the same region, have been used to constrain the break-up of Rodinia [60,64,65]. Prior to the active rift-related drift at ca. 600–550 Ma [66,67], this margin was inferred to have faced Laurentia (e.g., [68,69,70]).
During this stage, with thin SCLM and shallow asthenosphere, several carbonatitic-ultramafic complexes formed, including the Fen Complex in South Norway [71,72], the Seiland Igneous Province in North Norway (e.g., [73]) and the Alnö Carbonatite Complex in Sweden [74,75]. The initiation of rifting along the Baltic margin is marked by the 650 Ma Egersund tholeiitic dykes (SW Norway) which probably were derived from a mantle plume [60]. The emplacement of the Vinoren aillikite pre-dates this event. This is in accordance with the concept of [76] suggesting that continental extension was going on from 750 to 530 Ma, but separated in two distinct phases: (1) At 750–680 Ma, and (2) at 615–550 Ma. The first phase marked a failed rifting event between Laurentia and Amazonia, while the second phase led to the final breakup of Rodinia and the opening of the Iapetus ocean. Our data show that the first phase was active also between Laurentia and Baltica. The geochemical and mineralogical data presented here suggest that the parental magma of the dyke originated under a relatively thick SCLM, and that the continental root might have reached the depth of diamond stability.

6. Conclusions

(1) From petrography and diagnostic mineralogy, the Vinoren rock can be classified as aillikite-carbonate-rich member of the UML group derived from a volatile-rich, potassic, SiO2-poor magma.
(2) The Vinoren aillikite has whole rock contents of SiO2, Al2O3, K2O, CO2 and P2O5 and phlogopite compositions similar to diamond-bearing aillikites (e.g., from Torngat, Labrador), having a MARID-like mantle source.
(3) The rock affinity and the age of the Vinoren aillikite indicate that the rock belongs to the spacious Neoproterozoic UML-kimberlite-carbonatite province of North Atlantic craton.
(4) Xenocrystic ilmenite and spinel have compositional characteristics of minerals forming in the diamond stability depth (>130 km).
(5) The emplacement of Vinoren aillikte pre-dates the rifting and breakup of Rodinia in North-Western Baltica and its parent magma formed under a thick SCLM.

Supplementary Materials

The following is available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/10/11/1029/s1, Table S1: Chemical composition of oxyspinel group minerals from Vinoren aillikite.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.R.Z. and K.K.; Methodology, Y.E.S. and M.S.; Investigation, D.R.Z., K.K., E.R., U.A. and M.S.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, D.R.Z. and K.K.; Writing—Review and Editing, K.K., E.R., U.A.; Visualization, D.R.Z., K.K. and Y.E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Russian Government grant 0226-2019-0053.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Christian Berg for the photo in Figure 2a, and to Egil Olafsen for giving us access to the Ringnesgangen mine. Anna Solovjova (KSC RAS) assisted with drawing. Three anonymous referees are thanked for very helpful journal reviews.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rock, N.M.S. Lamprophyres; Blackie and Sons Ltd.: Glasgow, UK, 1991; p. 285. [Google Scholar]
  2. Tappe, S.; Foley, S.F.; Jenner, G.A.; Kjarsgaard, B.A. Integrating Ultramafic Lamprophyres into the IUGS Classification of Igneous Rocks: Rationale and Implications. J. Pet. 2005, 46, 1893–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Hamilton, R. Geology and structural setting of ultramafic lamprophyres from Bulljah Pool, central Western Australia. J. R. Soc. West. Aust. 1992, 75, 51–56. [Google Scholar]
  4. Mitchell, R.; Smith, B.S.; Larsen, L. Mineralogy of Ultramafic Dikes from The Sarfartoq, Sisimiut and Maniitsoq Areas, West Greenland: Kimberlites Or Melnoites? In Proceedings of the International Kimberlite Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 11–17 April 1998. [Google Scholar]
  5. Digonnet, S.; Goulet, N.; Bourne, J.; Stevenson, R.; Archibald, D. Petrology of the Abloviak Aillikite dykes, New Québec: Evidence for a Cambrian diamondiferous alkaline province in northeastern North America. Can. J. Earth Sci. 2000, 37, 517–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Birkett, T.; McCandless, T.; Hood, C. Petrology of the Renard igneous bodies: Host rocks for diamond in the northern Otish Mountains region, Quebec. Lithos 2004, 76, 475–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tappe, S.; Foley, S.F.; Kjarsgaard, B.A.; Romer, R.L.; Heaman, L.M.; Stracke, A.; Jenner, G.A. Between carbonatite and lamproite—Diamondiferous Torngat ultramafic lamprophyres formed by carbonate-fluxed melting of cratonic MARID-type metasomes. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2008, 72, 3258–3286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Hutchison, M.T.; Frei, D. Kimberlite and related rocks from Garnet Lake, West Greenland, including their mantle constituents, diamond occurrence, age and provenance. Lithos 2009, 112, 318–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. O’Brien, H.E.; Peltonen, P.; Vartianen, H. Kimberlites, Carbonatites, and Alkaline Rocks. In Precambrian Geology of Finland—Key to the Evolution of the Fennoscandian Shield. Developments in Precambrian Geology 14; Lehtinen, M., Nurmi, P.A., Ramo, O.T., Eds.; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 605–644. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dalton, H.; Giuliani, A.; O’Brien, H.; Phillips, D.; Hergt, J. The role of lithospheric heterogeneity on the composition of kimberlite magmas from a single field: The case of Kaavi-Kuopio, Finland. Lithos 2020, 105333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Berthelsen, A. Towards a palinspastic tectonic analysis of the Baltic Shield. In Geology of Europe, from Precambrian to the post-Hercyninan Sedimentary Basins; Cogne, J., Slansky, M., Eds.; Mémoires du B.R.G.M.: Paris, France, 1980; pp. 5–21. [Google Scholar]
  12. Demaiffe, D.; Michot, J. Isotope Geochronology of the Proterozoic Crustal Segment of Southern Norway: A Review. In The Deep Proterozoic Crust in the North Atlantic Provinces; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin, Germany, 1985; Volume C158, pp. 411–433. [Google Scholar]
  13. Falkum, T. Geotectonic Evolution of Southern Scandinavia in Light of a Late-Proterozoic Plate-Collision. In The Deep Proterozoic Crust in the North Atlantic Provinces; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin, Germany, 1985; pp. 309–322. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hoffman, P.F. Did the Breakout of Laurentia Turn Gondwanaland Inside-Out? Science 1991, 252, 1409–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Li, Z.; Bogdanova, S.; Collins, A.; Davidson, A.; De Waele, B.; Ernst, R.; Fitzsimons, I.; Fuck, R.; Gladkochub, D.; Jacobs, J.; et al. Assembly, configuration, and break-up history of Rodinia: A synthesis. Precambrian Res. 2008, 160, 179–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bingen, B.; Davis, W.J.; Hamilton, M.A.; Engvik, A.K.; Stein, H.J.; Skar, O.; Nordgulen, O. Geochronology of high-grade metamorphism in the Sveconorwegian belt, S. Norway: U-Pb, Th-Pb and Re-Os data. Nor. J. Geol. 2008, 88, 13–42. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bingen, B.; Viola, G. The early-Sveconorwegian orogeny in southern Norway: Tectonic model involving delamination of the sub-continental lithospheric mantle. Precambrian Res. 2018, 313, 170–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Slagstad, T.; Roberts, N.M.W.; Marker, M.; Røhr, T.S.; Schiellerup, H. A non-collisional, accretionary Sveconorwegian orogen. Terra Nova 2012, 25, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Slagstad, T.; Roberts, N.M.W.; Coint, N.; Høy, I.; Sauer, S.; Kirkland, C.; Marker, M.; Røhr, T.S.; Henderson, I.H.; Stormoen, M.A.; et al. Magma-driven, high-grade metamorphism in the Sveconorwegian Province, southwest Norway, during the terminal stages of Fennoscandian Shield evolution. Geosphere 2018, 14, 861–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Bingen, B.; Nordgulen, Ø.; Viola, G. A four-phase model for the Sveconorwegian orogeny, SW Scandinavia. Nor. J. Geol. 2008, 88, 43–72. [Google Scholar]
  21. Viola, G.; Bingen, B.; Solli, A. Berggrunnskart: Kongsberg litotektoniske enhet, Kongsberg—Modum—Hønefoss M 1: 100 000. Nor. Geol. Undersøkelse 2016. Available online: www.ngu.no/upload/Publikasjoner/Kart/KongsbergB100.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2020).
  22. Bugge, C. Kongsbergfeltets geologi. Nor. Geol. Undersøkelse 1917, 82, 272. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gammon, J.B. Fahlbands in the Precambrian of southern Norway. Econ. Geol. 1966, 61, 174–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ineson, P.R.; Mitchell, J.G.; Vokes, F.M. K-Ar dating of epigenetic mineral deposits; an investigation of the Permian metallogenic province of the Oslo region, southern Norway. Econ. Geol. 1975, 70, 1426–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ihlen, P.M.; Ineson, P.R.; Mitchell, J.G.; Vokes, F.M. K-Ar Dating of Dolerite Dykes in the Kongsberg-Fiskum District, Norway, and Their Relationships with the Silver and Base-Metal Veins. Nor. Geol. Undersøkelse 1984, 64, 87–96. [Google Scholar]
  26. Torgersen, E.; Viola, G.; Zwingmann, H.; Henderson, I.H. Inclined K-Ar illite age spectra in brittle fault gouges: Effects of fault reactivation and wall-rock contamination. Terra Nova 2014, 27, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bugge, A. Gammel og ny geologi ved Kongsberg Sølvverk. Nor. Geol. Undersøkelse 1932, 12, 74–89. [Google Scholar]
  28. Neumann, H. Silver deposits at Kongsberg. Nor. Geol. Undersøkelse 1944, 162, 133. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kotková, J.; Kullerud, K.; Šrein, V.; Drábek, M.; Škoda, R. The Kongsberg silver deposits, Norway: Ag-Hg-Sb mineralization and constraints for the formation of the deposits. Miner. Deposita 2017, 53, 531–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cazes, J. Ewing’s Analytical Instrumentation Handbook, 3rd ed.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 2005; p. 1037. [Google Scholar]
  31. Uto, K.; Ishizuka, O.; Matsumoto, A.; Kamioka, H.; Togashi, S. Laser-heating 40 Ar/39 Ar dating system of the Geological Survey of Japan: System outlines and preliminary results. Bull. Geol. Surv. Jpn. 1997, 48, 23–46. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ishizuka, O.; Yuasa, M.; Uto, K. Evidence of porphyry copper-type hydrothermal activity from a submerged remnant back-arc volcano of the Izu-Bonin arc. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2002, 198, 381–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Steiger, R.; Jäger, E. Subcommission on geochronology: Convention on the use of decay constants in geo- and cosmochronology. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1977, 36, 359–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chanturiya, V.A.; Minenko, V.G.; Makarov, D.V.; Suvorova, O.V.; Selivanova, E. Advanced Techniques of Saponite Recovery from Diamond Processing Plant Water and Areas of Saponite Application. Minerals 2018, 8, 549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Tappe, S.; Jenner, G.A.; Foley, S.; Heaman, L.; Besserer, D.; Kjarsgaard, B.A.; Ryan, B. Torngat ultramafic lamprophyres and their relation to the North Atlantic Alkaline Province. Lithos 2004, 76, 491–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mitchell, R.H.; Bergman, S.C. Petrology of Lamproites; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1991; ISBN 978-1-4613-6688-1. [Google Scholar]
  37. Nickel, E.H.; Grey, I.E.; Madsen, I.C. Lucasite-(Ce), CeTi2(O,OH)6, a New Mineral from Western-Australia—Its Description and Structure. Am. Mineral. 1987, 72, 1006–1010. [Google Scholar]
  38. Rock, N.M.S. The Nature and Origin of Ultramafic Lamprophyres: Aln ites and Allied Rocks. J. Pet. 1986, 27, 155–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tappe, S.; Foley, S.F.; Jenner, G.A.; Heaman, L.M.; Kjarsgaard, B.A.; Romer, R.L.; Stracke, A.; Joyce, N.; Hoefs, J. Genesis of Ultramafic Lamprophyres and Carbonatites at Aillik Bay, Labrador: A Consequence of Incipient Lithospheric Thinning beneath the North Atlantic Craton. J. Pet. 2006, 47, 1261–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Dawson, J.; Smith, J.V. The MARID (mica-amphibole-rutile-ilmenite-diopside) suite of xenoliths in kimberlite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1977, 41, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kramers, J.; Roddick, J.; Dawson, J. Trace element and isotope studies on veined, metasomatic and “MARID” xenoliths from Bultfontein, South Africa. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1983, 65, 90–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Grégoire, M.; Bell, D.; Le Roex, A. Trace element geochemistry of phlogopite-rich mafic mantle xenoliths: Their classification and their relationship to phlogopite-bearing peridotites and kimberlites revisited. Contrib. Miner. Pet. 2002, 142, 603–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Konzett, J. Phase relations and chemistry of Ti-rich K-richterite-bearing mantle assemblages: An experimental study to 8.0 GPa in a Ti-KNCMASH system. Contrib. Miner. Pet. 1997, 128, 385–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Foley, S. Vein-plus-wall-rock melting mechanisms in the lithosphere and the origin of potassic alkaline magmas. Lithos 1992, 28, 435–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Foley, S.; Andronikov, A.V.; Melzer, S. Petrology of ultramafic lamprophyres from the Beaver Lake area of Eastern Antarctica and their relation to the breakup of Gondwanaland. Miner. Pet. 2002, 74, 361–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Foley, S.F.; Musselwhite, D.S.; van der Laan, S.R. Melt compositions from ultramafic vein assemblages in the lithospheric mantle: A comparison of cratonic and non-cratonic settings. In Proceedings of the 7th International Kimberlite Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 11–17 April 1999; Gurney, J.J., Gurney, J.L., Pascoe, M.D., Richardson, S.H., Eds.; Red Roof Design: Cape Town, South Africa, 1999; pp. 238–246. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mitchell, R.H. Kimberlites: Mineralogy, Geochemistry and Petrology; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1986; p. 442. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hamilton, R.; Rock, N.M. Geochemistry, mineralogy and petrology of a new find of ultramafic lamprophyres from Bulljah Pool, Nabberu Basin, Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia. Lithos 1990, 24, 275–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sheppard, S.; Taylor, W.R. Barium- and LREE-rich, olivine-mica-lamprophyres with affinities to lamproites, Mt. Bundey, Northern Territory, Australia. Lithos 1992, 28, 303–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mitchell, R.H. Kimberlites, Orangeites and Related Rocks; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995; p. 410. [Google Scholar]
  51. Smith, J.; Brennesholtz, R.; Dawson, J. Chemistry of micas from kimberlites and xenoliths—I. Micaceous kimberlites. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1978, 42, 959–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wyatt, G.R. Manganoan Ilmenite from the Premier kimberlite. In Kimberlite Symposium II Extended Abstract; American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA, 1979; pp. 279–284. [Google Scholar]
  53. Chakhmouradian, A.R.; Mitchell, R.H. Niobian ilmenite, hydroxylapatite and sulfatian monazite: Alternative hosts for incompatible elements in calcite kimberlite from Internatsional’naya, Yakutia. Can. Mineral. 1999, 37, 1177–1189. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kaminsky, F.V.; Zakharchenko, O.; Davies, R.; Griffin, W.L.; Khachatryan-Blinova, G.; Shiryaev, A. Superdeep diamonds from the Juina area, Mato Grosso State, Brazil. Contrib. Miner. Pet. 2001, 140, 734–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kaminsky, F.; Belousova, E. Manganoan ilmenite as kimberlite/diamond indicator mineral. Russ. Geol. Geophys. 2009, 50, 1212–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Garanin, V.K.; Kudryavtseva, G.P.; Lapin, A.V. Typical features of ilmenite from kimberlites, alkali-ultrabasic intrusions, and carbonatites. Int. Geol. Rev. 1980, 22, 1025–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nayak, B.; Meyer, F.M. Manganilmenite in the Magnetite Ore Body from Pokphur Area of Nagaland, North East India and the Possibility of Microdiamonds in the Ophiolites of Indo-Myanmar Ranges. Curr. Sci. 2017, 112, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schulze, D.J. Diamonds—Theory and Exploration, A guide to the recognition and significance of kimberlite indicator minerals. Geol. Assoc. Can. Short Course 1995, 20, 1–39. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bond, G.C.; Nickeson, P.A.; Kominz, M.A. Breakup of a supercontinent between 625 Ma and 555 Ma: New evidence and implications for continental histories. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1984, 70, 325–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Torsvik, T.; Smethurst, M.; Meert, J.; VanderVoo, R.; McKerrow, W.; Brasier, M.; Sturt, B.; Walderhaug, H. Continental break-up and collision in the Neoproterozoic and Palaeozoic—A tale of Baltica and Laurentia. Earth Sci. Rev. 1996, 40, 229–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cawood, P.A.; McCausland, P.J.A.; Dunning, G.R. Opening Iapetus: Constraints from the Laurentian margin in Newfoundland. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 2001, 113, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Puffer, J.H. A late Neoproterozoic eastern Laurentian superplume: Location, size, chemical composition, and environmental impact. Am. J. Sci. 2002, 302, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gower, C.F.; Erdmer, P.; Wardle, R.J. The Double Mer Formation and the Lake Melville rift system, eastern Labrador. Can. J. Earth Sci. 1986, 23, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kathol, B. Evolution of the rifted and subducted Late Proterozoic to Early Paleozoic Baltoscandian margin in the Torneträsk section, northern Swedish Caledonides. Stockh. Contrib. Geol. 1987, 42, 1–83. [Google Scholar]
  65. Andréasson, P.-G.; Albrecht, L. Derivation of 500 Ma eclogites from the passive margin of Baltica and a note on the tectonometamorphic heterogeneity of eclogite-bearing crust. Geol. Mag. 1995, 132, 729–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Siedlecka, A.; Roberts, D.; Nystuen, J.P.; Olovyanishikov, V.G. Northeastern and northwestern margin of Baltica in Neoproterozoic time: Evidence from the Timan and Caledonian orogens. In The Neoproterozoic Timanide Orogen of eastern Baltica; Gee, D.G., Pease, V.L., Eds.; Geological Society: London, UK, 2004; pp. 169–190. [Google Scholar]
  67. Pease, V.; Daly, J.; Elming, S.-Å.; Kumpulainen, R.; Moczydlowska, M.; Puchkov, V.; Roberts, D.; Saintot, A.; Stephenson, R. Baltica in the Cryogenian, 850–630Ma. Precambrian Res. 2008, 160, 46–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Roberts, D.; Gale, G.H. The Caledonian-Appalachian Iapetus Ocean. In Evolution of the Earth’s Crust; Tarling, D.H., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978; pp. 255–324. [Google Scholar]
  69. Gower, C.F.; Ryan, A.B.; Rivers, T. Mid-Proterozoic Laurentia–Baltica: An overview of its geological evolution and summary of the contributions by this volume. Geol. Assoc. Canada Spec. Pap. 1990, 38, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  70. Gorbatschev, R.; Bogdanova, S. Frontiers in the Baltic Shield. Precambrian Res. 1993, 64, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Griffin, W.L.; Taylor, P. The Fen Damkjernite: Petrology of a “central-complex kimberlite”. Phys. Chem. Earth 1975, 9, 163–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Meert, J.G.; Torsvik, T.H.; Eide, E.A.; Dahlgren, S. Tectonic Significance of the Fen Province, S. Norway: Constraints from Geochronology and Paleomagnetism. J. Geol. 1998, 106, 553–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Roberts, R.J.; Corfu, F.; Torsvik, T.H.; Ashwal, L.D.; Ramsay, D.M. Short-lived mafic magmatism at 560–570 Ma in the northern Norwegian Caledonides: U–Pb zircon ages from the Seiland Igneous Province. Geol. Mag. 2006, 143, 887–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Brueckner, H.K.; Rex, D. K-A and Rb-Sr geochronology and Sr isotopic study of the Alnö alkaline complex, northeastern Sweden. Lithos 1980, 13, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kresten, P. The Alnö complex: Tectonics of dyke emplacement. Lithos 1980, 13, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Robert, B.; Domeier, M.; Jakob, J. Iapetan Oceans: An analog of Tethys? Geology 2020, 48, 929–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Minerals 10 01029 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Overview map showing the occurrences of silver mines in the Kongsberg silver district. Black rectangle shows location of (b). (b) Simplified geological map of the central part of the Vinoren area. White rectangle shows the location of (c). (c) Sketch showing the occurrence of the studied dyke in the Klausstollen adit, adjacent to the Ringnesgangen underground silver mine.
Figure 1. (a) Overview map showing the occurrences of silver mines in the Kongsberg silver district. Black rectangle shows location of (b). (b) Simplified geological map of the central part of the Vinoren area. White rectangle shows the location of (c). (c) Sketch showing the occurrence of the studied dyke in the Klausstollen adit, adjacent to the Ringnesgangen underground silver mine.
Minerals 10 01029 g001
Minerals 10 01029 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Photo showing the contact relationships between the studied dyke and the host rock. Note the calcite veins crosscutting the dyke. (b) Hand specimen showing phlogopite phenocrysts up to 1 cm in diameter in a fine-grained groundmass. (c) Hand specimen showing phlogopite phenocrysts up to 4 mm in diameter and calcite crystals up to 1 mm in diameter in a fine-grained groundmass.
Figure 2. (a) Photo showing the contact relationships between the studied dyke and the host rock. Note the calcite veins crosscutting the dyke. (b) Hand specimen showing phlogopite phenocrysts up to 1 cm in diameter in a fine-grained groundmass. (c) Hand specimen showing phlogopite phenocrysts up to 4 mm in diameter and calcite crystals up to 1 mm in diameter in a fine-grained groundmass.
Minerals 10 01029 g002
Minerals 10 01029 g003 550
Figure 3. Back-scattered electron (BSE) images showing textural relationships between different minerals and the morphology of the major minerals: (a) Phlogopite and saponite phenocrysts in groundmass of phlogopite, calcite, titanite and apatite; (b) phlogopite phenocrysts and calcite vugs in groundmass of phlogopite, calcite and titanite; (c) euhedral and subhedral phlogopite, anhedral calcite and subhedral titanite from the groundmass; (d) typical oval-shaped aggregate of saponite+/−talc (possibly after olivine), black spots are the holes; (e) zoned groundmass phlogopite with BSE-higher Ba-rich thick rims and BSE-higher Fe-rich thin rims; (f) triple junctions in cluster of calcite grains. Mineral abbreviations: Ap = apatite, Cal = calcite, Phl = phlogopite, Sap = saponite, Ttn = titanite.
Figure 3. Back-scattered electron (BSE) images showing textural relationships between different minerals and the morphology of the major minerals: (a) Phlogopite and saponite phenocrysts in groundmass of phlogopite, calcite, titanite and apatite; (b) phlogopite phenocrysts and calcite vugs in groundmass of phlogopite, calcite and titanite; (c) euhedral and subhedral phlogopite, anhedral calcite and subhedral titanite from the groundmass; (d) typical oval-shaped aggregate of saponite+/−talc (possibly after olivine), black spots are the holes; (e) zoned groundmass phlogopite with BSE-higher Ba-rich thick rims and BSE-higher Fe-rich thin rims; (f) triple junctions in cluster of calcite grains. Mineral abbreviations: Ap = apatite, Cal = calcite, Phl = phlogopite, Sap = saponite, Ttn = titanite.
Minerals 10 01029 g003
Minerals 10 01029 g004 550
Figure 4. Compositional variations across zoned groundmass phlogopite (a)—BSE image with profile location; (b)—relative characteristic X-ray intensities for selected elements, showing the relatively lower Mg, Al and higher Fe concentrations in rims).
Figure 4. Compositional variations across zoned groundmass phlogopite (a)—BSE image with profile location; (b)—relative characteristic X-ray intensities for selected elements, showing the relatively lower Mg, Al and higher Fe concentrations in rims).
Minerals 10 01029 g004
Minerals 10 01029 g005 550
Figure 5. BSE images showing the textural relationships, morphology and internal textures of spinel, ilmenite, titanite and rutile: (a) Subhedral titanite grain with inclusions of rutile (light-gray), lucasite-(Ce) (brightest needles) and corroded spinel grain; (b) typical corroded spinel grain with reaction rim composed mainly of saponite; (c) several spinel grains in the center of titanite-rutile aggregate; (d) zoned spinel grain with high-Mg and low-Fe cores; (e) zoned corroded grain of ilmenite with rims of titanite-rutile intergrowths and core enriched in Mg; (f) inclusions of Mn-rich ilmenite (light gray) and rutile (gray) in titanite (dark gray); (g) morphology of titanite-rutile-lucasite-(Ce) intergrowths and (h) irregular distribution of rutile (light gray) and lucasite-(Ce) (bright needles) in titanite. Mineral abbreviations as in Figure 3; in addition: Adr = hydroandradite, Ilm = ilmenite, Rt = rutile, Spl = spinel.
Figure 5. BSE images showing the textural relationships, morphology and internal textures of spinel, ilmenite, titanite and rutile: (a) Subhedral titanite grain with inclusions of rutile (light-gray), lucasite-(Ce) (brightest needles) and corroded spinel grain; (b) typical corroded spinel grain with reaction rim composed mainly of saponite; (c) several spinel grains in the center of titanite-rutile aggregate; (d) zoned spinel grain with high-Mg and low-Fe cores; (e) zoned corroded grain of ilmenite with rims of titanite-rutile intergrowths and core enriched in Mg; (f) inclusions of Mn-rich ilmenite (light gray) and rutile (gray) in titanite (dark gray); (g) morphology of titanite-rutile-lucasite-(Ce) intergrowths and (h) irregular distribution of rutile (light gray) and lucasite-(Ce) (bright needles) in titanite. Mineral abbreviations as in Figure 3; in addition: Adr = hydroandradite, Ilm = ilmenite, Rt = rutile, Spl = spinel.
Minerals 10 01029 g005
Minerals 10 01029 g006 550
Figure 6. BSE images showing the morphology and textural relationships of minor, accessory and secondary minerals: (a,b) “Skeletal” zircon (possibly due to rapid growth); (c) Numerous grains of Ni-Fe sulfide (Ni > Fe, possibly godlevskite) (bright) included in saponite aggregate; (d) typical morphology of apatite and bent groundmass phlogopite; (e,f) morphology of hydroandradite crystallized after phlogopite and saponite. Mineral abbreviations as in Figure 3 and Figure 4; in addition: Zrn = zircon, Ni-Fe-S = Ni-Fe sulfide.
Figure 6. BSE images showing the morphology and textural relationships of minor, accessory and secondary minerals: (a,b) “Skeletal” zircon (possibly due to rapid growth); (c) Numerous grains of Ni-Fe sulfide (Ni > Fe, possibly godlevskite) (bright) included in saponite aggregate; (d) typical morphology of apatite and bent groundmass phlogopite; (e,f) morphology of hydroandradite crystallized after phlogopite and saponite. Mineral abbreviations as in Figure 3 and Figure 4; in addition: Zrn = zircon, Ni-Fe-S = Ni-Fe sulfide.
Minerals 10 01029 g006
Minerals 10 01029 g007 550
Figure 7. Whole rock compositional field for ultramafic lamprophyre, kimberlite and melilitite rocks (after [38]). Gray circles show data from this study for the Vinoren occurrence.
Figure 7. Whole rock compositional field for ultramafic lamprophyre, kimberlite and melilitite rocks (after [38]). Gray circles show data from this study for the Vinoren occurrence.
Minerals 10 01029 g007
Minerals 10 01029 g008 550
Figure 8. (a) Age spectrum for Vinoren phlogopite with an arithmetic average age of 686 ± 9 Ma of the last 5 steps, *radiogenic 40Ar; (b) normal isochron for Vinoren phlogopite from the last five steps.
Figure 8. (a) Age spectrum for Vinoren phlogopite with an arithmetic average age of 686 ± 9 Ma of the last 5 steps, *radiogenic 40Ar; (b) normal isochron for Vinoren phlogopite from the last five steps.
Minerals 10 01029 g008
Minerals 10 01029 g009 550
Figure 9. Major element oxide vs. SiO2 (wt.%) of the Vinoren aillikite (gray circles). Also shown are the compositional fields of the diamond-bearing Torngat aillikite [35] and the diamond-free Aillik Bay aillikite [39] in Labrador which are of similar ages as the Vinoren rock. The black box shows the experimental melt compositions produced from MARID-type material [43].
Figure 9. Major element oxide vs. SiO2 (wt.%) of the Vinoren aillikite (gray circles). Also shown are the compositional fields of the diamond-bearing Torngat aillikite [35] and the diamond-free Aillik Bay aillikite [39] in Labrador which are of similar ages as the Vinoren rock. The black box shows the experimental melt compositions produced from MARID-type material [43].
Minerals 10 01029 g009
Minerals 10 01029 g010 550
Figure 10. Compositional variations of phlogopite from the Vinoren rock in the diagrams (a) TiO2 vs. Al2O3 and (b) FeOtot vs. Al2O3 (squares). Compositional fields and evolutionary trends of phlogopite from kimberlites, orangeites, lamproites and lamprophyres are after [50]. MARID (mica-amphibole-rutile-ilmenite-diopside) compositional field is after [40] and [51]. Phlogopite compositions from Torngat ultramafic lamprophyres (UML) are from [35].
Figure 10. Compositional variations of phlogopite from the Vinoren rock in the diagrams (a) TiO2 vs. Al2O3 and (b) FeOtot vs. Al2O3 (squares). Compositional fields and evolutionary trends of phlogopite from kimberlites, orangeites, lamproites and lamprophyres are after [50]. MARID (mica-amphibole-rutile-ilmenite-diopside) compositional field is after [40] and [51]. Phlogopite compositions from Torngat ultramafic lamprophyres (UML) are from [35].
Minerals 10 01029 g010
Minerals 10 01029 g011 550
Figure 11. Composition of ilmenite group minerals from Vinoren compared to typical ilmenite from kimberlite [47], UML from Torngat [35], UML from India [57] and as inclusions in diamonds [54,55]. The reaction trend is after [47,52].
Figure 11. Composition of ilmenite group minerals from Vinoren compared to typical ilmenite from kimberlite [47], UML from Torngat [35], UML from India [57] and as inclusions in diamonds [54,55]. The reaction trend is after [47,52].
Minerals 10 01029 g011
Minerals 10 01029 g012 550
Figure 12. Variations in (a) Ti/(Ti + Cr + Al), (b) Fe3+/(Fe3+ + Cr + Al) and (c) Mn/(Mn + Fe2+) vs. Fe2+/(Fe2+ + Mg) of spinel from the studied rock. The compositional fields for magnesian ulvöspinel/Cr-spinel from kimberlites (trend 1) and titanomagnetite from lamproites and UML (trend 2) are from [39,50].
Figure 12. Variations in (a) Ti/(Ti + Cr + Al), (b) Fe3+/(Fe3+ + Cr + Al) and (c) Mn/(Mn + Fe2+) vs. Fe2+/(Fe2+ + Mg) of spinel from the studied rock. The compositional fields for magnesian ulvöspinel/Cr-spinel from kimberlites (trend 1) and titanomagnetite from lamproites and UML (trend 2) are from [39,50].
Minerals 10 01029 g012
Table
Table 1. Representative chemical compositions (wt.%) and mineral formulae (apfu) of carbonate from the Vinoren aillikite.
Table 1. Representative chemical compositions (wt.%) and mineral formulae (apfu) of carbonate from the Vinoren aillikite.
Analysis #2c2e2-6a2-7a2-7-1a2-8a3-1a4c
FeO0.020.030.10bdl0.04bdlbdlbdl
MnO0.190.09bdlbdlbdl0.07bdlbdl
MgO0.080.060.10bdlbdlbdlbdlbdl
CaO54.4455.2755.2255.0955.7455.3755.6155.80
BaObdlbdlbdlbdlbdlbdlbdlbdl
SrO0.07bdl2.020.38bdl0.42bdlbdl
Total54.8055.4557.4455.4755.7855.8655.6155.80
Formulae based on Σcations = 1
Fe 0.001 0.001
Mn0.0030.001 0.001
Mg0.0020.0020.002
Ca0.9940.9970.9770.9960.9990.9951.0001.000
Ba
Sr0.00100.0190.004 0.004
Total1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000
Note. bdl—below detection limit.
Table
Table 2. Representative chemical compositions (wt.%) and mineral formulae (apfu) of mica from the Vinoren aillikite.
Table 2. Representative chemical compositions (wt.%) and mineral formulae (apfu) of mica from the Vinoren aillikite.
Analysis #1a1b2-2a2-3b2-3c2-1a2-1b1-1a1-2a3-1a1-1a1-1b
PPGGGGGGGGGG
corerimrimcorerimrimcorecorerimcore
SiO238.4437.6436.9237.3437.0238.2038.1938.8236.8639.8135.1536.30
Al2O312.2912.4513.1311.0213.6612.539.2713.4714.1212.1414.7013.02
TiO25.757.103.993.684.353.754.406.043.953.874.045.92
FeO9.129.848.238.997.548.0722.968.786.897.827.128.63
MnObdl0.060.090.120.070.090.400.030.080.110.09bdl
MgO16.7717.4219.3818.6519.4519.8811.6218.5621.4321.7621.8318.89
CaO0.41bdlbdlbdlbdl0.060.150.050.120.070.090.04
Na2O0.150.070.070.090.110.09bdl0.230.160.270.180.28
K2O13.2712.1612.5012.8512.5112.1210.5010.279.9310.2712.8413.36
BaO0.170.331.450.582.341.230.20nanana2.290.28
NiO0.070.09bdl0.06bdl1.04bdl0.05bdlbdl0.040.07
V2O5bdlbdlbdlbdlbdlbdl0.14bdlbdlbdlbdl0.08
SO3nanananananana0.11bdlbdlbdl0.12
Clnanananananana0.03bdlbdlbdl0.05
Total96.4497.1595.7493.3897.0597.0597.8496.4493.5396.1298.3696.86
Formulae based on 11 O
Si2.8372.7562.7532.8592.7312.8042.9292.8012.7212.8652.5722.679
Al1.0691.0741.1540.9941.1881.0840.8381.1461.2281.0301.2681.133
Ti0.3190.3910.2240.2120.2410.2070.2540.3280.2190.2100.2220.329
Fe0.5630.6020.5130.5760.4650.4951.4730.5300.4250.4710.4360.533
Mn0.0000.0040.0060.0080.0040.0060.0260.0020.0050.0070.0060.000
Mg1.8451.9012.1542.1292.1392.1751.3291.9962.3582.3342.3812.078
Ca0.0320.0000.0000.0000.0000.0050.0120.0040.0090.0050.0070.003
Na0.0210.0100.0100.0130.0160.0130.0000.0320.0230.0380.0260.040
K1.2491.1361.1891.2551.1771.1351.0270.9450.9350.9431.1991.258
Ba0.0050.0090.0420.0170.0680.0350.006 0.0660.008
Ni0.0040.0050.0000.0040.0000.0610.0000.0030.0000.0000.0020.004
V0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0070.0000.0000.0000.0000.004
S 0.0060.0000.0000.0000.007
Cl 0.0040.0000.0000.0000.006
Total7.9457.8898.0468.0668.0308.0217.9017.7977.9257.9018.1848.082
Note. P—phenocryst; G—groundmass; na—not analyzed; bdl—below detection limit.
Table
Table 3. Representative chemical compositions (wt.%) and mineral formulae (apfu) of talk, saponite and garnet from the Vinoren aillikite.
Table 3. Representative chemical compositions (wt.%) and mineral formulae (apfu) of talk, saponite and garnet from the Vinoren aillikite.
Analysis N4a2-1a4c2a2b1a
MineralTalkSaponiteSaponiteGarnetGarnetGarnet
SiO259.4854.0752.2833.2433.7932.73
TiO2nanana0.301.160.99
Al2O30.043.512.241.361.940.81
FeO4.8011.029.96nanana
Fe2O3nanana29.3627.3129.08
MnO0.100.060.110.070.100.09
MgO24.8624.0721.880.400.930.05
CaO0.140.830.1932.2032.1232.81
Na2Obdl0.090.20nanana
K2Obdl0.140.34nanana
NiObdl0.050.09nanana
Total89.4293.8387.2996.9397.2796.42
Formulae based on:11 O11 O11 O12 O12 O12 O
Si4.0813.7033.8282.8982.9072.877
Ti 0.0200.0750.065
Al0.0030.2830.1930.1400.1970.084
Fe2+0.2750.6310.610
Fe3+ 1.9261.7681.924
Mn0.0060.0030.0070.0050.0070.007
Mg2.5422.4582.3880.0520.1190.007
Ca0.0100.0610.0153.0082.9613.090
Na0.0000.0120.028
K0.0000.0120.032
Ni0.0000.0030.005
Total6.9187.1677.1068.0498.0358.054
Note. na—not analyzed; bdl—below detection limit.
Table
Table 4. Representative chemical compositions (wt.%) and mineral formulae (apfu) of oxyspinel group minerals from the Vinoren aillikite.
Table 4. Representative chemical compositions (wt.%) and mineral formulae (apfu) of oxyspinel group minerals from the Vinoren aillikite.
Analysis N2d3-1a4-1a4-1b7-1a7-1b8-1a8-1b9-1-3a9-1-3b4-1a4-1b5-1c5-1d
corehostcorehostcorehostcorehostcorehostcorehostcorehost
SiO20.060.170.150.170.281.130.130.150.130.530.280.880.170.24
Al2O36.165.128.735.239.155.188.565.507.465.048.715.378.885.39
TiO26.4210.486.918.887.799.387.619.846.467.468.3110.748.5810.24
Cr2O324.3214.6226.8615.7128.5914.3228.5316.0228.0816.4728.4415.4228.0216.65
Fe2O349.8463.6343.9964.9539.8059.6942.8860.3844.3265.4543.6061.4743.3060.21
MnO0.744.440.523.590.463.770.724.240.572.920.614.750.564.36
MgO7.000.138.720.239.240.818.690.157.930.708.670.188.720.08
ZnO0.211.640.221.060.151.460.241.570.140.830.241.510.171.68
CaO0.410.380.310.320.320.520.280.290.250.420.430.760.210.31
NiO0.150.190.250.240.220.110.220.110.110.240.320.190.240.19
V2O5na0.180.190.150.320.220.280.190.220.24nananana
Total95.31100.9896.85100.5396.3296.5998.1498.4495.67100.3099.61101.2798.8599.35
Mineral formulae on basis of 3 cations
Si0.0020.0060.0050.0060.0100.0440.0050.0060.0050.0200.0100.0330.0060.009
Al0.2700.2280.3660.2330.3820.2380.3550.2500.3200.2240.3550.2370.3650.243
Ti0.1790.2970.1850.2530.2080.2750.2010.2860.1770.2120.2160.3020.2250.295
Cr0.7140.4360.7550.4700.8010.4420.7930.4890.8090.4910.7780.4560.7720.503
Fe3+1.3931.8061.1761.8491.0611.7531.1341.7541.2151.8591.1351.7291.1361.732
Mn0.0230.1420.0160.1150.0140.1250.0210.1390.0180.0930.0180.1500.0170.141
Mg0.3880.0070.4620.0130.4880.0470.4550.0090.4310.0390.4470.0100.4530.005
Zn0.0060.0460.0060.0300.0040.0420.0060.0450.0040.0230.0060.0420.0040.047
Ca0.0160.0150.0120.0130.0120.0220.0110.0120.0100.0170.0160.0300.0080.013
Ni0.0090.0120.0140.0150.0130.0070.0120.0070.0060.0150.0180.0110.0130.012
V0.0000.0040.0040.0040.0070.0060.0070.0050.0050.0060.0000.0000.0000.000
∑ cations3.0003.0003.0003.0003.0003.0003.0003.0003.0003.0003.0003.0003.0003.000
Note. bdl—below detection limit; host—main part of spinel grain.
Table
Table 5. Representative chemical compositions (wt.%) and mineral formulae (apfu) of titanite, ilmenite, rutile and lukasite-(Ce) from the Vinoren aillikite.
Table 5. Representative chemical compositions (wt.%) and mineral formulae (apfu) of titanite, ilmenite, rutile and lukasite-(Ce) from the Vinoren aillikite.
Analysis #2-3a2-7e10-2a7a8a2-7c3-2c1-2b6-1a10-1b1-2a1-3a1-3b
MineralTtnTtnTtnTtnTtnRtRtLucasite-
(Ce)		Lucasite-
(Ce)		Mn-
Ilm		Mn-
Ilm		IlmMg-
Ilm
SiO230.7831.8331.6032.0531.830.090.220.680.210.090.160.10bdl
Al2O30.500.500.840.760.720.08nana0.13na0.040.440.57
TiO235.2133.3733.6433.6233.7097.5498.0756.3751.8554.2052.9350.7753.58
Cr2O3bdlbdlnananananana0.16nana0.080.09
FeO4.414.614.094.394.150.260.300.500.1929.2934.0842.1431.34
MnObdlbdl0.040.050.06nana0.190.3513.9811.113.930.38
MgO0.140.220.630.540.40nananananana2.0511.99
CaO27.9327.9827.7627.6727.620.810.943.265.501.480.600.130.11
ZnOnanananananananana0.190.17bdlbdl
ZrO2nana0.250.120.16nananananananana
Nb2O5na0.140.110.330.250.620.461.320.470.220.37nana
V2O5bdl0.05bdlnananana0.57na0.260.35bdl0.05
Y2O3nanananananana0.570.67nananana
La2O30.06bdl0.08bdlbdlnana6.748.77nananana
Ce2O30.250.300.430.350.320.60na13.1414.88nananana
Pr2O3nanananananana0.881.03nananana
Nd2O3nanananananana6.375.73nananana
Sm2O3nanananananana0.670.75nananana
Gd2O3nanananananana0.220.30nananana
Dy2O3nananananananana0.44nananana
Er2O3nananananananana0.24nananana
NiOnananabdlbdlnananana0.300.190.100.12
Total99.3099.0199.4599.8599.22100.099.9991.4891.67100.01100.0099.7498.23
Formulae based on:5 O5 O5 O5 O5 O2 O2 O5.5 O5.5 O3 O3 O3 O3 O
Si1.0301.0661.0531.0621.0610.0010.0030.0340.0110.0020.0040.0030.000
Al0.0200.0200.0330.0300.0280.001 0.008 0.0010.0130.016
Ti0.8860.8410.8430.8380.8450.9840.9852.1512.0671.0130.9970.9600.956
Cr0.0000.000 0.007 0.0020.002
Fe0.1230.1290.1140.1220.1160.0030.0030.0210.0080.6090.7130.8860.622
Mn0.0000.0000.0010.0010.002 0.0080.0160.2940.2360.0840.008
Mg0.0070.0110.0310.0270.020 0.0770.424
Ca1.0011.0040.9910.9820.9870.0120.0130.1770.3120.0390.0160.0040.003
Zn 0.0030.0030.0000.000
Zr 0.0040.0020.003
Nb 0.0020.0020.0050.0040.0040.0030.0300.0110.0020.004
V0.0000.0010.000 0.019 0.0040.0060.0000.001
Y 0.0150.019
La0.0010.0000.0010.0000.000 0.1260.171
Ce0.0030.0040.0050.0040.0040.0030.0000.2440.289
Pr 0.0160.020
Nd 0.1150.108
Sm 0.0120.014
Gd 0.0040.005
Dy 0.0000.008
Er 0.0000.004
Ni 0.0000.000 0.0060.0040.0020.002
Total3.0723.0773.0783.0733.0691.0071.0082.9743.0791.9741.9842.0302.034
Note. na—not analyzed; bdl—below detection limit.
Table
Table 6. Representative major and minor element analyses of the Vinoren aillikite.
Table 6. Representative major and minor element analyses of the Vinoren aillikite.
Sample NKK-1KK-3 KK-1KK-3
wt.% ppm
SiO234.0134.63Ba27802060
TiO22.752.75Sr680510
Al2O35.115.05Cu91100
Fe2O33.442.93Ni530550
FeO4.374.73Co9080
MnO0.140.15Cr630750
MgO10.1610.08V110170
CaO19.3619.41Li3030
Na2O0.090.12Rb6868
K2O2.342.44Cs109
H2O−1.060.98
LOI3.62.79
P2O51.141.06
F0.280.25
S0.710.75
CO29.829.8
Mg#7575
Kagp0.520.56
K/Na1713
K/Al0.500.52
Note. LOI—lost on ignition; Mg# (magnesium number) = Mg/(Mg + Fe).
Table
Table 7. Results and measurements conditions of 40Ar/39Ar analyses of Vinoren phlogopite.
Table 7. Results and measurements conditions of 40Ar/39Ar analyses of Vinoren phlogopite.
LaserRelative Isotopic Abundances (10−2 nA)
Lab ID#Power *40Ar39Ar38Ar37Ar36Ar39Ar %Ca/K%40Ar **Age (Ma)w/ ± J
(%)± 1σ± 1 σ± 1 σ±1 σ±1 σof Total ± 1 σ ± 1 σ± 1 σ
ER-12-Bt J value: 1.004 × 10−3 Irradiation ID: PO-7
1098-011.49.28210.09990.0090.00550.00610.00140.02710.00740.02510.0012 0.15.103.6220.0339.28211.36211.37
1098-021.626.4410.19620.00270.00210.00520.00130.02680.00780.03620.0012 0.017.1315.4359.63508.181324.351324.36
1098-031.83.64420.06260.00020.00410.00080.00130.00090.00560.01740.0011 0.06.47122.67 0.0 0.000.00
1098-042.037.5260.20340.09450.00330.01370.00140.44240.01720.03170.0013 0.67.960.4375.1474.5616.8116.89
1098-052.255.590.43160.06890.0040.01660.00150.96730.0160.04750.0013 0.423.871.5274.9862.5543.7443.83
1098-062.5141.370.30230.23830.00530.0110.00151.41180.01930.03320.0012 1.410.070.2893.2799.3115.5015.71
1098-072.7190.260.45430.33440.00590.00620.00210.04560.00660.00810.0011 2.00.230.0398.7807.5512.4212.69
1098-082.9250.510.6330.50370.00730.00060.00190.01860.00620.00630.0011 3.00.060.0299.3726.829.439.73
1098-093.1435.140.60320.91820.00950.01310.00210.00940.00630.01870.0011 5.40.020.0198.7695.376.436.83
1098-103.3690.671.30191.50170.01110.02770.00180.01870.00570.0080.001 8.80.020.0199.7683.524.675.19
1098-113.5904.322.00121.920.01210.03160.00230.01440.00720.01280.001211.20.010.0199.6696.724.164.76
1098-123.7694.881.2021.53240.01110.02050.00220.01660.007900.001 9.00.020.01100.1677.904.525.06
1098-134.0956.081.60072.04880.01310.02940.0020.07680.00810.00630.001112.00.060.0199.8692.694.104.70
1098-146.03581.65.10027.90180.02710.11190.00340.45130.01250.00490.001146.30.100.00100.0676.992.303.22
* 100% output of CO2 continuous laser corresponds to 50 W; ** radiogenic 40Ar.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zozulya, D.R.; Kullerud, K.; Ribacki, E.; Altenberger, U.; Sudo, M.; Savchenko, Y.E. The Newly Discovered Neoproterozoic Aillikite Occurrence in Vinoren (Southern Norway): Age, Geodynamic Position and Mineralogical Evidence of Diamond-Bearing Mantle Source. Minerals 2020, 10, 1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10111029

AMA Style

Zozulya DR, Kullerud K, Ribacki E, Altenberger U, Sudo M, Savchenko YE. The Newly Discovered Neoproterozoic Aillikite Occurrence in Vinoren (Southern Norway): Age, Geodynamic Position and Mineralogical Evidence of Diamond-Bearing Mantle Source. Minerals. 2020; 10(11):1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10111029

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zozulya, Dmitry R., Kåre Kullerud, Enrico Ribacki, Uwe Altenberger, Masafumi Sudo, and Yevgeny E. Savchenko. 2020. "The Newly Discovered Neoproterozoic Aillikite Occurrence in Vinoren (Southern Norway): Age, Geodynamic Position and Mineralogical Evidence of Diamond-Bearing Mantle Source" Minerals 10, no. 11: 1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10111029

APA Style

Zozulya, D. R., Kullerud, K., Ribacki, E., Altenberger, U., Sudo, M., & Savchenko, Y. E. (2020). The Newly Discovered Neoproterozoic Aillikite Occurrence in Vinoren (Southern Norway): Age, Geodynamic Position and Mineralogical Evidence of Diamond-Bearing Mantle Source. Minerals, 10(11), 1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10111029

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop