C2005 Society of Economic Geologists, Inc

Economic geóIogy lOOth Anni"",,,o"J Volume

W.643-679

Precambrian Iron Formations andIron Formation-Hosted Iron Ore Deposits

J. M. F. CLOUTt
FortescueMetalS'Group Ltd., 50 Kings Park Road,WestPerth, WestemAustralia 6872

AND B. M. SIMONSON \
GeologyDeparlment, Oberlin College,Oberlin, Ohio 44074-1052

Abstract
Iron fonnations are the mostimportant precursorsto economiciron ore deposits.Iron fonnations originated
aschemicalsedimentsrich in iron and silica that accllmulatedalmost exclusivelyon Archean and early Paleo-
proterozoicseafloors. Most are bandedand known asbandediron fonnations (BIF); they originated asthinly
layeredchemicalmuds.The lesscommongranulariron formations(GIF) are rich in sand-sizeddetritus known
asgranulesand generallycrossbedded,indicating depositionin shallower,higher energyenvironments.Banded
iron formationsdisplaya heterogeneoussuite of iron-rich mineraIsincluding oxides,silicates,carbonates,and
sulfides;iron oxide and silicate mineraIsdominate GIF, although a few are rich in iron carbonates.The acme
of iron sedimentationwas reached between -2.65 and 1.85 Ga when large iron fonnations were deposited
globallydue to a unique confluenceof (1) a large supply of aqueousiron from oceanichydrothennal systems,
(2) the appearanceof large continental shelvesto serveas depositionalrepositories,and (3) a stratified ocean
capableof connecting the two. Depositional mechanism(s)are still being debated,but evidence for the in-
volvementof microbesis increasing.
Iron formation-hostediron ore depositsaccountfor the majority of current world iron ore production and
consistof three classes:(1) iron-rich primary iron fonnation with typically 30 to 45 wt percent Fe, (2) martite-
goethiteore with abundanthydrousiron oxidescontaining56 to 63 wt percent Fe, and (3) high-gradehematite
oreswith 60 to 68 wt percent Fe. The high-gradehematite ores,which accountfor the majority of world re-
servesofhigh-grade iron ore (>31,000Mt), can be further subdividedinto hematite and microplaty hematite
ore types.Individual iron ore depositsrange from a few millions of tons to over 2 billion tons at >64 wt per-
cent Fe, although most are within the range of 200 to 500 Mt. Many depositionalfeaturesof parent BIF and
GIF, especiallymicrobanding,have been preservedduring ore fonnation for the martite-goethite and high-
gradehematite ores.
There is a generalconseIÍsusthat martite-goethiteoresfrom Australiaformed asa result of relatively recent
supergeneenrichment of iron formation through replacementof gangueby goethite beneath Cretaceousto
Tertiary weatheringprofiles. Likewise, a supergeneorigin is well supported for the soft, high-gradehematite
oresfrom the Quadrilátero Ferrífero in Brazil, but this involved leachingof iron formation gangueand resid-
ual concentrationofhematite. The origins ofboth microplaty hematite and Brazilianhard high-gradehematite
depositsare still controversial;altemativesproposedvary from supergeneto initial supergenewith subsequent
burial metamorphism,hypogene, and supergene-modifiedhypogene-hydrothennalinvolving warm basinal
brines plus ascendingor descendingheated meteoric fluids. Although the supergene-modifiedhypogene-hy-
drothennal hasreceivedwidespreadsupport, it is unlikely that a single hypogenemodel can explainthe wide
diversity of depositsaround the world.

Introduction formations set important constrairitson ore formation; some

IRoN FORMATION-HOSTED iron ore deposits acco~nt for the
majority of current world production and >31,000 Mt ofhigh-
grade hematite resources of iron ore (Dalstra and Guedes,
2004). Archean and Proterozoic iron formations with 30 to 45
wt percent Fe are still mined in the United States, Canada,
and especially in China, the latter where -100 Mt was mined
as ore in 2004 and beneficiated to a -64 to 67 wt percent Fe
product (J. Clout, unpub. data). Approximately 700 Mt of
mil-ar-mine ore and 200 Mt of magnetite concentrates were
produced worldwide Eram iron formations in 2002 (Astier,
2003). Iron formations are also the precursor for martite-
goethite and high-grade hematite (56-68 wt % Fe) orebodies.
Given the primacy of iron formations as hosts for large iron
ore deposits, we first describe the sedimentary characteristics
af iron formations and genetic models proposed to explain
them. Variability in the characteristics of unenriched iron
Corresponding author: ~ail, jclout@fmgl.com.au
iron formations are even mineable without subsequenten-
richment. Another important constraint on the formation of
large iron ore depositsis simply the amount of iron originally
depositedonthe seafloor. In gener~ terms, the largestiron
ore depositsare found where paleoenvironmentalconditions
permitted the accumulation of the largest iron formations.
For example,the Carajásand Quadrilátero Ferrífero (Iron
Quadrangle)provincesin Brazil and the Hamersleyprovince
in Western Australia are among the largest iron formations
on Earth and account for the bulk of the world's iron re-
sources,in the form of iron formation-hostedhigh-gradeiron
ore; High~gtade economic bodies do not form, however,
without subsequenteventsthat upgrade the iron formation,
typically increasingEram30 wt percent Fe in an unenriched
iron formation to 56 to 68 wt percent Fe in martite-goethite
and high-gradehematite ores.To give a senseof the diversity
of processesby which this can be accomplished,we dedicate
the secondand greater part of the paper to describing the

RiÍ.1
644 CLOUT AND SIMONSON
different types of high-gradeiron ore depositsand ore gene-
sis models formulated to expl~n their origins. The ultimate
goal is to better understanq the full spectrum of processes
that create economiciron depositsfrom iron formations,es-
pecially high-gradeiron ore, from which an iron ore product
can be recovered,either through crushing and screeningor
beneficiation. This in tum willlead to more efficient explo-
ration for as yet undiscovereddepositsof iron ore to meet
growing demando
oOur knowledgeof the nature and genesis of iron formations
and high-grade iron ore hosted by iron formations has
evolvedthrough time from the early petrographicand genetic
work on iron formations (Van Hise and Leith, 1911;James,
1954;Gole and Klein, 1981;Jamesand Trendall, 1982)aswell
as high-grade iron ores from Australia (MacLeod, 1966;
Kneeshaw,1975; Morris, 1980, 1985; Ewers and Morris,
1981; Ewers, 1983), Brazil (Guild, 1957; Dorr, 1964, 1965),
and Canada(Gross,1965).Despite the economicimportance
.of high-gradeiron ores, their origin is still subject to intense
researchand debate.The early work by Morris (1980)estab-
lishedthe importanceof supergeneleachingin the upgrading
of iron formation to high-grade iron ores, especially for
hematite-goethiteores, and also led to the proposalof a su-
pergene-metamorphicmodel for generatinghigh-grade mi-
croplatyhematite ores. Renewedinterest in iron ore genesis
hasled varlousworkers to proposea supergene-modifiedhy-
pogenehydrothermalorigin for the upgradingof iron forma-
tion to forro high-grade hematite ores in the Hamersley
province of Australia (Barley et al., 1999; Hagemannet al.,
1999;Taylor et al., 2001; Dalstra and Guedes,2004; Thome
et al., 2004) and the Carajásprovince in Brazil (Dalstra and
Guedes,2004;Rosiereet al.; 2004;),aswell asthe hard, high-
grade ores in the Quadrilátero Ferrífero district of Minas
Geraisin Brazil (Spier et al., 2003; Rosiereand Rios, 2004),
Krivoy Rog in the Ukraine (Dalstra and Guedes,2004), and
the Thabazimbideposit in South Africa (Beukeset al., 2002;
Netshiozwi, 2002). This work has greatly expandedour un-
derstandingof iron ore formation, most notably on the nature
of the ore fluids via detailed fluid inclusion and stableisotope
studies (e.g., Hagemann et al., 1999; Webb et al., 2003;
Rosiereand Rios, 2004; Thome et al., 2004). Given their di-
verse characteristics,it is unclear at present whether or not
researcherswill eventually converge on a single unifying
model that can explainalllarge iron ore-deposits.
Review of Iron Formation Sedimentology
Where depositionalfeatures are not obliterated by meta-
morphism,iron formationscanbe subdividedinto bandedand
granular varleties based on their original grain size. Even
though their original grains are maskedby diagenesis,it is
clear that banded iron formations, or BIF as they are com-
monly known (Figs. IA-C, 2A-C, 3A-C), were deposited as
chemical muds. In contrast,the detrital textures of granular
iron formations,or GIF, are generallyretained and consistof
well-sorted chemicalsands(Figs. lD-F, 2D-F, 3D-F), analo-
gous to those of calcarenites(Dimroth and Chauvel, 1973).
Most of the clastsin GIF arrear to have formed via erosion
and intrabasinalredepositionof chemicalmudslike thosethat
becameBIF (e.g.,Beukesand Klein, 1990).The acronymBIF
is widely usedasa blanketterm for all iron formationsbecause
most iron formationshavethin layersor "bands,"but it should
be noted that GIF usually have thicker, more discontinuous
bedding insteadof thin, well-developed,and laterally contin-
uousbanding.The fundamentaldichotomybetweenBIF and
GIF hasbeen recognizedfor years.For example,the "slaty"
vs. "cherty" iron formations of the Lake Superior region
(Morey, 1983)are essentiallyBIF and GIF, respectively.
In apdition to the banded and/or granular distinction,
JamesX1954) subdivided iron formations into falir facies
(Table 1). Although he called them "sedimentaryfacies,"bis
subdivisionswere more along the lines in which metamor-
phic petrologistsuse the term facies,asthey were baseden-
tirely on what type(s) of iron-bearing mineraiswere present.
Chert was not incorporated into bis schemebecauseit is a
near-ubiquitous component of iron formations. James did
emphasize.that different mineralogicalfaciesof iron forma-
tions are likely to show different suítes of sedimentaryfea-
tures, and this observationhas stoodthe test of time. Specif-
ically, the vast majority of GIF belong to bis oxide and/or
silicate mineral facies, whereas BIF span a much broader
spectrum that includes significant thicknessesof oxide, sili-
cate, and carbonate facies (James,1954; Simonso:n,1985).
Sulfide-faciesBIF are rarer and less extensivebut nonethe-
less occur in some successions(e.g., Goodwin et al., 1985).
Debate continuesas to which of the mineral constituentsin
iron formation (if any) represent original precipitates and
which formed during diagenesis.Excellent overviewsof the
chemistry and mineralogyof iron formation can be found in
James(1954, 1966),Klein (1983),and Lepp (1987).As with
alI sediments,depositionalprocessesand paleoenvironments
are best inferred Eramtextures and structures rather than
Erammineralogical compositionsalone. We summarlzethe
depositional feat~res first becausethey set important con-
straintson porosity,permeability,and rheology,which in tum
help set the stage for any subsequentenrichment to forro
ore. We start with GIF because,unlike BIF, their primary
detrital constituentsare coarseenoughto be readily visiblein
hand sampleor thin section.
TABLE 1. Names and Idealized Compositions of the Iron-Bearing Minerals
Characteristic of Each of James' (1954, 1966) Four Mineralogical Facies of
Unenriched. Unrnetarnorphosed lron Forrnations
Principal iron-rich
Mineral facies mineral(s) Chemical formula
Oxide Hematite -- Fe203
Fe304
Magnetite
Silicate Greenalitel Fe3Si20s (OHJ4
Minnesotaitel (Mg,Fe)3S4010(OH) 2
(K,Na,Ca)O6(Mg,Fe2+,Fe3+)6SisA!
Stilpnomelane
(O,OH)27'2-4H20
"Chlorite"2 (Fe,AI,Mg)3 (Si,AI) 20s(OHJ4
Riebeckite N a2Fe~+Fe3+ 2SisO22( OH)2
Carbonate Siderite FeCO:}.
Ankerite Ca(Fe,Mg,Mn)(CÜ3) 2
Sulfide FeS2
Pyrite
Formulas are from Deer et alo (1992) unless indicated otherwise
1from Miyano (1987)
2from Klein and Bricker (1977)
 IRON FORMATIONSAND ASSOCIATEDIRON ORE DEPOSITS 645

FIG. 1. Iron fonnations in outcrop. A. The entire 180-m thickness of Dales Gorge Member of the Brockman Iron For-
mation exposed in Wittenoom Gorge, Westem Australia. Prominent macrobanding consists ofbanded iron fonnation (BIF)
layers (oxidized resistant ledges) aItemating with shaly layers of volcanic origin (slope-fonning intervals with extensive
spinifex grass cover); Trendall (1983, figo 3--5) shows part of same cliff with macrobands labeled. Note geologist in white shirt
on road in lower right comer. B. Part of siÍ1gIe BIF macroband near base of Dales Gorge Member in Dales Gorge with aI-
temating mesobands of redmsh white hematitic chert and dark iron oxides; note chert pods (whitish ovais) in thicker iron
oxide mesobands and seam of crocidolite at base (shiny, bluish strip just above the coin). Strata in image are 30 cm thick;
coin in lower left is 2 cm in mamo C. Exposure of silicate-carbonate BIF near base of the Ironwood Iron Fonnation, Goge-
bic Range, northem Wisconsin; laye~ch in iron silicates and carbonates appear greenish and tannish, respectively. Coin is
2 cm in diam. D. Cross-bedded granular iron fonnation (GIF) in the Sokoman Iron Fonnation near Schefferville, Quebec;
imbricated white magenetic mottles mpping to left help defme one 25-cm-thick crossbed coset; layer above coset is richer
in iron oxides and has smaller scale trough crossbedmng, reflected in more wavy bedding. Coin in"Upper right is 2 cm in
fiam. E. Flat pebble congIomerate layer 20 cm thick in same Sokoman exposure as (D); pebbles are intraclastic rounded
msks ofhematitic chert, space between them is fllled with cherty GIF. Gray layers at top and bottom are GIF rich in coarsely
crystalline magnetite. Coin in upper right is 2 cm in fiam. F. Interbedded Sokoman BIF and GIF deposited in deeper water
east of Schefferville, Quebec. Light-colored lenses are up to 10 cm thick, consist of coarse GIF (see Fig. 2D), have intemal
crossbeds, and fonn trains of starved dune-size bedfonns, some of which were defonned during compaction. Thinly lami-
nated BIF rich in iron silicates (dark) encloses lenses. Coin above and to left of center is 2 cm in diam.

Granular iron formations (GIF
Three primary textural componentsare readily recogniz-
ablein GIF, asin mostarenitcs:(1) a framework of çlasts,(2)
matrix (finer grained interstitial material), and (3) cement
(authigenicminerais fIlling interstitial voids). Fine-grained
detrital matrix is present locally (e.g., Simonson,1987, figo
8A) but rare in GIF overall. The framework clasts mostly
range in size Eramfine to coarsesand (Mengel, 1973) and
generallyconsistof a finely crystallinemixture of iron oxides,
lron silicates,and/orchert intemally. They havelong been re-
ferred to asgranules(Figs.2D, 3D, F). Theyare analogousin
many waysto the peloids and intraclastsof carbonategrain-
stones (Dimroth and Chauvel, 1973; Dimroth, 1976) and
646 CLOUT AND SIMONSON

FIG. 2. Iron formation in hand sample (ali shown in correct stratigraphic orientation). A. Microbanded hematitic chert
layer capped by dark layer rich in magnetite with more indistinct lamination from Dales Gorge Member (same locality as
Fig. IA). B. Thinly laminated BIF consisting largely of siderite and chert from deeper water pari of the Sokoman Formation
near ScheffeIVille, Quebec. Gray material is unweathered; dark brown rind along edge is from oxidation of iron carbonates.
C. BIF from the Wittenoom Formation, Westem Australia, with paris of two hematitic chert pods; deflections oflaminations
near ends of chert pods are due to differential compaction (see algO Fig. 3C). D. GIF from lens in Figure IF, consisting of
coarse sand to flat fine pebble-size intraclasts of hematitic chert; intergranu)ar cement consists of transparent quartz and
chefio Staple in lower right for scale. E. Cross section of trough crossbed with tangential base from Sokomall GIF in the
Howells River area (Klein and Fink, 1976); originally homogeneous sand now varies in composition from red hematitic chert
to greenish silicate-rich chert to dark iron oxides. F. GIF from Sokoman near ScheffelVille, Quebec, cut by sinuous, near-
vertical crack filled with drusy megaquartz. GIF surrounding crack is c~ment rich and uncompacted. G. Typical irreglllar
bedding in GIF from the Sokoman Formation (see Fig. ID); early chalcedony and drusy quartz cements are abundant in
hematitic cherts (reddish areas) but scarce in magnetite-rich areas (dark). H. Small columnar (fingerlike) chert stromatolites
from the Biwabik Iron Formation, Mesabi Range, northem Minnesota; areas between columns are fllled with oolites of chert
and iron oxyhydroxides.
 IRON FORMATIONSAND ASSOCIATED IRON OREDEPOSITS 647

FIG. 3. Textures of unenriched iron fonnation. A. Dales Gorge Member BIF (between crossed polarizers) with mi-
crobands altemately rich in iron oxide~ and chert; chert-rich laminations have abundant coarse replacive ankerite cl)'Stals
(light) and iron oxide-rich layers (dark) have intemallaminations that are finely wavy, probably Eram differential cementa-
tion and compaction. B. Thinly laminated BIF from the Kuruman Iron Fonnation, Transvaal SJlpergroup, South Africa (be-
tween crossed polarizers); most of the rock consists of finely cl)'Stalline greenalite and siderite, but coarserankerite (light)
and magnetite cl)'Stals (black) selectively replace certain laminae. Sample Eram core CN-IO9 (Beukes and Klein, 1990), cour-
tesy of C. Klein. C. Contact between chert pod (clear) and adjacent iron oxide-rich, chert-poor sediment (mostly opaque) in
Dales Gorge Member BIF (plane-polarized light); laminations inside chert pod are much thicker and very similar to those
in continuous chert layers (e.g., Fig. 3A). D. Typical oxide facies GIF Eram the Gunflint Iron Fonnation of Gunflint Range,
westem Ontario (between crossed polarizers with gypsum plate inserted). Granules are fairly hQmogeneous intemally and
range Eram nearly rUfe chert (magenta) to almost opaque with iron oxides (black); most of original porosity was filled with
chalcedonic cement (oriented quartz fibers evidenced by strips ofblue and yellow extinction). E. Hematitic chert oolite Eram
the Sokoman Fonnation near Schefferville, Quebec, with interstitial cement of drusy quartz (in plane-polarized light). Note
delicate concentric laminations in ooid cortices and some compound nuclei. F. Sokoman Fonnation GIF Eram same crop as
Figure 2E (plane-polarized light); granules consist of chert with minar silicates (probably greenalite); intergranular cement
is drusy quartzo Diagenetic crystals of euhedral magnetite (black) and a fibrous iron silicate (probably minnesotaite) cut
across both granules and cements.

"
rangein shapeEramwell rounded to angular(Mengel, 1973).
Concentricallylaminatedooids are locally abundantin some
GIF (Figo3E) but much rarer than granulesoverall. Many re-
searchers believethat much of the material now found in the
granulesis derived Eram the original sedimentarymaterial
with relatively little changein composition (e.g., Klein and
Bricker, 1977;Beukes,1984).Many granulesand ooids con-
tain smaIl septarian-stylecracks formed by postdepositionaI
shrinkage;suggestingthey originaIly consistedof amorphous,
gelatinousmateriaIs(seebelow).
Cements fill the former pores between the granules in
many of the undeformed GIF, most commonly iron-poor
648 CLOUT AND SIMONSON
drusy quartz and/or chalcedony.Thesesiliceouscementsgen-
erally show textures formed during void-fIlling precipitation
rather than via later recrystallization(Fig. 3D). Much ofthis
silicacementwasemplacedvery rapidly and closeto the sed-
iment-water interface (Simonson,1987; Maliva et al., 2005).
Many GIF also contain large cavities, cracks, and/or vugs
filled with siliceouscements(Fig. 2F) that mar contain quartz
crystalsup to a centimeter longoSuch cement-fIlled cracks
cut acrossboth granulesand cementsand form a continuum
with septarian-stylecracks confined to individual granules
(Maliva et al., 2005). The intergranular cracks have mor-
phologiesthat havenot been reported Eramany type of sedi-
ment other than iron formations and havebeen attributed to
true syneresis,i.e., shrinkage due to the dewatering of a
gelatinoussilica precursor (Gross,1972;Dimroth and Chau-
ve11973;Beukes,1984).However,early silica cementationis
not universal; many GIF were heavily compacted as evi-
dencedby tight frameworksand distorted clasts.In addition
to primary textural constituents,even undeformed GIF con-
tain varying amountsof secondarydiageneticphasesthat are
generallymore coarselycrystalline and cut acrossclearly de-
trital textures. Becausethey consistof reactive precipitates,
recrystallizationof iron-bearing mineraIsis widespread,even
in iron formations where surrounding units such as sand-
stonesshowlittle evidenceof diageneticreorganization(e.g.,
Klein and Fink, 1976).Han (1978, 1988)demonstratedvia a
series of careful textural studies that most if not all of the
coarselycrystallinemagnetitein GIF and BIF is diageneticin
origin rather than a direct precipitate Erambasinwaters.Thus
diagenesisalonecangive rise to low-grade,syngeneticore de-
posits,calledtaconite,that.containenoughmagnetitefor it to
be concentratedeconomicallyvia grinding and magneticsep-
aration.As a result of heterogeneouscementation,wide vari-
ations in the size and abundanceof quartz crystalspose a
challengefor beneficiation of taconite-typeore deposits(see
below). However, quartz crystals in GIF grow larger and
more uniform with progressivemetamorphism(Gross,1961).
Both GIF and BIF can be rich enough in magnetite to be
consideredtaconite ore, but the quartz crystalsin a typical
BIF tend to be much finer and more unifonn than thosein a
GIF, unlessit was metamorphosed.
Dune-scalecrossstratification is the dominant depositional
structure and evident in most GIF th~have not been highly
alteredby diageneticprocessesor tectonic deformation (Figs.
lD, 2E; Simonson,1985).The few paleocurrentsthat have
been measuredon thesecrossbedsshow complexpolymodal
pattems with hints of herringbone structures,typical of shal-
low marine sands(Ojakangas,1983).Flat-pebble conglomer-
ates(Fig. lE) are a minar but widespreadcomponentof GIF.
Pebblesin intraclastic layers in GIF are generally siliceous,
indicating that they were preferentially derived Eramsilica-
rich layers;this is consistentwith the early silica cementation
discussedabove.Other depositionalstructuresare scarce,but
siliceousstromatolites(Fig. 2H) are locally abundantin some
GIF and havecharacteristicslike thoseof siliceoussintersde-
posited by hot sprin~s (e.~., Walter, 1972; Hall and Goode,
1978;Fralick, 1988;Maliva et al., 2005). Due in part to per-
vasiveearly silica cementation,thesestromatolitesand associ-
ated strata in iron formations contain some of the best-pre-
served earlv Precambrianbiotas in the world (Walter and
Hofmann, 1983),including the oldest macroscopiccarbona-
ceousbody fossils(Han and Runnegar,1992).
Layers of pure GIF thicker than a few meters are rare,
whereas BIF can continue uninterrupted by GIF or other
iron-poor sediments for thicknessesup to a 100 m strati-
graphicalIy (Simonson and Hassler, 1996; Trendall, 2002).
Iron formationswith a mixture of BIF and GIF are probably
morelabundantthan pure GIF, and they showa style ofbed-
ding that is intermediate in character,i.e., thicker and more
lenticular on averagethan pure BIF but thinner and with
more lamination than pure GIF (Fig. lF). The GIF in mixed
iron formations usualIy occurs as discontinuouslensesen-
closed in BIF. Some of these lensesrepresent starvedbed-
forms generated by storm waves and currents (Simonson,
1985),but others appearto be products of differential com-
paction,'i.e., concretionlike volumes of sediment that were
preferentialIy cementedwith silica prior to significantburial.
The latter are analogousto the chert pods of BIF (described
below). GIF lensesin mixed iron formations are commonly
zoned with an oxidized, jaspery core and a more reduced
outer rind; the latter is probably a reaction rim formed by in-
complete equilibration between oxidized sandsand the re-
duced muds encasingthem during diagenesis.
Bandediron formations (BIF)
BIF are toa intrinsicalIy fine grained to reveal much about
their sedimentarynature via petrographic analysis(Fig. 3A,
B). Even though diagenesishasoverprinted alI primary detri-
tal textures, unaltered BIF are typically remarkably fine
grained and uniform and show more diversity in iron miner-
alogy than GIF. Most of these mineral assemblagesare
thought to have compositionsclose to the phasesoriginalIy
precipitated Erambasin waters, e.g., siderite, ferric hydrox-
ides, and poorly ordered precursorsof silicate mineraIssuch
asgreenalite(Klein and Bricker, 1977).One clear exceptionis
stilpnomelane,whosepresenceusuallyreflectscontamination
with volcaniclasticdetritus (LaBerge,1966a,b; Pickard,2002,
2003).Chert is generalIyinterpreted asa primary precipitate
(Maliva et al., 2005), but its content can vary tremendously
along a given stratigraphic leveI. The lateral variations are
mainly via the presenceof structures known as chert pods,
which are localizedpoéketsrich in silica, much of which ap-
pearsto havebeen addedearly in diagenesis(seebelow).
As the name implies, most BIF have well-developedthin
lamination to thin bedding with altemating iron-rich and -
poor layers(Figs. lA-C,.~A, B). A hierarchicalnomenclature
for layersat different scàleshasbeen developedfor the BIF
that havebeen studiedin most detail, thoseof the Hamersley
basin. Within stratigraphic units of BIF, bedding (generalIy
referred to asbanding) is commonly cyclic at three different
scales,to which TrendalIand Blockley (1970)gavethe names
macrobands,mesobands,and microbands.Thicknessesare
typically on the arder of meters for macrobands(Fig. IA),
centimetersfor mesobands(Fig. lB),~andmillimeters for mi-
crobands (Fig. 2A). Microbands were originalIy defined as
coupletsof layers,one rich in iron mineraIsand the other in
chert. Subsequentstudy revealedthat tllis simple nomencla.
ture wasnot adequateto cover the complexityof alI the vari-
ationsin the HamersleyBIF (Ewersand Morris, 1981;Tren-
dalI. 1983). Additional terms such as aftbands (TrendalI,
 IRON FORMATIONSAND ASSOCIATEDIRON OREDEPOSITS 649

-' (Morris, 1993) have since been in- the fact that the rapid emplacementof severallargecarbon-
, as well as entirely different nomenclatures (e.g., ate debris flows did not causeany significant soft-sediment
ferhythffiite of Beukes, 1980). The terms microband, deformationin the JoffreBIF immediatelyundemeath(Kepert,
,:usage, but 2001) is consistentwith strengtheningby early cementation.
when used bv Early concretionstypically shield mineraIsEramchemicalal-
teration aswell asphysicalcompaction.A rangeof finely crys-
~ , " u
talline iron-rich mineraIs are preserved inside chert pods,
KuromanBIF of South Africa, a contemporary of the sugges,ting that the original sedimenthad a rangeof composi-
BIF (Pickard, 2003). Co.nsequently,the terms tions similar to the falir facies shown by present-dayBIF,
rather than any single precursor mineral (Simonson,2003).
J . Podsin the HamersleyBIF may alsohavea preferred orien-
- --_J Blockley (1970). tation and/or developedasstackedpods (Trendall and Block-
lamination is the norm in flne-grained Precambrian ley, 1970)due to differential extensionduring compaction.
.- , but the layers in BIF
Depositionalenvironmentsof iron formation
those rich in iron oxides) are among the most
&1 Macrobands cangenerallybe Interpreting the environmentalsignificanceof iron forma-
throughout the ca. 60,000 km2 within which the tion is not as straightforward as it is for most types of sedi-
are preserved (Trendall, 1983). In some ment becauseof a lack of similar present-dayanalogs.The
.- --- -- --- - - --- approachthat has arguablyshedthe most light on the depo-
, Blockley,1970;Ewers and Morris, sitional setting of iron formations hasbeen the study of sedi-
1987), but it is not a given that such uni- mentary units with which they are associated,particularly
BIF, and perhaps it has been overem- those with which they are in conformable contact. A wide
," ' 1993). Correlations at this leveI of detail array of different sedimentaryand volcanicrock typesis asso-
been attempted in very many units outside of the ciatedwith iron formations,implying an equallywide arrayof
(Trendall, 2002). The correlations in the different possibilitiesfor subsequentdevelopmentof iron ore
/ - deposits.The diversesedimentarycharacteristicsof iron for-
cyclic at various scales (described above). mationsthemselveslikewise require depositionin a range of
.; are gener- different environments.Moreover, in classifyingiron-forma-
. Blockley, 1970; Ewers tions simplistically into either banded or granular varieties,
Morris, 1981; Morris, 1993). Trendall (1972) attempted BIF or GIF, there are neverthelesslarge variations within
-- ~ -/-._~ --, the Hamersley BIF to orbital para- each category.In short, iron formations constitute a diverse
meters,but they have yet to be adequately tested for the pe- classof sedimentaryrocks that show a range of depositional
riodicities typical of Milankovitch forcing. lithofacies.While some have textures that are analogousto,
The behavior of the bands or layers in and around chert for example,certain limestonesor phosphorites,their distinct
pods..(Fig.2C) reveals much about the original nature of the chemical composition indicates that processesor conditions
sedimentsthat became BIF. The shapes of the chert pods and rarely if everactivein the Phanerozoicwere a prerequisitefor
their relationships to enclosing sediments are highly analo- the deposition of iron formations. However,iron formations
gousto concretions in other types of sedimento For example, were deposited in environmentsranging Eramdeep basinal
chert pods typically have ovoid cross sections, they are circu- shelf and slope areaswell below wave baseto shallow,high-
lar to amoeboid in plan, and microbands commonly continue energy platform settings. Key sedimentarydata bearing on
through, but thicken sharply inside Df, chert pods (Figs. 3C). the original environments of iron formation deposition are
By analogy to sediments of other compositions, the chert- summarizedbelow, focusing on the stratigraphicsettingsof
poor BIF adjacent to the pods have been compacted relative the larger iron formations.
to their original thickness, and material ã-ddednear the sedi- Despite the variety of different rock types associatedwith
ment-water interface protected the sediment inside the pods large iron formations,generalizedpattems have emergedat
Eramsimilar compaction (Dimroth, 1976; Beukes, 1984; Si- the broadestleveI. Most nQ.tably, the great majority of large
monson, 1987). The cherty nature of the pods indicates that iron formations are intimately associatedwith demonstrably
this material was siliceous cement. The observed reductions marine units, and there is a high degree of correlation be-
in microband thickness indicate that the depositional porosi- tween the nature of an iron formation (GIF vs. BIF) and that
ties of the precursor sediments to BIF were comparable to of the associatedunits. Large GIF are typically underlain by
fme-grained sediments of other compositions (70-90% in shallow marine deposits such as tidally influenced quartz
argillite: Singer and MüIler, 1983; 80-95% in carbonate: Cook arenites (Goode et al., 1983; Ojakangas,1983; Simonson,
and Egbert, 1983), which in rum implies that most of the 1984)or platformal carbonates(Beukes,1983,1986),whereas
chert in the pod was added as early cement. Early cementa- BIF are typically associatedwith deeperwater shale-richsuc-
tion also helps account for how the Hamersley BIF re- cessionswith turbidites whosecompositionvariesEramsilici-
spondedto the rare high-energy events that happened during clasticto volcaniclasticto carbonate(Larue, 1981;Klein and
their deposition. For example, high-energy waves and/or cur- Beukes,1989;Hassler,1993;Simonsonet al., 1993;Pickardet
rents associated with an asteroid impact preferentially en- al., 2004).In addition, the successions in which largeiron for-
trained those layers rich in silica in the Dales Gorge BIF mations occur have proven amenable to sequence-strati-
(Hassler and Simonson, 2001; Pickard et al., 2004). Likewise, graphic analyses,and someof the largestBIF and GIF are in
650 CLOUT AND SIMONSON
successions that closelyresemblethose depositedin younger
marginalmarine settings(Blake and Barley,1992;Moreyand
Southwick, 1995; Krapez and Martin, 1999). Although it is
certainly possiblethat some smaller iron formations are la-
custrine in origin (Eriksson, 1983;Beukes,1984),the nature
of their stratigraphiccontext indicates most, if not alI, large
iron formationswere deposited in open marine settings.An
additional argumentagainsta nonmarine origin is the lack of
chemical and mineralogical variability one would expect if
they had precipitated Eramwaters that would of necessitybe
highly variable in saltite composition (Gole and Klein, 1981;
Lepp, 1987).The sheersizeand lack of internar variability of
the largestiron formationsis anotherargumentin favor of the
marine origin of iron formations (Kimberley, 1989;Simonsan
and Hassler,1996).
Another common element in the deposition of large iron
formationsis that they were precededand/or accompaniedby
transgression,i.e., deepening of the connection with the
oceanoThis was clearly the case with the large GIF (e.g.,
Ojakangas,1983; Simonson,1984; Klein and Beukes,1989),
where the onsetof iron formation sedimentationmar signala
chemocline migrating into shallow areasEramwhich it had
previouslybeen excluded(Simonsonand Hassler,1996).De-
position on a continental margin alsoenhancedthe preserva-
tion potential of iron formations,sincethey were lesslikely to
be subducted than if they had been deposited on oceanic
crust. It is more difficult to determine if large BIF were like-
wise associatedwith transgression,i.e., deepening of the
watercolumn, becausethere is lessvariability in the associ-
ated sediments.However,this appearsto havebeen the case
in the two basinscontaining.the largest and most extensive
BIF, the Hamersleyand Transvaalsuccessions (Beukes,1983,
1984; Klein and Beukes,1989; Simonsonand Goode, 1989;
Simonsonetal., 1993; Simansonand Hassler,1996;Thorne
and Tiendall, 2001).
Hoffman (1987) suggestedthe transgressionsthat com-
monly accompaniedthe deposition of large iron formations
were due to subsidenceinduced by the approachof thrust
sheets.Loading of the continentallithosphere inducesa flex-
ural response that creates a sediment-starvedrepository
known asa foredeep(ar forelandbasin)that migrateslaterally
in front of the advancingthrust sheets.The sediment-starved
phasein foredeepsis typically succeedeEby a thick succes-
sion of shallow-waterclastic material. The GIF -rich Daniel-
skuil Member (Griquatown Iron Formation, South Africa) is
one possible example;it shallowsupward conformably into
the lacustrinePietersbergMember (Beukes,1983).Dating of
units Eramthe Lake Superior region also appearsto be con-
sistentwith the migrating foredeep model (Schneideret al.,
2002). However, large GIF are typically overlain by deeper
water successions rich in shalesand turbidites, many in con-
formable contact (Simonson,1985),rather than the shallow-
water successions predicted by the foredeepmodeloMorever,
manylargeiron formationsaccumulatedfor extendedperiods
on stable-shelfto upper-slopeenvironmentswith little or no
evidence of synsedimentarytectonism. In the Hamersley
basin, for example, folding and thrusting began no earlier
than 2.2 Ga (Tyler and Thorne 1990),whereasthe first major
iron formation wasdepositedbefore 2.6 Ga. Finally, iron for-
mations were deposited in a number of different tectonic
environments (Gross, 1983). Some tectonic configurations
mar have even been unique to early Earth history, e.g., the
centersof convectivedescentmodel of Trendall (2002).The
scarcity of examplesof post-GIF and -BIF shallowing also
raisesquestionsabout the simple model of chemocline mi-
gration. Many iron formations contain thin but widespread
volcaniclasticinterbeds (e.g., Ewers and Morris, 1981; Has-
sler andl5imonson,1989;Barley et al., 1997;Pickard,2002),
suggestirlgthat their depositionwas more a result of height-
ened volcanic activity than conditio.,nsendemic to any one
sedimentaryor tectonic environment (discussedbelow).
Changesin iron fonnations through time
Iron formations range in age Eramearly Archean to Neo-
proterozoic, but they were not formed in equal measure
throughoutthis long time span (Kerrich, 2005, figo 12). BIF
are found amongthe oldest well-preservedsedimentarysuc-
cessionson Earth (Nutman et al., 1984),although the sedi-
mentary origins of some of the oldest BIF have been called
into question (Fedo and Whitehouse,2002).At the other ex-
treme, iron-rich rocks widely referred to as iron formations
were depositedon variouscontinentsin the Neoproterozoic.
The Neoproterozoicunits differ Eramearly Precambrianiron
formationsin having a simple iron mineralogydominatedby
hematite and being lesscherty on average(Jamesand Tren-
dalI, 1982; Beukesand Klein, 1992). However, thinly lami-
nated cherty beds similar to microbandedBIF and peloidal
layersthat resembleGIF occur locally in Neoproterozoiciron
formations (KIein and Ladeira, 2004). Unllke early Precam-
brian iron formations,the Neoproterozoicexamplesare inti-
mately associatedwith glaciogenicsediments(Young, 1976)
and are much smaJleron average.The largestiron formations
were alI deposited during an interval of -800 m.y. in the
Neoarcheanto Paleoproterozoicwhich ended rather abruptly
at or before 1.8 Ga (Gole and Klein, 1981;Trendall, 2002).
Researchersare startingto realizethat this mar consistof two
or more peaks of iron accumulation rather than a single
plateauof iron formation deposition(Isley and Abbott, 1999).
Clearly, there were secularchangesin both the size and de-
positionalenvironmentsof iron formation, asfollows.
Statistically,iron formationsthat are Paleo-to Mesoarchean
in agetend to be smallerthan thoseof the Neoarcheanto Pa-
leoproterozoic.This could simply reflect greater degreesof
tectonic dismembermentwith age, were it not for the fact
that older iron formationsshowa different mix of depositional
features and stratigraphic.associations.Gross (1965, 1983)
therefore subdividediron fàrmationsinto two major varieties,
Superiortype andAIgorriatype. In general,AIgoma-typeiron
formationsare smaller,consistexclusivelyof BIF, and are in-
timately associatedwith volcanic rocks, whereas Superior-
type iron formations are associatedprimarily with sedimen-
tary strata(which commonlyhavea volcaniccomponent),and
mar contain GIF aswell asBIF. AIgoma-typeiron formations
are typical or Archean greenstonebelts, whereas Superior-
type iron formationsoccur in continental margin successions,
are Neoarcheanto Paleoproterozoicin age, and include the
largest iron formations. Jamesand Trendall (1982) assessed
the size variation in iron formations as a function of age by
placing major iron formations Eramfive continentsinto four
categories:small (1010or fewer tons of iron), moderate (on
 IRON FORMATIONS AND ASSOCIATED IRON ORE DEPOSITS

the order of 1011_1012 tons of iron), large (onthe arder of 1013 of ferric iron-bearingphasesafter burial (Johnsonet al., 2003,
tons of iron), and very large (1014or more tons of iron). Their 2004).
data set confirms that the largest iron formations are alI Between their first appearancearound 2.65 Ga and their
Neoarchean through Paleoproterozoic in age. In contrast, disappearancearound 1.8 Ga, Superior-typeiron formations
smaller iron formations range in age from Paleoarchean changedsignificantlyin character.Most of the large iron for-
through Paleoproterozoic, including the time span during mations in the Lake Superior area and Labrador trough of
which the large iron formations were deposited. Although the North America were depositedEramaround 2.0 to 1.85 Ga,
smaller size of Algoma-type iron formations is generally taken and p1ostare rich in GIF that have a high proportion of iron
to mean deposition in smaller basins, Gole and Klein (1981, oxidesand silicatesbut little siderite (Grossand Zajac, 1983;
, p. 170)
tions correctly
"mar notedquite
have been that some Algoma-type
extensive iron forma-
prior to deformation Morey, 1983;Dimroth, 1986;FraJickand Barrett, 1995;Fral-
ick et al., 2002;Schneideret al., 2002).Similarly,the iron for-
and disruption." mationsof the Nabberu basinofWestem Australiaare young
The largest individual iron formations known from any in age and rich in oxide-faciesGIF (Hall and Goode, 1978;
point in geologic time are the Neoarchean to Paleoprotero- Goodeet al., 1983).ln addition, manyof theseyoungerGIF-
zoic iron formations of the Hamersley basin of Western Aus- rich Superior-typeiron formationsare in conformablecontact
tralia and the Transvaal basin of South Africa. Examples of with tidally crossbeddedquartz arenites and stromatolitic
Jamesand Trendall's (1982) "very large" iron formations are dolomites (Hall and Goode, 1978; Morey, 1983; Ojakangas,
found on alI five continents, but those of the Hamersley and 1983; Simonson,1985). The increase in the abundanceof
Transvaalbasins contain the highest estimated tonnages of GIF (Kerrich et al., 2005, figo12) and the nature of the asso-
original iron. Although there are five major iron formations ciated units both indicate that the averagedepositionalen-
within the Hamersley succession (Trendall, 1983, figo 8) and ergyof Superior-typeiron formationsincreasedthrough time.
two in the Transvaal succession (Beukes, 1984), the Transvaal lt is unclear at present whether iron formations changed
BIF contain a larger total mass of iron because the area over gradually and progressivelythrough time or if the changes
which they are preserved is roughly twice that of the Hamer- were abrupt, discontinuous,or possiblyevenoscillatoryin na-
sley BIF. The exceptional size of the iron formations in these rufe. The transition EramAIgoma-to Superior-typeiron for-
two basinsbecomes even more remarkable since they mar ac- mationswas gradual in the sensethat AIgoma-typeiron for-
tually be two parts of a single basin. Button (1976) summa- mations were still accumulatingon other continents at the
rized a number of striking similarities in their deposits (both time the oldest Superior-typeiron formationswere being de-
sedimentary and economic) and geologic evolution. Cheney posited in the Hamersleybasin of Westem Australia and the
(1996) formalized this hypothesis by suggesting the name Transvaalbasin of South Africa (ca. 2.6 Ga). Moreover,some
"Vaalbara" for the combined landmass. Not everyone is per- iron formationsdepositedon the marginsof the Kaapvaaland
suaded,but detailed studies have revealed some striking geo- Zimbabwe cratons at -3.0 Ga arrear to be intermediate in
logic parallels between these two successionseven at very fine character between AIgoma- and Superior-type iron forma-
scales(e.g., Simonson and Carney, 1999; Pickard, 2003). Iso- tions (Watchom 1980;Fedo and Eriksson1996).The abrupt-
topic dates compiled by Nelson et alo (1999) point to certain nessof the shift Eramvirtually alI BIF to a mixrure of BIF and
inconsistencies in the ages of stratigraphically comparable GIF within the Superior-typecategoryis more difficult to as-
units on the two continents, but dates from the BIF them- sessbecausemost iron formationswith well-constrainedages
serves indicate they are essentially contemporaneous are concentratedin relatively short time windows, the most
(Pickard, 2003). Either individually or jointly, the Hamersley prominent of which occur near 2.7, 2.45, and 1.9 Ga (lsley
and Transvaalbasins constitute the largest repositories of sed- and Abbott, 1999).This clusteringmar itselfbe a signthat the
imentary iron on Earth. evolutionarychangesin iron formation were not evenly dis-
Although iron formations grow larger on average around tributed in time. Moreóver,a contrastin the isotopicvariabil-
the time of the Archean-Proterozoic boundary, the average ity of iron suggeststhat the younger Superior-typeiron for-
energy of the environments in which they were deposited did mations mar have been deposited by different mechanisms
not increase dramatically at first. The typically arder Algoma- than the older afies (Rouxelet al., 2005).
type iron formations are generally associated with volcanic
rocks and deep-water turbidites and consist almost exclu- Models for the Depo'~itionof Large lron Formations
sively of BIF (Dunbar and McCall, 1971; Barrett and Fralick, There are no close present-dayanalogsof iron formation,
1985,1989; Shegelski, 1987). Occurrences of GIF in Algoma- and this mar be the reasonthat an unusuallybroad range of
type iron formations (e.g., Manikyamba, 1999) are extremely theories has been proposed for their origino As Trendall
rare. The older of the Superior-type iron formations likewise (2002, p. 60) so eloquently put it, iron formations ".. .have
accumulated in deep shelf to possibly upper slope environ- often been describedas bizarre or unusualrocks,and corre-
ments (Trendall, 1983; Simonson, 2003; Pickard et al., 2004) spondinglyexceptionalconditionshavebeen advancedto ex-
and consist largely of BIF, but more GIF are present in these plain their presencein the stratigraplúcrecord; ... it should
older Superior-type iron formations (Simonson and Goode, not be askedwhat strangecircumstancesled to the deposition
1989; Beukes and Klein, 1990). Unlike any of the younger ex- of BIF, but insteadin what respectswere the ordinary envi-
amples, some of the older G1l!~are siderite dominated. Re- ronrnentsaf the PrecambrianEarth radically different Eram
cent work on the Fe isotope compositions of the siderite sug- those now existing." Qne of the first and most creative re-
gests they are indeed primary precipitates Eram the water searchersto take this approachwasCloud, whosesuggestions
column rather than diagenetic products involving reduction (e.g.,Cloud, 1968)stimulated much new thinking about iron
652 CLOUT AND SIMONSON

formations and early Earth conditions in general (seeTren- Given this situation,modelsfor the depositionof large iron
dalI, 2002, for a nice summaryofCloud's contributions). Al- formations should focus on processesactive along chemo-
though consensushasyet to bereached on the specificmech- clines between deeper iron-rich and shallower iron-poor
anismswhereby iron and silica were precipitated and their water fiasses (e.g., Beukes and Klein, 1992). For example,
physicalstates,most researchersnow favor modelsinvolving iron could be precipitated via oxidationalongthe chemocline
derivation of the dissolved iron from hydrothermal vent in a manner somewhatanalogousto the formation of particu-
sourcesin the open ocean,deposition of the larger iron for"' late MnO2in the present-dayBlack Sea(Force and Maynard,
mationson sediment-starvedcontinental-shelfto upper-slope 1991).M~crobesare apt to take advantageof any steepchem-
environmentsvia the precipitation of iron-rich phasesalonga ical gradi~nts,asthey arrear to havedane for billions of years
chemoclinein a stratified water column, aswell ascoprecipi- (Johnsonet al., 2004),somicrobeswere probablyactivealong
tation of silicawith the iron, and involvementof microbesin thesechemoclines.Iron isotopesshowmore variability in iron
the precipitation and diagenetic reorganization of these formations than in any other natural material (Beard et al.,
phases.We elaborate briefly on these important points of 1999;Johnsonet al., 2003). This was initially taken as a sign
broad agreement below (see Simonson,2003, for a fuller of microbial memation of redox reactions,but separatingbi-
discussion). otic Eramabiotic fractionation effects is challenging (Beard
Banded iron formation deposition has been linked to hy- and Johnson;2004; Johnsonet al., 2004). Moreover, micro-
drothermal activity via stratigraphic context and facies rela- bially mediated reactions could have affected the isotopic
tionshipsfor someAIgoma-typeiron formations (e.g., Good- composition of iron either when it was first flXed Eramthe
Win et al., 1985),and hydrothermal geochemicalsignatures, water column or during reorganizationin the pore waters
e.g.,in rare earth element ratios and isotopic systemssuchas after deposition (or both). Recently,Rouxel et alo(2005) at-
sulfur and neodymium (cited in Simonson,2003) have been tributed the observed variations to rapid changesthrough
detected in alI types of iron formations (Klein and Beukes, time in the isotopic compositionof the reservoirof dissolved
1992). As Fryer et alo (1979) pointed out, sea-floor hy- iron in Archean seawater.Whether they were responsibleor
drothermal systemswould have injected large fiasses of re- not, calculationsby Konhauseret alo(2002) indicate that the
duced speciesinto the Archeanoceanfrom the bottom, most number of microbesneededto flX the massof iron presentis
notably ferrous iron. The need for a stratified water column not unreasonable,even in large iron formations. Trendall
stemsmainly Eramthe fact that, even though normal marine (2002) marshalsadditional argumentsfavoring the involve-
surface waters were clearly not well oxygenated in the ment of the biospherein the deposition of iron formations.
Neoarcheanto Paleoproterozoic,they were still too oxic to Given the variety of iron mineraisfound in:iron formations,a
carry much dissolvedferrous iron (Trendall, 2002).The min- variety of different precipitation mechanismswere probably
eralogyof iron formations the,mselvessupport this model in involved at different times and places(seereview by Morris,
that fully oxidized hematite is the dominant iron mineral 1993, p. 254-256),-Pinning down the specific mechanisms
among the least altered GIF, which were deposited in the and explaining cyclic pattems in BIF are the greatestchal-
shallowestwaters, whereas the BIF deposited in deeper lenges remaining in understandingthe precipitation of iron
water showa much broader rangeof iron minerais,including formations.
large amountsof reducedphasessuch assiderite. There is near-universalagreementthat the high chert con-
Contrastsin the trace element and isotopiccompositionsof tent of iron formationsreflectshigher ambientconcentrations
iron formations and coeval iron-poor strata (Klein and of silicain Precambrianseawaterdue to the absenceof silica-
Beukes, 1989; Carrigan and Cameron, 1991; Winter and flXing organisms(Maliva et al., 1989, 2005). Agreement is
Knauth, 1992;Rouxelet al., 2005) support a stratified ocean more elusiveconcemingthe sourceof the silica or the cause
modeloConsensushasyet to be reachedon the characterand of its coaccumulationwith iron-rich phases.Mechanismspro-
causesof that stratification. Someworkers envisiona surface posedfor silicaprecipitatioÍl include direct or indirect flXation
layer depleted in iron and a large reservoir of botiom water by microbesin the water column (LaBergeet al., 1987),slight
with relatively uniform concentrationsoT dissolved ferrous evaporativeconcentration,coprecipitationwith iron (Ewers,
iron (e.g., Jacobsenand Pimentel-Klose, 1988; Huston and 1983),and polymerizationdue to electrolytechanges(Morris,
Logan, 2004). Others believe dissolvediron concentrations 1993).The high silica conte~t of iron formationsis not exclu-
reacheda maximumat someintermediatewater depth owing sivelya depositionalfeature;"thereis solid evidence(outlined
to higher concentrationsof hydrogensulfide in deeperwaters above)that a significant fraction of the silica in iron forma-
(Cameron, 1983). Sulfide concentrationswere probably low tions, both BIF and GIF, actuallyprecipitated in the shallow
in early Precambrianoceansoverall becauseof low sulfate subsurfaceas void-filling cement shortly after deposition,
production during weathering in an atmospherewith little presumably abiogenically (Simonson, 1987; Maliva et al.,
oxygen(Farquhar et al., 2000), resulting in low inputs of re- 2005). Recent geochronologicwork suggeststhat the sedi-
- ducible sulfate into mid-ocean ridge hydrothermal systems mentation rates of iron formations were faster than those of

(Kump and Seyfired, 2005). This is consistent with strati- other sedimenttypes with which they ar~ interbedded, e.g.,
graphic pattems shown by many Superior-typeiron forma- the S macrobandsin the Dales Gorge BIF, which are shales
tions (Simonson and Hassler, 1996). In either case, Isley rich in fine volcaniclasticmaterial (Fig. IA; Pickard, 2002,
(1995)demonstratedthe feasibility of connectingopen-ocean 2003;Trendall, 2002;Trendall et al., 2004).This in tum sug-
hydrothermal sourceswith shelf sinksvia lateral dispersalat gestsa situationwhere there were relativelyshort-livedpulses
shallowto intermediate water depths, even for the large Su- of iron and silicainput, againconsistentwith the behaviorone
perior-type iron formations. might expectEramhydrothermalsources.Higher geothermal
 IRON FORMATIONSAND ASSOCIATEDIRON OREDEPOSITS 653

gradientscould have also increasedthe flux of silica Eram to the deposition of iron formations. The only significant
belowby acceleratingits dissolutionat depth and reprecipita- reappearanceof iron formations happened in the Neopro-
tion in the shallowsubsurface(Simonson,1987). However, terozoic. The sourceof iron for the Neoproterozoiciron for-
recentwork on Ge/Sifatias hasindicated the silica may be at mationsagainappearsto havebeen hydrothermal (Breitkopf,
leastpartly a product of continental weathering (Hamade et 1988;Young,1988),but their intimate associationwith glacio-
al.,2003). genic sedimentsmar algObe important. The Neoproterozoic
In addition to points of agreement summarized above, glaciationswere probably the most severein Earth history
thereis alSOa broadconsensusasto why iron formationsgrew (Hoff~an et al., 1998).It is possiblethat global oceanscov-
significantlylargeron averageduring the Neoarcheanand Pa- ered by ice becamehighly stratified for the first time in over
,leoproterozoic. The transition Eram small AIgoma- to large an eon, thereby reactivatingsomeof the mechanismsat work
Superior-typeiron formations -2.6 billion years ago appar- in the Paleoproterozoic(Klein and Beukes, 1992; Trendall,
ently reflects the first appearanceof extensivecontinental 2002;Klein and Ladeira,2004).Another possibilityis that sul-
shelf environments.Continental margins offer larger, more fide concentrationsbeganto decreasein deepoceanwatersin
uniformrepositoriesthan volcanicterraness,and st;able-shelf the Neoproterozoic,leading to greater iron mobility. Either
depositsof varioustypesincreaseddramaticallyin sizeduring way, the deep ocean definitely became ventilated as the
the Neoarchean. For example,the first platformal carbonates Phanerozoicapproached,reducing the mobility of dissolved
comparablein sizeto Phanerozoicbuild-ups appearedin the iron for good (Knoll, 2003; Canfield, 2005; Kerr, 2005).
Neoarcheanin the samebasinsas the first large iron forma- In contrast to the widespread agreement on the points
tions(Beukes,1983;Klein and Beukes,1989;Simonsonet al., raised above,there are still at least two competing explana-
1993;Grotzinger,1994).The expansionof shelf areapresum- tions that relate iron phaseswith different oxidation statesto
ablyreflectsa Neoarcheansurgein the growth of continental differencesin water depths.One explanationis basedprimar-
crustand associated rise in sealevels (Goodwin, 1991;Lowe, ily on detailed studiesof iron formationsand associatedstrata
1992;Groveset al., 2005).The highly diachronousnature of of the TransvaalSupergroupin South Africa, where Beukes
cratonization(Erikssonand Donaldson, 1986) may help ex- and Klein (1992) concluded that iron mineraIsbecamepro-
plainwhy the largestiron formationsdiffer in age on differ- gressively more oxidized in progressively greater water
ent continents(Trendall,2002).However,the increasein the depths. They envision sideritic sediment being depositedin
average sizeof iron formationsmay not be entirely a product the shallowest,highest energy environments,and fully oxi-
of a tectonicshift. The dramaticincreasesin the abundance dized hematitic sediment (or a suitableprecursor) in deeper
of GIF, first EramAIgoma-to Superior-typeiron formations water.This is consistentwith the fact that siderite is the main
and then Eramolder to younger Superior-typeiron forma- iron-bearing mineral in the principal GIF of the Transvaal
tions,indicatethat they were depositedin progressivelyshal- basin,the GriquatownIron Formation. They attribute this re-
lowerwaters.This implies progressiveshallowingof chemo- lationship to a fllJXof organic carbon being transportedEram
clines that could reflect changesin the chemistry of the shallowto deeper environments,thereby creating a gradient
atmosphereand/or seawater.The scarcity of Superior-type Erammore anoxicshallowwater to more oxic deeper water.
ironformationswith well-constrainedagesbetween ca. 2.45 However,extendingthis explanationto other basinsis prob-
and1.9Ga (Isley and Abbott, 1999) makesit difficult to de- lematic becausethe Transvaalsituation is anomalous.In al-
termineif this shift took placegraduallyand monotonicallyor mostalI other basins,GIF are dominatedbyoxide iron phases
wasrapidand/orepisodic. with an abundanceof hematitic mineraIs, whereas siderite
Finally,there is a consensusthat the seeminglyabrupt ter- and other reduced iron phasesare much more abundantin
minationof iron formation depositionin the Paleoproterozoic deeperwater BIF (e.g.,James,1954;Zajac, 1974;Simonson,
reflectsevolutionaryshifts in atmosphericand hydrospheric 1985).
chemistry(Knoll, 2003; Canfield, 2005). Prior to ca. 1.9 Ga, According to the secolid explanation,iron phasesbecome
dissolvediron could neither accumulatein high concentra- progressivelymore reduced (rather than oxidized) with in-
tionsnor be dispersedover long distancesin the ocean'ssur- creasingwater depth. GIF with fully oxidizediron phasessug-
facewatersbut must havedane so in the deeperparts of the gest an atmospherethat wassufficientlyoxic to keep concen-
oceano The mobility of dissolvediron in deeper waters was trations of dissolvedferrou~iron in an oceanicsurfacelayer at
clearlyradicallyreducedat about 1.9 Ga. Until recently,this vanishingly low levels, thereby restricting deposition of re-
hasgenerallybeen attributed to ventilation, i.e., oxygenation, duced phasesto deeperwater. Support for this model comes
of the deepoceanoHowever,the first dramatic rise in atmos- Eramthe fact that manyof the cherty oolitic and stromatolitic
pheric oxygenappearsto have taken place around 2.4 Ga layers in GIF are among the reddest layers, indicating an
(Bekkeret al., 2004; Kerr, 2005),which predatesthe end of abundanceof finely disseminatedhematite. The depositional
iron formation depositionby a wide margin. An altemative texturesare exquisitelypreservedin theseoolitic and stroma-
modelthat invokesincreasedlevelsof dissolvedsulfide rather tolitic layers (as is the famous Gunflint microbiota; Walter
thandissolvedoxygento limit iron solubility in the deep mid- and Hofmann, 1983),suggestingthey ar~ closestto their pri-
Proterozoicocean (Canfield, 1998; Anbar and Knoll, 2002; mary mineralogy.Moreover,theyare most likely to haveequi-
Arnold et al., 2004) is gaining adherents. Whatever the librated with the atmospherechemically as they were de-
changewas,it clearlypreventedthe deep oceanEramstoring posited in some af the shallowest, highest energy
andtransportingdissolvediron over long distances,thereby environmentsof any iron formations.Deposition of the most
severingthe connectionbetween sea-floorhydrothermal sys- oxidized iron formations in the shallowestwater environ-
temsand continentalshelf environments,thus putting a stop mentswould algObe consistentwith the low concentrationsof
654 CLOUT AND SIMONSON
iron found in platformal carbonates deposited coevally
(Veizer et al., 1990, 1992). Had the leveI of dissolved ferrous
iron been uniformly high in ocean waters both deep and shal-
low, much greater quantities of iron would surely have substi-
tuted for calcium while shallow-water carbonates were pre-
cipitating. The relatively low iron content is observed in both
carbonates that grade into iron formations stratigraphically
(e.g., Klein and Beukes, 1989) and others that accumulated in
shallow water at the same time that BIF were being deposited
in deeper parts of the same basin (Simonson and Hassler,
1996; Kepert, 2001). Recent work on iron isotope fatias pro-
vides support for ocean stratification during deposition of the
younger Superior-type iron formations but not those of
Archean and earliest Paleoproterozoic (Rouxel et al., 2005).
In summary, the evidence is mounting that large Superior-
type iron formations owe their existence to a unique conflu-
ence of three main circumstances in the Neoarchean to Pale-
oproterozoic: (1) the presence of large hydrothermal systems
on the open ocean floor, (2) a dramatic expansion in the total
area of continental shelves, and (3) a stratified ocean with in-
termediate and/or deep water fiasses through which large
fluxes of dissolved ferrous iron could traveI Eram sea-floor hy-
drothermal systems to distant depocenters.
The fact that large iron formations occur in many different
tectonic settings and are associated with many different rock
types (Gross, 1983; Fralick and Barrett, 1995) suggests that
these circumstances were met in a variety of different set-
tings. If so, the first-order cause of large iron formations
could simply be unusually vigorous hydrothermal activity
(e.g., Morris, 1993; Barley et al., 1997), especially when con-
nections between hydrotherm~ sources and continental-mar-
gin sinks were enhanced by sea-Ievel highstands. Highstands
are probably linked to the increased growth of continental
crust and have coincided with periods of heightened volcan-
ism, e.g., increased activity at hot spots and/or spreading
ridges, throughout Earth history. At such times, precipitates
formed on a chemocline could overwhelm clastic input and
accumulate relatively undiluted (Simonson and Hassler,
1996), consistent with depositional rates calculated by Picard
(2002,2003) and Trendallet alo(2004).Isley and Abbott
(1999) believe there is a statistically significant correlation in
age between iron formations and proxies for mantle plume
activity, such as komatiites and flood basalts. A connection be-
tween deposition of iron formations and m-antle superplumes
could help explain why Superior-type iron formations do not
appear to be evenly distributed in either time or space.
The existence of a hypsometry unlike any before or since
mar have been a contributing factor in the formation of large
iron formations during the Archean-Proterozoic transition.
While it is commonly assumed that continental freeboard has
remained constant through geologic time, this is not neces-
sarily the case (Eriksson, 1999). Arndt (1999) has pinpointed
~unusual aspects of Archean and Proterozoic volcanic rocks
that suggest the existence of broad, submerged continental
platforms unlike any later in Earth history. Widespread evi-
dence of basaltic hydrovolcanism in large iron formation
basins (Hassler and Simonson, 1989; Hassler, 1993; Alter-
mann, 1996) provides support for this scenario, which mar re-
flect secular differences in the thickness and buoyancy of
Archean crust (Groves et al., 2005). Replaced shards appear
in some tuffs found in iron formations or associatedunits
{LaBerge, 1966a,b; Ewers and Morris, 1981;Pickard,2002),
but signsof explosivefelsic volcanic activity are scarcerthan
one might expectif theseiron formationshad been deposited
closeto a convergentmargin (e.g.,in a backarcsetting,assug-
gestedby Blake and Barley,1992).The existenceof uniquely
large areasof stableflooded continental crust could help ex-
plain the flccumulation of uniquely large and well-preserved
iron formations in the Neoarcheanto Paleoproterozoicand
perhaps the exceptional lateral continuity of depositional
bandsin the Hamersleyand TransvaalBIF.
Review of Iron Fonnation-Hosted Iron Ore Deposits
Iron formation-hosted iron ore deposits account for the
majority of current world production and resourcesof iron
ore, followed.by the important channel iron depositswhich
fliled Tertiary river channels,iron-apatite ores (Williams et
al., 2005)that are recognizedby most ashydrothermalandar-
gued by some as magmatic (e.g., Kiruna and Malberget in
Swedenand iron ore deposits in coastalPeru and nothem
Chile), and finally certain typesof correr skamand rare earth
deposits(e.g.,Da Ye and BayanObo, China). There are many
other typesof iron ore depositsthat havebeen historicallyim-
portant but not as significant as the iron formation iron ores
(e.g., oolitic goethite deposits of Minette and/or Salzgitter
type, contact metamorphic ores formed by replacementof
carbonaterocks in the aureolesof granitoid intrusions, and
detrital marine placer deposits).
BIF - and GIF -hosted iron ores can be subdivided into
three classes:(1) unenrichedprimary iron formation with typ-
ically 30 to 45 wt percent Fe; (2) martite-goethiteore formed
by supergeneproc~~ses,with abundant hydrous iron oxides
containing 56 to 63 wt percent Fe; and (3) high-grade
hematite oresthought to be of supergenemodified hypogene
or metamorphicorigin with 60 to 68 wt percent Fe (Table2;
Morris, 1985; Beukes et al., 2002). Martite is a commonly
used textural term to denote hematite pseudomorphsafter
primary magnetitewhere the octagonaloutlines of much of
the original magnetiteare preserved.
The high-grade hematite ores can be further subdivided
into hematite,including itabirite-derived residualore and mi-
croplaty hematite replacement ore. Itabirite is oxidized,
metamorphosed,and heterogeneouslydeformed BIF that
containsiron ore depositsformed by supergeneleaching of
gangue minerais and residual accumulation of hematite
(Dorr, 1969;Spier et al., 200.3).Microplaty hematite replace-
ment ore consistsof a three,-dimensionalnetwork of 10- to
200-.umplatesofhematite with interstitial voids,formed Eram
replacementof silicate and carbonatebands in the iron for-
mation (Morris, 1985). Individual high-grade hematite iron
ore depositsrange Erama few million tons to over 2 billion
tons at >64 wt percent Fe, althoughmost falI within the range
of200 to 500 Mt.
Many of the primary mesobandsand _microbandsof the
parent BIF havebeen preservedduring ore formation of the
martite-goethite and high-gradehematite ores (Fig. 4; Mor-
ris, 1985).Tms preservationhasresultedfrom replaeelIlenlor
chert and carbonatebandsby hematite (in the caseof high-
grade microplaty hematite ores) or goethite (in martite-
goethite ores), or residual accumulation of martite as the
 IRON FORMATIONSAND ASSOCIATED IRON ORE DEPOSITS

TABLE2. Iron Ore Deposit Classifications for CulTent and Some Future Mines with Either Published Resources or Reserves

Classification Sub~e Current and fuGIre mines

Iron Fonnation, BIF and GIF Magnetite China: Diao Juntai, Gong Chang Ung, Chita Shan, Dashihe
United States: Empire, Hibbing, Northshore
Australia: Mount Gibson, Koolanooka, Tallering Peak (Yilgarn craton), Balmoral (Pilbara craton)

Hematite Canada: Wabush, Mont Wright, Carol Lake

United States: Tilden \
China: Dong Anshan, Hainan t~land

I Martite-goethite Australia: Marandoo, West Angelas, Orebody 29, Mining Area C, Rope Downs, Christmas Creek,
Ophthalmia Range, Rhodes Ridge, Paraburdoo Eastem Ranges, Section 6 and 7 (Pilbara craton),
Koolyanobbing, Mount Jackson and Mount Windarling (Yilgam craton)

High-grade hematite
Microplaty Australia: Mount Whaleback, Mount Tom Price, Paraburdoo, Channar, Yarrie, Giles Mini
Hematite (Pilbara craton); Iron Duke, Iron Knight, Iron Duchess (Gawler craton)
Brazil: Carajás district: NI to N9, in.cluding N4E, Sll-S45
Indill: Coa, Noamundi, Aridongri district
Guinea: Simandou, Mount Nimba
Soutb Africa: Thabazimbi
Ukraine: Krivoy Rog district

Hematite Brazil: Quadrilátero Ferrífero district: Águas Claras, Alegria, Andrade, Baú, Brucutú, Cauê,
Córrego do Feijão, Córrego do Meio, Capenema, Conceição, Casa de Pedra, Fábrica, Fazendão,
Morro Agudo, Matuca, Ouro Fino, Pico, Pires, Retiro das Almas, Tamanduá and Timbopeba
China: Hainan Island
South Africa: Sishen-Beeshoek
Sierra Leone: Marampa

result of leaching out of chert and carbonate Eram bands

FIG. 4. Simplified summary of ore relationships to prima!)' banding in
BIF for high-grade hematite and martite-goethite iron ores. In microplaty
hematite ores, BIF chert or carbonate bands are replaced by microplaty
hematite (cross-hatching), magnetite bands by martite-hematite (black
bands), and AI silicate bands by shale (clays). For martite-goethite ores, BIF
chert or carbonate bands are replaced by goethite-disseminated martite
(black squares), magnetite bands by martite (black bands), and AI silicate
bands by shale (clays). In the case of itabirite and other hematite ores, leach-
ing of BIF chert or carbonate bands has resulted in residual accumulation of
hftmlltitft (~tipplft) or flil\hln hnmatite-rosidllal quartz, magnC'titC' bllnd8 by
hematite and/or martite (black bands), and AI silicate bands by shale (clays).
Note that chert and carbonate bands in parent BIF commonly contain dis-
seminated magnetite. Note similar replacement relationships also apply to
GIF.
which once contained disseminatedmagnetite. Magnetite-
rich bands in the iron formation were oxidized to martite
and/or replaced by secondaryhematite in ore, whereasAl-
rich silicate b~~ havebeen leachedand partIr replacedby
clays to form shalelike bands. The shalelike mesobands
should not be consideredas epiclasticsedimentaryrocksbut
rather the Al-rich residue of supergeneleachingand weath-
ering of Al-rich silicate mesobandsthat originated as a mix-
ture of fine volcaniclasticmaterial and chemicalprecipitates
(Ewers and Morris, 1981; Picard et al., 2004). In martite-
goethite ores, chert- and carbonate-dominantbands have
been leachedout and replacedby goethite so that the overall
iron content has been enriched. Disseminatedmagnetitein
chert and carbonatebands is oxidized to martite in martite-
goethite ores. In the microplaty hematite ores, a network of
fine (0.2-0.01 fim) microplatesof hematite has completely
replaced chert and carbonate-dominant bands. For the
itabirite-derived ores Eramthe Quadrilátero Ferrífero, resid-
ual concentrationof hemàtite and martite hasbeen achieved
by leachingout of silicate-or carbonate-richbands.In the less
strongly leacheditabirite-derived ore, some remnant friable
quartz mar be presentwith residualhematite and martite.
Although the main ore mineraIsare hematite and goethite
and the overall mineralogyis quite simple, ore textures and
their spatial distribution and modification acrossindividual
depositsaretypically complex(Clout, ~002).
Iron ore terminology
There are a number uf tenns used frequently to descrlbe
the physical properties of iron ores not commonly used in
other commodities, especially relative physical hardness.
The relative physical hardnessof high-grade hematite and
656 CLOUT AND SIMONSON
martite-goethiteoresvariesconsiderablywithin a depositand
is a function of ore texture andthe extent of secondaryleach-
ing of martite, goethite, and microplaty hematite (Clout,
2002). Iron ores are commonly described in terms of de-
creasingphysicalhardnessfrom hard to medium, friable, soft,
and finally powdery or dust. Ores that are hard to medium
havelow porosity with physicallystrong interlocking textures
of martite, hematite, or martite-microplatyhematite. Friable
is usedto describeore that can be easilybroken up by hand,
çommonly into centimeter-scaleprisms defined by joint
planes and fissile bedding. Friable ore is more porous than
medium-hardnessore. 50ft is the term used where the ore
can be dug in sim by hand or with a shovel,is composedof
0.05-to 1.0-mmparticles,and is very porousand typically not
dusty. Powdery or dusty ore contains appreciable particles
lessthan O.OI-mmdiameter.Blue dust is a term usedin Aus-
tralia and India to describe distinctly blue-gray fine-grained
(0.005-0.2 fim) powdery ore composedof leached martite
and or microplaty hematite. The hardnessand related char-
acteristicsof ore are obviouslyimportant factors in its grind-
ing and beneficiation, aswell as the amount of lump ore ob-
tained asit attractsa premium price over the fines. Lump ore
is defined ashavinga particle sizeof 31.5 to 6.3 fim, whereas
particleslessthan 6.3 mm are known as sinter fines.
Unenrichediron formation ores
Unenriched primary iron formation is a major source of
iron ore in many parts of the world, especiallyChina and
North America, and includes both magnetite- and hematite-
rich iron formation. In North America, the term taconite is
used to describe magnetite- and hematite-rich BIF and/or
GIF ore with >30 wt percent Fe (James,1954;Neal, 2000).
In Australia and Brazil, little unenriched iron formation ore
hasbeen mined to date due to the presenceof significantre-
sour~es of direct-ship or easy to beneficiate high-grade
hematite and martite-goethiteore.
Where observed,the geologyand mineralogy of the iron
formation ores are similar to the surrounding uneconomic
iron formation, exceptthat the ore zone containsmore abun-
dant and coarsergrainedmagnetite(Fig. 5A) or hematite,less
gangueinclusionsin magnetite,or a higher percentageof iron
oxide meso-and/or microbandscomparedto silicate- or car-
bonate-rich mesobands(Fig. 5B). Iron formation ores are
commonly located in greenschist-to álllphibolite-faciester-
faDe, with the higher metamorphic grade associatedwith
coarser magnetite grain size and more discrete grains of
gangue (Neal, 2000). Sub- to lower greenscrust-faciesiron
formations such as those in Australia and Brazil are com-
monly uneconomic, since the magnetite is either very fine
(Fig. 5C, D) or containsvery fine inclusionsof ganguewhich
require expensivefine grinding to liberate prior to beneficia-
tion. Many iron formation ores contain a weathered cap of
hard hematite, hematite-goethite,or friable hematite-quartz
(Fig. 6), which in some casesmar be economic to process
(e.g., Tallering Peak mine, Westem Australia, and the now
depleted high-gradesupergene-upgradedore abovetaconite
ore in the Great Lakesregiun).
In the United States,significant resourcesof Lake Supe-
rior-type BIF and/or GIF taconite have been mined from
Michigan (Empire and Tilden) and Minnesota (Hibbing and
North Shore),with the Fe gradeof oresaslowas 30 to 35 wt
percent (Graber and Sundberg,2002).Although magnetiteis
commonlythe main ore mineral in the iron formation,other
ore minerais include hematite-siderite (Tilden mine) and
minar goethitenear the surface.Key ganguemineraisinclude
quartz, iron carbonates(siderite, ankerite), and iron silicates
(minnesotaite,greenalite,stilpnomelane,cummingtonite).
ThElAnshandistrict, locatedin the ArcheanAnshan-Liaon-
ing grànite-greenstonebelt in the southempart of the Liaon-
ing province in northeastChina, ~asa history of iron forma-
tion mining dating backto the middle TangDynastyof the 7th
century.The Gongchanglingdepositis typical of a numberof
>500 Mt BIF ore deposits(25-35 wt % Fe) in the Anshandis-
trict, with significant production of 35 Mt of magnetitecon-
centratesin 2004(Bofei, 2005).The Gongchanglingdepositis
locatedwithin a steeplydipping greenschist-to amphibolite-
facies metavolcano-sedimentarysequence. The main ore
mineral is magnetite,althoughit hasbeen oxidizedto martite
near surface.The ganguemineralogyis quite complexandin-
cludes quartz, stilpnomelane,chlorite, muscovite,eastonite,
alumino-greenalite, almandine, grunerite, cummingtonite,
calcite, albite, epidote, or homblende as independent or
compositebands.Cummingtonite, grunerite, riebeckite,and
arfvedsoniteare indicatorsof high-gradeore, whereasdiffer-
ent varietiesof homblende are indicatorsof low-gradeore.
The Mount Gibson (ExtensionRill) deposit (200 Mt) is a
typical iron formation ore locatedin the M urchisonprovince
of the ArcheanYilgarn craton of Westem Australia (Westem
Australia Department of Industry and Resources,unpub.
data; Lascelles,2002). The deposit is located within steeply
dipping and tightly folded magnetiteBIF of the Windanning
Formation, whi~h has been metamorphosedto lower green-
schistfacies,and hasa hematite-goethiteoxidizedcap (Fig. 7;
Lascelles,2002).Magnetiteis presentas0.05-to 0.2-mm-size
grains in typically 10-mm-thick «1 mm->20 cm range)
oxide-rich (>80%) mesobandsor asa matrix surroundingsili-
cate gangue,aswell asin disseminatedfine (0.001-0.01fim)
grains within chert-rich mesobands(Lascelles,2002). Sepa-
rating the magnetite-rich mesobandsare bands ranging in
compositionEramhydrousiron silicatesto carbonateor chert.
Although magnetite is the main ore mineral, like in many
other BIF ores,iron is alsopresentin iron silicates(grunerite,
minnesotaite, chlorite, and stilpnomelane) and carbonates
(siderite, ankerite, and ferroan dolomite), which are usually
either not recoverableor are undesirablein downstreamiron-
makingprocesses.The ore hasbeen subdividedinto four ore
types based on the percênt of chert and other ganguebe-
tween the magnetite-richlayers,with ore types 1 and 2 con-
taining massivemagnetite,whereasore types3 and 4 contain
more disseminated,fine-grained magnetite and a greater
abundanceof chert and other gangue (Povey and Leather,
1997).
Martite-goethitesupergeneores
The martite-goethite ores are generally accepted as the
products of recent supergeneleaching and replacementof
BIF (Morris, 1980, 1985). Martite-goethite ores are charac-
terized by a predominance(>50%) of goethite over martite
and well-preservedbedding Eramthe primary iron formation.
About 90 percent of the premining iron formation-hosted
 IRON FORMATIONS AND ASSOCIATED IRON ORE DEPOSITS

FIG. 5. Photomicrographs of typical ore textures and microstructures for BIF, martite-goethite, and microplaty hematite
ore. Plane-polarized reflected light images. E = epoxy resin, G = goethite, Gc= goethite replacing carbonate, H = hematite,
M = martite, mpl H = microplãf)' hematite, Mt = magnetite, OG = ochreous goethite, P = micropores-are black, Si =
silicates-mainly quartz, and Si/C = silicates and carbonates. A. Coarse magnetite with inclusions of quartz, unenriched
Nammuldi Member BIF, Marra Mamba Iron Formation, Chichester Ranges, Westem Australia; same location for (B)-(D).
B. BIF composed of altemating microbands of magnetite and chert-disseminated dolomite. C. BlF comprising disseminated
magnetite in chert with disseminated dolomite. D. Fine-grained disseminated magnetite in chert BIF-particles mounted
in epoxy resin. E. Martite-goethite ore, Marandoo deposit, Mount Newman Member, Marra Mamba Iron Formation. F.
Martite-ochreous goethite ore, West Angelas A deposit, Mount Newman Member. Note the microbanding is similar to that
in typical Marra Mamba BIF in (B). G. High phosphorous martite-goethite ore, Mount Tom Price section 6, Brockman Iron
Formation. H. Silicates psudomorphouse after ochreous goethite, Marandoo deposit, Mount Newman Member. I.
Interocldng network of hematite microplates, Mount Tom Price, Dales Gorge Member, Brockman Iron Formation. J.
Microplaty hematite-goethite ore, Iron Duke deposit, South Australia. K. Martite-microplaty hematite ore, N4E deposit,
Carajás, Brazil. L. Itabirite-derived foliated hematite ore, Águas Claras deposit, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil.

resourcefor the Hamersleyprovince is of Phanerozoicsuper-
genemartite-goethiteore (Morris, 2002b). Someof the best
examplesof martite-goethiteores (Table2) are hostedin the
2.60Ga Marra MambaIron Formation (Fig. 8) in the Pilhara
cratonofWestem Australia (Trendallet al., 1998)and include
the Marandoo, Area C, and West Angelas deposits (Harms-
wOrtll et al., 1990). Signifieant martite-goethite mineralization
is algOwell developed in the stratigraphically higher Brockman
Iron Formation (Fig. 8; e.g., Ophthalmia Range, Rhodes
Ridge, Paraburdoo Eastem Ranges, Section 6 and 7 deposits).
658 CLOUT AND SIMONSO1l

FIGo 60 Stylized cross section through the magnetite ore deposit of a typ-
ical Australian iron formation, showing depth of weathering and hematite cap
to the deposito In more intensely weathered areas, low-grade goethite mar
dominate over hematite in the deposit capo Vertical scale = horizontal scale
and depth of weathering is 5 to 50 mo

ExtensionRill South
ExtensionHill
N ~?é"

In Marra Mamba and high phosphorousBrockman mar-

tite-goethite ores,martite hasreplacedmagnetitemicrobands
(Fig. 5A-B) and magnetitedisseminatedin silicateand/orcar-
bonate microbands(Fig. 5C), preservingthe original outline
A
~::,..
of banding in the BIF (Fig. 5E-F). Preservationof banding
'" /
-"""" ~ "
"""
also occurred due to iron enrichment where silicate and/or
-
500m carbonate microbandsare replacedby either brown goethite
(Fig. 5A, G) or yellow ochreousgoethite (Fig. 5B). Oelicate
RO" ~old axis Id-~ Quartz mica schist
brushlike silicate textures (Fig. 5F) and carbonate rhombs
with plunge BIF (Fig. 5F) Eramsilic~te-carbonateBIF are pseudomorphous
- Shear zone ,',', Dolerite after ochreousgoethite.
The West AngelasA deposit (reservesin excessof 418 Mt
at 62 wt % Fe; Rio Tinto, 2004) is hostedwithin the Mount
Newman Member at the top afilie Marra Mamba Iron For-
mation,immediatelybeneaththe Wittenoom Formation (Fig.
~~~ 8; Harmsworth et al., 1990;Bergstrandet al., 2003).The de-
A
~'~ ~~~ CP~ , : B posit is located in a synclinalstructure on the southem flank
~ 'v,~" "'; ',\ ; '."
"+,J'
of the east-west-trendingand west-plungingWon Munna an-
'-',
.,
" ~~.
-" .- ticline. Bergstrandet alo(2003)provided descriptivedetailsof
~

,o,.
-\
~""""'_.
-"""",.
~~~~:
the West AngelasA depositfrom which the follow accountis
,;,;,
/ ..,.::,
~ss: given. The main ore mineraisin this deposit and many other
;,;':, """,
,',',', .~~ Marra Mamba ores are martite, hard brown goethite, and
,',',~ ."'~
""""
powdery yellow ochreousgoethite that has historically been
'-"""
~:','~ """',

: ,; ,; ,; ':.. referred to as limonite. In the flat-lying section of the West

~~::

\,
~"'"
,,"'"
,',',',','
,, ,, ,, ,, ," . ,"'"
AngelasA deposit (Fig. 9), the top of the mineralization is
,"'"
~~
"'" ,."
"'" ,

\
"", " ~"
"", overprinted by areasof vitreous goethite hardcap.Hardcapis
,"'", , , , , ",
"""
"""
,,,,,," , a common term used in iron ore geologyto describerecent
',',',',',',',',
,"""" ,,' ' I! ; ;
intense weatheringof iron ore, up to 60 m below surface,con-
, , , , , , , " ,
",; ,;,;,;,;':.. . \ ;' I 100m sisting of highly porous or coarsecellular-texturedvitreous
, ' , , , , ,, "",' 1"
, . , ',:, ,;",':'.t,; ""',\ ,J . ';.,
." , , ..,
(,
. goethite with high concentrationsof Si and AI either substi-
~"',.
~ Scree . '.',~~. tuted into the crystallattice or occurring asinclusionsof claro
r-l BIF I:::::~ .', Geologicalboundary(inferred) Hardcap contains minar visible colloforJD-bandedquartzo
..
-- Beddingtrace
-
~
~
Hematite
chert-free BIF
Q
ullrtz
"
and

mlCII
h"
SC 1St---
-
Baseof weathering
Drill bule
The hardcap at West Angelas is immediately underlain by
hard martite-goethitehematite ore where extensivedehydra-
tion of goethite infill has resulteu in hematite furtltutiun (A,
~ Felsic volcanics
~ -
Shearzone Fig. 9). The lumpy hard martite-goethite-(hematite)ore (>50
FIG. 7. Geologicblock model and crosssectionof Mount Gibson (Exten- wt % hematite) passesstratigraphicallydown into underlying
O;f\nHi]1),l"nno;t W""t"m A""tra1ia Arlant."dfrom Lascelles(2002). medium to friable goethite-martiteore «50 wt % hematite;
 IRON FORMATIONSAND ASSOCIATED IRON ORE DEPOSITS
D Alluvium, colluvium
D WestAngelaMember
Mount NewmanMember
MacLeodMember
FIG. 9. Geologic cross section looking west through the West Angelas A deposit, Westem Australia. Letters A-O denote
stratigraphic zones separated by thin shale units within the Mount Newman Member of the Marra Mamba Iron Fonnation.
Adapted frum Bergstrand et alo (2003).
B, Fig. 9) and then into leached,friable to powdery,bedded
ochreousgoethite-martiteore «30 wt % hematite;C, Fig. 9),
reflecting original variations in stratigraphic composition.
Ochreousgoethite-martiteore when friable containsdenser
browngoethite,either ascementbetweenmartite grainsor as
discretepods, whereaspowdery exampleshave altemating
mesobands of leachedyellow ochreousgoethite with highly
leachedmartite "blue dust."
The steeply dipping sectionsof the ore tend to contain
morefriable to powdery ochreousgoethite-martite ore, due
to secondaryleachingby groundwaters,comparedto the less
leachedand dehydratedflat hard ore, whereasthe moder-
atelydipping ore is intermediatein hãtdnessand mineralogy
betweenthe flat and steepore (Bergstrandet al., 2003).
Preservationof primary BIF layeringis common,with mar-
tite pseudomorphousafter magnetite micro- to mesobands,
and silicateand/or carbonatemicro- to mesobandsreplaced
by goethite (Fig. 10). In the hard martite-goethite ore,
coarse-grained (1-4 fim) martite is intergrown with goethite
and few pores remain (Fig. 10A, I). Moderate leaching of
martite-goethiteflat hard ore has resulted in either porous
martite(M in Fig. 10B) or martite-ochreousgoethite ore (M-
OG in Fig. 10C). Friable ochreousgoethite-martite ore in
zoneC consistsof altemating bandsof ochreousgoethite re-
placingex-silicateand/or carbonatemicrobandsand marnte
grainsreplacingoriginal magnetite microbands (Fig. 10D).
The gangue occurs as thin «2 m) kaolinite-rich shale
mesobands,whereas quartz is largely secondary and re-
strictedto the weatheredsurfacehardcap.
I Mineralized West Angela Member
l Bedded martite-goethite
L Bedded friable goethite
re-el
L.!-.-J Hardcap
CircutationS)fgroundwater in the upper portion of the de-
posit mar havebeen influencedby the presenceof aquicludes
such as shalelike bands (Bergstrand et al., 2003). Iron-rich
ground water is interpreted to haveponded abovenear-hori-
zontal aquicludes,encouragingabundant secondarygoethite
to deposit in localizedzones,and subsequentlyto partir de-
hydrate to hematite, thus causingthe density of the host ore
to increase(Clout, 2002; Bergstrandet al., 2003).
Many high-grade hematite deposits in the Quadrilátero
Ferrífero and Carajásdistricts of Brazil alsocontain a recent
thin «30 m) goethite':martitehardcapand goethitic "canga"
(Fig. 11), a term to describe loose detrital material and ce-
mented martite-hematiteconglomerateat the surface.How-
ever, the hardcap and canga mar derive Eramgoethite re-
placementof ganguein.,BIF or supergeneore during recent
weathering(Spier et al., 2003).
High-gradehematiteores
The high-grade (>60 wt % Fe) hematite ores, which in-
clude martite-hematite and microplaty hematite-martite re-
placementores,havequite variablecharacteristics(Table3).
Hematiteores:The hematite oresare composedof residual
martite and/or hematite thought to be derived Eramiron for-
mation by leachingof gangue,leading to residualconcentra-
tion of the iron mineraIs. For the most part, hematite ores
eontain very little « 15%) goethite, except in the surfaee
hardeap,and mar include some hematite of interpreted hy-
pogene origin (e.g., Quadrilátero Ferrífero hard high-grade
ores).
660 CLOUT AND SIMONSON

FIG. 10. TypicaI hand specimen examples of martite-goethite from West Angelas A deposit (A-Q and I) and various high-
grade microplaty hematite ores (E-H). Samples are (A) hard martite-goethite ore with macropores; (B) hard martite-goethite
ore with low porosity (center) and outer leached (darker) friable martite ore; (C) contact between hard martite-goethite ore
(dark, left) and leached friable ochreous goethite-martite ore; (D) laminations of martite (dark, after magnetite) with ochre-
ous goethite (yellow, after silicate). (E) to (G) are from Mount Tom Price, DaIes Gorge Member, Brockman Iron Formation;
(E) thin laminations of microplaty hematite (after chert) in massive bands of dense and very hard interlocking-textured
hematite (after magnetite); (F) hard martite-hematite ore with macropores (red-orange); (G) aItemating bands of microplaty
hematite-goethite (darker) with martite-microplaty hematite (light gray); and (H) porous microplaty hematite (slightly
darker) aItemating with well-jointed hard martite-microplaty hematite (lighter) bands, Channar mine, ]offre Member; (I)
martite-rich bands after BIF magnetite-rich bands, whereas goethite-rich bands are after BIF silicate and/or carbonate
bands. G = goethite, M = martite, mplH = microplaty hematite, OG = ochreousgoethite, P = macropore.

The high-grade Slshenhematite uepusit (1690 Ml al 64.8 lleukes et al., 2002). High-grado hematite ore is only devel-
wt % Fe; Carney and Mienie, 2002) in South Mrica occurs oped in the AsbestosHills Subgroupwhere the unconformity
immediatelybeneatha major regionalerosionalunconformity transectsBIF and the ore is interpreted to be of pre-Tertiary
and gradesdownwardinto unmineralizedBIF (Beukes,1986; residual supergene origino The Sishen-type high-grade
 IRON FORMATIONSAND ASSOCIATEDIRON ORE DEPOSITS

hematite depositsare best developedwhere the host BIF has

slumped intp karstic structures in the underlying Campbell-
rand Dolomite (Fig. 12). A siliceous chert breccia (Wol-
haarkop Breccia) marks the dissolutionsurfacebetween the
dolomite and overlying ore-bearingBIF. Bedding in the iron
formation precursor is commonly highly contorted and/or
brecciated due to slumping. Iron ores in the karstic slump
struçtures are typically overlain by reworked conglomeratic
iron'ores and highly aluminousdiaspore-richshalesand asso-
ciated pisolitic lateritic profIles (Gutzmer and Beukes,1998).
Thin (1-2 m), high-gradehematite ore beds are locally pre-
served below the unconformity away from the karst slump
structures.
Beukes et alo (2002) and Camey and Mienie (2002) de-

.
scribed two major supergene ore types and their relative
abundances:hard microcrystalline massive(58% of the total
resource) and laminated (18%) martite ores thought to be
derived from supergeneresidual enrichment of BIF below
the Gamagaraunconformity; and conglomeratic (detrital)
ores (16%) derived from erosion of underlying laminated
~[tabírite Goethiteore martite ore and concentratedin the lower part of the overly-
~ Dolomític ing GamagaraFormation. Cameyand Mienie (2002)alsode-
Itabirite D Soft high grade ore scribedbrecciaores(8%) comprisingvery angularand poorly
sorted fragmentsof laminated and massiveoresthat fill sink-
~Shale Hard high grade ore boles in the Campbellrand Dolomite. The microcrystalline
laminated martite ore preservesoriginal textures and band-
:::::::::::[::::: Quartz ltabirite ing of the precursor BIF and are interpreted as supergene
FIG. 11. Schematic geologic cross section through the Águas Claras de- residual concentration of martite. This is supported by oxy-
Pl!sit, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil. Adapted frum Beukes et alo (2002). gen isotope data for hematite that vary between -3 and +3

TABLE 3. Summary of Characteristics of Key. High-Grade

" Hematite Depositsl
.

Reserves Gt Interpreted timing

District (1,000 Mt) Host rock Main ore type Accessory ore types of mineralization

Sishen, South Africa 0.17 Asbestos Hills Subgroup Hard massive hematite, Specular hematite Postmetarnorphism
laminated hematite
(60-66% Fe)

Quadrilátero 3.3 Caué Itabirite Friable hematite Specular hematite, magnetite, Premetamotphism
Ferrífero, Brazil (35--41% Fe) (64-68% Fe) dolomite-itabirite (32% Fe)

Carajás, Brazil 18.0 Carajás Fonnation Friable hematite Brecciated hematite-dolomite, Synmagmatic
(35--38% Fe) (66-68% Fe) laminated hematite-dolomite
(45% Fe)

Hamersley, Australia 3.5 Brockman Iron Hard-friable hematite M agnetite-siderite-apati te, Postmetamolphism
Fonnation (34% Fe) (64-68% Fe) hematite-ankerite-apatite
(44--Q8%"Fe)

Krivoy Rog, Ukraine 4.7 Saksagan Suite Hematite M agneti te/magneti te-specular Postmetamorphism
(36% Fe) (64% Fe) hematite, magnetite-carbonate,
magnetite-amphibole
(5<h57% Fe)

Bailadila,lndia 1.5 Bailadila Group Hard hematite

Synrnagrnatic
(35% Fe) (64-68% Fe)

Thabazimbi, 0.3 Penge Iron Formation Hard hematite Brecciated hematite-calcite Premetamorphism
South Africa (36% Fe) (65% Fe) (45% Fe), laminated
hf'matitf'~dolomitp (42% Fo).
hematite-talc

AlI percent values on wt basis

I Modified from Dalstra and Guedes (2004), Carney and Mienie (2002), and Hagemann et ai. (in press)
662 CLOUT AND SIMONSON

T
s
:3
NI
o
'?

-200-500m
=
~
~ Red andcreamshale .
=
'-g
o
~
~
~
u .,. Ore
Laminated
nconJ.orrnrty .
e
~ §

.,"" S
... =
~ -~
-
I

,..."
Transgressivequartzite
:::::::::
",.,"
r?
~
Cherty iron formation bO
=
~ ~
...
D Al-rich shale L~ Wolhaarkop Breccia ~ &
s ~ Dissolutionsurface
~ Conglomeraticore - ~ c3 CampbellrandDolomite
FIG, 12.Adapted
structures, Sche~atic geologic
from Beukescross
et al,section
(2002),through the Sishendeposit, South Mrica,
- showingkarstic solution collapse

per mil (relative to SMOW), suggestingprecipitation Eram
surfacewatersat low temperature(Beukeset al., 2002).How-
ever, localized coarse specular hematite infIlI of secondary
pores and veinlets crosscutsboth laminated and conglomer-
atic ores and suggestssome secondarypost-Gamagarairon
remobilization.
The QuadriláteroFerrífero hostssignificant(-17,500 Mt at
>64 wt % Fe) soft, high-grade hematite and/or martite de-
posits,with resourcesof -10,000 Mt averaging66 to 68 wt
percent Fe. Theyare thought to haveformed in part by resid-
ual concentrationdue to supergeneleachingof carbonateand
quartz Eramhard itabirite (meta-BIF) protore with about 40
wt percent Fe (Guild, 1953, 1957; Dorr, 1965; Rosiere and
Chemale, 1991; Pires, 2002; Beukeset al., 2002; Guedeset
al., 2002; Ribeiro et al., 2002; Spier et al., 2003; Rosiereand
Rios,2004).However,only 15 percent of the total resourceis
of hard high-grade ore, thought to be of hypogeneorigin,
which form smaller pods and lenses within the dominant
(85% of total resource) soft, high-grade supergeneresidual
ores (Fig. 11; Spier et aI., 2003). The high hematite-content
ores are hosted in the Caué Itabirite Formation of the Pro-
terozoic sedimentary Minas Supergroup, which uncon-
formably overlies Archean greenstones. Itabirite in the
Quadrilátero Ferrífero has been deeplyweatheredto depths
of UP to 500 m beneath the surface.The district consistsof
two structural domains:an eastemhigh-strain domain domi-
nated by thrusts and mylonitic shearzones,with tight to iso-
clinal folds, and a westem low-strain domain with well-pre-
seIVedmegasynclines,discontinuousshearzones,and thrusts
(Rosiereand Chemale,1991;Chemaleet al., 1994;Rosiereet
al., 2001, 2002). Both the iron formations and hard, high-
grade ores have been regionally metamorphosedand are
quite structurally complex (Rosiere and Chemale, 1991;
Rosiereet,al., 2001,2003,2004; Hagemannet al., in press).
At the AguasClaras mine (-288 Mt), in the Quadrilátero
Ferrífero district, high-gr~de(>64 wt % Fe) ore sits between
hard itabirite and black phyllite (shale)and is interpreted to
grade at depth into dolomitic itabirite and laterally into soft,
hematite-rich itabirite in an overtumed sequence(Fig. 11;
Pires, 2002; Spier et alo 2003). The dolomitic itabirite is
strongly banded with characteristic centimeter-scalemeso-
banding of carbonateand/or oxide layers and dominatesin
the mine area over siliceousitabirite found in the north wall
of the mine (Spier et al., 2003). How~ver,the origin of the
dolomitic itabirite is controversial;proposed altemativesin-
clude a sedimentaryfaciesvariation of the Minas sediments
(Dorr, 1965),diagenetic replacementaf chert hy carhonate
(Spier et al., 2003),and hypogenehydrothermalreplacement
of chert by carbonates (Dalstra and Guedes, 2004). The
Águas Claras ore consists of pods of hard, high-grade
 IRON FORMATIONS AND ASSOCIATED IRON ORE DEPOSITS
hematite ore, of interpreted hypogene origin, within domi-
nant soft, high-grade supergene ore, with a thin goethitic ore
hardcap (Fig. 11; Spier et al., 2003). The soft, high-grade ore
mainly consistsof residual martite, granular hematite, and 10-
cally foliated tabular hematite crystals (specularite; Fig. 5L)
with rare gangueconsisting of dolomite, chlorite, talc, and ap-
atite (Spier et al., 2003).
At least falir principal textural types ofhigh-grade hematite
ore are recognized in the Quadrilátero Ferrífero, including
I the following: (1) thin-bedded, laminated, and banded; (2) fo-
liated, micaceous, and schistose, Eram high-strain domains;
(3) minar brecciated; and, (4) massive and/or compact
(Rosiereet alo2001; Pires, 2002; Rosiere and Rios, 2004). Al-
though the ores are best known for a foliated hematite spec-
ularite texture (Fig. 5L), the most common terture is martite
after magnetite. Magnetite porphyroclasts occur in schistose
(mylonitic) ore types in high-strain domains (Rosiere et al.,
2001, 2002; Rosiere and Rios, 2004). The friable hematite-
rich low-grade (40-58 wt % Fe) itabirite ore is composed of
liberated hematite and quartz gangue and so is widely used as
low-gradeconcentrator feed to produce a high-grade (>65 wt
% Fe) concentrate (Spier et al., 2003).
In the Pico mine, south of Aguas Claras, high-grade ore and
iron-rich itabirite are hosted within siliceous itabirite (Spier et
al., 2003). The soft, high-grade ores are welllaminated and
highly porous (30-45 vol %) and consist of microbands
formed by aggregatesof martite and hematite that altemate
with highly porous martite-hematite microbands (Spier et al.,
2003). Ribeiro et alo (2002) reported evidence of a collapsing
processwith subsidence of the soft, friable hematite ore fol-
lowing dissolution and volume loss, including kink-bands and
chevron structures.
Roserie and Rios (2004) present detailed fluid inclusion
(infrared microthermometry), petrographic, and textural re-
sultson different generations of hematite Eram the Conceição
iron ore deposit in the northeastem part of the Quadrilátero
Ferrífero. The authors define three generations of hematite
and specularite related to different deformational phases.
Hematite I is composed of porous martite and new hematite
cl)'Stalsinterpreted to have formed Eram oJddation of mag-
netite by low-temperature, low- to medium-salinity fluids of
possiblemodified surface water origin, following the collapse
phaseafilie Transamazonianorogeny (2.1-2.0 Ga). However,
no measurements could be made on fluid inclusions in
hematite I. Hematite 11 defines a granoblastic fabric in iron
formations and high-grade ores representing a second
episode of mineralization and subsequent recrystalization
during regional metamorphism. Hematite 11 crystals grew
Eram low-temperature and low- to medium-salinity hy-
drothermal fluids (based on large two-phase fluid inclusions
with Th 115°-145°C and salinities equivalent to 4-10 wt %
NaCl). Tabular hematite III is syndeformational and formed
above 120°C (based on two-phase fluid inclusions with Th
120°-140°C) during the Brasiliano-Pan-African orogeny
(0.8-0.6 Ga). Finally, specularite that is composed of platy
hematlte crystals contains two- and three-phase fluid inclu-
sions with Th of 140° to 205°C and dissolution of daughter
crystalsat -350°C; this formed Ín ductile shear zone-related
schistosehigh-grade orebodies. Hematite III and specularite
are both associatedwith high salinity (> 20 wt % N aCl equiv)
fluids, although unequivocalevidencefor their origin is not
presented. ,
Microplaty hematite ore: The high-gradereplacementmi-
croplaty hematite ores are characterizedby ubiquitous mi-
croplates of hematite (Fig. 51) and variable hardnessand
porosity; and they occur with or without martite. The Mount
Tom Price deposit in the Pilhara craton of Westem Australia
is an ~xampleofhigh-grade microplatyhematite ore, with the
originWresourcebeing 900 Mt at 63.9 wt percent Fe of low
phosphorous(0.053 wt % P) ore (Harmsworth et al., 1990;
Taylor et al., 2001; Bitencourt et al., 2002; Dalstra et al.,
2002). The deposit is located in a synclinorium along the
northem limb of the regional Tumer synclineon its eastem
closure (Figs. 13, 14). The structure of the Mount Tom Price
areais characterizedby major thrusts and faults that parallel
fold axes;"with manyopen synclinesand anticlinesplus faults
persisting along strike for 20 to 40 km (Harmsworth et al.,
1990;Bitencourt et al., 2002).The Mount Tom Price miner-
alization is largely restricted to the Dales Gorge Member of
the Brockman Iron Formation and the underlying Colonial
Chert Member, although there is minar iron enrichment of
the overlying Mount WhalebackShaleMember and the Jof-
fre Member. Subverticaldolerite dikes crossthe depositsub-
parallel to the major axisof the orebody (Fig. 14) and show
locally intense chlorite-hematite-talc alteration. Magnesite-
dolomite veins and intense talc alteration in shale,ore, and
~IF characterize the hydrothermal alteration along the
Southem Batter fault and in the North deposit (Dalstra and
Guedes,2004;Thome et al., 2004).Thome et alo(2004)have
documenteda completehydrothermal alteration zone across
mineralization in the North deposit (Fig. 13), with a distal
zoneof magnetite-siderite-ironsilicatethat gradesinto an in-
termediate zone of hematite-ankerite-magnetite,and finally
into a proximal zone of martite-microplaty hematite-apatite
which representsthe main ore mineralization.Fluid inclusion
studieson ankerite in hematite-ankeriteveins from the distal
alterationzonerevealedmostlyhigh salinity H20-CaC12pseu-
dosecondary(23.9wt % CaCl2equiv) and secondary(24.4wt
% CaCl2equiv) inclusionswith mean homogenizationtem-
peratures of 2530 and 117°C, respectively (Thome et al.,
2004). The carbon isotope signatureof the carbonatesis in-
creasinglyheavy from distal magnetite-siderite-ironsilicate
alteration (Õ13C -8.8 %0.70/00) to the intermediate microplaty
hematite-ankerite-magnetitealteration (Õ13C-4.9 % 0.70/00;
Thome et al., 2004).
The microplaty hematit;.eore at Mount Tom Price varies
from hard to medium massivehematite and/or martite-mi-
croplaty hematite, to friable ores,and to powdery and highly
leachedblue dust ore (Box et al., 2002; Clout, 2002). Alter-
nating hard, medium, and friable hematite and/or martite
micro- and mesobandspersist laterally over a few meters
(Fig. 10E, G, H). Porous microplaty hematite mesobands
(Fig. 10E) commonly altemate with hard and dense,inter-
locking mosaic-texturedhematite (Fig. 10E) or residualmar-
tite (Fig. 10F, H). Although the microplatesof hematite in-
terlock in the harder ore types (Fig. 51), they just touch at
their tips in the friable porousore types.At shallow(0-40 m)
depths below the present land surface, the pores between
hematite microplates mar be filled with secondarygoethite
(Fig. 10G),wruch mar be partIr dehydratedbackto hematite;
664 CLOUT AND SIMONSON

FIG. 13.. Geologic plan of the Mount Tom Price deposito Westem Australia. After Taylor et ai. (2001).

FIG. 14. Geologic cross section of the Mount Tom Price deposit at 13962E, looking northwest. After Taylor et alo (2001).
 IRON FORMATIONS AND ASSOCIATEDIRON ORE DEPOSITS
similartexturesoccur in the Iron Duke iron ore deposit in
SouthAustra1ia(Fig. 5J; Clout, 2002).The blue dust ore con-
sistsoflargely0.2-to 0.03-mmcorrodedand leachedplatesof
hematiteand minar porous martite. At Mount Tom Price,
Taylor et alo (2001) and Dalstra et alo (2002) documented
magnetite-carbonate mineralization with high phosphorous
concentrations at greaterthan 200 m below surface(Fig. 14),
marginalto the microplaty hematite minera1izationthat they
interpretasprotore. Magnesite-dolomiteveining and intense
talc alterationin shale,ore, and BIF characterizethe strong
, Mg-Fe metasomaticalteration along the Southem Batter
fault (Dalstraand Guedes,2004).
The Mount Whalebackdepositis the largestiron ore accu-
mulationin Austra1ia,originally having in excessof 1,800Mt
of resourcesat 64 wt percent Fe. It lies in a faulted outlier of
the HamersleyGroup (Harmsworthet al., 1990;Brown et al.,
2004).The depositis structurally complexwith the orebody
definedby the westerlyplunging overtumed East and South
synclines.The northem limit of the ore is truncated by the
southeast-dipping Mount Whalebackfault that juxtaposesthe
BrockmanIron Formation to the south against the older
JeerinahFormationto the north. The Mount Whalebackfault
hasa normalsenseof movement,and severallow-anglenor-
malfaultsbranchoff of it and cut acrossthe orebody.As with
Mount Tom Price, the ore is largely developedin the Dales
GorgeMemberasmedium to hard microplaty hematite-mar-
tite. Ore is developedto a lesserextent in the Joffre Member
as softer fissile microplaty hematite ore with locally more
goethiteor as highly leachedblue dust microplaty hematite
ore. Minor iron enrichment algOoccursin the upper section
of the ColonialChert Member of the Mount McRae Shale.
A third exampleof high,.grademicroplaty hematite ore is
the depositsof the Carajás district, Brazil, which contain
-17,500 Mt with >64 wt percent Fe hosted by the Carajás
Formation(Gibbset al., 1986;Beukeset al., 2002;Guedeset
al.:"2002;Lobato et al., 2004; Rios et al., 2004; Rosiereet al.,
.
~
~
~
Surfacelatente and canga
Freshlava
Freshiron forrnation
Freshcarbonate-hematite
rock
665
2004; Silva et al., 2004). The CarajásFormation comprises
discontinuoussedimentarylayersand lensesof partial to com-
pletely doloIí1itizedBIF and lensesof high-grade hematite
ore, cut by mafic sills and dikes. In the N4E mine area,
dolomite has locally replaced BIF chert along the banding
and also occurs as irregular veins and hydraulic breccias
(Guedes et al., 2002; C.A. Rosiere, pers. commun., 2005).
Near the contactwith hard ore, the underlyingvolcanicrocks
are *ically altered and partialIy mineralizedwith dilational
brecciasand vugsfilled with carbonate,quartz, kaolinite, and
microplaty hematite, quartz-hematite veins, and fibrous
aggregatesof chlorite (Guedeset al., 2002). High-grade ore
occursas tabular bodies of friable to soft hematite that con-
tain smalIer lenses of hard hematite (Fig. 15). The friable
hematite ore occursboth aspowderyhematite,almostdevoid
of intem~ structure, and as millimeter-thick bands of fine-
grainedbematite.In the N4E mine, Guedeset alo(2002)have
documented idioblastic martite surrounded by very fine-
grained (-10 fim) microplaty hematite (Fig. 5K). The hard
hematite orebodies with >66 wt percent Fe contain mi-
croplaty hematite and occur mainly near the contactwith the
underlying metavolcanicrocks,where theyare surroundedby
an aureoleof hydrothermal carbonatealteration. nelict BIF
bedding is generally preserved in the hard ore with dense
hematite altemating with porous hematite.
A number of studieshavedocumentedan earlier carbonate
protore for high-gradehematite ore. For example,Beukeset
ai. (2002) recognizedan early phaseof metasomaticcarbon-
ate-bearingores at the Thabazimbi high-gradehematite de-
posit of SouthAfrica, hostedby the PengeIron Formation of
the TransvaalSupergroup.Fluid inclusion studieson carbon-
atesand quartz EramThabazirilbi indicate mixing of two dis-
tinct hydrothermalfluids; one is a high-salinityfluid responsi-
ble for deposition of early dolomite at 150° to 160°C, the
other is a low-salinity fluid that led to precipitation of quartz
at 120° to 140°C (Netshiozwi, 2002). Beukes et alo (2002)
666 CLOUT AND SIMONSON

used fluid inclusion studies and oxygen isotope data on Supergene

hematite and calcite to suggestthat the primary hematite ore ,
formed at 160°CErama hydrothermalfluid of -2 per mil (rel- Supergene mbdels interpret the ores to be residual concen-
ative to SMOW). Although they speculatethis fluid was sur- trates formed Eram leaching of gangue in the iron formation by
facewater that had not exchangedwith silicate rocks,hydro- deep circulating ground water below either current or past
gen isotope data are required to unambiguouslydefine fluid erosion surtaces but do not imply that it is a lateritization
provenance. process (Morris, 1993). Morris (1980, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1993)
presented the concept that the martite-goethite orebodies
Ore Genesis grew tdward the surtace via supergene metasomatic replace-
Genetic models for iron ores related to iron formations con- ment of BIF gangue minerals by hydrous iron oxides, driven
tinue to attract controversy, especially for the high-grade by a massive hydrodynamic electrochemical cell. Magnetite is
hematite iron ore deposits, even though many core concepts of oxidized to hematite (martite), preserving the original mag-
current models were established as far back as the late 1800sto netite crystal outllnes. For enrichment to occur, the model re-
early 1900s (Dorr, 1965, 1969; Morris, 1985, 2002b). Recent quires a folded, fractured, or faulted BIF structure that forms
reviews of and contributions to iron ore genesis models include an open-ended artesian system, allowing ground-water access
those by Taylor et alo (2001), Beukes et alo (2002), Morris to BIF w~ll below the surtace (Fig. 16). In this model, the
(2002), Spier et alo(2003), Rosiere and Rios (2004), and Hage- magnetic layers in the BIF are thought to have acted as elec-
mann et alo(in press). The controversy is not surprising, given tron conductors, whereas ground water served as an ionic
the wide variety of ore types and structural settings (described transfer agent driven by cathodic reactions in the upper BIF
above), the complex textures of ore and gangue, the lack of data zone during wet seasons (4e- + 02 + 2H20 -+ 40H-). Iron
to constrain ore fluid compositions (e.g., limited fluid inclusion leached Eram the friable silicate facies BIF at the surtace was
work), and the large (-5-20 km2) size of the orebodies. mobilized as ferrous iron by biogenic reactions in the vadose
The key genetic models for high-grade hematite and mar- zone and transported deeper into the system. As water flowed
tite-goethite falI into one of three categories: (1) early syn- through the fold or fault structure, chert, silicates, carbonates,
genetic and diagenetic processes (King, 1989; Lascelles, and other gangue minerals were gradually replaced and/or
2002); (2) hypogene alteration and replacement involving leached Eram the BIF, locally resulting in substantial strati-
deep-seated hydrothermal and/or magmatic fluids (Dorr, graphic thinning. The ore-forming process generated signifi-
1965; Brandt, 1966; Kneeshaw, 1975; Gutzmer et al., 2002) or cant macro- and microporosity, thereby helping to create its
shallow meteoric waters and basinal brines (Hagemann et al., own fluid pathways. Pseudomorphic replacement of gangue at
1999; Powell et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 2001, Buekes at al.' dePth by goethite was achieved through anodic oxidation of
2002); and (3) supergene events ranging Eram pre-Tertiary ferric iron (Fe2+ -+ Fe3+ + e-) followed by ferrolysis (Fe3+ +
with (Morris 1985, 1993, 2002) or without (Van Schalkwyk 3H20 -+ Fe(OH)3 + 3H+). Silicais more rapidly released into
and Beukes, 1986) subsequent burial metamorphism in the solution at depthãS a result of seasonalcyclic iron redox reac-
Mesozoic or Cenozoic (Dorr, 1964; MacLeod, 1966; Morris, tions with quartzo However, Ohmoto (2003) has demonstrated
1985;,.Harmsworth et al., 1990). Despite significant differ- that the transformation of magnetite to hematite or vice versa
ences among models for the origin of the high-grade hematite can algObe achieved via a pH shift without a redox reaction.
ores, there is a general consensus that the martite-goethite Supergene processes are generally accepted by many re-
ores have formed as a result of recent supergene enrichment searchers (e.g., Morris 1980; Harmsworth et al., 1990; Taylor
of iron formation beneath Cretaceous to Tertiary weathering et al., 2001; Clout, 2002; Dalstra and Guedes, 2004; Thome et
profiles (Morris, 1980; Harmsworth et al., 1990; Beukes et al., al., 2004) to be responsible for the typical Pilhara Marra
2002), and that high-grade hematite ores have been further Mamba martite-goethite ore and high phosphorous Brockman
upgraded by recent supergene enrichment (Taylor et al., martite-goethite ore, as well as final upgrading of high-grade
2001; Ribeiro et al., 2002; Dalstra and Guedes, 2004). Present hematite ores. The Pilhara martite-goethite ores are inter-
debate is centered on the various composite hypogene-super- preted to have an origin related to supergene processes be-
gene models for different high-grade hematite deposits. neath the Mesozoic- Tertiary weathering surtace. They have
limited downdip extension below current outcrop, although a
Syngenetic few deposits (e.g., West Angelas) extend downdip >250 m
Syngenetic models assume a clastic origin for iron forma- (Harmsworth et al., 1990; Morris, 2002b). Harmsworth et alo
tion-hosted ore, with or without diagenetic concentration, (1990) and Morris (2002b) suggested that simple supergene
whereas composite syngenetic models include later modifica- leaching of silicates is locally responsible in high rainfall areas
tion by metamorphism, igneous activity, or supergene for leaving a residue of both (martite) blue-dust ore in India
processes (King, 1989; Lascelles, 2002). Syngenetic processes and friable quartz-hematite itabirite iron ores in the
are thought to provide the initial magnetite-rich iron forma- Quadrilátero Ferrífero. However, most workers consider that
tion and are discussed earlier under models for the deposition only the soft, high-grade hematite ore Eram the Quadrilátero
of large iron formations. However, it is generally accepted Ferrífero deposits formed by residual concentration due to re-
that the syngenetic model is unable to account for the specific cent supergene leaching of carbonate and quartz Eram hard
location of martite-goethite ore bencath rocent weathering itabirite protore (Guedes et al., 2002; Pires, 2002; Ribeiro et
surfaces, or the structurally controlled microplaty hematite al., 2002; Spier et al., 2003; Rosiere and Rios, 2004). Another
ores that are commonly developed in fold structures, around example are the Sishen-type deposits in South Africa, which
normal faults and/or back thrusts. or in brittle shear zones. occur immediately below a major erosional unconformity and
 IRON FORMATIONS AND ASSOCIATED IRON ORE DEPOSITS

C. Transferof Fe to anode

H4SiO4 Draina-ge
E. Transfer of Fe to anode F. Final supergene ore body now
subject to leaching by groundwater

FIG. 16. Block diagrarn to explain the fonnation of supergene iron ore developed from BIF. From Morris (1998).

gradedownwardinto unmineralizedBIF, interpreted as pre-

Harmsworthet alo(1990)to explainthe genesisofhigh-grade
Tertiarysupergeneores (Beukesat al., 2002). microplaty hematite iron oresworldwide. Morris (1980)sug-
gestetl tll!1t SUllleultl tIl!1rtite-goethitesupergeneores were
Supergene
oresand subsequentburlal mEtanwrphism
subjected to burlal metamorphism to diagenetic levels
Supergeneore subsequentlyoverprinted by burial meta- (-100°C) and that dehydrationconvertedsupergenemetaso-
morphism was used by Morris (1980, 1985, 2002) and matic goethite either partially or totally to microplaty
668 CLOUT AND SIMONSON

hematite (Fig. 16). Exposureof microplaty hematite orebod-
ies during the Mesozoicthen "resultedin the dissolution of
mostof the unconvertedgoethiteby ground water and partial
dissolutionof hematite to leave a compact to highly porous
high-gradehematite ore.
Supergene-rrwdified hypogeneores
There is currently widespreadsupport for a hypogene-hy-
drothermal origin for upgrading of iron formation to high-
grade hematite ore, especiallyfor microplaty hematite de-
positsfrom Australia and hard, high-gradehematite deposits
from Brazil (Barleyet al., 1999;Hagemannet al., 1999;Oliver
and Dickens, 1999; Powell et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 2001;
Beukeset al., 2002,Webb et al., 2002, Spier et al., 2003;Dal-
stra and Guedes,2004;Rosiereand Rios,2004;Thome et al.,
2004).These modelsalso include later modification of high-
gradehypogenehematiteore by recent supergeneupgrading.
Despite wide support for a hypogeneorigin, there are con-
siderabledifferencesbetween the various hypogenemodels
proposed; these include combinations of ascendingand/or
descendinghydrothermal fluids that include warm basinal
brines and/or heated meteoric water (Barley et al., 1999;
Hagemannet ~., 1999;Taylor et al., 2001).The modelsdiffer
in the relativetiming of hypogenealterationand deformation,
the importanceor universalityof a carbonateprotore, and the
type(s)of fluids responsible.Someof the key proponentmod-
eIs are presentedbelow.
The flTstdetailed model, presentedby Barley et alo(1999),
Hage~ann et alo(1999),and recently updated by Thome et
alo (2004), involves two-stagehydrothermal and supergene
processes;it is basedon fluid inclusion, hydrothermal alter-
ation, and stable isotope studiesaf the North deposit in the
Pilhara.The earlieststage(Ia), hypogenealteration involving
upward movement of hydrothermal brines (150O-250°C),
transformed 35 wt percent Fe BIF to a magnetite-siderite-
iron silicate BIF with desilicificationof the chert bands(Fig.
17). Stage.lb hypogenealteration resulted Eramascending
basinal brines with higher temperatures (possibly up to
400°C) that induced hematite-ankerite-magnetitealteration
and finally the formation of microplaty hematite.The 300° to
350°C trapping temperatures proposed by Thome et alo
(2004) for pseudosecondaryfluid inclusions in stage lb are

StageIa Early hypogenealteratio;

'-
:
NOrth~;~/~~/ePOSit ..-

r ..
SouthemBatterFault
- ~

Ascending basinal brines (150-250°C)

..
I
Magnetite-siderite~
iron silicatealteratlon

NW-trending dolerite
dike

North Deposit

~-- . Martite-microplaty hematite

I Descendingshallowmeteroicwaters
«100°C) I
-goethite aIteration

NW-trendingdolerite
]

dike

FIG.17. Schematic block diagram Eram Thome et alo (2004) to explain tbe stages ofh}pogene and supergene alteration
for high-grudt! ht!malite ore formation at the North and Southem Ridge deposits, MOllnt Tom Price. A. Sta~e Ia, early hy-
pogene magnetite-siderite-iron silicate formed by ascending 150° to 250°C basinal brines. B. Stage lb, early h}pogene
hematite-ankerite-magnetite alteration formed by ascending 300° to 400°C basinal brines. C. Stage lc, late martite-mi-
croplaty hematite-apatite alteration formed by ascending -120°C basinal brines. D. Stage 2, supergene martite-microplaty
hematite-goetbite alteration formed by descending meteoric waters «100°C).
 IRON FORMATIONSAND ASSOCIATEDIRON ORE DEPOSITS
toa high for basinalfluids aloneand are more likely to involve
a high-temperature magmatic component, although further
isotopicstudiesare requireâ to demonstratethis. Stagelc hy-
pogene alteration involved the interaction of low-tempera-
ture (-120°C) ascending basinal brines that formed a
hematite-ankerite-magnetiteassemblage; this resulted in dis-
solution of ankerite to leave a porous martite-microplaty
hematite-apatiteassemblage.Finally, stage2 involved super-
gene enrichment by descendingmeteoric waters «100°C)
during the Tertiary, resulting in removal of residual ankerite
and apatite, goethite alteration, and the weatheringof shale
bands (AI silicate BIF) to clays.Ion chromatographyinvesti-
gations on inclusion fluids revealed that quartz-hematite
veinscontain Na > Mg > Ca > K asmajor cationsandthat an-
ionic fatias suchasBr/CI, I/CI, and CVSO4showa cIose affin-
ity to CanadianShieldbrines but are incompatiblewith fatias
for typical igneous and metamorphic fluids or seawater
(Hagemannet al., 1999;Taylor et al., 2001). Data on hydro-
gen and oxygenisotopesof inclusion fluids and oxygeniso-
topes of vein quartz at Southem Ridge suggestthe involve-
ment of basinalbrines and only a minar amount of meteoric
water late in the hydrothermal history (Hagemann et al.,
1999). Hagemann et alo (in press) extended the work of
Thome et alo (2004) by proposing a discrete model for the
genesisof worldwide high-gradehematite depositsinvolving
three end membersbasedon the diversity of geologicaland
geochemicalfeatures,tectonic setting, distinct hydrothermal
fluid source(s),and processes.
Taylor et alo(2001)presenteda four-stagemodel for high-
gradehematite but with microplaty hematite formation Eram
meteoric water, as follows. Stage 1 involved initial upward
migration of reduced basinal brines that resulted in hydro-
thermal replacementof primary BIF silicateswith siderite to
producea magnetite-carbonate-apatite protore. This wasfol-
lo~ed by deepcirculation of oxygenatedlow-salinitymeteoric
water,stage2, that oxidizedthe sideriteto microplatyhematite
and magnetiteto martite, to forro microplaty hematite-mar-
tite-apatite-ankeritemineralization.However,since meteoric
water has a very low concentrationof dissolvedoxygen,this
would require significant volumes of fluido Stage3 involved
leaching of carbonateand remaining silicatesto microplaty
hematite-martite-apatite.Finally, apatite was leachedduring
stage4 by supergeneprocessesto forro high-grademicroplaty
hematiteore (Tayloret alo2001;Dalstra et alo2002).Taylor et
alo (2001) believe that the mineralizing processtook place
during a period of uplift and extensionthat postdated the
Ophthalmianorogenybut before the end of the Proterozoic,
since microplaty hematite ore at Channarwas contact meta-
morphosedby a dolerite dike dated at 752 :I: 10 Ma.
Li et alo (1993), Martin et alo (1998), and Powell et alo
(1999) proposed a hypogene synorogenic hydrothermal
model for Pilhara microplaty hematite ore, envisioningmin-
eralizing fluids as being derived Erammixing of oxygenated
meteoricwater with basinalfluid expelledEramdeeperlevels
of a foreland basin during the regional compressionphaseof
the Ophthalmianorogeny(2.20-2.45Ga). Oliver et alo(1998)
alsoinvoked synorogenicinteraction of deep-seatedorogenic
fluids with descending supergene waters in Proterozoic
times. Muller et alo(2005) suggesta maximumage for hypo-
gene iron ore mineralization in the Hamersley province of
669
between -2050 and 2000 Ma, constrainedby Pb/Pb dating of
baddeleyi~ which yielded 2008 :I: 16 Ma for a mafic dike
swarmthat'intrudes the Lower Wyloo Group, but older than
the Mount McGrath Formation which containsclastsof mi-
croplaty hematite mineralization.
Dalstra and Guedes (2004) proposed that alI high-grade
hematite depositsform a coherent genetic group, and they
presenteda model in which an early magnetite-carbonate-ap-
atif~ protore formed by hydrothermal depletion of silica in
the BIF and introduction of Ca-Fe-Mg carbonatesby heated
alkalinebrines, with subsequentsupergeneupgrading.From
mineral assemblagesfor hydrothermal carbonate protore,
Dalstra and Guedes(2004)suggestedthat the temperatureof
ore formation varied over a wide range Eram high
(>400°-500°C) for magnetite-cummingtonite-siderite(e.g.,
Kivroy.Rog in the Ukraine) to medium (300o-<400°C)for
chlorite-talc (e.g., Mount Tom Price) to low «300°C) for
hematite-dolomite(calcite;e.g.,Carajás).
Guedes et alo (2002) suggestedthat high-grade hematite
ores at the CarajásN4E mine were derived Eramsupergene
leaching and residual concentration of hematite during
weathering of hypogene hydrothermal carboI1:ate-hematite
rock derived Eramsiliceousitabirite. In contrast,Spier et alo
(2003) interpreted the carbonateas a primary constituentin
the sense that the carbonate-hematiterock originated as
dolomitic iron formation interbeddedwith siliceousitabirite.
This interpretation is supported by the gradationalcontact
between itabirite and the overlying Gandarela Formation,
which contains shallow-watercarbonatesediments.Spier et
alo(2003)alsopointed ou! that, althoughthere is evidencefor
dolomitic protore at the AguasClarasdeposit,there is no ev-
idence for a carbonate protore at the Pico deposit, only
siliceousitabirite. Spier et alo(2003) further suggestedthat
supergene leaching produced both the soft high-grade
hematite ores and iron-rich itabirite Eramprimary dolomitic
itabirite and siliceousitabirite, respectively,whereasthe hard
high-grade hematite ores «20% of reserves) are of hy-
drothermal origino
Rosiereand Rios (2004) presenteda detailed study (sum-
marized above) of fluid inclusions in hematite and petro-
graphic evidence to support synorogenicformation of hard
massiveand schistosehigh-grade hematite ores Eram the
QuadriláteroFerrífero. Rosiereand Rios (2004)defined falir
stagesof recurrent hypogenemineralizationcharacterizedby
three generationsof hematite and a final schistosespecularite
stage.The mineralizing fluids are thought to have evolved
over time Eramlow-teDiperature,low- to medium-salinityflu-
ids that mar representmeteoric water and were modified to
becomehigh-salinity (4-10 wt % NaCI equiv) hydrothermal
fluids. The deformed and metamorphosednature of the
Quadrilátero Ferrífero deposits is in contrast to postmeta-
morphic undeformed high-gradehematite ores Eramthe Pil-
bara (post-Ophthalmiaorogeny).
In summary, distinct differences between ore deposits
make it very difficult to formulate â single unifying modelo
For example,somedepositscontain carbonateprotore (e.g.,
Mount Tom Price, Carajás,Thabazimbi),whereasit is absent
in others (e.g.,Mount Whaleback,Pico). Likewise,hypogene
mineralizationis metamorphosedin somedepositsor districts
(e.g., Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Thabazimbi) but not others
670 CLOUT AND SIMONSON

(e.g., Pilhara and/or Hamersley ores, Carajás, and Krivoy Tom Price should not show a spatial relationship to high-
Rog). Moreover,a wide variety fÇJf fluid types,volumes,tem- grade hematite Jllineralization,and that the high-phosphorus
peratures,and sourceshaveb~en invokedto explaindifferent carbonate-microplatyhematite mineralizationshould contain
hypogenemineralizations,e.g.,basinalbrines versusmeteoric remnant goethite, which is not observed.Moreover,fluid in-
water (Hagemann, 1999; Beukes et al., 2002; Spier et al., clusion studies (Hagemann et al., 1999; Spier et al., 2003;
2003; McLellan et al., 2004; Rosiere and Rios, 2004; Hage- Webb et al., 2003;Thome et al., 2004) indicate temperatures
mann et al., in press) or even magmatic fluids for Carajás of >l00°C for ore formation and the presence of basinal
(Silva et al., 2004; Lobato et al., in press).The geochemical brines ~d modified meteoricwater, neither of which fit with
processesthought to be involved in upgrading BIF to high- the burla! metamorphicorigin for high-gradehematiteoresat
gr1}dehematite ore include early desilicrncationand carbona- -100°C, asproposedby Morris (1980,1985,1993,2002b).
tion, followed by decarbonatizationand hydrothermal re-
Structural and hydrodynamic contraison orefonnation
placementof magnetiteto martite byoxidation (Hagemannet
al., 1999;Powell et al., 1999;Taylor et al., 2001),or a pH shiftMany authors suggestthat other relationshipsare alsoim-
due to leachingofFe2+Erammagnetite(Ohmoto, 2003).Late portant in ore formation, including the presenceof early,low-
supergeneleaching of residual gangue and goethite over- angle normallystric faults (Taylor et al., 2001), fold hinges
printing are alsokey parts of the hypogenemodels. with enhaneedpermeability and deep faults (Rosiere and
Rios, 2004),or other favorablestructuresable to serveashy-
Hypogeneversussupergeneorigin with drothermal fluid conduits (Spier et al., 2003);location of the
subsequentburial metanwrphism main orebodiesnear the baseof an iron formation succession
Morris (2002a,b) interpreted the residual carbonatesbe- in contact with black shaleswhich cap underlying dolomitic
neath the main Mount Tom Price deposit and associated carbonates(Beukeset al., 2002); and the presenceof imper-
Southem Batter deposit to have been localized by postare meableshalesand dolerites that actedashydrologicalsealsto
metasomatismof BIF and ore, whereas Kneeshaw and focus ore formation (Beukeset al., 2002).
Kepert (2002) and Kneeshawet alo(2002) contend that car-
bonateprotore is absentat Mount Whaleback,thus not sup- Processing and Products
porting the Taylor et alo (2001) modelo Hagemann et alo
(1999) and Thome et alo (2004) suggestthat the BIF at Ore mineralogy and beneficiation
Mount Tom Price underwentinitial carbonatereplacementof Iron formation ores: The majority of BIF and GIF ores re-
chert by a basinal fluid, followed by conversionof iron sili- quire expensive fine grinding to 20 to 75.um in order to lib-
cates to proximal microplaty hematite ore by hot oxidized erate lhe iron oxides (magnetite or hematite) from silicate
basinalbrine. In contrast,Webb et alo(2002) suggestedthat (quartz, stilpnomelane, amphibole, chlorite) or carbonate
either BIF was affected only by the latter processesor the (siderite, dolomite, ankerite) gangue. Taconites from North
carbonatealterationhasyet to be found at Mount Whaleback. America require ertensive beneficiation of 30 to 35 wt per-
Proponentsof hypogenemodels cite the absenceof carbon- cent Fe feed to make fines (65-67 wt % Fe), blast fumace
ate alteration Erammajor deposits(e.g., Mount Whaleback, pellet, or direct reduced iron feedstock grades (>68 wt % Fe;
Pico) as evidencethat carbonatizationis not a necessarypre- corte, 1965; McKim, 1970; DeVaney, 1985). In taconites that
cursor for the formation of large, high-grade hematite de- are easier to process, lhe ore and gangue mineraIs mar be
posits(Spier et al., 2003; Hagemannet al., in press). coarse grained (0.05-2.0 fim) and low in porosity, and lhe ore
Morris (2002a,b) cited a number of other problems with mineraIs mar be relatively free of very fine «5 .um) gangue
the carbonateprotore model ofTaylor et alo(2001).Thesein- inclusions. They are primarily lhe result of metamorphic re-
clude the largeamountofbasinal fluid that would be required crystallization to relatively coarse grain size (Neal, 2000).
to desilicify the BIF at Mount Tom Price, a time lag of some A measure of lhe ability of magnetite BIF and GIF to be
600 m.y. between basinal fluid generation and BIF enrich- upgraded by simple grinding and magnetic separation is just
ment, and the absenceof microplatyherrnrtiteEramthe Marra as essential at lhe evaluation stage of exploration as an assar.
MambaIron Formation,which sitsbelow a potential dolomite This is because iron can also be tied up in silicates that are not
aquifer,the ParaburdooMember. Theseconcemsare in part of economic value and lhe magnetite mar be so fine grained
counteredby Taylor et alo(2002),who arguedthat hypogene that it is uneconomic to grirt-d and separate from gangue (Fig.
mineralizationis later than that suggestedby Morris (2002a), 5D). Iron formations that lack coarse iron oxide grains (Fig.
and the specrncrole of the ParaburdooMember in chanelling 5D) or contain very fine ( <20 .um) gangue inclusions (Fig. 5A)
fluids into the overlying BrockmanIron Formation. will either be subeconomic or marginal, even though lhe in
Morris' (1980) model requires the chert in BIF to be re- situ resource grade mar exceed what is typically an attractive
placed by goethite and subsequentlymetamorphosedto mi- 45 wt percent Fe. In Figure 18, ore types 1 and 2 contain
croplaty hematite. In arguing againstthe Morris (1980) su- massive magnetite microbands and so easily reach >68 wt
pergene-metamorphicmodel, Taylor et alo(2001)use simple percent Fe product grade after coarse grinding and magnetic
volume and assar calculationsto suggestthat iron has not separation, whereas ore types 3 and 4 contain significant fine-
been addedoveraIlduring the mineralizingprocess,although grained disseminated magnetite in chert and/or silicate mi-
this assessment would be more defrnitiveif immobile element crobands, thus requiring much fine r grinding to reach the
pairs and mass-transfercalculationswere used. Taylor et alo same product grade.
(2001)alsoarguethat, accordingto the Morris (1980)model, To date, few geologic criteria have been published that help
the magnetite-carbonate-apatitemineralization at Mount to target exploration toward iron formation deposits with
 IRON FORMATIONS AND ASSOCIATED IRON ORE DEPOSITS

72
70
68
Q)
..-
tU
...
66
..-
c
Q) 64
u
c
62
8
c 60
Q)
Li. 58
~
56
54
60 70 80 90 100
%-45 microns
FIG. 18. Change of Fe grade of concentrate with increasingly fine grinding for two-stage fine grinding of magnetite BIF
ore types, Mount Gibson deposit, Westem AustraJja. Note that the x-axis shows increasing fineness of the grinding. Ore types
I and 2 contain massive magnetite and easily achieve >69 wt percent Fe grade with minimal grinding, whereas ore types 3
and 4 contain more disseminated fine-grained magnetite and require finer grinding... Davis tube magnetic separation testo
Adapted from Poveyand Leather (1997).

coarse-grainedor more abundant magnetite that will improve
economic processing characteristics. Further assessment of
iron formation genesisis required to better understand basin-
wide controls on thick iron oxide versus thinner gangue (sili-
cáte and/or carbonate) deposition as well as the impact of
higher regional metamorphic grade.
For magnetite iron formation, the most low cost and effec-
tive method used for separation of magnetite Eram silicate
and/orcarbonate gangue is low-intensity magnetic separation,
u~!ngcheap rotary permanent-magnet drums. At the Empire,
Hibbing, and Northshore mines in North America, the prin-
cipal separation techniques are magnetic separation and
minor reverse flotation that uses a cationic collector to float
liberated quartz and locked quartz-magnetite particles
(Coyle, 1965; Graber and Sundberg, 2002)..Size classification
using hydrocyclones is algOrequired to remove the ultrafines
«0.01 fim) that are rich in silicate gangue. At the Diao Jun-
tai magnetite mine in northeast China, a combination of
grinding, low-intensity magnetic sepamtion to recover mag-
netite, wet high-intensity magnetite separation to recover
minor hematite, and reverse flotation is used to produce a
67.5 wt percent Fe concentrate Eram 29 to 30 wt percent Fe
feed.
In contrast, hematitic iron formation often requires more
extensive separation techniques. These mainly include wet
high-intensity magnetite separation to concentrate fine
(0.0.1--0.08 fim) paramagnetic minerals including hematite;
spirals for gravity concentration of hematite; and hydrocy-
clones to remove gangue-rich ultrafines, as well as reverse
flotation. Overall, hematite iron formation is more expensive
to beneficiate than magnetite iron formation. Cheaper wet
gravity separation techniques including spirals are an impor-
tant means of separating 0.05 to 1.0 mm low specific-gravity
quartz Eramwell-liberated hematite at a number of mines, in-
cludin.ll;Wabush, Mont Wright, and Humphrey in Canada and
Dong Anshan in northeast China. These three hematite
mines from Canada are examples of intensely metamor-
phosed coarser grained taconites (BIF -GIF), where coarse
(specular)hematite and minar magnetite are the dominant
iron oxide mineraIs;hematite is relatively free of ganguein-
clusions,and thus high (>67 wt %) Fe gradeconcentratescan
be produced (NeaI, 2000).
High-grade nematite and mariite-goethite ores: Although
high-gradehematite and martite-goethite ores contain rela-
tively few iron-bearing mineraIs other than hematite and
goethite, complexore and ganguetexturesand a large range
in porosity result in quite variable requirementsfor benefici-
ation compared to iron formation ores (Clout et aI., 1997).
The first stage of processingfor high-grade hematite and
martite-goethite ores is crushing and screening.The run-of-
mine ore is crushedthen screenedinto lump and sinter fines.
After blasting, crushing,and screening,ores that are hard to
medium in relative physicaIstrength produce about 40 to 60
wt percent lump and the remainder is fines. In contrast,fri-
able ores typicaIly produce less than 30 wt percent lump.
Many high-grade microplaty hematite (e.g., Mount Tom
Price, Mount WhaIeback,South Middleback Ranges,Cara-
jás) and martite-goethite(e.g.,Marandoo,WestAngelas,Area
C, Koolyanobbing)depositsare of sufficient iron gradeto re-
quire only crushing and dry screeningbefore direct shipping
of lump and fine ores to customersteelworks.However,wet
beneficiation plants are required at some depositsin Brazil,
AustraIia,India, and SouthMrica to upgradethe ore to pro-
duce blast fumace-gradelump and sinter fines.
In martite-goethite and micropla~ hematite deposits of
Australia,a high percentageof gangueoccursasthick (0.1-6
m) banasof soft and porous kaolinite-rich shaIethat are eas-
ily separatedfrom hematite ore by selectivemining, gravity
separation,or washing away of fine clay particles (Harms-
worth et aI., 1990).Kaolinite-rich shaIe.an aIuminousresidue
672 CLOUT AND SIMONSON
Eramthe breakdoWIlof fine volcanic ash layers in the BIF
host, forms discretebandsintercalatedwithin the ore.
In contrast, primary BIF carbonateis largely replacedby
goethite and is therefore much lower in alumina content
(Harmsworth et al., 1990). Gangue also occurs as either
coarse-grained(+100 ,um) kaolinite, traces of gibbsite, or
minar quartz (Clout, 2002). There mar also be appreciable
fine-grained «5 ,um) kaolinite ganguederived Eramfine ash
layersinterbeddedwith the ore mineraIs,aswell as alumina,
silicon, or phosphorusinterpreted to be either substituted
into the goethitecrystalstructure (Morris, 1985)or presentas
submicroninclusionsof as yet unidentified phases.Alumina
and silica substitution in vitreous goethite and especially
ochreousgoethite is more common in the near-surfacehy-
dration zone, especiallysurfacehardcap,and is uneconomic
to upgrade (Clout, 2002). The geologiccontraIs on hardcap
and its distribution are not well understood,and interpreta-
tion of shallow drill bole assardata is further complicated
where shalesmar be presentwith ore (Clout, 2002).
Low-gradeoresthat require beneficiationvary Eramfriable
quartz-rich supergeneitabirite Eram the Quadrilátero Fer-
rífero in Brazil to ores with kaolinite- or gibbsite-rich shale
bands in Australia and India, respectively. Some martite-
goethite mineralizationis uneconomicto upgradedue to the
presence of significant alumina and süica locked within
goethite,or the presenceof very fine (<5,um) intergrowthsof
clay or quartz within goethite or hematite (Clout, 2002; Süva
et al., 2002). Despite high (>50 wt %) Fe grades,some of
theseores cannot be upgradedeven with grinding as fine as
that usedfor taconites.In contrast,the well-metamorphosed
itabirite-derived supergene hematite deposits in the
Quadrilátero Ferrífero have good beneficiation characteris-
tics because they are soft, contain very dense, liberated
hematite particleswith low porosity and liberated quartz par-
ticl~s (Süvaet al., 2002; Spier et al., 2003).
For fine ores (nominally<6.3 or 8.0 fim), jigs or dense
medium cyclones(DMC) using ferrosilicon suspensionsare
used to treat the coarser(>1 fim) size fractions;spiralshave
widespreadapplicationfor the intermediateto finer fractions
(between0.075-1 fim); wet high-intensity,magnetitesepara-
tion treat the intermediateto fine fractions (0.03-1 fim); hy-
drocyclonesare most commonly used to remove very fine
«0.02 fim) clay or quartz-rich ultrafines (Box et al., 1996;
Clout et al., 1997;Bensleyet al., 1999,--Mason and McSpad-
den, 2002; Miller, 2002). Jigs, dense medium cyclones,and
spiralsare wet processesthat separateon the basisof specific
gravityand removequartz or shaleEramdenserhematite and
goethite.Low-gradeitabirite Eramthe QuadriláteroFerrífero
contains incompletely leached friable chert with residual
hematite and requires extensivebeneficiationto make sinter
fines, blast fumace pellet feed, or direct reduced iron feed-
stock grades(de Araujo and Peres, 1995; Süvaet al., 2002).
Spirals,jigs, reverse flotation, and wet high-intensity mag-
netite separationare commonlyused here aswell to remove
well-liberatedquartz,althoughsomeore typesdo not respond
well to certain concentrationmethods(Süvaet al., 2002).For
example,in ore types containing quartz and gibbsite gangue,
gibbsiteis not separatedEramhematiteusingreverseflotation.
For lump ores (6.3/8.0-31.5 fim) in Australia and South
Africa, cheapgravity techniquesincluding jigs are commonly
used for porous ores, whereas more expensivewet dense-
medium separatorsusing ferrosilicon suspensionsin a rotary
drum work well with low-porosity feed (Wamock and Bens-
ler, 1996;Clout et al., 1997; Mason and McSpadden,2002).
These types of processesare ideally suited where thick
(>0.05-2 m) mesobandsof high specific gravityhematite are
interbedded with low specific gravity shales (e.g., Dales
Gorge Member, Mount Tom Price mine, AsbestosHills Sub-
group, Sishen deposit; Bitencourt et al., 2002; Camey and
Mienie, 2002). The distribution of shale (formerly fine ash)
and hematite in B.IF is directly related back to the primary
iron formation and thus genetic contrais on dominant iron-
oxide depositionversuscarbonateand/or silicate.The degree
of upgradingis dependentupon the presenceof coarse(>10
fim) liberated gangueoflower specificgravitywith denselib-
erated h~Jllatite(limited supergeneleaching),whereassepa-
ration efficiency and recoveryof expensiveferrosilicon media
mar be adverselyaffectedby high porosity (causedbyexten-
sive supergeneleaching;Clout et al., 1997;Bitencourt et al.,
2002). Separationefficiency is poor where supergeneleach-
ing has resulted in highly porous hematite and goethite that
has a similar or lower specific gravity than either the BIF or
subgrade goethite. Altematively, porous hemaüte results
Eramincomplete replacementof gangueby hematite during
ore formation prior to supergeneleaching. Media recovery
mar be low becausethe fine heavymediabecomestrappedin
pores and so is lost to the processoThis meansthat many
porous ores are unsuitable for processingby heavy media
(Clout et al., 1997).
Iron ore products and their uses
The principal use of iron oresis for the production of steel
Eram either a COÍlventionalblast fumace pig-iron route or
more directly Eraman electric arefumace.Although there are
other routes for making steel Eramiron ores, blast fumaces
still accountfor >80 percent of world crude steel production
(Astier,2003).
Beneficiated and high-grade lump iron ore, typically >62
wt percent Fe and between 6.3 and 31.5 mm in size,can be
directly addedto a blast fumace. In contrast,high (>68 wt %
Fe) gradeiron ore concentrates,peUets,or lump are required
to undergo heating and direct reduction steps to convert
hematite to metallic iron before addingto an electric are fur-
naceto makesteel.Mineralogicaland metallurgicalstudiesby
Clout (2002), together with coUaborativeindustry studies
(e.g., Box et al., 2002), have demonstratedthat ore mineral-
ogy,texture, hardness,p(;)rosity,and petrologicalcharacteris-
tics directly controllump physicaland metallurgicalquality in
the blast fumace.
High-grade and beneficiated martite-goethite and mi-
croplaty hematite lump iron ores can be fed directly to the
blast fumace, whereasfine «0.10 fim) concentratesor fine
ores must first be agglomeratedinto peUetsor sinter, respec-
tively, before they can be fed to the blast fumace. This is be-
causesignificantamountsof fine particleswould simplyblock
the vital upflow of gasesand/orbe ejectedEramthe top of the
blast fumace asdust. Iron ore sinter is producedby mixing of
fine oresor concentrates,fluxes(limestone,bumt or hydrated
lime, dolomite, or serpentine), and fuel (coke, anthracite),
then granulatedwith water in a rotating drum and building a
 IRON FORMATIONS AND ASSOCIATED IRON ORE DEPOSITS

layer 550 to 800 mm deep onto a horizontal sinter machine
grate. The fuel is then ignited at the top of the layer using
bumers and ror is drawn down through the bed under suc-
tion, with solids finer than 1 mm melting at -1,300°C and glu-
ing together the coarse > 1-mm hematite. The sinter is subse-
quently cooled to form a porous hard solid, composed of
calcium ferrites and unmelted hematite ore particles, which
physically resembles volcanic scoria and is crushed to 5 to 40
mm in size and fed directly to the blast fumace.
Magnetite concentrates produced Eram beneficiation of iron
formation ore are typically used to make blast fumare pellets
(e.g., Tilden, United States). Magnetite concentrates are ideally
suited to making pellets that require fine «O.045-mm) particle
size to agglomerate with water, binders, and fine fluxes in a ro-
tating drum or disk to form nominally 10- to 15-mm-diameter
spherical green balls. The green balls are then heated up to
about 1,300°C in a grate or kiln, with the exothermic oxidation
of ore magnetite to hematite during induration of pellets gen-
erating useable heat to help drive the processo The hematite
pellet product is much more easilyreducedto metallic iron in
the blastfurriacethan magnetite.However,althoughnot ideal,
significant(>100 Mtiyr) quantitiesof domesticmagnetitecon-
centratesproduced in China are also used in sintering. ln
Canada(e.g., Mont-Wright and Humphrey mines) and else-
where, hematite concentratesproducedErambeneficiationof
BIF and/or CIF ores are alsousedto makeblast fumace and
dire~ reducediron-gradepellets.
Although the majority of martite-goethite and high-grade
hematite fine iron ores (e.g., Pilhara, Australia; Coa, lndia;
Carajásand Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil) are used for sin-
tering, smallerquantitiesare alsousedfor blast fumace or di-
rect reduced iron-grade pellets. Some high-grade benefici-
ated lump is alsoused in direct reducediron processes.
Concentrate, lump, and fine ore gangue mineralogy, as
well as niinor and trace elements,can havean adverseeffect
on their acceptabilityfor making pellets or sinter and in the
blast fumace (Table 4). Elevated cancentratiansaf alkali el-
ementsreduceblast fumace refractory life, whereaselevated

TABLE4. E/fect of Deleterious Gangue and Minor and/or Trace Elements on Downstream Process Performance (modified fram Clout, 1998)

Carbonate BIF or hydrothennal carbonate Lowers strength or sinter and pellets due to
alteration, extent of replacement and/or increased porosity once carbonates are calcined
(CO2 driven ofI above l,OOO°C)
leaching

Shale bands and AI silicate content of Sintering and pelletizing Lowers strength of sinter and pellets due to
Clays (>5%)
BIF host increased melt viscosity due to Al2O3

Alkalis (e.g., K20 K20-BIF micas and stilpnomelane Sintering,pelletizing, BF Lowers melt temperature, corrosion of BF
>0.09%, Na) Na hypersaline ground water refractory bricks

P (>0.08%) Apatite in BIF, extent of supergene Metal production Remova! cost

leaching of p

Base metais (e.g., Zu, BIF host, hydrothennal source BF, sintering Removal costs, especially reprocessing of base
Pb >100 ppm) and and heavy metal-rich dusts
heavy metais

ShaIe bands and AI silicate content of BIF host Sintering. BF Higher levels progressively increase melt
Al2Ü3(>2.8%)
viscosity hence increase fuel rates

SiO2(>5%) BIF and shale, extent of supergene leaching Sintering, BF Increases the amount of slag; increased
use of limestone since the ratio of
CaO/SiO2 must be fIXed

Mn (>0.9%) Remobilization of Mn from impure dolomite Steelmaking Although some types of steel require Mn,
aboveor below mineralization,carbonateBIF exc.esslevels require dilution with low
Mn:1:Jearing ores to maintain steel properties

Cu (>100ppm) BIF host. hvdrothennal source Sintering, steelmaking Catalyses dioxin formation during sintering,
must be diluted with low Cu ores to maintain
production
steel quality

CI (>5OOpprn) H}persalineground water Sintering, BF Increased dioxin (toxic) and NO, emissions,
reduces efficiency of electrostatic dust
precipitators and increases BF refract°'Y wear

S (>0.08%) BIF host, organic S in hardcap or Sintering, BF Increased 50, emissions and higher MgO levels
near-surface martite-goethite required to partition 5 into BF slag

1i (>1%) Shale bands, ilmenite Eram Sintering and pelletizing Lower physical strength of pellets and sinter
crosscutting intrusion

BF = blast fumare
 ~

674 CLOrr.T AND SIMONSON

phosphorusincreasessteelmakingcosts.Tight restrictionsare have been interpreted variously as extensionalnonnal faults

generally placed on maximum concentrationsof these and (Hannsworth ~ al 1990), extensionalfaults, or reactivated
other elementsin sinter fines, pellet feed, and blast fumace thrusts (Dalst~aet al., 2002; Taylor et al., 2002; McLeilan et
lump. Although blending with other ores can lower the con- al., 2004)in a foreland fold-thrust belt or a compressionalset-
centration of certain deleterious elements, beneficiation is ting in a foreland basin (Poweil et al., 1999). Altematively,
the preferred method to reduce minar and trace elementsto thesenormal faults could representback thrusts in the hang-
a leveI acceptableto the market. ing wall of major regional thrusts, with ore fluids being pref-
erentia\ly focused through the back thrusts since they are
Discussion most likely to fonn more dilatant zones.The fluid focusing
mechanismand the role of structur~sin the alterationof very
Exploration significanceof the large volumesof iron fonnation need to be investigatedfur-
hypogene-hydrothermalrrwdels ther, with an eye to quantifying the pathwaysand volumesof
Models of supergene-modifiedhypogene mineralization the fluids responsiblefor fonning specrnctypes of iron ore
provide the iron ore explorationistwith new criteriato locate deposits.
high-gradeiron ores. Favorable situationsto target now in- For the supergeneores,including the soft hematite oresof
clude: (1) former conduits of fluid flow, e.g.,where major or Brazil and -the martite-goethite ores in Australia, new re-
secondarysplayfaults cut acrossiron formations(Tayloret al., search directions are required to extend the models devel-
2001);(2) fold hingesor other dilatant sitesin iron formations oped by Morris (1980,1985,2002b).The most promisingap-
(Roserieand Rios,2004);(3) iron formationsabovecarbonate proacheswiil probably involve fluid inclusion studies and
aquifers(Tayloret al., 2001);(4) areasof carbonatealteration detailed modeling to better understand the key influences
of iron formations(Hagemannet al., 1999;Taylor et al., 2002; that drove fluid flow and factors that resulted in economic
Dalstra and Guedes,2004); and (5) geochemicalvectors ap- versussubgrade
mineralization. .
plied to distal carbonatealteration that help to locate high- Future exploration for iron formation ores needsto care-
grade ore associatedwith proximal alteration (Hagemannet fuily consider the economic benents that higher gradesof
al., 1999;Thome et al., 2004).The intersectionof structures, metamorphismpresent to their improved economic extrac-
especiallyfaults, with iron formationsprovides specmcareas tion. At the regional exploration phase, areas need to be
of interest, whereascarbonatealteration providesvectorsto- ranked on the basisof metamorphicgrade,magnetiteand/or
ward possibleproximal high-grademineralization. hematite grain size, and amount of gangueinclusions they
contain. Locally, sectionsof the iron fonnation stratigraphy
Directionsfor future work where magnetiteand/or hematite meso-and microbandsare
With the increasinglysh°r:t supply for iron ore, especially more abundantare likely to be higher in iron content and so
for China, there is a need to improve our understandingof be more attractiy~ as exploration targets. Therefore, there
the formation of iron ores to achievebetter explorationtar- needsto be a greater researchemphasison basin-wideanaly-
geting,especiallyiron formation-hostedhigh-gradeiron ores. sis of the depositional features of iron fonnations to better
Five areasfor future researchrelated to the genesisof high- predict the occurrencesof more iron oxide-rich iron fonna-
gradeore include studiesto (1) improve our understandingof tion with coarsemagnetiteand/or hematite grain size.
the nature of the ore fluids and their timing with respectto
deformation (e.g., Rosiere and Rios, 2004; Thome et al., Conclusions
2004) acrossa larger number of deposits,(2) better under- Large iron ore deposits are alI associatedwith stratigraphic
stand the role of regional and local structures in ore forma- occurrencesof a chemical sedimentaryrock known as iron
tion, (3) differentiate the geochemical and O-H isotope formation, almostalI of which were depositedbefore 1.8 Ga.
signaturesof proximal versusdistal mineralizationand alter- Iron minerais in unenriched iron formations vary widely in
ation, (4) recognizeevidencefor the presenceor absenceof compositionand abundance,reflecting nonrandomsedimen-
substantialcarbonateprotore within proXfmalhigh-gradeore, tary variations through geologic time. Some magnetite-rich
and (5) elucidate the ore formation process(es)where car- iron fonnations are mineable (taconite-type ore deposits),
bonateprotore is absent. but high-grade orebodie~ only occur where subsequent
Recentwork hashighlighted the importanceof major fault eventshave upgraded iron' fonnations, typically Eram30 wt
structuresand deformationalhistory in the origin of the high- percent Fe in an iron fonnation to 60 to 68 wt percent Fe in
grade hematite deposits,although their exact role in hypo- high-grade ore. The two main types of high-grade iron ore
gene ore genesishas received less detailed attention. How- deposi,ts,martite-goethite and high-gradehematite deposits,
ever, Rosiereand Rios (2004) have set a new benchmarkfor both exhibit a diverse range in deposit characteristicsand
future studiesby successfullyplacing fluid inclusion and al- genesis, but the high-grade hematite deposits show the
teration work into the complexdeformationalhistory of meta- greatest diversity, including differences in ore textures, the
morphosed hard high-grade hematite ores in the presenceor absenceof carbonatealtera_tion,timing of hypo-
Quadrilátero Ferrífero. Further studiesare also required on gene mineralizationwith respectto regional metamorphism,
the role of structuresin ore formation in the Pilharaand else- hypogenefluid mineralizationtemperatures,and amountsof
where. For example,in the Pilhara,the Mount Tom Price and basinalbrines versusmeteoric watersor magmaticfluids. In
Mount Whalebackorebodiesare localizedaround the South- the final analysis,high-grade hematite deposits wiil only
em Batter and Mount Whaleback faults, respectively.Al- forro where an iron formation with the right textures and
though these faults have a normal senseof rnovement,they iron-rich compositionexperiencesthe right sort of fluid flow,
 IRON FORMATIONS AND ASSOCIATED IRON ORE DEPOSITS
e.g.,througha major fault, usuallyin conjunction with some
sort of regionaldeformation,In contrast, the genesisof su-
pergenemartite-goethiteand hematite depositsis more con-
sistentandlesscontroversial;they are believed to involve re-
placementof gangue by goethite versus silicate and/or
carbonateleachingand residual concentration of hematite,
respectively.
Acknowledgments
TheauthorsthankJ. HedenquistandJ. Thompson(editors)
and particularlyseveralreviewers,including D. Kepert, S.
Hassler,and S. Hagemann,for their constructivecomments
thathavegreatlyimprovedthis papel, and C. Roseriefor ed-
ucatingJC on current details of Brazilian iron ore geology.
Fieldworkon iron formationsand associatedunits by BMS
wasfundedby grantsfloro the National GeographicSociety,
NationalScienceFoundation,and Oberlin College.
REFERENCES
Altennann, W., 1996, Sedimentology, geochemistry and palaeogeographic
implications of volcanic rocks in the Upper Archaean Campbell Croup,
westem Kaapvaal craton, South Africa: Precambrian Research, v. 79; p.
73-100.
Anbar, A.D., and Knoll, A.H., 2002, Proterozoic ocean chemistry and evolu-
tion: A bioinorganic bridge?: Science, v. 297, p. 1137-1142.
Amdt, N., 1999, Why was flood volcanism on submerged continental plat-
fonns so common in the Precambrian?: Precambrian Research, v. 97, p.
155-164.
Amold, G.L., Anbar, A.D., Barling, J., and Lyons, T.W, 2004, Molybdenum
isotope evidence for widespread anoxia in mid-Proterozoic oceans: Sci-
ence, v. 304, p. 87-90.
Astier, J.E., 2003, Main developments in iron ore preparation: The lron Ore
lndustry Today and Tomorrow (TIOITT-2002), Kiruna, Lulea University,
Proceedings,p. 1-9.
Barley, M.E., Pickard, A.L., and Sylvester, P.J., 1997, Emplacement of a large
igneous province as a possible cause of banded iron formation 2.45 bilJion
years ago: Nature, v. 385, p. 55--58.
Barley, M.E., Pickard, A.L., Hagemann, S.C., and Folkert, S.L., 1999, Hy-
drothennal origin for the 2 bilJion year old Mount Tom Price giant iron ore
deposit, Hamersley province, Westem Australia: Mineralium Deposita, v.
34, p. 784-789.
Barrett, T.J., and Fralick, P.W., 1985, Sediment redeposition in Archean iron
fonnation: Examples from the Beardmore-Ceraldton greenstone belt, On-
tario: Joumal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 55, p. 205-212.
-1989, Turbidites and iron formations, Beardmoré-Ceraldton, Ontario:
Application of a combined ramp/fan model to Archaean clastic and chemi-
cal sedimentation: Sedimentology, v. 36, p. 221-234.
Beard, B.L., and Johnson, C.M., 2004, Fe isotope variations in the modero
and ancient Earth and other planetary bodies: Reviews in Mineralogy and
Geochemistry,v. 55, p. 319--357.
Beard, B.L., Johnson, C.M., Cox, L., Sun, H., Nealson, K.H., and Aguilar, C.,
1999, Iron isotope biosignatures: Science, v. 285, p. 1889-1892.
Bekker, A., Holland, H.D., Wang, P.-L., Rumble 111,D., Stein, H. J., Hannah,
J.L., Coetzee, 1.1., and Beukes, N.J., 2004, Dating the rise of atmospheric
oxygen: Nature, v. 427, p. 117-120.
Bensley, C.N., Fenton, K.L. and Tumer, J., 1999, Iron ore beneficiation by
BHP Iron Ore in Westem Australia: Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy Monograph 19, p. 276-280.
Bergstrand, R.C., Waters, A.C., and Clout, J.M.F., 2003, The mineralogy of
West Angelas iron ore-the key to unlocking its potential [abs.]: Intema-
tional Conference on Science and Technology of Ironmaking, Dusseldorf,
2003, 3m, Abstracts, p. 6.
Beukes, N.J., 1980, Suggestions towards a classification of and nomenclature
for iron-formation: Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa,
v. 83, p. 285-290.
-1983, Palaeoenvironmental setting of iron-formations in the deposi-
tional basin of the Transvaal Supergroup, South Mrica, in Trendall, A.F.,
and Morris, R.C., eds., Iron-formation: Facts and problems: Amsterdam,
EIsevier, p. 131-209.
675
-1984, SedimentoIogy of the Kuruman and GriquatoWll Iron-Fonna-
tions, Transv~ Supergroup, Griqualand West, South Africa: Precambrian
Research, v. 24, p. 47-84.
-1986, The Transvaal sequence in Griqualand West, in Anhaeusser, C. R.,
and Maske, S., eds., Mineral deposits of Southem Africa: Johannesburg,
GeoIogical Society of South Africa, v. 1, p. 819-828.
Beukes, N.J., and KIein, C., 1990, Geochemistry and sedimentoIogy of a fa-
cies transition-from microbanded to granular iron-fonnation-in the
earIy Proterozoic Transvaal Supergroup, South Africa: Precambrian Re-
searóh, v. 47, p. 99-139.
-1992, ModeIs for iron-fonnation deposition, in Schopf, J.W:, and KIein,
C., eds., The Proterozoic biosphere: A multidisciplinary study: Cambridge
University Press, p. 147-151.
Beukes, N.J., Gutzmer, J., and Mukhopadhyay, J., 2002, The geoIogy and
genesis of high-grade hematite iron ore deposits: Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Publication Series 7/2002, p. 23-29.
Bitencourt, R., Mackenzie, P., Gordon, J. and Morey, B., 2002, High-grade
optimisation and improved grade contraI practices in Mount Tom Price:
Austral~ian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series 7/2002,
p.261-277.
BIake, R.S., and BarIey, M.E., 1992, Tectonic evoIution of the late Archaean
to earIy Proterozoic Mount Bruce megasequence set, Westem Australia:
Tectonics, v. 11, p. 1415-1425.
Bofei, J., 2005, Outputs of China major iron ore mines in January-December
2004: China MetalIurgical NewsIetter, Metallurgical Council of China
Council for the Promotion of Intemational Trade, v. 7, 20 p.
Box, J.C., Morgan, A.E., and Lynch, M.L., 1996, DeveIopmerits in iron ore
processing: Mining Technology Conference, 1996, Cooperative Research
Centre for Mining TechnoIogy and Equipment (CMTE), Fremantle, West-
em Australia, Proceedings, p. 229-237.
Box, J., Phillips, J. and CIout J.M.F., 2002, Use of geoIogical material types
for predicting ironore product characteristics: Japan-Australia Symposium
on Iron and SteeImaldng, Fuwa-Ward Symposium, l't, Kyoto University,
Iron and SteeI Institute of Japan, April 4-5, 2002, Proceedings, p. 36-41.
Brandt, R.T., 1966, The genesis of the Mount Goldsworthy iron ore deposits
of Northwest Australia: ECONOMICGEOWGY, v. 61, p. 999-1009.
Breitkopf, J.H., 1988, Iron fonnations related to mafic volcanism and ensialic
rifting in the Southem Margin zone of the Damara orogen, Namibia: Pre-
cambrian Research, v. 38, p. 111-130.
BroWll, M.C., Oliver, N .H.S., and Dickens, G., 2004, Veins and hydrothennal
fluid flow in the Mt. Whaleback iron ore district, eastem HamersIey
province, Westem Australia: Precambrian Research, v. 128, p. 441-474.
Button, A., 1976, Transvaal and Hamersley basins-review of basin develop-
ment and mineral deposits: Minerals Science and Engineering, v. 8, p.
262-293.
Cameron, E.M., 1983, Genesis of Proterozoic iron-fonnation: SuIphur iso-
tope evidence: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 47, p. 1069-1074.
Canfield, D.E., 1998, A new modeI for Proterozoic ocean chemistry: Nature,
v. 396, p. 450-453.
-2005, The earIy history of atmospheric oxygen: Annual Review of Earth
and PIanetary Sciences, v. 33, p. 1---36.
Carney, M.D., and Miene, P.J., 2002, A geoIogical comparison of the Sishen
and Sishen South (Welgevonden) iron ore deposits, Northem Cape
province, South Africa: Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Publication Series 7/2002, p. 145-151.
Carrigan, W.J., and Cameron, E.M., 1991, Petrological and stabIe isotope
studies of carbonate and sulfide mineraIs from the Gunflint Fonnation,
Ontario: Evidence for the origin of earIy Proterozoic iron-fonnation: Pre-
cambrian Research, v. 52, p. 347---380.
Chemale, F., Jr., Rosiere, C.A., and Endo, I., 1994, The tectonic evolution of
the Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais, BraziI: Precambrian Research, v.
65, p. 25-54.
Cheney, E.S., 1996, Sequence stratigraphy and plate tectonic significance of
the Transvaal succession of southem Africa and its equivalent in Westem
Australia: Precambrian Research, v. 79, p. 3-24.
CIoud, P.E., 1968, Atmospheric and hydrospherie evolution on the primitive
Earth: Science, v. 160, p. 729-736.
Clout, J.M.F., 1998, The efIects of ore petrology on doWllstream processing
perfonnance: A review, in Mine to Mill1998: Australasian Institute of Min-
ing and MetalIurgy, Brisbane, Proceedings, p. 43-50.
-2002, Upgrading processes in BIF -derived iron ore deposits-implica-
tions for ore genesis and doWllstream processing: Australasian Institute of
Mining and MetalIurgy Publication Series 7/2002, p. 237-242.
676 CLOVT AND SIMO~SON
Clout, J.M.F., Firth, B.A., and O'Connor, M.T., 1997, New advances in ben-
eficiation of iron ore, in Misra, V:N., and Dunlop, J.S., eds., Towards 2000-
National Conference on lronm~ng Resources and Reserves Estimation:
Australasian Institute ofMining and Metallurgy Spectrum Series, Proceed-
ings, p. 177-183.
Cook, H.E., and Egbert, R.M., 1983, Diagenesis of deep-sea carbonates, in
Larsen, G., and Chilingar, G.V., eds., Diagenesis in sediments and sedi-
mentary rocks, 2: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 213-288.
Coyle, D.S., 1965, Tbe Empire Concentrator-iron ore's first two stage au- Chemical Geology, v. 24, p. 25-33.
togenous grinding flowsheet: Annual Mining Symposium, 26th, Dulutb,
Minnesota, Proceedings, p. 9-13.
Dalstra, H.J., and Guedes, S., 2004, Giant hydrotbermal hematite deposits
with Mg-Fe metasomatism: A comparison of tbe Carajás, Hamersley, and
otber iron ores: ECONOMICGEOLOGY,v. 99, p. 1793-1800.
Dalstra, H.J., Harding, A.E., Riggs, T., and Taylor, D., 2002, Banded iron for- Goode, A.D.T., Hall, W.D.M., and Bunting, J.A., 1983, The Nabberu basin of
mation hosted high-grade hematite deposits, a coherent group: Aus-
tralasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Senes 7/2002, p.
57-61.
de Araujo, A.C., and feres, A.E.C., 1995, Frotb flotation: Relevance and the
Brazilian case, in Lins, F.F., ed., Tecnologia Mineral 70: Rio de Janerio,
MCT, CNPq, CETEM, p. 22-28.
Deer, W.A., Howie, R.A., and Zussman, J., 1992, An introduction to tbe rock-
forming minerais, 2nd ed.: London, Longman Scientific and Technical, 696
p.
DeVaney, F.D., 1985, Iron ore, in Weiss, N.L., ed., Society of Mining Engi-
neers Mineral Processing Handbook. v. 2, p. 20-25.
Dimrotb, E., 1976, Aspects of tbe sedimentary petrology of cherty iron for-
mation, in Wolf, K.H., ed., Handbook of strata-bound and stratiform ore
deposits, v. 7: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 203-254.
-1986, Depositional environments and tectonic settings of tbe cherty iron
formations of tbe Canadian Shield: Joumal of tbe Geological Society of
India, v. 28, p. 239-250.
Dimrotb, E., and Chauvel, J.-J., 1973, Petrographyoftbe Sokoman Iron For-
mation in part of tbe central Labrador trough: Geological Society of Amer-
ica BulIetin, v. 84, p. 111-134.
Dorr, J. van N., 11, 1964, Supergene iron ores of Minas Gerais, Brazil: Eco-
NOMICGEOLOGY,v. 59, p. 1203-1240.
-1965, Nature and origin Df, tbe high-grade hematite ores of Minas
Gerais, Brazil: ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, v. 60, p. 1-46.
-1969, Physiographic, stratigraphic and structural development of tbe
Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais: U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 641-A, 110 p.
Dunbar, C.J., and McCall, G.J.H., 1971, Archaean turbidites and banded
ironstones of tbe Mt. Belches area (Westem Australia): Sedimentary Geol-
ogy, v. 5, p. 93-133.
Eriksson, K.A., 1983, Siliciclastic-hosted iron-formations in tbe early
ArcheanBarberton and Pilhara sequences:Joumal of tbe GeologicalSoci- Guedes, S.C., Rosiere, C.A., Barley, M., and Lobato, L., 2002, Carbonate al-
etyof Australia, v. 30,p. 473-482. .
Eriksson, K.A., and Donaldson, J.A., 1986, Basinal and shelf sedimentation
in relation to tbe Archaean-Proterozoic boundary: Precambrian Research,
v. 33, p. 103-121.
Eriksson, P.G., 1999, Sea leveI changes and tbe continental freeboard con-
cept: General principIes and application to Precambrian: Precambrian Re-
search, v. 97, p. 143-154.
Ewers, W.E., 1983, Chemical factors in tbe deposition and diagenesis of
banded iron-formation, in Trendall, A.F., and Morris, R.C., eds., Iron-for-
mation: Facts and problems: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 491-512.
Ewers, W.E., and Morris, R.C., 1981, Studies of tbe Dales Gorge Member of
tbe Brockman Iron Formation, Westem Australia: ECONOMICGEOLOGY,v.
76, p. 1929-1953.
Farquhar, J., Bao, H., and Thiemens, M., 2000, Atmospheric influence of
Eartb's earliest sulfur cycle: Science, v. 289, p. 756-758.
Fedo, C.M., and Eriksson, K.A., 1996, Stratigraphic framework of tbe -3.0
Ga Buhwa greenstone belt: A unique stable-shelf succession in tbe Zim-
babwe Archean craton: Precambrian Research, v. 77, p. 161-178.
Fedo, C.M., and Whitehouse, M.J., 2002, Metasomatic origin of quartz-py-
roxene rock, Akilia, Greenland, and implications for Earth's earliest life:
Science, v. 296, p. 1448-1452.
Force, E.R., and Maynard, J.B., 1991, Manganese: Syngenetic deposits on
tbe margins of anoxic basins: Reviews in Economic Geology, v. 5, p. 147-157.
Fralick, P.W., 1988, Microbial bioherms, lower Proterozoic Gunflint Forma-
tion, Tbunder Bay, Ontario: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists
Memoir 13, p. 24-29.
Fralick, P.W., and Barrett, T.J., 1995, Depositional controls on iron fonnation
associations inÇanada: lntemational Association of Sedimentologist Spe-
cial Publicat.ioli't2, p. 137-156.
Fralick, P.W., Davis, D.W., and Kissin, S.A., 2002, The age of the Gunflint
Fonnation, Ontario, Canada: Single zircon U-Pb age detenninations from
reworked volcanic ash: Canadian Joumal of Earth Sciences, v. 39, p.
1085-1091.
Fryer, B., Fyfe, W.S., and Kerrich, R., 1979, Archaean volcanogenic oceans:
Gibbs, ~.K., Wirth, K.R., Hirata, W.K.) and Olszewski, W.J., 1986, Age and
composition of the Grão Pará Group volcanics, Serra dos Carajás, Brazil:
Revista Brasileira de Geociências, v. 16, p. 201-211.
Gole, M.J., and Klein, C., 1981, Banded iron-fonnations through much of
Precambrian time: Joumal of Geology, v. 89, p. 169-183.
Westem Australia, ín Trendall, A.F., and Morris, R.C., eds., lron-fonnation:
Facts and problems: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 295-323.
Goodwin, A.M., 1991, Precambrian geology-the dynamic evolution of the
continental crust: London, Academic Press, 666 p.
Goodwin, A.M., Thode, H.G., Chou, C.-L., and Karkhansis, S.N., 1985,
Chemostratigraphy and origin of the late Archean siderite-pyrite-rich
Helen Iron Fonnation, Michipicoten belt, Canada: Canadian Joumal of
Earth Sciences, v. 22, p. 72-84.
Graber, R.G., and Sundberg, C.R., 2002, Evolution of iron ore characterisa-
tion techniques-a North American perspective: Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series 7/2002, p. 195-199.
Gross, G.A., 1961, Metamorphism of iron-formations and its bearing on their
beneficiation: Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin, v. 64, p. 24-Jl.
-1965, Geologyofiron deposits ofCanada, v. I, General geologyandeval-
uation of iron deposits: Geological Survey of Canada Economic Geology
Report 22, 181 p.
-1972, Primary features in cherty iron fonnations: Sedimentary Geology,
v. 2, p. 241-261.
-1983, Tectonic systems and the deposition of iron-fonnation: Precam-
brian Research, v. 20, p. 171-187.
Gross, G.A., and Zajac, I.S., 1983, Iron-fonnation in fold belts marginal to
the Ungava craton, ín Trendall, A.F., and Morris, R.C., Iron-fonnation:
Facts and problems: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 253-294.
Grotzinger, J.P., 1994, Trends in Precambrian carbonate sediments and their
implications for understanding evolution, ín Bengston, S., ed., Early life on
Earth: Nobel Symposium 84: New York, NY, Columbia University Press, p.
245-258.
Groves, D.I., Condie, K.C., Goldfarb, R.J., Hronsky, J.M.A., and Vielreicher,
R.M., 2005, Secular changes in global tectonic processes and their influ-
ence on the temporal distribution of gold-bearing mineraIs deposits: Eco-
NOMICGEOLOGY,v. 100, p. 203-224.
teration associated with Carajás high-grade hematite deposits, Brazil: Aus-
tralasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series 7/2002, p.
63-66.
Guild, P.W., 1953, lron deposits of the Congonhas district, Minas Gerais,
Brazil: ECONOMICGEOLOGYv. 48, p. 639-676.
-1957, Geology and mineral resources of the Congonhas District Minas
Gerais, Brazil: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 290,90 p.
Gutzmer, J., and Beukes, N.J, 1998, Earliest laterites and possible evidence
for terrestrial vegetation in th~ Early Proterozoic: Geology, v. 26, p. 263-266.
Gutzmer, J., Netshiozwi, S., and Beukes, N.J., 2002, Hydrothennal origin of
high-grade iron orebodieshosted by the Paleoproterozoic Penge Iron For-
mation, Thabazimbi, South Mrica [abs.]: Intemational Sedimentological
Congress, 16th, Auckland Park, South Mrica, Abstract Volume 2002, CD-
ROM.
Hagemann, S.G., Barley, M.E., Folkert, S.L., Yardley, B.W., and Banks, D.A.,
1999, A hydrothennal origin for the giant Tom Price iron ore deposit, ín
Stanley, C.J., et al., eds. Mineral deposits: Processes to processing: Rotter-
dam, A.A. Balkema, p. 41-44.
Hagemann, S.C., Rosiere, C.A., Lobato, L.; Baars, F., Zucchetti, M.,
Figueiredo e Silva, R.C, in press, Controversy in genetic models for high-
grade BIF related Fe deposits: Unifying or discrete model(s)?: Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Iron Ore 2005 Conference, Perth, Aus-
tralia, Proceedings, 4 p.
Hall, W.D.M., and Goode, A.D.T., 1978, The Early Proterozoic Nabberu
basin and associated iron fonnations of Westem Australia: Precambrian
Research, v. 7, p. 129-184.
 IRON FORMATIONS AND ASSOCIATED IRON QRE DEPOSITS
Hamade, T., Konhauser, K.O., Raiswell, R., Goldsmith, S., and Morris, R.C.,
2003, Using Ge/Si to decouple iron and silica fluxes in Precambrian banded
iron formations: Geology, v. 31,' p. 35-38.
Han, T.-M., 1978, Microstructures of magnetite as guides to its origin in some
Precambrian iron-formations: Fortschritte der Mineralogie, v. 56, p. 105-142.
-1988, Origin of magnetite in Precambrian iron-formations oflow meta-
morphic grade: Proceedings of the Seventh Quadrennial IAGOD Sympo-
sium: Stuttgart, E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Nagele u.
Obermiller), p. 641-656.
Han, T.-M., and Runnegar, B., 1992, Megascopic eukaryotic algae Eram the
2.1-bil1ion-year-old Negaunee Iron-Formation, Michigan: Science, v. 257,
p. 232-235.
Harmsworth, R.A., Kneeshaw, M., Morris, R.C., Robinson, C.J. and Shrivas-
tava, P.K., 1990, BIF -derived iron ores of the Hamersley province: Aus-
tralasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Monograph 14, v; 1, p. 617-642.
Hassler, S.W., 1993, Depositional history ofthe Main tuffinterval ofthe Wit-
tenoom Formation, Late Archean-Early Proterozoic Hamersley Group,
Westem Australia: Precambrian Research, v. 60, p. 337-359.
Hassler, S.W., and Simonson, B.M., 1989, Deposition and alteration of vol-
caniclastic strata in two large, early Proterozoic iron-formations in Canada:
Canadian Joumal of Earth Sciences, v. 26, p. 1574-1585.
-2001, The sedimentary record of extraterrestrial impacts in deep-shelf
environments: Evidence Eram the early Precambrian: Joumal of Geology, v.
109, p. 1-19.
Hoffman, P.F., 1987, Early Proterozoic foredeeps, foredeep magmatism, and
Superior-type iron-formations of the Canadian Shield: American Geophys-
ical Union Geodynamics Series, v. 17, p. 85-98.
Hoffman, P.F., Kaufman, A.J., Halverson, G.P., and Schrag, D.P., 1998, A
Neoproterozoic snowball Earth: Science, v. 281, p. 1342-1346.
Huston, D.L., and Logan, G.A., 2004, Barite, BIF and bugs: Evidence for the
evolution of the Earth's early hydrosphere: Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, v. 220, p. 41-55.
Isley, A.E., 1995, Hydrothermal plumes and the delivery of iron to banded
iron formation: Joumal of Geology, v. 103, p. 169-185.
Isley, A.E., and Abbott, D.H., 1999, Plume-related mafic volcanism and the
deposition of banded iron formation: Joumal of Geophysical Research, v.
104, p. 15,461-15,477.
Jacobsen, S.B., and Pimentel-Kiose, M.R., 1988, A Nd isotopic study of the
Hamersley and Michipicoten banded iron formations: The source ofREE and
Fe in Archean oceans: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 87, p. 856-867.
James, H.L., 1954, Sedimentary facies of iron-formation: ECONOMICGEOL-
OGY,v. 49, p. 235-293.
~1966, Chemistry of the iron-rich sedimentary rocks: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 44O-W, 61 p.
James, H.L., and Trendall, A.F., 1982, Banded iron formation: Distribution
in time and paleoenvironmental significance,in Holland, H.D., and Schid-
lowski, M., eds., Mineral deposits and the evolution of the biosphere:
Berlin, Springer-Verlag, p. 199-217.
Johnson, C.M., Beard, B.L., Beukes, N.J., Kiein, C.; and O'Leary, J.M., 2003,
Ancient geochemical cycling in the Earth as inferred Eram Fe isotope stud-
ies of banded iron formations Eram the Transvaal craton: Contributions to
Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 144, p. 523-547.
Johnson, C.M., Beard, B.L., Roden, E.E., ~ewman, D.K., and Nealson,
K.H., 2004, Isotopic constraints on biogeochemical cycling of Fe: Reviews
in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, v. 55, p. 359-408.
Kepert, D.A., 2001, Carbonate debris flows of the Joffre Member, Hamers-
ler province, Westem Australia [ext. abs]: Geoscience Australia Record, v.
2001/37, p. 238-240.
Kerr, R.A., 2005, The story of 02: Science, v. 308, p. 1730-1732.
Kerrich, R., Goldfarb, R., and Richards, J.R., 2005, Metallogenic provinces
in an evolving geodynamic framework: ECONOMIC GEOWGY 100T" AN-
NIVERSARY VOLUME, p. 1097-1136.
Kimberley, M.M., 1989, Exhalative origins of iron formations: Ore Geology
Reviews, v. 5, p. 13-145.
King, H.E., 1989, The rocks speak: Australasian Institute ofMiningand Met-
allurgy Monograph 15, 316 p.
Kiein, C., 1983, Diagenesis and metamorphism of banded iron-formations,
in Trendall, A.F., and Morris, R.C., eds., Iron-formation: Facts and prob-
lems: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 417-469.
Kiein, C., and Beukes, N.J., 1989, Geochemistry and sedimentology of a fa-
cies transition Eram limestone to iron-formation deposition in the early Pro-
terozoic Transvaal Supergroup, South Africa: ECONOMICGEOLOGY,v. 84, p.
1733-1774.
677
-1992, Proterowic iron fonnations, in Condie, K.C., ed., Proterozoic
crustal evqiution: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 383-418.
Klein, C., an'd Bricker, O.P., 1977, Some aspects of the sedimentary and dia-
genetiê~pvironment of Proterozoic banded iron-fonnation: ECONOMIC
CEOLOGY,V.72, p. 1457-1470.
KIein, C., and Fink, R.P., 1976, Petrology of the Sokoman Iron Fonnation in
the Howells River area, at the westem edge of the Labrador trougb: Eco-
NOMICCEOLOGY,v. 71, p. 453-487.
Klein, C., and Ladeira, E.A., 2004, Ceochemistry and mineralogy of Neo-
woterozoic banded iron-fonnations and some selected, siliceous man-
gi\.nesefonnations from the Urucum district, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil:
ECONOMICCEOLOGY,v. 99, p. 1233-1244.
Kneeshaw, M., 1975, Mount Whaleback orebody: Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy Monograph 5, p.I90-916.
Kneeshaw, M., Kepert, D.A., Tehnas, I.J., and Pudovskis, M.A., 2002, From
Mt Goldsworthy to Area C-reflections on forty years of iron ore explo-
ration in the Pilhara: Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Pub-
lication Series 7/2002, p. 41-56.
Kneesh,!w, M., and Kepert, D.A., 2002, Cenesis ofhigb-grade hematite ore-
bodies of the Hamersley province, Westem Australia-a discussion: Eco-
NOMICCEOLOGY,v. 97, p. 173.
Knoll, A.H., 2003, Life on a young planet-the first three billion years of evo-
lution on Earth: Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 277 p.
Konhauser, K.O., Hamade, T., Raiswell, R., Morris, R.C., Ferris, F.C.,
Southam, C., and Canfield, D., 2002, Could bacteria have fonned the Pre-
cambrian banded iron fonnations?: Ceology, v. 30, p. 1079-1082.
Krapez, B., and Martin, D.McB., 1999, Sequence stratigraphy of the Palaeo-
proterozoic Nabberu province of Westem Australia: Australian Joumal of
Earth Sciences, v. 46, p. 89-103.
Kump, L.R., and Seyfried, W.E., Jr., 2005, Hydrothermal Fe fluxes during
the Precambrian: Effect of low oceanic sulfate concentrations and low hy-
drostatic pressure on the composition of black smokers: Earth and Plane-
tary Science Letters, v. 235, p. 654-662.
LaBerge, C.L., 1966a, Altered pyroclastic rocks in iron-fonnation in the
Hamersley Range, Westem Australia: ECONOMICCEOLOGY,v. 61, p. 147-161.
-1966b, Pyroclastic rocks in South African iron-fonnations: ECONOMIC
CEOLOGY,v. 61, p. 572-581.
LaBerge, C.L., Robbins, E.I., and Han, T.-M., 1987, A model for the biolog-
ical precipitatis>.n of Precambrian iron-fonnations. A: Ceological evidence,
in Appel, P.W,U., and LaBerge, C.L., eds., Precambrian iron-fonnations:
Athens, Creece, Theophrastus Publications, p. 69-96.
Larue, D.K., 1981, The early Proterowic pre-iron-formation Menominee
Croup siliciclastic sediments of the southem Lake Superior region: Evi-
dence for sedimentation in platform and basinal settings: Joumal of Sedi-
mentary Petrology, v. 51, p. 397-414. '
Lascelles, D., 2002, A new look at old rocks-an altemative model for the
origin of in situ iron ore deposits derived from banded iron-fonnation: Aus-
tralasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series 7/2002, p.
107-126.
Lepp, H., 1987, Chemistry and origin of Precambrian iron-formations, in
Appel, P.W.U., and LaBerge, C.L., eds., Precambrian iron-fonnations:
Athens, Creece, Theophrastus Publications, p. 3-30.
Li, Z.X., Powell, C.McA, and Bowman, R., 1993, Timing and genesis of
Hamersley iron-ore deposits: Exploration Ceophysics, v. 24, p. 631-636.
Lobato, L.M., Rosiere, C.A., Baars, F.J., Silva, R.C.F., Zuchetti, M.. Rios,
F.J., Seoane, J.C.S., Pimentel, M., Lindenmayer, Z.C., and Mendes, C.E.,
2004, Timing of hydrothei'mal iron mineralization, Carajás province [ext.
abs.]: Simpósio Brasileir~ de Exploração Mineral, Anais. Ouro Preto, Minas
Gerais, CD-ROM.
Lobato, L.M., Silva, R.C.F., Rosiere, C.A., Zucchetti, M., Baars, F.J.,
Pimentel, M., Rios, F.J., Seoane, J.C.S., and Monteiro, A.M., in press,
Hydrothennal origin for the iron mineralization, Carajás Province, Pará
State, Brazil: Iron Ore 2005, Perth, Australia.
Lowe, D.R., 1992, Major events in the geological development of the Pre-
cambrian earth, in Schopf, J.W., and Klein, C., eds., 1992, The Proterozoic
biosphere-'-a multidisciplinary study: Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, p. 67-75.
MacLeod, W.N., 1966, The geology and iron deposits of the Hamersley
Range area, Westem Australia: Ceological Survey of Westem Australia
Bulletin 117, 170 p.
Maliva, R.C., Knoll, A.H., and Siever, R., 1989, Secular change in chert dis-
tribution: A reflection of evolving biological participation in the silica cycle:
PALAIOS, v. 4, p. 519-532.
678 CLopr AND SIMONSON
Maliva, R.G., Knoll, A.H., and Simonson, B.M., 2005, Secular change in the
Precambrian silica cycle: Insights from chert petrology: Geological Society
of America Bulletin, v. 117, p. 835-845.
Manikyamba, C., 1999, Reworkingof BIF into GIF in the Sandur schist belt,
India: Possible evidence of sea leveI changes in an Archaean proto-ocean:
Joumal of the Geological Society of India, v. 53, p. 453--461.
Martin, D.McB., Li, Z.X., Nemchin, A.A., and Powell, C.McA., 1998, A pre-
2.2 Ga age for giant hematite ores of the Hamersley province, Australia?:
ECONOMICGEOLOGY,v. 93, p. 1084-1090.
Mason, T., and McSpadden, G., 2002, Performance enhancement at BHP
Billiton's Newman Beneficiation Plant: Metallurgical Plant Design and Op-
, erating Strategies, 2002, Sydney, Australasian Institute of Mining and Met-
allurgy, Proceedings, p. 81-104.
McConchie, D., 1987, The geology and geochemistry of the Joffre and
Whaleback Shale Members of the Brockrnan Iron Formation, Westem
Australia, in Appel, P.W.V., and LaBerge, G.L., eds., Precambrian iron-for-
mations: Athens, Greece, Theophrastus Publications, p. 541-597.
McKim, A.M., 1970, Wabush story. Part 111.Ore dressing - Scully mine: An-
nual Mining Symposium, 31st, Duluth, Minnesota, Proceedings.
McLellan, J.G., Oliver, N.H.S., and Schaubs, P.M., 2004, Fluid flow in ex-
tensional environments: Numerical modeling with an application to
Hamersley iron ores: Joumal of Structural Geology, v. 26, p. 1157-1161.
Mengel, J.T., 1973, Physical sedimentation in Precambrian cherty iron for-
mations of the Lake Superior type, in Amstutz, G.C., and Bemard, A.J.,
eds., Ores in sediments: Berlin, Springer-Verlag, p. 179-193.
Miller, D.J., 2002, Integration of the beneficiation process into iron ore re-
source utilisation: Australasian Institute of Miuing and Metallurgy Publica-
tion Series 7/2002, p. 243-250.
Miyano, T., 1987, Diagenetic to low-grade metamorphic conditions of Pre-
cambrian iron-formations, in Appel, P.W.V., and LaBerge. G.L., eds., Pre-
cambrian iron-formations: Athens, Greece, Theophrastus Publications, p.
155-186.
Morey, G.B., 1983, Animikie basin, Lake Superior region, V.S.A., in Tren-
daIl, A.F., and Morris, R.C., Iron-formation: Facts and problems: Amster-
dam, Elsevier, p. 13-67.
Morey, G.B., and Southwick, D.L., 1995, AIlostratigraphic relationships of
Early Proterozoic iron-formations in the Lake Superior region: ECONOMIC
GEOLOGY,V. 90, p. 1983-1993. ,
Morris, R.C., 1980, A textural and mineralogical study of the relationship of
iron ore to banded iron formation in the Hamersley iron province ofWest-
em Australia: ECONOMICGEOLOGY,v. 75, p. 184-209.
~!985, Genesis of iron ore in banded iron-formation by supergene and
supergene-metamorphic processes-a conceptual model, in Wolf, K.H.,
ed., Handbook of strata-bound and stratiform ore deposits: Amsterdam, El-
sevier, v. 13, p. 73-235.
-1986, A review of geological research on the iron ores of the Hamersley
Iron province, in Berkman, D.A., ed., Publications of the CMMI Congress,
13th,v. 2, Geology and Exploration, Singapore, May 1986: Congress of the
Council of Mining and MetaIlurgical Institutions and the Australasian In-
stitute of Mining and Metallurgy, p. 191-210.
-1987, Iron ores derived by the enrichment ofbanded iron-formation, in
Hein, J.R., ed., Siliceous sedimentary rock-hosted ores and petroleum:
New York, NY, Vau Norstrand Reinhold, p. 231-267.
-1993, Genetic modelling for banded iron-formation of the Hamersley
Group, Pilhara Craton, Westem Australia: Precambrian Research, v. 60, p.
243-286.
-1998, BIF-hosted iron ore deposits-Hamersley style: Joumal of Aus-
tralian Geology and Geophysics, v. 17, p. 207-211.
-2002a, Genesis of high-grade orebodies of the Hamersley province,
Westem Australia-a discussion: ECONOMICGEOLOGY,v. 97, p. 177-178
-2002b, Iron ore genesis and post-ore metasomatism at Mount Tom
Price: Australasian Institute of Mining and MetaIlurgy Publication Series
7/2002, p. 3-13.
Muller, S.G., Krapez, B., Barley, M.E., and Fletcher, I.R., 2005, Giant iron-
ore deposits of the Hamersley province related to the breakup of Paleo-
proterozoicAustralia:New insightsfrom in situ SHRIMP dating of badde-
leyite from mafic intrusions: Geology, v. 33, p. 577-580.
Neal, H.E., 2000, Iron ore deposits of the Labrador trough: Exploration Min-
ing Geology, v. 9, p. 113-121.
Nelson, D.R., Trendall, A.F., and Altermann, W., 1999, Chronological corre-
lations between the Pilhara and Kaapvaal cratons: Precambrian Research,
v. 97. D. 165-189.
Netshiozwi, S.T., 2002, Origin of high-grade hematite ores at Thabazimbi
mine; Limpop~province, South Africa: Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Auck-
land Park, RanlFAfrikaans University, 134 p.
Nutman, A.P., Allaart, J.H., Bridgwater, D., Dimroth, E., and Rosing, M.,
1984, Stratigraphic and geochemical evidence for the depositional environ-
ment of the Early Archaean lsua supracrustal belt, West Greenland: Pre-
cambrian Research, v. 25, p. 365-396.
Ohmoto, H., 2003, Nonredox transformations of magnetite-hematite in hy-
drothermal systems: ECONOMICGEOLOCY,v. 98, p. 157-161.
Ojakan~as, R.W., 1983, Tidal deposits in the early Proterozoic basin of the
Lake Superior region-the Palms and Pokegama Formations: Evidence for
subtidal shelf deposition of Superior-type banded iron-formation: Geologi-
cal Society of America Memoir 60, p. 4~.
Oliver, N.H.S., and Dickens, G.R., 1999, Hematite ores of Australia formed
by syntectonic heated meteoric fluids, in Stanley, C.J., et ai., Mineral de-
posits: Processes to processing: Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema" v. 2, p. 889-892.
Oliver, N.H.S., Dickens, G.R., and Powell, C.McA., Bons, P.D, and Stewart,
L.K., 1998, Hamersley hematite ore genesis by syntectonic inflltration of
heated mt:teorié fluid: Isotopic, geochemical and microstructural con-
straints [abs.]: Australian Geological Convention, 14th, Australian Geologi-
cal Society, Proceedings, v. 49, p. 340.
Pickard, A.L., 2002, SHRIMP U-Pb zircon ages of tuffaceous mudrocks in
the Brockman Iron Formation of the Hamersley Range, Westem Australia:
Australian Joumal ofEarth Sciences, v. 49, p. 491-507.
-2003, SHRIMP U-Pb zircon ages for the Palaeoproterozoic Kuruman
Iron Formation, Northem Cape province, South Africa: Evidence for si-
multaneous BIF deposition on Kaapvaal and Pilhara cratons: Precambrian
Research, v. 125, p. 275-315.
Pickard, A.L., Barley, M.E., and Krapez, B., 2004, Deep-marine depositional
setting ofbanded iron formation: Sedimentological evidence from interbed-
ded clastic sedimentary rocks in the early Palaeoproterozoic Dales Gorge
Member of Westem Australia: Sedimentary Geology, v. 170, p. 37-62.
Pinheiro, R.V.L., and Holdsworth, R.E., 1997, The structure of the Carajás
N-4 Ironstone deposit and associated rocks: Relationship to Archaean
strike-slip tectonics and basement reactivation in the Amazon region,
Brazil: Joumal of South American Earth Sciences, v. 10, p. 305-319.
Pires, F.R.M., 2002, Distribution of hard hematite ore at the Quadrilátero
Ferrífero, Minas Gerais, Brazil and its possible genetic significance: Aus-
tralasian InstituteQfMining and Metallurgy Publication Series 7/2002, p.
71-76.
Povey, B.C., and Leather, K.G., 1997, Upgrading of Australian magnetite
orebodies, in Misra, V:N., and Dunlop, J.S., eds., Towards 2000-National
Conference on Ironmaking Resources and Reserves Estimation: Aus-
tralasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Spectrum Series, Proceedings,
p. 153-156.
Powell, C.McA., Oliver, N.H.S., Li, Z.X., Martin, D.McB., and Ronaszecki,
J., 1999, Synorogenic hydrothermal origin for giant Hamersley iron oxide
orebodies: Geology, v. 27, p. 175-178.
Ribeiro, D.T, Pires, F.R.M., and Carvalho, R.M., 2002, Supergene iron ore
and disorder: Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication
Series 7/2002, p. 81-89.
Rio Tinto, 2004, Unpublished Annual Report: London, U .K., Rio Tinto, 155 p.
Rios, F.J., Lobato, L.M., Rosiere, C.A., Silva, R.C.F., and Souza, A.S., 2004,
Resultados preliminares do estudo metalogenético do minério hematítico
de alto teor do depósito de ferro N5-Carajás, utilizando microscopia e
microtermometria de infravermelho [ext. abs.]: Simpósio Brasileiro de
Exploração Mineral, Anais. amo Preto, Minas Gerais, CD-ROM.
Rosiere, C.A., and Chemale, F., Jr., 1991, Textural and structural aspects of
iron ores from Iron Quadrangle, Brazil: Society for Geology Applied to
Mineral Deposits Anniversary Meeting, 25th, Nancy, Proceedings, p.
485-489.
Rosiere, C.A., and Rios, F.J., 2004, The origin ofhematite in high-grade iron
ores based on infrared microscopy and flnid inclusion studies: The example
of the Conceição mine, Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil: ECONOMICGEOL-
OCY,v. 99, p. 611-624.
Rosiere, C.A., Siemes, H., Quade, H., Brokmeier, H.-G., and Jansen, E.,
2001, Microstructures, textures and deformation mechanisms in hematite:
Joumal of Structural Geology, v. 23, p. 1429-1440.
Rosiere, C,A., Siemes, H., Rios, F.J., and Quade, H., 2002, Deformation-con-
trolled high-grade iron ores [ext. abs.]: Quadrennial IAGOD Symposium
and Geocongress, 11th,Windhoek, N amibia, Geological Survey of N amibia,
CD-ROM.
 IRON FORMATIONSAND ASSOCIATEDIRON OREDEPOSITS
Rosiere, C.A., Seoane, J.C.S., Baars, F.J., and Lobato, L.M., 2004, A
estruturação da Província de Carajás e sua influência na mineralização de
ferro [ext. abs.]: Simpósio Brasileiro de Exploração Mineral, Anais. Ouro
Preto, Minas Gerais, CD-ROM:
Rouxel, O.J., Bekker, A., and Edwards, K.J., 2005, Iron isotope constraints on
the Archean and Paleoproterozoic ocean redox state: Science, v. 307, p.
1088-1091.
Schneider, D.A., Bickford, M.E., Cannon, WF., Schulz, K J., and Hamilton,
M.A., 2002, Age of volcanic rocks and syndepositional iron formations,
Marquette Range Supergroup: Implications for the tectonic setting of Pa-
leoproterozoic iron formations of the Lake Superior region: Canadian Jour-
nal ofEarth Sciences, v. 39, p. 999-1012.
'Shegelski, R.J., 1987, The depositional environment of Archean iron forma-
tions, Sturgeon-Savant greenstone belt, Ontario, Canada, in Appel, P.W. U.,
and LaBerge, C.L., eds., Precambrian iron-formations: Athens, Creece,
Theophrastus Publications, p. 329-344.
Silva, R.R.R., Amarante, S.C., Souza, C.C., and Araujo, A.C., 2002, Ore min-
eralogy and its relevance for the selection of concentration methods in the
processingof Brazilian iron ores: Australasian Institute of Mining and Met-
allurgyPublication Series 7/2002, p. 159-169.
Silva, R.C.F., Lobato, L.M., Rosiere, C.A., Guedes, S.C., Monteiro, A.,
Meireles, H., and Matias, P.H., 2004, Estudos petrográficos microscópicos,
geoquímicos e geocronológicos em jaspilitos e minério de ferro dos
depósitos Nl, N4W, N4E e N5E, Província Mineral Carajás [ext. abs.]:
Simpósio Brasileiro de Exploração Mineral, Anais. Ouro Preto, Minas
Gerais, CD-ROM.
Simonson, B.M., 1984, High-energy shelf deposit: Early Proterozoic Wishart
Formation, northeastem Canada: Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists Special Publication 34, p. 251-268.
-1985, Sedimentological constraints on the origins of Precambrian iron-
formations: Ceological Society of America Bulletin, v. 96, p. 244-252.
-1987, Early silica cementation and subsequent diagenesis in arenites
from falir early Proterozoic iron formations of North America: Joumal of
Sedimentary Petrology, v. 57,p. 494-511.
-2003, Origin and evolution of large Precambrian iron formations: Ceo-
logical Society of America Special Papel 370, p. 231-244.
Simonson, B.M., and Camey, K.E., 1999, Roll-up structures: Evidence of in
sim microbial mats in Late Arche,an deep shelf environments: PALAIOS, v.
14, p. 13-24.
Simonson, B.M., and Coode, A.D.T., 1989, First discovery of ferruginous
chert arenites in the early Precambrian of Westem Australia: Ceology, v.
17, p. 269-272.
Simonson, B.M., and Hassler, S.W., 1996, Was the deposition of large Pre-
cambrian iron formations linked to major marine transgression?: Joumal of
Geology, v. 104, p. 665-676.
Simonson, B. M., Schubel, K.A., and Hassler, S.W., 1993, Carbonate sedi-
mentology of the early Precambrian Hamersley Croup of Westem Aus-
tralia: Precambrian Research, v. 60, p. 287-335.
Singer, A., and Müller, C., 1983, Diagenesis in argilláceous sediments, in
Larsen, C., and Chilingar, C. V., eds., Diagenesis in sediments and sedi-
mentary rocks, 2: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 115-212.
Spier, C.A., Oliyeria, S.M., and Rosiere, C.A., 2003, Geology and geochem-
istry of the Aguas Claras and Pico iron min~ Quadrilátero Ferrífero,
Minas Gerais, Brazil: Mineralium Deposita, v. 38, p. 751-774.
Taylor, D., Dalstra, H.J., Harding, A.E., Broadbent, C.C., and Barley, M.E,
2001, Genesis of high-grade hematite orebodies of the Hamersley
province, Westem Australia: ECONOMICCEOLOCY,v. 96, p. 837-873.
Taylor, D., Dalstra, H.J. and Harding, A.E., 2002, Cenesis of high-grade
hematite orebodies of the Hamersley province, Westem Australia-a reply:
ECONOMICCEOLOCY,v. 97, p. 179-181.
Thome, A.M., and TrendaJJ,A.F., 2001, Ceology of the Fortescue Group, Pil-
bara craton, Westem Australia: Ceological Survey of Westem Australia
BuIletin 144,249 p.
Thome, W.S., Hagemann, S.C., and Barley, M., 2004, Petrographic and geo-
chemical evidence for the hydrothermal evolution of the North deposit,
Mt. Tom Price, Westem Australia: Mineralium Deposita, v. 39, p. 766-783.
679
Trendall, A.F., 1972, Revolution in earth history: Joumal of the Geological
Society of Au~alia, v. 19, p. 287-311.
-1973, Varve"'cycles in the Weeli Wolli Fonnation of the Precambrian
HamersleyG~oup, Westem Australia: ECONOMIC CEOLOCY, v. 68, p.
1089-1098.
-1983, The Hamersley basin, in Trendall, A.F., and Morris, R.C., eds.,
Iron-fonnation: Facts and problems: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 69-129.
-2002, The signiflcance of iron-formation in the Precambrian strati-
graphic recordo Intemational Association of Sedimentologists Special Pub-
licatión 33, p. 33-66.
TrendaIl, A.F., and Blockley, J.C., 1970, The iron fonnations of the Precam-
brian Hamersley Croup, Westem Australia: Geological SurveyofWestem
Australia Bulletin 119, 366 p.
Trendall, A.F., Nelson, D.R., De Laeter, J.R., and Hassler, S.W., 1998, Pre-
cise zircon V-Pb ages from the Marra Mamba Iron Fonnation and the Wit-
tenoom Formation, Hamersley Croup, Westem Australia: Australian Jour-
nal ofEarth Sciences, v. 45, p. 137-142.
Trendall, A.F., Compston, W., Nelson, D.R., De Laeter, J.R., and Bennett,
V:C., 2004,. SHRIMP zircon ages constraining the depositional chronology
of the Hamersley Croup, Westem Australia: Australian Joumal of Earth
Sciences, v. 51, p. 621-644.
Van Hise, C.R., and Leith, C.K., 1911, The geology of the Lake Superior re-
gion: V.S. Ceological Survey Monograph 52, 641 p.
Van Schalkwyk, J.F., and Beukes, N.J., 1986, The Sishen iron ore deposit, in
Anhaeusser, C.R., and Maskes, S., eds., Mineral deposits of Southem
Africa: Johannesburg, Ceological Society of South Africa, v. 1-2, p.
931-956. .
Veizer, J., Clayton, R.N., Hinton, R.W., von Brunn, V., Mason, T.R., Buck,
S.C., and Hoefs, J., 1990, Ceochemistry of Precambrian carbonates: m.
Shelf seas and non-marine environments of the Archean: Ceochimica Cos-
mochimica Acta, v. 54, p. 2717-2729.
Veizer, J., Clayton, R.N., and Hinton, R.W., 1992, Ceochemistry of Precam-
brian carbonates: IV. Early Paleoproterozoic (2.25 x 0.25 Ga) seawater:
Ceochimica Cosmochimica Acta, v. 56, p. 875-885.
Walter, M.R., 1972, A hot spring analog for the depositional environment of
Precambrian iron fonnations of the Lake Superior region: ECONOMICCE-
OLOGY,v. 67, p. 965-972.
Walter, M.R., and Hofmann, H.J., 1983, The palaeontology and palaeoecol-
ogy of Precambrian iron-fonnations, in Trendall, A.F., and Morris, R.C.,
eds. Iron-fonnation: Facts and problems: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p.
373-400.
Wamock, W.W., and Bensley, C.N., 1996, The Port Hedland hot briquetted
iron project: Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Annual Con-
ference, Pertb, Proceedings, p. 197-202.
Watchom, M.A., 1980, Fluvial and tidal sedimentation in the 3000 Ma
Mozaan basin, South Africa: Precambrian Research, v. 13, p. 27-42.
Webb, A.D., Oliver, N.H.S., and Dickens, D.R., 2002, Multistage evolution
of higb grade hematite orebodies from the Hamersley province, Westem
Australia: Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Se-
fies 7/2002, p. 91-94.
Webb, A.D., Dickens, C., and-Oliver, N.H.S., 2003, From banded iron-for-
mation to iron ore: Geochemical and mineralogical constraints from across
the Hamersley province, Westem Australia: Chemical Ceology, v. 197, p.
215-251.
Winter, B.L., and Knauth, L.P., 1992, Stable isotope geochemistry of cherts
and carbonates from the 2.0 Ci;t.Cunflint Iron Formation: Implications for
the depositional setting, and the effects of diagenesis and metamorphism:
Precambrian Research, v. 56, p. 283-313.
Young, C.M., 1976, Iron-formation and glaciogenic rocks of the Rapitan
Croup, Nortbwest Territories, Canada: Precambrian Research, v. 3, p.
137-158.
-1988, Proterozoic plate tectonics, glaciation and iron-fonnations: Sedi-
mentary Ceology, v. 58, p. 127-144.
~ajac, I.S., 1974, The stratigraphy and mineralogy of the Sokoman Fonnation
in the Knob Lake area, Quebec and Newfoundland: Geological Survey of
Canada Bulletin 220, 159 p.