Geochemical differences between subduction- and collision-related copper-bearing porphyries and implications for metallogenesis》.pdfVIP

Ore Geology Reviews 70 (2015) 424–437 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ore Geology Reviews journal homepage: www. elsevi er. com/ locate/ oregeorev Geochemical differences between subduction- and collision-related copper-bearing porphyries and implications for metallogenesis JianLin Chen a,b,⁎, JiFeng Xu a,b, BaoDi Wang c, ZhiMing Yang d, JiangBo Ren a, HongXia Yu a, Hongfei Liu e, Yuexing Feng f a State Key Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 511 Kehua Street, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510640, China b CAS Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, Beijing 100101, China c Chengdu Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources, 2 Northern Section of First Ring Road, Chengdu, 610081, China d Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Science, 26 Baiwanzhuang Road, Beijing 100037, China e Tibet Institute of Geological Survey, 21 Beijing Road, Lhasa 850000, China f School of Earth Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Porphyry Cu (–Mo–Au) deposits occur not only in continental margin–arc settings (subduction-related porphyry Received 25 March 2014 Cu deposits, such as those along the eastern Pacific Rim (EPRIM)), but also in continent–continent collisional Received in revised form 26 December 2014 orogenic belts (collision-related porphyry Cu deposits, such as those in southern Tibet). These Cu-mineralized Accepted 14 January 2015