Ernst, R.E., 2007, Large igneous provinces in Canada through time and their metallogenic potential, in Goodfellow, W.D., ed., Mineral Deposits of Canada:A Synthesis of Major Deposit-Types, District Metallogeny, the Evolution of Geological Provinces, and Exploration Methods: Geological Association ofCanada, Mineral Deposits Division, Special Publication No. 5, p. 929-937.

LARGE IGNEOUS PROVINCES IN CANADA THROUGH TIME

AND THEIR METALLOGENIC POTENTIAL

RICHARD E. ERNST

Ernst Geosciences, 43 Margrave Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K1T 3Y2and Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6

Corresponding author’s email: RichardErnst@ErnstGeosciences.com

Abstract

Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs) comprise flood basalts, major dyke swarms, sill provinces, and large layered mafic-ultramafic intrusions, and occur on average once per 20 million years back to 2600 Ma. There may also be Archeananalogues. LIPs are key hosts for Ni-Cu-PGE, Cr, and Fe-Ti-V deposits. In some cases, there is also a spatial and tem-poral link with non-mafic intrusions such as carbonatites (with Au-Hg, REE-Ta-Nb deposits) and kimberlites (with dia-monds). Since LIPs transport much thermal energy into the crust, they can drive hydrothermal systems that are capableof generating different types of mineral deposits. Basic information on more than 80 LIPs and interpreted LIP-frag-ments in Canada are presented, along with the generalized distribution of each. Our current understanding of LIPsthrough time is at a preliminary level, and much work, particularly high-precision geochronology, is needed to under-stand the full extent of LIPs through time and to assess their mineral potential.

Résumé

Les grandes provinces ignées (GPI) comprennent les basaltes de plateau, les essaims de dykes majeurs, lesprovinces de filons-couches et les grandes intrusions mafiques-ultramafiques stratifiées; les épisodes magmatiques quiles engendrent surviennent en moyenne à tous les 20 millions d’années depuis 2600 Ma. Des phénomènes analoguesont en outre pu se produire à l’Archéen. Les GPI sont les hôtes clés des gîtes de Ni-Cu-ÉGP, de Cr et de Fe-Ti-V. Danscertains cas, il existe en outre une relation spatiale et temporelle avec des intrusions non mafiques comme les carbon-atites (qui peuvent renfermer des gîtes de Au-Hg, de ÉTR-Ta-Nb) et les kimberlites (qui peuvent contenir des diamants).Puisque les GPI déplacent de grandes quantités d’énergie thermique dans la croûte, elles peuvent entraîner la formationde systèmes hydrothermaux capables d’engendrer différents types de gîtes minéraux. On présente de l’information debase sur plus de 80 GPI et fragments interprétés de GPI au Canada avec une distribution généralisée pour chacune.Notre compréhension actuelle de l’évolution temporelle des GPI se situe encore au niveau préliminaire et des travauxconsidérables, en particulier de géochronologie de grande précision, seront nécessaires pour comprendre toute l’am-pleur de l’évolution des GPI dans le temps et en évaluer le potentiel minéral.

Definition and Characteristics of Large Igneous Provinces

Earth history is punctuated by numerous periods duringwhich large volumes of ‘intraplate’ mafic and silicic magmawere emplaced in the crust (Fig. 1) by processes not associ-ated with a ‘normal’ spreading ridge or subduction environ-ments. The regions of the Earth that are affected by thisintrusive and/or extrusive magmatism are termed LargeIgneous Provinces (LIPs). LIPs consist of continental floodbasalts, volcanic rifted margins, oceanic plateaus, and ocean-basin flood basalts (Coffin and Eldholm, 1994, 2001).Submarine ridges and seamount chains were part of the orig-inal definition (Coffin and Eldholm, 1994), but do not fitcurrent definitions that emphasize a short duration of mag-matic activity or sharp pulses of activity (“transient LIPs” ofCoffin and Eldholm, 2001; Bryan and Ernst, 2006). Alsoimportant are the LIP plumbing systems of dyke swarms, sillprovinces, and layered intrusions (Ernst and Buchan, 2001).Silicic magmatism is frequently associated with LIPs and insome cases they can be of high volume (e.g. Bryan et al.,2002, Dobretsov, 2005).

The size criterion for LIPs is controversial. We use theoriginal criterion of an areal extent of at least 100,000 km2

(Coffin and Eldholm, 1994, 2001; Ernst and Buchan, 2001;Ernst et al., 2005); note however that others, such asCourtillot and Renne (2003), prefer a more restrictive crite-rion of an areal extent of 1 million km2 with a volume of 1 million km3.

The expression of LIPs varies through Earth’s history(Ernst and Buchan, 2001, Ernst et al., 2005). LIPs ofMesozoic and Cenozoic age are typically the best preservedand consist mainly of flood basalts. Those of Paleozoic andProterozoic age are often more deeply eroded, and compriseflood basalt remnants and the exposed plumbing system rep-resented by giant dyke swarms, sill provinces and layeredintrusions. In the Archean, the most promising LIP candi-dates are greenstone belts containing tholeiite-komatiitesequences.

Many LIPs are linked to regional-scale uplift, continentalrifting and breakup, and/or climactic/environmental crises(e.g. Courtillot et al., 1999, 2003; Pirajno, 2000; Campbell,2001; Rainbird and Ernst, 2001; Şengör, 2001; Courtillotand Renne, 2003; Ernst and Buchan, 2003; Xu et al., 2004;Ernst et al., 2005), and to partial melting of an arriving man-tle plume and the onset of continental breakup (e.g. Whiteand Mackenzie, 1989; Campbell and Griffiths, 1990,Courtillot et al., 2003; Ernst et al., 2005). However, alterna-tive non-plume origins are being forcefully argued andinclude back-arc rifting, delamination, edge convection, andbolide impact (e.g. Anderson, 2001; Foulger et al., 2005).

Since LIPs can be precisely dated, they provide key timemarkers in the stratigraphic record and therefore play animportant role in unraveling the Earth’s geological history.They are also an important target for magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE,Cr, Fe-Ti-V and other deposit-types (Naldrett, 1997, 1999;Pirajno, 2000; Schissel and Smail, 2001; Crocket, 2002;

Borisenko et al., 2006; Eckstrandand Hulbert, 2007). Table 1 profilesseveral of the most significant oredeposits that are associated withLIPs. The strongest association iswith Ni-Cu-PGE deposits repre-sented by Bushveld, Noril’sk, andJinchuan intrusions with theirworld-class ore deposits (e.g.Naldrett, 1997). In addition, silicicLIPs (Bryan et al., 2002; Dobretsov,2005) may be associated withOlympic Dam-type deposits (Cu-Au-Ag-U-REE) (e.g. Campbell,1998; Corriveau, 2007). There isalso a spatial association with kim-berlites (diamonds) (e.g. Agashevet al., 2004; Kjarsgaard, 2007) andcarbonatites (Au-Hg-REE-Ta-Nbdeposits) (Bell, 2001). In additionto orthomagmatic ore deposits, theemplacement of LIPs produces alarge thermal anomaly and convec-tion in the crust. This large-scalefluid circulation engenders a vari-ety of hydrothermal systems thatform several types of hydrothermalore deposits (Carlin-style, conti-nental porphyry Mo, adularia-sericite epithermal systems, etc.;Pirajno, 2000).

The Role of the Large IgneousProvinces Concept in

Exploration for Ni-Cu-PGE andOther Commodities

Applying the paradigm of LIPsto the search for commodities hasseveral advantages that are dis-cussed briefly below.

Large Igneous ProvincesRepresent a Systems Approach toUnderstanding Magmatic Events

LIPs consist of flood basalts (ortheir erosional remnants), dykeswarms (with radiating, linear, orarcuate geometries), sill provinces,layered mafic-ultramafic intru-sions, and silicic magmatism(mainly associated with partialmelting of lower crust).Underplated magma is also probably important, as are vol-canic sequences associated with rifting. The LIP-systemapproach considers the pathway of the magma from mantlesource areas, upward into a crustal plumbing system (dykes,sills, and layered intrusions) that distributes the magma (lat-erally and vertically) within the crust and also feeds surfacelavas (e.g. Ernst and Buchan, 1997a,b). Understanding themagmatic pathways has ore deposit implications. Magmaflowing through the plumbing system has an opportunity to

interact with host rocks (e.g. with sulphur-rich and silica-richsediments), which may cause the concentration and segrega-tion of sulphides (e.g. Naldrett, 1997). In addition, extensivemeteoric water and magmatic fluid circulation systems candevelop in the host rocks adjacent to intrusions, particularlythose feeders associated with extensive and prolongedmagma flow. This circulation of hot fluids can lead to theformation of hydrothermal ore deposits associated with LIPs(e.g. Pirajno, 2000, 2004).

R.E. Ernst

930

500

Age(Ma)

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Age uncertainty:

<20 Ma

20-50 Ma

0

Ontong Java (PA)

Siberian Traps (AS)

Mackenzie (NA), CSDG (EU)

Warakurna (AU)

Prince Albert / Woodburn Lake (NA),Kam (NA), Abitibi (NA)

Fortescue (AU), Ventersdorp (AF)

Deccan (AS), NAIP (EU, NA)

CAMP (NA, SA, EU, AF)

Kalkarindji (AU)

Franklin (NA)Gunbarrel (NA)

Keweenawan (NA), Umkondo (AF)

Bukoba-Kavumwe (AF)

Yakutsk (AS)

Iapetus related (NA, EU)

Gairdner-Willouran (AU),South China (AS)

Circum-Superior Province (NA)

Avanavero (SA), Hart (AU)

Birimian (AF)

Matachewan (NA),BLIP (Baltica LIP) (EU)

Onverwacht (AF)

Karelian (EU)

Ungava (NA)

Bushveld (AF)

Moyie (NA)

PHANEROZOIC

NEOPROTEROZOIC

MESOPROTEROZOIC

PALEOPROTEROZOIC

ARCHEAN

HADEAN

FIGURE 1. Global ‘bar code’ of large igneous provinces. AF = Africa, AN = Antarctica, AS = Asia, AU =Australia, EU = Europe, NA = North America, PA = Pacific Ocean, SA = South America.

Large Igneous Provinces in Canada through Time and their Metallogenic Potential

931

Feeding of Some Volcanics, Layered Intrusions, and Sillsby Lateral Flow through Dykes from Distant Source Areas

It has been shown that giant dyke swarms with radiatinggeometry can transport magma laterally from source areasnear the focal point of the radiating swarm, and emplacemagma as sills or volcanics more than 1000 km away (e.g.Ernst and Buchan, 1997a,b). Thus an individual sill, volcanicunit, or layered intrusion may not originate from the imme-diately underlying mantle, but may have been transportedlaterally to its present location from a distal mantle source.This has implications for studies of whether a given mantleregion has been previously or is subsequently tapped (e.g.‘second-stage’ melt hypothesis for the origin of PGE-enriched magmas, Hamlyn and Keays, 1986). The phenom-enon of long-distance lateral transport of magma is illus-trated using a 2217 to 2210 Ma event from the easternSuperior and Southern provinces (Figs. 2, 3). The Nipissingsills in the Southern Province are postulated to originate viaa radiating dyke swarm from a mantle source area 1300 kmto the northeast (Buchan et al., 1998). Therefore, the mantlesource for the Nipissing sills would have nothing to do withthe mantle underneath the Southern Province that previouslygenerated the 2500 to 2450 Ma Matachewan magmaticprovince [event #1a in Appendix 1 and Fig. 4]. Instead therelevant mantle would be located under the Labrador Trough(1300 km to the northeast).

Locating the Centre of a Mantle Plume Responsible for aLarge Igneous Province

The plume centre region can be located using a variety ofstrategies including the centre of domal uplift, the focus ofgiant radiating dyke swarms, and the location of high-Mgmagmas (e.g. Campbell et al., 1989; Ernst and Buchan,2003). Formation of ore deposits is enhanced in conduitsexperiencing greater magma flow-through, and such conduitsare more likely concentrated above the plume centre. Also,ultramafic magmas are better targets for mineralization andthey also tend to be concentrated in the plume centre region.

Potential Linkage of Layered Intrusions and Dyke SwarmsThe feeder system into or out of a layered intrusion is the

loci of many Ni-Cu-PGE ore deposits (Naldrett, 1997).Therefore, it is important to investigate the link in LIPsbetween layered intrusions and dykes swarms, but in mostLIPs the relationship is obscure. It is generally expected thatlayered intrusions spawn subswarms of dykes (e.g. Baragaret al., 1996), but it is also possible that layered intrusions canbe spawned along a dyke swarm at widened portions ofdykes (Ernst and Buchan, 1997b).

Dyke Swarms Emplaced into Cratonic Interiors have anExcellent Preservation Potential

Dyke swarms are generally better preserved than otherparts of a LIP (e.g. volcanics, layered intrusions). These

Reference:E = eventA = age

C = commodity(E, A, C) Dobretsov, 2005Borisenko et al., 2006

Emeishan China and Vietnam

0.66 258 Ma Gabbroic intrusions Fe-Ti-V), ultramafic

intrusions (Ni-Cu-PGE)

(E, A, C) Xu et al., 2004; Dobretsov, 2005Borisenko et al., 2006

(C ) Agashev et al., 2004(E, A) #44 in Ernst and Buchan, 2001(E, A) Li, W.X. et al., 2003, 2005(C ) Li, X.H et al., 2005(E, A) #157 in Buchan and Ernst, 2004(C ) Miller and Ripley, 1996(E, A) Baragar et al., 1996;(C ) Hulbert, 2005

Gawler Range (felsic LIP)

Gawler Block, Australia

0.13 1600 Ma Olympic Dam(Cu-Au-Ag-U-REE)

(E, A, C) Campbell et al., 1998

SudburyImpact Event1

0.01 1850 Ma Ni, Cu (E, A, C) Naldrett, 2003

Circum-Superior 1800 Ma

Circum-Superior craton

0.1 1885-1865 Ma Thompson (Ni), Raglan

(Ni-Cu-PGE)

(E, A) www.largeigneousprovinces.org/LOM.html (May, 2004)(C ) Eckstrand and Hulbert, 2007(E, A, C) www.largeigneousprovinces.org/LOM.html (May 2005)(E) Eales and Cawthorn, 1996(A for Phalaborwa) Fig. 4 in Hanson, 2003

Commodity

Siberia Siberia, Ural mtns, Central

Asian Fold Belt

3.67 251 Ma Norilsk (Ni-Cu-PGE)

Event Region/Host TectonicTerrane

ApproxSize

(Mkm2)

Age

Kimberlites (Diamonds)

Guibei South China Block

1.34 825 Ma Jinchuan (Ni-Cu-PGE)

Yakutsk Siberian craton (eastern margin)

0.96 360 Ma

2.71 1267 Ma Muskox Intrusion(Cu-Ni-PGE)

Keweenawan Mid-Continent Rift

0.42 1114-1085 Ma

1. Note that the Sudbury impact event is not strictly a large igneous province (it fails the size criterion), but is included hereinas the type example of the production of significant volumes of mafic magmatism and associated Ni-Cu ore deposits by melting resulting from meteorite impact.

Bushveld-MolopoFarms

Kaapvaalcraton

>0.09 2054 M Bushveld (PGE), Phalaborwa

carbonatite (Cu)

Duluth (Cu-Ni-PGE)

Mackenzie Laurentia

Table 1. Selected large igneous provinces with significant ore deposits.

other parts may be concentrated inthe cratonic margin and hence behighly deformed or reside in acover sequence that is easily eroded(Halls, 1982; Bleeker and Ernst,2006). Therefore, dyke swarms inthe cratonic interior may be theonly easily recognizable compo-nent of a given LIP to survive.However, once a LIP has beenidentified by its well preserveddyke swarm, then the rest of theLIP including layered intrusions(potentially hosting ore deposits)can be sought in more highlyeroded and deformed regions alongthe cratonic margin.

Continental Reconstructions AllowTracing of Metallogenic Beltsbetween Blocks

A prominent example is offeredby Bleeker and Ernst (2006) (seealso Dahl et al., 2006; Fig. 3),where 2500 to 2450 Ma LIPs areused to reconstruct Baltica, Hearne,Wyoming, and Superior cratons. Inthis reconstruction, Karelia-Kola,Hearne, and Wyoming are placedagainst the southern SuperiorCraton (from east to west). Thisnew reconstruction also makessome predictions about the correla-tion of younger LIPs between thecratonic blocks, ca. 2215 Ma mag-matism in Superior and Karelia-Kola cratons, 2170 Ma magmatismin Superior and Wyoming cratons,and finally at 2100 to 2070 Ma inall four cratons. The latter event isinferred to mark the breakup ofthese four cratons.

Geochemical Analysis of LargeIgneous Provinces to AssessEconomic Potential

Recently, Zhang et al. (2006)reported the results of a compara-tive geochemical study of ten majorLIPs in order to determine whetherthere are systematic differencesbetween those LIPs with Ni andPGE potential and those lacking such potential. They con-cluded that LIPs that are fertile for Ni and PGE: 1) arrivefrom a deep-sourced mantle plume (FOZO [Focal Zone]source), 2) contain a significant percentage of high-MgOmagmatism that is low in Al2O3 and Na2O, but highlyenriched in strongly incompatible elements, 3) have moder-ately high Os contents, and 4) an isotopic range between theFocal Zone (FOZO) and Enriched Mantle 1 (EM1). Theyconclude that interaction between plume-related magmas

and moderately cratonic subcontinental lithospheric mantle(SCLM) is important in producing Ni-PGE fertility. In con-trast, barren LIPs contain less high-MgO magmatism, andthe isotopic signatures show interaction between isotopicreservoirs Focal Zone (FOZO) and Enriched Mantle 2(EM2). Their conclusion for barren LIPs is that there may bea recycled component in the ascending plume, but limitedinteraction with subcontinental lithospheric mantle.

R.E. Ernst

932

SUPERIOR

BAY

UNGAVA

LAKEHURONLAKEHURON

HUDSON

BAY

JAMES

BAY

km

2500

Ungava magmatic event(ca. 2.22 Ga)

NIPISSING N1 SILLS2217 ± 4 Ma

SOUTHERNPROVINCE

SUPERIOR

PR

OV

INC

E

NQ

O

CSB

SEN

NETER

RE

2216

+8/-4

Ma

GR

EN

VIL

LE

FRO

NT

MAGUIREca. 2230 Ma

KLOTZ

2209 ± 1 Ma

FIGURE 2. Nipissing-Ungava event (modified after Buchan et al., 1998, 2007). CSB is Cape Smith Belt,NQO is New Quebec Orogen. Star is interpreted plume centre.

Large Igneous Provinces in Canada through Time and their Metallogenic Potential

933

Canada’s Record of Large Igneous Provinces andInterpreted Large Igneous Province Fragments

As outlined above, LIPs are potentially important tools forthe exploration of a number of different ore deposit types.However, the LIP record is incompletely known. ImportantLIP compilations (mostly in the context of identifyingplume-related events) have been attempted by Coffin andEldholm (1994, 2001, for mostly the Cenozoic-Mesozoicrecord), Isley and Abbott (1999), and, for the Archean record,Arndt et al. (2001) and Tomlinson and Condie (2001). Theseand other sources were incorporated in the preparation of adetailed global listing by Ernst and Buchan (2001). Figure 4shows the distribution of LIPs (and postulated LIP frag-

ments) for Canada through time (updated after the morerecent version of the database in Ernst and Buchan, 2004).Basic information on each event is provided in Appendices 1and 2, and the PGE potential of some of these events isassessed in Hulbert (2002) and Ernst and Hulbert (2003).

Selected Canadian events that are significant from a PGE-Cu-Ni ore deposits’ perspective are discussed below. The2500 to 2450 Ma Matachewan event of the Superior Craton[event #1a in Appendix 1, Fig. 4] hosts the East Bull Lakeand related layered intrusions of potential interest (James etal., 2002a,b). The 2217 to 2210 Ma Ungava event [event #2cin Appendix 1] fed the Nipissing sills of the southernProvince, which have been historically important for Co-Ag-

Херн Karelia

Kola

Superior

2505 (-2450?) Ma

2490-2450Ma

Wyomingcraton?

Hearne

Kareliancraton

KolaPeninsula

Superior 2210-2220Ma

Nipissing sills Karelian cratonincluding the KolaPeninsula

Wyomingcraton?

Hearne

Kareliancraton

KolaPeninsula

Wyomingcraton?

2110Ma

Griffingabbrosills

Karjaliticsills

1980 Ma

Paleo-proterozoiccover

Archean

Riftedby 19

80 Ma;

possibly a

t about 21

10-2070 M

a

Layeredintrusions2500-2450 MaMantleplume

Superior

2500-2450 Ma 2200 Ma

2100 Ma 1980 Ma

Superior

Kareliancraton

KolaPeninsula

Ma

Wyomingcraton?

Hearne

Kareliancraton

KolaPeninsula

FIGURE 3. Reconstruction of Superior, Hearne, Baltic, and Wyoming cratons based on matching of magmatic events and tracing of coeval dyke swarmsbetween the blocks. After Bleeker and Ernst (2006).

As mineralization (e.g. Marshall and Watkinson, 2000), andhave PGE potential as well (e.g. James, et al., 2002b). A thirdsignificant event is the 1885 to 1865 Ma magmatism that cir-cumscribes the Superior Craton [event #8 in Appendix 1,Fig. 4, see also Table 1], from the Labrador Trough, throughthe Cape Smith Belt, the Belcher Islands, Fox River Belt,Thompson Belt, Winipegosis komatiites, and also on thesouthern side of the Superior Craton in the Animkie Basin.

Included in this belt are major Ni deposits of the Thompsonand Raglan belts (Eckstrand and Hulbert, 2007; Layton-Matthews et al., 2007; Lesher 2007). The 1267 MaMackenzie event [event #14a] is the host for the well knownand highly prospected Muskox layered intrusion (Hulbert,2005, see also Table 1). The 1114 to 1085 Ma Keweenawanevent [event #17a] is host to important Cu-Ni-PGE mineral-ization of the Duluth Complex (e.g. Nicholson et al., 1992;

R.E. Ernst

934

1a1b

1c2d

2d2c

1b, 2c

2500-2200 Ma

2c1d

2aA4a

A5c

A5b

A5a

A5aA1a, b

2b

A4b

A2a

A3aA5d

A1cA2a

A4c

A5a

3c

3d

3a 3b

4e

4a

4c

4d

5d 5b5c 4f

4b

5a

8c

8c

6a6a,b

6a,6c,8b9a

10a

10a6d

7a,b 8a

8d

7c

11a

3d 10b

10a

8d

14a

12b

12b

14a

14a15b

16c

17a

14b

17a

14a

15a12a

13a

12a

20b

20a

19a

26a

27c

18a

19a

19a25b

25b

18a18a

26a18a

20c

27c

29b

14b

16a

21a,b

22b

24a

25a

25c

27b

27a

18a

29a

26a

23a,b

20c

13a

25a

26b

29c22a

28a

16a

16a

16b

28b

28c28c

7d7e

1000-0 Ma

2000-1600 Ma

Archean

500 km

500 km500 km

500 km500 km

500 km

2200-2000 Ma

1600-1000 Ma

8c

Large Igneous Provinces in Canada through Time and their Metallogenic Potential

935

Miller and Ripley, 1996). The 723 Ma Franklin event [event#19a] of northern Canada has been highly prospected for Ni-Cu-PGEs (Jefferson et al., 1994). The 230 Ma accretedoceanic plateau, Wrangellia [event 25b], has also beenexplored for Ni-Cu-PGE (e.g. Hulbert, 2002). The numerousadditional LIP (and LIP fragment) events shown in Figure 4and listed in Appendices 1 and 2 need to be systematicallyassessed for economic potential, using as a guide some of thestrategies outlined in this paper.

Global Campaign to Study Large Igneous Provinces

As noted above, continental reconstructions are key tofully reconstructing LIP systems, and to evaluating theiroverall metallogenic potential. In this context, large maficmagmatic events offer the most effective and efficientapproach for fulfilling the objective of obtaining continentalreconstructions back to 2600 Ma (Bleeker and Ernst, 2006).The approach is two parts. Firstly, comparison of cratonicmagmatic age-of-emplacement ‘bar codes’ can reveal whichcratons were likely the nearest neighbours and over whattime interval. Secondly, dyke swarms have simple geometry(often radiating and linear) and can therefore be used aspiercing points between cratons to precisely constrain thereconstructions. However, to fulfill the potential of using theLIPs as a tool to reconstruct ancient continents back to 2600Ma (and allow tracing of metallogenic belts between cra-tons), requires an improvement in the global LIP database.The most critical step is increased dating of the numerousundated but important magmatic units to better define thefull extent of individual LIPs and identify new LIPs. Forthese and other reasons, a global LIP campaign focusedaround geochronology has been advocated (Bleeker, 2004;Ernst and Buchan, 2004; Ernst et al., 2005).

Conclusions

The temporal and spatial distribution of large igneousprovinces provides an effective tool for understandingEarth’s magmatic and tectonic processes, reconstructingpaleogeography and ancient climates, and discoveringworld-class magmatic N-Cu-PGE deposits and other com-modities. In the Canadian context, there are about 80 LIPs

and interpreted (eroded and tectonic) fragments of LIPs.Apart from Sudbury (which is not strictly a LIP), the mostprominent Ni-Cu-PGE deposits in Canada are linked withLIPs. Additional ore deposits for Ni-Cu-PGE, Fe-Ti-V andother commodities may be discovered by systematicallyapplying the LIP paradigm, and by using the improving data-base of Canadian LIPs (Appendices 1 and 2; Figure 4).

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge and appreciate the collaborations overrecent years with Wouter Bleeker, Ken Buchan, LarryHulbert, and Franco Pirajno, which have contributed to myunderstanding of large igneous provinces and their relation-ships with ore deposits. Valuable reviews of the manuscriptwere provided by Wayne Goodfellow, Larry Hulbert, andFranco Pirajno. This work was partially funded by BHPBilliton mining company.

References

Agashev, A.M., Pokhilenko, N.P., Tolstov, A.V., Polyanichko, V.V.,Mal’kovets, V.G., Sobolev, N.V., 2004, New age data on kimberlitesfrom the Yakutian diamondiferous province: Doklady Earth Sciences,v. 399, p. 1142-1145.

Anderson, D.L., 2001, Top-down tectonics: Science, v. 293, p. 2016-2018.Arndt, N., Bruzak, G., and Reischmann, T., 2001, The oldest continental and

oceanic plateaus: Geochemistry of basalts and komatiites of the PilbaraCraton, Australia, in Ernst, R.E., and Buchan, K.L., eds., MantlePlumes: Their Identification through Time: Geological Society ofAmerica, Special Paper 352, p. 359-387.

Baragar, W.R.A., Ernst, R.E., Hulbert, L., and Peterson, T., 1996,Longitudinal petrochemical variation in the Mackenzie dyke swarm,northwestern Canadian Shield: Journal of Petrology, v. 37, p. 317-359.

Bell, K., 2001, Carbonatites: Relationship to mantle-plume activity, inErnst, R.E., and Buchan, K.L., eds., Mantle Plumes: TheirIdentification through Time: Geological Society of America, SpecialPaper 352, p. 267-290.

Bleeker, W., 2004, Taking the pulse of planet Earth: A proposal for a newmulti-disciplinary flagship project in Canadian solid Earth sciences:Geoscience Canada, v. 31, p. 179-190.

Bleeker, W., and Ernst, R.E., 2006, Short-lived mantle generated magmaticevents and their dyke swarms: The key unlocking Earth’s paleogeo-graphic record back to 2.6 Ga, in Hanski, E., Mertanen, S., Rämö, T.,and Vuollo, J., eds., Dyke Swarms: Time Markers of Crustal Evolution:A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 3-26.

FIGURE 4. Canadian record of large igneous provinces (updated from Ernst and Buchan, 2004). Numbers keyed to entries in Appendices 1 and 2. Part A (Archean): A1a Hunt River (3.11 Ga), A1b Florence Lake (2.99-2.98 Ga), A1c North Caribou (2.99Ga), A2a Western Superior (2.93 Ga), A3a Pickle Crow (2.86 Ga), A4a Vizean (2.79 Ga), A4b Faribault-Thury Complex (ca. 2.88-2.71 Ga), A4c Fourbaysequence (2.78 Ga), A5a Prince Albert -Woodburn Group and possible correlatives (2.73 Ga), A5b Kam Group (2.73-2.70 Ga), A5c Abitibi 2.75-2.70 Ga,A5d Wawa (2.75-2.74 Ga). Parts B-F (Proterozoic-Phanerozoic): 1a Mistassini (ca. 2.5 Ga), 1b Matachewan (2.49-2.45 Ga), 1c Kaminak (ca. 2.45 Ga), 1d Mirond Lake (2.49 Ga),: 2a Kikkertavak (2.235 Ga), 2b BN-1 (2.21 Ga), 2c Ungava (2.22-2.21 Ga), 2d Malley- MacKay (2.23, 2.21 Ga), 3a Dogrib(2.19 Ga), 3b Tulemalu-MacQuoid (2.19 Ga), 3c Biscotasing (2.17 Ga), 3d Cramolet Lake- Payne River (2.17 Ga), 4a Marathon (2.125-2.01 Ga), 4b CauchonLake (2.09-2.07 Ga), 4c Fort Frances (2.075 Ga), 4d Lac Esprit (2.07 Ga), 4e Griffin (2.11 Ga), 4f Napaktok (? 2.12 Ga), 5a Kangâmuit (2.05-2.04 Ga),5b Lower Povungnituk (2.04 or 1.96 Ga), 5c Hearne (2.04 Ga), 5d Lac de Gras (ca 2.025 Ga), 6a Minto-Eskimo-Watts group (2.00 Ga), 6b Flaherty-Haig(? 1.96 Ga), 6c Upper Povungnituk (ca. 1.96 Ga), 6d Mugford (1.95 Ga), 7a Sandy Bay (1.90 Ga), 7b Josland (1.88 Ga), 7c Bravo Lake (1.90-1.88 Ga), 7d Lake Harbour (ca. 1.87 Ga), 7e Mara-Morel-Ghost (1.88-1.87 Ga), 8a New Quebec Orogen-cycle 2 (1.88 Ga), 8b Chukotat (1.89-1.87 Ga), 8c Molson-Thompson-Winnipegosis-Pickle Crow (1.88- 1.86 Ga), 8d Hemlock (1.88 Ga), 9a Sparrow (1.83 Ga), 10a Cleaver-Hadley Bay-MacRae Lake (1.75-1.74 Ga),10b Winagami (? 1.89-1.76 Ga), 11a Melville Bugt (ca. 1.64 Ga), 12a Moyie (1.47 Ga), 12b Michael-Shabagamo (ca. 1.47 Ga), 13a Hart River – SalmonRiver Arch (1.38 Ga), 14a Mackenzie (1.27 Ga), 14b Harp-Nain-Nutak-middle Gardar (1.28, 1.27 Ga), 15a Sudbury [dykes] (1.24 Ga), 15b Seal Lake -Mealy (1.24-1.25 Ga), 16a Davy Group - Tshenukutish - Algonquin (1.18-1.16 Ga), 16b Late Gardar (1.16 Ga), 16c Abitibi [dykes] (1.14 Ga),17a Keweenawan (Mid-continent rift system) (1.11-1.09 Ga; main pulses: 1.11, 1.10 Ga), 18a Gunbarrel (0.78 Ga), 19a Franklin-Thule (0.72 Ga), 20a LongRange (0.62 Ga), 20b Grenville-Rideau (0.59 Ga), 20c Sept-Îles – Catoctin (0.56 Ga), 21a Harbour Main (ca. 0.62 Ga), 21b Marystown (0.59-0.55 Ga), 22a Hamill-Gog (0.57 Ga), 22b Selwyn Basin (0.54-0.45 Ga), 23a Middle Ordovician ‘Overstep’ Sequence (0.47-0.45 Ga), 23b Late Ordovician-Silurianmagmatism of Atlantic Canada (0.44-0.41 Ga), 24a Magdalen (Maritimes) Basin (0.36-0.32 Ga), 25a Cache Creek (Late Triassic and mid-Permian), 25b Wrangellia (0.23 Ga), 25c Ramparts Group (0.21 Ga), 26a ENA (Eastern North America) portion of CAMP (Central Atlantic Magmatic Province) (0.20Ga), 27a New England-Québec (NEQ); Monteregian) (0.14-0.11 Ga), 27b Trap (0.14 Ga), 27c Sverdrup Basin Magmatic Province (part of High Arctic LargeIgneous Province; HALIP) (0.13-0.09 Ga), 28a Carmacks (0.07 Ga), 28b Crescent (0.06-0.05 Ga), 28c North Atlantic Igneous Province (NAIP) (0.06 Ga),29a Behm Canal (Tertiary ‘Lamprophyre’ Province) (ca. 0.023-0.005 Ga), 29b Columbia River Basalt Group (mainly 0.017-0.0150 Ga), 29c Chilcotin

(Neogene-Paleogene; mainly Miocene).

Borisenko, A.S., Sotnikov, V.I., Izokh, A.E., Polyakov, G.V., and Obolensky,A.A., 2006, Permo-Triassic mineralization in Asia and its relation toplume magmatism: Russian Geology and Geophysics, v. 47, p. 166-182.

Bryan, S.E., and Ernst, R.E. 2006, Proposed revision to large igneousprovince classification: http://www.mantleplumes.org/LIPClass2.html

Bryan, S.E., Riley, T.R., Jerram, D.A., Leat, P.T., and Stephens, C.J., 2002,Silicic volcanism: An under-valued component of large igneousprovinces and volcanic rifted margins, in Menzies, M.A., Klemperer,S.L., Ebinger, C.J., and Baker J., eds., Magmatic Rifted Margins:Geological Society of America, Special Paper 362, p. 99-120.

Buchan, K.L., Mortensen, J.K., Card, K.D., and Percival, J.A., 1998,Paleomagnetism and U-Pb geochronology of diabase dyke swarms ofMinto block, Superior Province, Quebec, Canada: Canadian Journal ofEarth Sciences, v. 35, p. 1054-1069.

Buchan, K.L., Goutier, J., Hamilton, M.A., Ernst, R.E., and Matthews,W.A., 2007, Paleomagnetism, U-Pb geochronology and geochemistryof Lac Esprit and other dyke swarms, James Bay area, Quebec, andimplications for Paleoproterozoic deformation of the SuperiorProvince; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences (in press).

Campbell, I.H., 1998, The mantle’s chemical structure: Insights from themelting products of mantle plumes, in Jackson, I.N.S., ed., The Earth’sMantle: Composition, Structure and Evolution: Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, p. 259-310.

——— 2001, Identification of ancient mantle plumes, in Ernst, R.E., andBuchan, K.L., ed., Mantle Plumes: Their Identification through Time:Geological Society of America, Special Paper 352, p. 5-21.

Campbell, I.H., and Griffiths, R.W., 1990, Implications of mantle plumestructure for the evolution of flood basalts: Earth and Planetary ScienceLetters, v. 99, p. 79-93.

Campbell, I.H., Griffiths, R.W., and Hill, R.I., 1989, Melting in an Archaeanmantle plume: Heads it’s basalts, tails it’s komatiites: Nature, v. 339,p. 697-699.

Coffin, M.F., and Eldholm, O., 1994, Large igneous provinces: crustal struc-ture, dimensions, and external consequences: Review of Geophysics, v. 32, p. 1-36.

——— 2001, Large igneous provinces: progenitors of some ophiolites?, inErnst, R.E., and Buchan, K.L., eds., Mantle Plumes: TheirIdentification through Time. Geological Society of America, SpecialPaper 352, p. 59-70.

Corriveau, L., 2007, Iron oxide copper-gold deposits: A Canadian perspec-tive, in Goodfellow, W.D., ed., Mineral Deposits of Canada: ASynthesis of Major Deposit-types, District Metallogeny, the Evolutionof Geological Provinces, and Exploration Methods: GeologicalAssociation of Canada, Mineral Deposits Division, Special Publication5, p. 307-328.

Courtillot, V.E., and Renne, P.R., 2003, On the ages of flood basalt events:C.R. Geoscience, v. 335, p. 113-140.

Courtillot, V., Jaupart, C., Manighetti, I., Tapponnier, P., and Besse, J., 1999,On causal links between flood basalts and continental breakup: Earthand Planetary Science Letters, v. 166, p. 177-195.

Courtillot, V., Davaille, A., Besse, J., and Stock, J., 2003, Three distincttypes of hotspots in the Earth’s mantle: Earth and Planetary ScienceLetters, v. 205, p. 295-308.

Crocket, J.H., 2002, Platinum-group element geochemistry of mafic andultramafic rocks, in Cabri, L.J. (ed.) The Geology, Geochemistry,Mineralogy and Mineral Beneficiation of Platinum-Group Elements;Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, SpecialVolume 54, p. 177-210.

Dahl, P.S., Hamilton, M.A., Wooden, J.L., Foland, K.A., Frei, R.,McCombs, J.A., and Holm, D.K. , 2006, 2480 Ma mafic magmatism inthe northern Black Hills, South Dakota: A new link connecting theWyoming and Superior cratons: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 43, p. 1579-1600.

Dobretsov, N.L., 2005, 250 Ma Large Igneous Provinces of Asia: Siberianand Emeishan traps (plateau basalts) and associated granitoids: RussianGeology and Geophysics, v. 46, p. 870-890.

Eckstrand, O.R., and Hulbert, L., 2007, Magmatic nickel-copper-platinumgroup element deposits, in Goodfellow, W.D., ed., Mineral Deposits ofCanada: A Synthesis of Major Deposit-types, District Metallogeny, theEvolution of Geological Provinces, and Exploration Methods:Geological Association of Canada, Mineral Deposits Division, SpecialPublication No. 5, p. 205-222.

Ernst, R.E., and Buchan, K.L., 1997a, Giant radiating dyke swarms: Their usein identifying pre-Mesozoic large igneous provinces and mantle plumes,in Mahoney, J.J. and Coffin, M.J., M.F., ed., Large Igneous Provinces:Continental, Oceanic and Planetary Flood Volcanism, AmericanGeophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 100, p. 297-333.

——— 1997b, Layered mafic intrusions: A model for their feeder systemsand relationship with giant dyke swarms and mantle plume centres:South African Journal of Geology, v. 100, p. 319-334.

——— 2001, Large mafic magmatic events through time and links to man-tle plume heads, in Ernst, R.E., and Buchan, K.L., ed., Mantle Plumes:Their Identification through Time: Geological Society of America,Special Paper 352, p. 483-575.

——— 2003, Recognizing mantle plumes in the geological record: AnnualReview of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 31, p. 469-523.

——— 2004, Large igneous provinces (LIPs) in Canada and adjacentregions: 3 Ga to present: Geoscience Canada, v. 31, p. 103-126.

Ernst, R.E., and Hulbert, L.J., 2003, Background Pt-Pd levels in maficLarge Igneous Provinces (LIPs) in Canada: Geological Survey ofCanada, Open File 4472.

Ernst, R.E., Buchan, K.L., and Campbell, I.H., 2005, Frontiers in LargeIgneous Province research: Lithos, v. 79, p. 271-297.

Foulger, G.R., Natland, J.H., Presnall, D.C., and Anderson, D.L., 2005,Plates, Plumes, and Paradigms” Geological Society of America, SpecialPaper 388, p. 881.

Halls, H.C., 1982, The importance and potential of mafic dyke swarms instudies of geodynamic processes: Geoscience Canada, v. 9, p. 145-154.

Hamlyn, P.R., and Keays, R.R., 1986, Sulfur saturation and second-stagemelts: Application to the Bushveld platinum metal deposits: EconomicGeology, v. 81, p. 1431-1445.

Hulbert, L.J., 2002, Magmatic Platinum Group Element Environments inCanada: Present and Future Exploration Target Areas: GeologicalAssociation of Canada, Robinson Lecture 2002, Miscellaneous Paper#2, CD-ROM.

——— 2005, Geology of the Muskox Intrusion and Associated Ni+CuOccurrences: Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 4881, 1 p.

Isley, A.E., and Abbott, D.H., 1999, Plume-related mafic volcanism and thedeposition of banded iron formation: Journal of Geophysical Research,v. 104 (B7), p. 15461-15477.

James, D.T., Kamo, S., and Krogh, T., 2002a, Evolution of 3.1 and 3.0 Gavolcanic belts and a new thermotectonic model for the Hopedale Block,North Atlantic craton (Canada): Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 39, p. 687-710.

James, R.S., Easton, R.M., Peck, D.C., and Hrominchuk, J.L., 2002b, TheEast Bull Lake intrusive suite: Remnants of an approximately 2.48 Galarge igneous and metallogenic province in the Sudbury area of theCanadian Shield: Economic Geology, v. 97, p. 1577-1606.

Jefferson, C.W., Hulbert, L.J., Rainbird, R.H., Hall, G.E.M., Grégoire, D.C.,and Grinenko, L.I., 1994, Mineral Resource Assessment of theNeoproterozoic Franklin Igneous Events of Arctic Canada: Comparisonwith the Permo-Triassic Noril’sk Talnakh Ni-Cu-PGE Deposits ofRussia: Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 2789, 48 p.

Kjarsgaard, B.A., 2007, Kimberlite diamond deposits, in Goodfellow, W.D.,ed., Mineral Deposits of Canada: A Synthesis of Major Deposit-types,District Metallogeny, the Evolution of Geological Provinces, andExploration Methods: Geological Association of Canada, MineralDeposits Division, Special Publication No. 5, p. 245-272.

Layton-Matthews, D., Lesher, C. M., Burnham, O. M., Liwanag, J.,Haldend, N. M., Hulbert, L., and Peck, D. C., 2007, Magmatic Ni-Cu-(PGE) deposits of the Thompson Nickel Belt, in Goodfellow, W.D., ed.,Mineral Deposits of Canada: A Synthesis of Major Deposit-types,District Metallogeny, the Evolution of Geological Provinces, andExploration Methods: Geological Association of Canada, MineralDeposits Division, Special Publication No. 5, p. 409-432.

Lesher, C.M., 2007, Ni-Cu-(PGE) Deposits in the Raglan area, Cape SmithBelt, New Quebec, in Goodfellow, W.D., ed., Mineral Deposits ofCanada: A Synthesis of Major Deposit-types, District Metallogeny, theEvolution of Geological Provinces, and Exploration Methods:Geological Association of Canada, Mineral Deposits Division, SpecialPublication No. 5, p. 351-386.

Marshall, D., and Watkinson, D.H., 2000, The Cobalt mining district: Silversources, transport and deposition: Exploration and Mining Geology, v. 9, p. 81-90.

R.E. Ernst

936

Large Igneous Provinces in Canada through Time and their Metallogenic Potential

937

Miller, J.D.J., and Ripley, E.M., 1996, Layered intrusions of the DuluthComplex, Minnesota, USA, in Cawthorn, R.G., ed., Layered Intrusions:Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 257-301.

Naldrett, A.J., 1997, Key factors in the genesis of Norilsk, Sudbury,Jinchuan, Voiseys Bay and other world-class Ni-Cu-PGE deposits:Implications for exploration: Australian Journal of Earth Sciences v. 44,p. 283-315.

——— 1999, World-class Ni-Cu-PGE deposits: Key factors in their gene-sis; Mineralium Deposita, v. 34, p. 227-240.

Nicholson, S.W., Cannon, W.F., and Schulz, K.J., 1992, Metallogeny of theMidcontinent rift system of North America: Precambrian Research, v. 58, p. 355-386.

Pirajno, F., 2000, Ore Deposits and Mantle Plumes: Kluwer Academic,Dordrecht, 556 p.

——— 2004, Metallogeny in the Capricorn Orogen, Western Australia, theresult of multiple ore-forming processes: Precambrian Research, v. 128,p. 411-439.

Rainbird, R., and Ernst, R.E., 2001, The sedimentary record of mantle-plume uplift, in Ernst, R.E., and Buchan. K.L., eds., Mantle Plumes:Their Identification through Time: Geological Society of America,Special Paper 352, p. 227-245.

Schissel, D., and Smail, R., 2001, Deep-mantle plumes and ore deposits, inErnst, R.E., and Buchan, K.L., eds., Mantle Plumes: TheirIdentification through Time: Geological Society of America, SpecialPaper 352, p. 291-322.

Şengör, A.M.C., 2001, Elevation as indicator of mantle-plume activity, inErnst, R.E., and Buchan, K.L., ed., Mantle Plumes: Their Identificationthrough Time: Geological Society of America, Special Paper 352, p. 183-225.

Tomlinson, K.Y., and Condie, K.C., 2001, Archean mantle plumes:Evidence from greenstone belt geochemistry, in Ernst, R.E., andBuchan, K.L., eds., Mantle Plumes: Their Identification through Time:Geological Society of America, Special Paper 352, p. 341-357.

White, R.S., and McKenzie, D.P., 1989, Magmatism at rift zones: the gen-eration of volcanic continental margins and flood basalts: Journal ofGeophysical Research, v. 94, p. 7685-7729.

Xu, Y.-G., He, B., Chung, S-L., Menzies, M.A., and Frey, F.A., 2004,Geologic, geochemical, and geophysical consequences of plumeinvolvement in the Emeishan flood-basalt province: Geology, v. 32, p. 917-920.

Zhang, M., Wang, K-L, O’Reilly, S.Y., Hronsky, J., and Griffin, W.L., 2006,Are all mantle plumes equal in nickel and PGE potential?: InternationalConference on Continental Volcanism, Guangzhou, China, Abstractsand Program, p. 178.