• Program

    The Goldschmidt2020 program

  • Venue

    All about the venue and city

  • Registration

    Details of how to register to attend the conference and/or submit an abstract

  • Exhibition

    Information for and about exhibitors and sponsors

  • My Goldschmidt

    My program, purchases, connections, etc.




  • Sponsor Seminars

  • Training Events

    These are scheduled events to help delegates test out the tools and platform we will be using for the Q&A and other events at the conference.

  • Workshops

    Our workshop program provides training and teaching in topics across geochemistry and related fields. We are currently liaising with the workshop organisers to ascertain if any workshops can become virtual. Any updates will be added to this page.


  • Conference Locations

    Location of the convention center and social events

  • Hotels

    The hotels are no longer available to book at the special rates agreed by the conference. Should you wish to cancel or change your hotel reservation please see the details below.


Present your work




My Goldschmidt

Role functions

Abstract Details

Magmatic-Hydrothermal BIF-Hosted Iron Ore in the SE São Francisco Craton, Brazil

Silveira Braga FC, Rosière CA, Santos JOS, Pack A & Hagemann SG

Silveira Braga FC, Rosière CA, Santos JOS, Pack A & Hagemann SG (2020) Goldschmidt Abstracts, 2020 2387

Sorry, the PDF cannot be displayed on your browser.

Download abstract

The author has not provided any additional details.

04f: Room 1, View in program

Flávia C. Silveira Braga
Carlos A. Rosière
João O. S. Santos
Andreas Pack
Steffen G. Hagemann

Listed below are questions that have been submitted by the community that the author will try and cover in their presentation. To submit a question, ensure you are signed in to the website. Authors or session conveners approve questions before they are displayed here.

Submitted by Celestine Mercer on
Hello Flávia, thank you for your nice talk! What a complex system you have been unraveling, impressive. I'm curious about how much Fe you think was redistributed versus introduced in stage 2. You show very nicely that the kenomagnetite from stage 2 was geochemically distinct from stage 1, but could the Fe have been redistributed from the stage 1 IF during stage 2? Or did the anatectic pegmatite transport more/new Fe into the deposit? Is this pegmatite a relative of the enigmatic magmas parental to IOCG-type deposits? My colleagues at the Denver USGS and I have observed that Fe-oxide discrimination diagrams can be problematic due to hydrothermal modification of magnetite, how did you sort out the later overprinting by stage 3? Are there other minerals less prone to hydrothermal modification that support the Fe-oxide story (e.g., apatite)? Do you have any advice on how to approach such a complex system with hindsight from your hard work? Thanks! -Celeste
Hello Celeste, thank you for your interest > We have no evidence yet that pegmatite has transported new Fe into the deposit . The pegmatites that crosscut other country-rock have iron oxides only as accessory minerals and exhibit considerable content of iron oxide only at the contact with IF. None IOCG-type deposit occurs in the region of these pegmatite intrusions. > > The overprinting of stage 3 is noted mainly by the textural characteristics. It is common a transitional fabric between the kenomagnetite domain towards the granular hematite domain. > > I agree with you about the Fe-oxide discrimination diagrams. They have to be used very critically and are not by themselves reliable for genetic conclusions but the position of texturally and chemically different magnetite in different fields support their distinct origin > > Yes, we have apatite in the high-grade domain and pegmatite. The other high-grade ore accessory minerals are ilmenite, quartz, carbonates (calcite and dolomite), chlorite, cummingtonite-grunerite, tremolite-actinolite, biotite, talc and muscovite. > > This work was also supported by geochronological work and Zr-Hf studies to date the succession of hydrothermal events (already published). However, detailed field mapping in the open pit and petrographic work helped me a lot to construct the mineralization model and are essential as a criterion for subsequent geochemical work. Another helpful tool was the geological implicit modeling, where I could recognise the close relationship between iron enrichment and pegmatite in 3D. After these two steps was possible to better choose the samples for chemical, microchemical, and isotopic analysis.

Sign in to ask a question.