Co-Chiefs: Yves Fouquet and Robert Zierenberg | Cruise Dates: 22 August-17 October, 1996 |
Staff Scientist: Jay Miller | Operations Superintendent: Gene Pollard |
The goal of Leg 169 was to drill into two active hydrothermal systems to investigate the genesis and evolution of massive sulfide deposits formed at sediment-covered ridges. These two systems, Bent Hill/Dead Dog in Middle Valley on the Juan de Fuca Ridge, and Central Hill in Escanaba Trough on the Gorda Ridge, were recognized to host deposits of variable chemistry and degree of maturity. The preliminary results of this leg, enhanced by those generated in post-cruise research, will shed light on the longevity of these systems and the chemical and temporal variability of fluids and sulfides attending them. Additionally, our successful reinstrumentation of CORKed boreholes will provide in situ monitors of geologic processes in Middle Valley.
The Bent Hill massive sulfide (BHMS) deposit has 3 distinct parts. A 100-m-thick conical mound of massive sulfide formed at the seafloor underlain by a 100-m-thick feeder zone comprised of a sediment host with crosscutting veins filled with Cu-Fe sulfides and pyrrhotite. One of the most spectacular discoveries of this leg, however, is the presence of an intensely silicified horizon at the base of the feeder zone which is underlain by a horizon of intense alteration and replacement of the host sediment by Cu-rich sulfides. This high grade (~16% Cu) stratiform mineralization zone may reflect a high temperature aquifer capped by an impermeable silicification front, and also represents a potential economic target for mineralized deposits on land.
A second mound 350 m south of BHMS was also sampled, and is characterized by multiple, stacked mineralized horizons with significantly higher ore grades (40% Zn and 15% Cu) than was sampled at BHMS. A high grade Cu ore horizon was also intercepted at the same stratigraphic interval as was sampled at BHMS. Another highlight of this expedition was the creation two new vigorous hydrothermal vents in what had been considered an inactive part of the system. The creation of these vents has attracted media attention (Science, Geotimes) and resulted in NSF funding an immediate follow-up expedition with an ROV to observe and monitor these new vents.
Active hydrologic experiments were conducted by removing existing CORKs, sampling high temperature fluids, and reinstrumenting two boreholes. By sealing one hole at an active hydrothermal site first, we expect that the installation of the second in a cold reference hole 2 km away will induce a transient pressure pulse we can monitor in the active system. An OBS array deployed around the our area of operations will detect any induced seismicity resulting from our operation.
Previous investigations recognized distinctive chemical signatures for massive sulfides from Middle Valley and Escanaba Trough. Middle Valley sulfides appear to have basalt as a major source component, whereas Escanaba Trough sulfides indicate only sediment as a metal source. Drilling several holes in deposits exhibiting a range of hydrothermal activity and sulfide deposition demonstrated that the thickness of the sulfides at Central Hill is little more than what is exposed at the seafloor. The lack of any feeder zone indicates these sulfides formed by pervasive diffuse venting of hydrothermal fluid over a short time span, as opposed to the long-lived, focused hydrothermal discharge which is responsible for sulfide deposition at Middle Valley.
In the following preliminary summary of results, individual interpretations are related to the science objectives listed below.
On Leg 169 two old and broken CORKs had to first be fished out of the re-entry cone. This was not a small task in itself. The hostile environment caused the two Corks to become corroded and thus they pulled apart in pieces while attempting their recovery. Remedial fishing trips were required which resulted in the successful recovery of the remaining portions and allowed the installation of two new CORKs as planned.
[ Contents of the Semiannual Report, No. 2, June-November 1996 |
| Program Updates | New Initiatives | Project Summaries | Laboratory Working Groups |
| Panel Recommendations | Appendixes |
| Semiannual Report, No. 1, December-May 1996 ]