A NEW MODEL FOR THE QUEBECIA TERRANE IN THE GRENVILLE PROVINCE 

AS A COMPOSITE ARC BELT: SM-ND EVIDENCE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



ii 

 

A NEW MODEL FOR THE QUEBECIA TERRANE IN THE GRENVILLE PROVINCE 

AS A COMPOSITE ARC BELT: SM-ND EVIDENCE 

 

 

BY 

 

SHANNON VAUTOUR, B.Sc. (Hons.) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Thesis 

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies 

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements 

For the Degree 

Master of Science 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McMaster University 

© Copyright by Shannon Vautour, August 2015 



iii 

 

MASTER OF SCIENCE (2015)     MCMASTER UNIVERSITY 

(Geology)               Hamilton, Ontario 

 

 

 

 

TITLE: A New model for the Quebecia Terrane in 

the Grenville Province as a composite arc 

belt: Sm-Nd evidence 

 

 

 

AUTHOR: Shannon Vautour, B.Sc. (McMaster 

University) 

 

 

 

SUPERVISOR: Professor Alan P. Dickin 

 

 

 

NUMBER OF PAGES: 66 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



iv 

 

Abstract 
 

 The Grenville Province represents a complex, highly metamorphosed orogenic 

belt at the southeastern margin of the Canadian Shield that is composed of different 

lithotectonic domains of various ages that have all been affected by the 1.0 Ga Grenville 

Orogeny. The present study focuses on one of the youngest regions, the Quebecia terrane, 

and through reconnaissance neodymium isotope mapping, investigates the extent of an 

old crustal block that predates the Grenville Orogeny.   

 The Quebecia Terrane is found within Central Quebec and is a Mesoproterozoic 

arc terrane that was constructed around 1.5 Ga. Utilizing the Samarium-Neodymium 

dating method, previous research had identified a few isolated neodymium signatures of 

older crustal ages, and through reconnaissance mapping, several of these 

Paleoproterozoic crustal blocks are suggested to represent a single fragmented crustal 

panel. The study focused on more detailed mapping of these blocks in the areas of Baie 

Comeau, Forestville, Labrieville and Pipmuacan in Central Quebec. 

The full extent and connection between the fragments has been mapped as a series 

of Paleoproterozoic crustal blocks extending longitudinally through the Quebecia terrane. 

These blocks are embedded within the younger terrane, suggesting that the old panel was 

incorporated sometime during the accretion of Quebecia to Laurentia. It is possible that 

the old panel broke off from older Laurentian crust and reattached during the accretion of 

the Quebecia terrane via strike slip tectonics, implying that the Quebecia terrane itself 

consists of more than one accreted unit. The present study found that the older 

neodymium isotope signatures were consistent with the Berthe Terrane in the 



v 

 

Manicouagan region to the north, providing evidence for the origin of the older panel 

within Quebecia. However, by invoking a division of Quebecia into a north and south 

segment, this implies a Composite Arc Belt model for the Central Grenville Province. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



vi 

 

Acknowledgements 
 

I would first like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Alan P Dickin, for 

taking me on as his B.Sc undergraduate and M.Sc student, and for showing me the 

beautiful province of Quebec through our many exciting field work excursions. Thanks to 

his guidance, support and unwavering patience with me (and many, many coffee breaks), 

I successfully made it to where I am today in academia. 

 

I would also like to thank my lab family who helped me learn and grow these past four 

years: First to my predecessor, Dr. Rebecca Moumblow, who served as both my role 

model and good friend, for influencing me to go farther in my degree, and teaching me 

the ropes of graduate student life. Second, to Gabriel Arcuri, for the Starbucks dates and 

vent sessions, and for keeping me calm and level headed when writing got stressful. 

Lastly, to Jacob Strong, for being a GIS master and helping me with my interpolations, 

and always providing a good laugh in the lab. Thank you all so much for your support, 

smiles and guidance.  

 

A special thank you to my parents, Kelly and Garth Vautour, who although may not have 

understood many of the geologic terms as I anxiously practiced my presentations in front 

of them, consistently gave me amazing support, understanding and love throughout this 

whole journey. I could not have done it without you all!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



vii 

 

Table of Contents 

 
Chapter 1: Geologic History 1 

1.1 Introduction 1 

1.2 Precambrian Supercontinents 2 

1.3 The Grenville Province 7 

1.4 The Study Area 10 

Chapter 2: Methodology 16 

2.1 Introduction 16 

2.2 Samarium Neodymium Dating Method 17 

Chapter 3: Results 22 

3.1 Nd Isotope Data 22 

3.2 Geochemical Analysis 27 

3.3 Distance vs Tdm Transects 33 

Chapter 4: Discussion 37 

4.1 Discussion of Results 37 

4.2 Southeast Asia: A Modern Analogue 38 

4.3 Orogenic Models 

Chapter 5: Conclusions 

45 

47 

References 52 

Appendix A: Sm-Nd Analytical Methods 56 

A1 Introduction  

A2 Field Sample Collection  

A3 Pulverization  

A4 Chemical Dissolution  

A5 Chromatography  

A6 Mass Spectrometry   

Appendix B: Data Tables 60 



viii 

 

List of Tables 

B-1: Nd isotope analysis results for Quebecia samples (1.46-1.64 Ga) in the study area. 

 

B-2: Nd isotope analysis results for BC Block samples (1.7-2.0 Ga) in the study area. 

 

B-3: Nd isotope analysis results for intermediate aged samples (1.65-1.69 Ga) in the 

study area.  

 

B-4: Major and Trace Element Analyses  

B-5: La Jolla Standard Analyses 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



ix 

 

List of Figures  

1.1: The first proposed Rodinia assembly, surrounded by superocean Mirovia 

(McMenamin and McMenamin, 1990). 

 

1.2: Possible craton assembly of Nuna around 1.54 Ga (Pesonen et al., 2012). 

 

1.3: Possible craton assembly of Rodinia around 1.04Ga (Pesonen et al., 2012). 

 

1.4: Paleomagnetic reconstruction of Nuna at the beginning of its break-up phase, 

showing age provinces in the GPAO using detrital zircon ages (Condie, 2013).  

 

1.5: Worldwide zircon ages from igneous rocks preserved in the Laurentian portion 

of the GPAO in Ma (Condie, 2013).  

 

1.6: Geologic divisions of the North American Shield with the Grenville Province 

highlighted in green (after Rivers, 1997). 

 

1.7: The tectonic divisions of the Grenville Province (after Rivers et al., 1989).  

 

1.8: The Grenville Province and its terrane divisions based on identified crustal 

formation ages (Thomson et al., 2011). 

 

1.9: Crustal formation age map for the Quebecia Terrane (Published data from 

Thompson et al., 2011). 

 

1.10: Proposed extent of old crust within the Quebecia terrane (Hynes, 2010).  

 

1.11: Sm-Nd isochron diagram comparing the Berthe Terrane in relation to 

surrounding terranes (Modified from Thomson et al., 2011). 

 

1.12: A sample transect map for the study area. 

 

2.1: Nd isotope evolution diagram (Dickin, 2005). 

 

2.2: Diagram of Nd isotope evolution against time (DePaolo and Wasserburg, 

1976b). 

 

2.3: Plot of Ɛ Nd against time (After DePaolo, 1981). 

 

3.1: A numbered map for all the sample data found in tables B-1, B-2 and B-3.  

 

3.2: An isochron diagram comparing the published data for the current study and 

the surrounding terranes   



x 

 

 

3.3: Distribution of Tdm age for the BC block compared with surrounding terranes  

 

3.4: AFM Ternary diagram for samples in the present study compared with 

reference suites from Laurentia and the Kohistan Arc 

 

3.5: QP Petrochemical grid for samples in the present study compared with 

reference suites from Laurentia and the Kohistan Arc 

 

3.6: TAS diagram for samples in the present study compared with reference suites 

from Laurentia and the Kohistan Arc 

 

3.7: R1-R2 diagram for samples in the present study compared with reference suites 

from Laurentia and the Kohistan Arc 

 

3.8: Petrochemical chart comparing potassium oxide and zirconium 

 

3.9: Model age/distance transect graph  

 

4.1: An inverse distance weighted interpolation of the Baie Comeau area in Central 

Quebec. 

 

4.2: Possible configuration of the BC Block fragments overlaying the regional 

geology (geologic mapping by Energie et Ressources naturelles, Québec)  

 

4.3: Continental tectonic blocks in Southeast Asia (Barber and Crow, 2009).  

 

4.4: Distribution of the stratigraphic and tectonic units in Sumatra (Barber and 

Crow, 2009). 

 

4.5: Paleogeography of NE Gondwana and SE Asian terranes in the Early Permian 

(Barber et al., 2005). 

 

4.6: Paleogeography of NE Gondwana and SE Asian terranes in the Late Permian 

(Barber et al., 2005). 

 

4.7: Paleogeography of NE Gondwana and SE Asian terranes in the Early Triassic 

(Barber et al., 2005).  

 

4.8: Comparisons of the sediment sequences in Sibumasu and Western Sumatra 

(Barber et al., 2005).  

 

4.9: Proposed tectonic model for placement of the old block within the Quebecia 

Terrane (After Barber and Crow, 2003).  



xi 

 

 

5.1: Map of the NE Grenville Province and the BC Block fragments 

 

5.2: A histogram summary of the model ages for this study 

 
5.3: Enlargement of area around Baie Comeau, showing the boundary samples (X’s) in 

relation to the surrounding blocks of old and young crust 

 



1 

 

Chapter 1: Geological History 

1.1 Introduction 

The Canadian Shield is the oldest portion of the North American crustal plate. It is 

largely comprised of exposed Precambrian rock and covers much of the eastern half of 

Canada and part of the northern United States. The shield is divided into several 

provinces of various geologic ages, where the Grenville Province is not only the 

youngest, but also the most complex. The Grenville Province records about one billion 

years of crustal growth, from 2 Ga – 1 Ga, culminating with the formation of the 

supercontinent Rodinia. 

The concept of supercontinents was first developed by Alfred Wegener, based on his 

theory of continental drift (Wegener, 1929). He proposed that prior to their present day 

distribution, Earth’s continents were once assembled into one large supercontinent 300 

million years ago, which he named Pangaea. Canadian geologist J. Tuzo Wilson was one 

of the first scientists to suggest that there may have been ancient oceans that were 

destroyed by the formation of Pangaea, leading to suspicions that this could only be true 

if there were also ancient supercontinents prior to Pangaea (Wilson, 1966). 

The configuration of Pangaea is well established based on patterns of fossil evidence, 

oceanic magnetic anomalies, and the fit of modern continents to each other. However, 

because of the older age of the ancient pre-Pangaea supercontinents, the evidence is less 

certain, making it more difficult to propose configurations.  

 

 



2 

 

1.2 Precambrian Supercontinents 

Evidence began to surface in the early 1970’s for a ~1 Ga supercontinent, variously 

called “proto-Pangaea” (Sawkins, 1976) or simply, “the Late Proterozoic Supercontinent” 

(Piper, 1987). While studying the Cambrian explosion and the environmental conditions 

prior to Pangaea, McMenamin and McMenamin (1990) noted that paleomagnetic 

evidence, Precambrian bedrock geology and paleobiogeography supported the existence 

of a pre-Pangaea supercontinent and they named it Rodinia. The first proposed assembly 

for Rodinia is shown in Figure 1.1. 

 
Figure 1.1: The first proposed Rodinia assembly, surrounded by the superocean Mirovia 

(McMenamin and McMenamin, 1990) 

 

After the acceptance of this new supercontinent, studies showed that similar processes 

had occurred to create and destroy the two ancient supercontinents Pangaea and Rodinia. 

It was therefore suggested that the timeline of supercontinent growth followed three 



3 

 

stages: (1) an initial period of accretion, (2) an intermediate period of accretion in some 

areas until the achievement of maximum ‘packing’, while rifting began in others, and (3) 

a final period of complete fragmentation due to rifting (Rogers and Santosh, 2002).  

After a decade of studies providing more solid evidence for Rodinia’s existence, it 

began to seem likely that Rodinia formed from accretion of fragments from an even older 

Paleoproterozoic supercontinent, with the addition of several juvenile crustal blocks. In 

2002, Rogers and Santosh proposed an older supercontinent called Columbia.  

In the Paleoproterozoic, it is proposed that Columbia, more commonly referred to 

today as Nuna, was formed from a linear arrangement of older cratons, Laurentia, Baltica 

and Amazonia (Figure 1.2).  

 
Figure 1.2: Possible craton assembly of Nuna around 1.54 Ga; Y-M: Yavapai-Mazatzal, 

T-H: Trans-Hudson, P: Penokean, L: Labradorian, G: Grenvillian, Sv: Svecofennian, R-

N: Rio Negro-Juruena, V-T: Ventuari-Tapajos (Pesonen et al., 2012). 

 



4 

 

 

During the Mesoproterozoic around 1.6 Ga, Nuna had reached its maximum size 

(Rogers and Santosh, 2002), after which its component parts, Laurentia, Baltica and 

Amazonia, with the addition of the West African craton, would later be the basis for the 

Neoproterozoic supercontinent, Rodinia (Figure 1.3, Pesonen et al., 2012). 

 

  
Figure 1.3: Possible craton assembly of Rodinia around 1.04 Ga; Y-M: Yavapai-

Mazatzal, T-H: Trans-Hudson, P: Penokean, L: Labradorian, G: Grenvillian, Sv: 

Svecofennian, Sn: Sveconorwegian, S: Sunsas, R-N: Rio Negro-Juruena, V-T: Ventuari-

Tapajos (Pesonen et al., 2012). 

 

After the amalgamation of the supercontinent Nuna, and before the formation of the 

supercontinent Rodinia, there were five long-lived > 500 Myr accretionary orogenic 

events between the two supercontinent assemblies. However, Condie (2013) grouped four 

of these, Penokean-Yavapai-Mazatzal, Makkovikian-Labradorian, Baltica, and Amazonia, 

into the Great Proterozoic Accretionary Orogen (GPAO). This is said to possibly be the 



5 

 

long-lived orogen of all time, and contributed to much of the Rodinia supercontinent 

(Condie, 2013). 

Condie (2013) summarized zircon ages from igneous rocks preserved in the 

Laurentian portion of the GPAO – Figure 1.4 is a distribution map of the zircon ages 

within the Laurentian portion of the GPAO, and Figure 1.5 is the histogram of the age 

data.  

 
Figure 1.4: Paleomagnetic reconstruction of Nuna at the beginning of its break-up phase 

showing age provinces in the GPAO using detrital zircon ages. Double red lines: rifting 

of cratons (Condie, 2013). 

 



6 

 

 
Figure 1.5: Worldwide zircon ages from igneous rocks preserved in the Laurentian 

portion of the GPAO in MA (Condie, 2013) P=Pinwarian age, L=Labradorian age, 

M=Makkovikian age 

 

 

Several of the maxima he identified correlate directly with North American orogenic 

events, such as the 1.5 Ga Pinwarian, 1.7-1.63 Ga Labradorian, and 1.92-1.86 Ga 

Makkovikian (Figure 1.5). However, an unexplained minimum at 1.6-1.5 Ga was 

observed between Labradorian and Pinware orogenic events. Condie (2013) suggested 

this gap in Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) dating between Labradorian and Pinware orogenic 

events could be explained by three scenarios: (1) rocks of this age never formed, (2) 

rocks of this age are covered with younger rocks, (3) rocks of this age were recycled into 

the mantle; where the latter is Condie’s preferred explanation for the gap. The Grenville 

Province provides the largest exposure of Mesoproterozoic basement in North America, 

P     L     M 



7 

 

therefore further study of Mesoproterozoic crustal formation in the Grenville Province 

may offer a chance to solve this problem. 

 

1.3 The Grenville Province 

The Grenville Province forms a longitudinal belt 2000 km long and 400 km wide, 

extending through Ontario and Quebec, from Georgian Bay to Labrador. The province 

represents a complex, highly metamorphosed orogenic belt at the southeastern margin of 

the Canadian Shield. The Grenville province is bounded to the north by the Grenville 

Front, which is juxtaposed against the Archean aged Superior Province (Figure 1.6).  

 
Figure 1.6: Geologic divisions of the North American Shield with the Grenville 

Province highlighted in green; dashed lines indicating coastlines (after Rivers, 1997)  

 



8 

 

There have been several different divisions of the Grenville Province; Wynne-

Edwards (1972) had presented seven broad divisions based on metamorphic grades when 

little else was known about the province, but this was superseded by the model of Rivers 

et al. (1989), who divided the province into three tectonic structural belts based on 

geologic, geophysical and geochronological evidence (Figure 1.7).  

 
Figure 1.7: The tectonic divisions of the Grenville Province (after Rivers et al., 1989). 

The black box indicates the study area. 

 

Rivers et al. (1989) defined these belts in terms of Grenvillian orogenic cycles of 

transposition and overprinting, each with their own tectonic boundaries: the 

Parautochthon in the north, the Allochthonous Polycyclic Belt in the south, and the 

Allonchthonous Monocyclic Belt, a restricted portion in the far east and far west (not 



9 

 

shown). The Parautochthon is bounded to the north by the Grenville Front and contains 

reworked Archean and Paleoproterozoic crust. The Allochthon Thrust Boundary (ABT) 

separates the Parautochthon from the largely Mesozoic Allochthonous Belt that 

tectonically overlays it. The present study area lies fully within the central part of the 

Allochthonous Polycyclic Belt (APB), characterized by multiple orogenic cycles that 

overprinted the belt with a high metamorphic grade of amphibolite to granulite facies 

(Rivers et al., 1989). However, because the present study area is smaller in scale and lies 

completely within the APB and deals with pre-Grenvillian tectonics, this tectonic model 

is not suitable for explaining the tectonics of smaller accreted terranes.  

Studies of Mesoproterozoic crustal evolution must be carried out in the context of 

Grenvillian belts and terranes; however a detailed understanding of the pre-Grenvillian 

evolution of the Laurentian margin depends on the identification of accreted terranes with 

district ages of crustal formation. Hence, Dickin (2000) proposed that the Grenville 

Province could also be explained in terms of several large accreted terranes with distinct 

crustal formation ages: Laurentia 2.7 Ga, Barilia and Makkovikia 1.9 Ga, Labradoria 1.7 

Ga, and Quebecia 1.5 Ga (Figure 1.8). 

 



10 

 

 
Figure 1.8: The Grenville Province and its terrane divisions based on identified crustal 

formation ages (Thomson et. al., 2011). M: Manicouagan Impact Crater, BC: Baie 

Comeau, ABT: Allochthon Boundary Thrust., LJ: Lac Joseph allochthon, largely 

composed of Makkovik-age sedimentary rocks. Coarse stipple: Trans-Labrador batholith. 

The black box indicates the study area. 

 

 

1.4 The Study Area 

Among the terranes proposed by Dickin (2000), the Quebecia terrane is the largest 

Mesoproterozoic accreted terrane, and was first identified by Dickin and Higgins (1992) 

as a Mesoproterozoic arc that was accreted to the Laurentian craton within 100 Ma of its 

formation. Figure 1.9 shows the Quebecia Terrane in relation to the Manicouagan 

Reservoir, the Makkovikian-age terranes to the north, and the Labradoria Terrane to the 

east. 



11 

 

 

Figure 1.9: Crustal formation age map for the Quebecia Terrane (yellow) in relation to 

Makkovikian-age Berthe and Molson Lake terranes (green), the Labradoria Terrane 

(blue), Archean crust (pink) and the Manicouagan Impact Crater (M). BC=Baie Comeau.  

(Published data from Dickin and Higgins, 1992; Thomson et al., 2011.) 

 

Dickin and Higgins (1992), while providing evidence for a major 1.5 Ga crustal event 

that would later be named the Quebecia Terrane, also identified a few samples distinct 

from the main sample suite yielded depleted mantle model ages of 1.7-2.0 Ga. They 

speculated that this may represent a separate, earlier crust forming event or a supracrustal 

sequence with a lithology resembling arc-derived sediments.  

 Hynes (2010) made a study of these enigmatic older crustal ages in the Saguenay 

and Baie Comeau areas of the Quebecia Terrane within Central Quebec. Hynes’ study 

involved identifying and mapping crustal formation ages of old Paleoproterozoic 

M 

BC 

Makkovikian-aged  

crust 

Quebecia 

Labradoria 



12 

 

(>1.65Ga) crustal blocks that lie within the young 1.5 Ga Quebecia arc terrane. Through 

reconnaissance Sm-Nd isotope mapping of samples from the Saguenay and Baie Comeau 

areas, this study constrained the boundaries of the old crustal blocks in limited areas with 

Sm-Nd isotopic evidence, and proposed that the two fragments may connect to form an 

old crust panel running through the younger Quebecia arc. Figure 1.10 shows this model 

for the extended old crust panel.  

 
Figure 1.10: Proposed extent of old crust (purple) within the Quebecia terrane (grey) 

(Hynes, 2010)  

 

Ultimately, Hynes proposed that the Quebecia Terrane may represent a tectonic 

setting where fragments of old lithosphere were rifted from the Laurentian margin and 

later incorporated into the younger arc terrane formed by subduction related magmatism; 



13 

 

However, more research was still needed to provide a working model of how the old 

fragments got to their current position within the younger Quebecia terrane, and where 

these fragments came from. 

Samples directly north of the Quebecia Terrane may help answer the question of 

the original of these old fragments. The Grenville Province contains one of the largest 

and best preserved terrestrial impact structures, the Manicouagan Impact Structure, which 

is found just north of the Quebecia terrane. The Manicouagan region contains large areas 

of Proterozoic and Archean orthogneiss, and is subdivided into several Grenvillian 

lithotectonic terranes: the Gagnon terrane, Hart Jaune terrane, the Berthe Terrane, and the 

Manicouagan Imbricate Zone (MIZ) (Spray et al., 2010). 

The Berthe Terrane is comprised of several smaller fragments that have been termed 

the Southern Domains. It is located southeast of the Manicouagan reservoir within the 

allochthonous belt (Hynes et al., 2000). Through Nd isotope analysis, the southern 

domains show a restricted range of Paleoproterozoic model ages from 1.7 to 2.0 Ga. A 

Sm-Nd isochron for samples in the Manicouagan area compared with suites from Eastern 

and Southern Labradoria showed that Berthe Terrane model ages fell between the 

distributions from eastern and southern Labrador - suggesting that the Berthe Terrane 

represents Makkovikian age crust that was reworked during the Labradorian orogeny 

(Figure 1.11).  



14 

 

 

Figure 1.11: Sm-Nd isochron diagram for analyzed orthogneiss samples from the Berthe 

Terrane in relation to suites from Southern Labrador, Gagnon and Makkovikia (Modified 

from Thomson et al., 2011) 

 

The present study utilizes Sm-Nd isotopic evidence and crustal age mapping to 

further investigate the northern and eastern extension of the older crustal fragments near 

Baie Comeau in an effort to constrain their boundaries. Ultimately, the study aims to 

deduce an origin for these fragments and a tectonic model of their inclusion within the 

Quebecia Terrane. The study focused on a series of approximately N-S transects and one 

0.5105

0.5110

0.5115

0.5120

0.5125

0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15

1
4

3
N

d
/1

4
4

N
d

147Sm/144Nd

Gagnon

Berthe

S Labrador

Makkovikia

1.75 Ga 

2.7 Ga 



15 

 

NE-SW transect within Central Quebec and the Baie Comeau area to map the boundaries 

of the old fragments (Figure 1.12).  

 

Figure 1.12: A sample transect map for the study area. BC=Baie Comeau. Red line: Baie 

Comeau transect for which major element geochemical data were obtained 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BC 



16 

 

Chapter 2 – Neodymium Model Ages 

 
2.1 Introduction 
 

 When continental crust is extracted from the mantle, it remains buoyant 

relative to the mantle and creates terrestrial microcontinents that collide and form 

larger macrocontinents. The boundaries between these microcontinents prior to 

collision and accretion can be obscured by metamorphism, such as seen in the 

Grenville Province due to the Grenville Orogeny. Model ages can be used to identify 

the time at which the continental crust was extracted from the mantle, allowing the 

ability to date the formation of the crustal terranes and to map the boundaries 

between them.   

The metamorphic events that affected the Grenville Province are responsible 

for resetting some isotope systems that could be used as dating techniques. The 

Samarium-Neodymium (Sm-Nd) isotope system is an ideal method for dating 

metamorphic rocks such as in this case because it is resistant to this resetting. The 

elements themselves have very similar chemical properties to each other and are 

relatively immobile during high grade metamorphism, erosion and igneous intrusions 

(Green et al., 1969; McCulloch and Wasserberg, 1978), therefore the system remains 

closed. Hence, the Sm-Nd dating technique can yield model crustal formation ages 

of the terranes as they would have been prior to metamorphism. 

 

 

 



17 

 

2.2 The Samarium-Neodymium Dating Method 

Samarium has several radioactive isotopes (147Sm, 148Sm and 149Sm) however 

147Sm is the most useful as it has a half-life of 106 Ga – allowing it to produce small, 

but measurable differences in the daughter product 143Nd over millions of years 

(Dickin, 2005). This provides the basis of the Sm-Nd dating system. The radioactive 

decay law using the Sm-Nd method is expressed by the following formula: 

143𝑁𝑑

144𝑁𝑑
= (

143𝑁𝑑

144𝑁𝑑
)

𝐼
+

147𝑆𝑚

144𝑁𝑑
(𝑒𝜆𝑡 − 1) 

Where λ = radiometric decay constant, t = age of the sample 

The three ratios required to solve the age equation are the present day isotopic ratios 

of 143Nd/144Nd and 147Sm/144Nd, which are measured by mass spectrometry, and the 

initial isotopic ratio of 143Nd/144Nd, which must be determined before age 

calculation. The initial isotopic ratio can be obtained from a mantle model, which 

assumes that the initial 143Nd/144Nd ratio of the rock is equal to the 143Nd/144Nd ratio 

of the mantle at the time it is extracted (Nelson and DePaolo, 1984).  

Originally, the TCHUR model by DePaolo and Wasserburg (1976a, 1976b) was 

used to obtain the initial isotopic ratio of the mantle for the dating method. This 

model, shown in Figure 2.1, represents the Nd isotope ratio through earth’s history. 

The Chondritic Uniform Reservoir (CHUR) is an established benchmark for the 

isotopic composition of chondrite meteorites as a representation of the evolution of 

solar-system bodies such as Earth (Dickin, 2005). Studies have shown that samarium 

and neodymium isotope ratios present in terrestrial samples are roughly similar in 



18 

 

abundances to chondritic meteorites (DePaolo and Wasserburg, 1976a, 1976b), 

leading to the currently accepted theory that mantle composition was derived from 

the same source as chondrite samples; thus, Earth accreted from material with 

chondritic signatures. 

  
Figure 2.1: Nd isotope evolution diagram; Tmet = age of metamorphic event; Tsed = 

age of erosion event; f = fractionation of sample Sm/Nd (Dickin, 2005) 

 

In DePaolo and Wasserburg’s 1976a study, a new notion was also developed 

by normalizing all initial 143Nd/144Nd isotopic ratios to CHUR to remove any effects 

of the slight fractionation that occurs between Sm and Nd, and for easier comparison 

between of different aged samples: 

𝜀𝑁𝑑(𝑡) = [
(

143𝑁𝑑
144𝑁𝑑

) 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 (𝑡)

(
143𝑁𝑑
144𝑁𝑑

) 𝐶𝐻𝑈𝑅 (𝑡)
−  1] 𝑥 104 

 



19 

 

 

DePaolo and Wasserburg (1976b) proposed that if this model is correct, and 

the CHUR evolution line accurately identifies the initial Nd isotope ratio of the 

mantle through time, then any measurement of Sm-Nd ratios in a crustal rock can be 

compared to the model and yield a model age for the formation of that rock, as long 

as there is sufficient isotope fractionation during crustal extraction from the mantle. 

This model is represented by the following formula: 

 TCHUR = 
1

λ
ln[1 +  

(
143𝑁𝑑

144 𝑁𝑑
)𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒−(

143𝑁𝑑

144𝑁𝑑
)𝐶𝐻𝑈𝑅

(
147𝑆𝑚

144 𝑁𝑑
)𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒−(

147𝑆𝑚

144𝑁𝑑
)𝐶𝐻𝑈𝑅

]  

 Although Archean plutons fit the CHUR line, Mid-ocean ridge basalts (MORB) 

samples lay +7 to +12 ɛ units above the CHUR line (Figure 2.2) – leaving a gap between 

Archean CHUR data and the depleted MORB source (indicated by elevated Sm/Nd 

ratios) due to a lack of Proterozoic data. 

 
Figure 2.2: Diagram of Nd isotope evolution against time, showing terrestrial sample 

deviations from the CHUR line in ɛ units. (DePaolo and Wasserburg, 1976b) 

 

 DePaolo (1981) recognized that Archean samples that fell within error of the 

CHUR line could actually lie on a curved corresponding to the progressive depletion of 

the mantle in light rare earth elements (LREE), representing a depleted-mantle evolution 



20 

 

line. To test this, DePaolo (1981) studied the Proterozoic basement from the Colorado 

Front Range and presented the initial 143Nd/144Nd ratios of the samples in Figure 2.3.  

 
Figure 2.3: Plot of ɛ Nd against time, showing the Colorado Front Range data relative to 

a depleted-mantle evolution. (After DePaolo, 1981) 

 

 DePaolo (1981) fitted a quadratic curve to the data, representing the Nd isotope 

evolution of a depleted reservoir that was a source for subduction-related magmatism. 

The curve begins on the CHUR evolution line in the early Archean, but evolves steadily 

to the present day. The composition of the depleted reservoir, relative to CHUR, is given 

as: 

ɛNd(T) = 0.25T2 − 3T + 8.5 

Sm-Nd model ages calculated using the depleted mantle curve are denoted TDM, 

and have been shown empirically to yield more accurate indications of crustal formation 

ages than TCHUR ages for studies of continental evolution (DePaolo, 1981).  



21 

 

Mass spectrometry was utilized at McMaster University in Hamilton to 

analyze the samples for their Sm-Nd isotope signatures in order to establish model 

ages. Please refer to Appendix A for detailed laboratory techniques. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



22 

 

Chapter 3 – Results 

 

3.1 Nd Isotope Data 

 
The current study aimed to investigate the extent of the old Paleoproterozoic 

crustal block within the younger Mesoproterozoic Quebecia terrane, as well as provide 

evidence for its origin and tectonic history. The results of the present study, along with 

preciously published data, have been compiled into three tables (See Appendix B). Table 

B-1 shows model age results that fall within the age range corresponding to the Quebecia 

Terrane (1.46-1.64 Ga) as defined by Dickin (2000), Table B-2 gives the results for model 

ages that are Labradorian to Makkovikian (1.7-2.0 Ga), while Table B-3 contains 

intermediate model age results that area attributed to Nd mixing at the boundaries 

between old and young blocks (1.65-1.69 Ga). 

Samples which returned model ages which seemed anomalous were duplicated 

and reanalysed to check the results, either by complete redissolution or a duplicate 

analysis for 143Nd/144Nd ratio. Samples indicated by a ‘*’ were taken from Hynes (2010), 

‘**’ from Dickin and Higgins (1992) and ‘***’ from Dickin (2000). After the crustal 

formation ages were calculated, they were plotted in ArcGIS (Figure 3.1). The 

Paleoproterozoic ages appear to form a sinusoidal pattern in the Baie Comeau (BC) area 

in Central Quebec – suggesting they could have originated as a single elongated block 

extending through the Mesoproterozoic Quebecia Terrane.  



23 

 

 
Figure 3.1: A numbered map of all the sample data found in tables B-1, B-2 and B-3. 

 

A Sm-Nd isochron diagram was generated using the age categories in the above 

tables, along with several published reference suites (Figure 3.2).  



24 

 

 

Figure 3.2: An isochron diagram comparing published data for the Quebecia Terrane, 

Makkovik province, Labradoria, and the Berthe Terrane with the current study. 

(Published data from Dickin, 2000; Hynes, 2010; Kerr and Fryer, 1994; Ketchum et al., 

2002; Thomson et al., 2011).  

 

New Quebecia-aged samples plot close to the published suite for Quebecia. In 

contrast, rocks from the Paleoproterozoic Baie Comeau block fall between the reference 

lines for the juvenile Labradoria Terrane and the Makkovik Province. This suggests the 

BC Block may contain a mixture of Nd with Makkovikian and Labradorian ages. 

The Berthe Terrane exhibits a similar mixing pattern between Labradorian and 

Makkovikian aged crustal material, suggesting that a Laurentian source similar to the 

Berthe Terrane may have been detached to form the old block within Quebecia. As shown 

in Figure 1 by the red circles, the Berthe Terrane directly north of Quebecia has already 

0.5114

0.5116

0.5118

0.5120

0.5122

0.5124

0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15

1
4
3
N

d
/1

4
4
N

d

147Sm/144Nd

Berthe Pub Makkovik Pub Quebecia Pub Labradoria Pub

Quebecia New BC Block Boundary Samples



25 

 

been attributed to the intrusion of Labradorian magmas into an older Makkovikian 

terrane.  

To further examine the possible origins of the Baie Comeau block, it is compared 

with Tdm ages of the surrounding terranes in Figure 3.3, which presents a series of 

histograms illustrating the frequency of model ages for previous studies in Labradoria, 

Makkovikia, Quebecia and the Berthe Terrane, along with the current study.  

 

The data distribution for the new Quebecia samples shows a peak at 1.55 Ga, 

which accurately reflects the published Quebecia peak value. In contrast, the BC Block 

shows a distribution ranging from 1.7-2 Ga, with peaks at 1.75 Ga and 1.85 Ga, 

illustrating a similar distribution to the Berthe Terrane but slightly shifted downward in 

age. This suggests that the Berthe Terrane and the BC block contain slightly different 

mixtures of Makkovik and Labradoria components. This may reflect reworking of 

Makkovikian crust in a Labradorian-age continental margin arc, as proposed for SE 

Labrador (Moumblow, 2014). The fact that the BC Block contains a slightly larger 

fraction of Labradorian Nd suggests that it may represent a slightly more out-board 

segment of this continental margin than the crust presently preserved in the Berthe 

Terrane.  

 

 

 



26 

 

 

Figure 3.3: Distribution of TDM age for the BC block compared with the surrounding 

terranes of Quebecia, Berthe, Labradoria, Makkovik. (Published data from Hynes, 2010; 

Kerr and Fryer, 1994; Ketchum et al., 2002; Thomson et al., 2011.) 

 

 

0

20

1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Quebecia

0

10

20

1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

BC Block

0

10

1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Berthe Terrane

0

10

20

1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Makkovik

0

10

20

1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2

Fr
eq

u
en

cy
 (

n
)

TDM (Ga)

Labradoria



27 

 

3.2 Geochemical Analysis 

In order to compare the petrology of the BC block with the Quebecia Terrane, 

samples from the principal transect west of BC were analyzed geochemically. These 

results are shown in Table 3.4 (See Appendix B). The results were compared with 

published data to produce a series of geochemical plots shown in Figure 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 

and 3.8. Published data from the Kohistan Arc (Jagoutz et al., 2009) was included to 

represent an oceanic arc for comparison. 

 

Figure 3.4: AFM Ternary diagram comparing published Quebecia, Berthe Terrane and 

Kohistan Arc data with the BC Block (Published data from Dickin and Higgins, 1992; 

Thomson et al., 2011; Jagoutz et al., 2009; Kimmerle, 2014; and Slaman, 2013). 

Na2O+K2O MgO

FeOt

Tholeiitic

Calc-Alkaline

Quebecia BC Block Berthe Terrane Kohistan Arc



28 

 

Figure 3.4 shows an AFM Ternary Diagram that was generated using the relative 

proportions of oxides Na2O + K2O (A), FeO total (F), and MgO (M). The majority of the 

samples lie within the calc-alkaline section of the AFM Ternary diagram, confirming that 

all of the samples are arc related. The data were then plotted on a Q (quartz) and P 

(plagioclase) petrochemical diagram to further classify granitoid rocks using their whole 

rock chemical composition (Figure 3.5). 

 

Figure 3.5:  Q-P Petrochemical diagram after Debon and LeFort (1983) comparing 

published Quebecia, Berthe Terrane and Kohistan Arc data with the BC Block. Solid line: 

Quebecia trend line, dashed line: BC Block trend line (Published data from Dickin and 

Higgins, 1992; Thomson et al., 2011; Jagoutz et al., 2009; Kimmerle, 2014; and Slaman, 

2013). 

 

0

50

100

150

200

250

-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

Q

P

Quebecia BC Block Berthe Terrane Kohistan Arc

GR 

MG GD 

TN 

QMD 

QM QD 

QSY 

DI QD MZ 
SY 



29 

 

The Kohistan Arc, representing a mature oceanic arc, trends along the left side of 

the diagram, spanning from diorite to granodiorite. The Mesoproterozoic Quebecia 

samples plot predominantly in the upper region of the plot with a concentration in the 

tonalite and granodiorite fields (solid trend line). In contrast, samples from the BC Block 

plot lower and to the right (dashed trend line) indicating a lower silica, more alkaline 

suite.  

A TAS diagram (Le Bas et al., 1986) was generated to compare silica saturation 

between the different sample suites (Figure 3.6). In this diagram, the Kohistan Arc suite 

spans mostly the entire silica oversaturated bottom region, whereas the BC Block has a 

tighter cluster around the boundary between oversaturated and saturated, with 

concentrations in the dacite (O3) and rhyolite fields. The Berthe Terrane and Quebecia 

Terrane suites show a similar distribution within dacite and rhyolite fields but are more 

scattered within the oversaturated region. This diagram is again showing that the BC 

block (dashed trend line) is more alkaline and less oversaturated with silica than the 

Kohistan arc and the Quebecia terrane (solid trend line).  

 



30 

 

 

Figure 3.6: A TAS diagram comparing total alkalis and SiO2 (Le Bas et al., 1986). U2, 

U3: Generally Silica Under saturated; Ph: Phonolite; S1, S2, S3: Generally Silica-

Saturated; T: Trachyte or Trachydacite; B: Basalt; O1 (Basaltic andesite), O2 (Andesite), 

O3 (dacite): Generally Silica Oversaturated. Solid line: Quebecia trend line, dashed line: 

BC Block trend line (Published data from Dickin and Higgins, 1992; Thomson et al., 

2011; Jagoutz et al., 2009; Kimmerle, 2014; and Slaman, 2013). 

 

In order to further differentiate between tectono-magmatic environments, a R1-R2 

diagram was generated to compare the calculated chemical limits of the sample suites 

(Figure 3.7).  

B O1 O2 O3

U2

U3

Ph

S1

S2

S3

T
R

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76

N
a 2

O
+K

2
O

SiO2

Quebecia BC Block Berthe Terrane Kohistan Arc



31 

 

 

Figure 3.7: R1-R2 diagram: A geochemical classification of granitic rocks by Batchelor 

and Bowden (1985). R1: 4Si – 11(Na+K) – 2(Fe + Ti), R2: 6Ca +2Mg + Al. Region 1: 

Mantle fractionates, Region 2: Pre-plate collision, Region 3: post-collision uplift, Region 

4: late orogenic, Region 5: Anorogenic, Region 6: Syn-collisional, Region 7: Post 

orogenic. (Published data from Dickin and Higgins, 1992; Thomson et al., 2011; Jagoutz 

et al., 2009; Kimmerle, 2014; and Slaman, 2013). 

 

In the R1-R2 diagram, majority of the Kohistan Arc samples plot within Region 1 

and 2, corresponding to mantle fractionate and pre-plate collision. The Quebecia samples 

plot similarly within Region 2. In contrast, the BC Block and Berthe Terrane mainly lay 

within Region 4 and 6, corresponding to late orogenic and syn-collisional activity. This 

suggests the BC block and Berthe Terrane are more mature, continental arcs in 

5

4

3

2

1

6

7

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 1000 2000 3000

R
2

R1

Quebecia BC Block Berthe Terrane Kohistan Arc



32 

 

comparison to the more primitive, oceanic arc setting Kohistan Arc and Quebecia 

Terrane.  

Lastly, potassium oxide was plotted against zirconium concentration to further 

show the distribution of alkalinity (Figure 3.8). Trend lines for the BC Block (dashed 

line) and Quebecia (solid line) were also plotted. 

 

Figure 3.8: Petrochemical chart comparing potassium oxide (K2O) and zirconium (Zr). 

(Published data from Dickin and Higgins, 1992; Thomson et al., 2011; Jagoutz et al., 

2009; Kimmerle, 2014; and Slaman, 2013). 

 

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

K
2
O

 (
p

p
m

)

Zr (ppm)

Quebecia BC Block Berthe Terrane Kohistan Arc



33 

 

As shown by the trend lines, the BC Block plots higher in K2O, indicating it is a 

more alkaline suite. In contrast, the Quebecia samples plot lower in K2O, suggesting they 

are less alkaline, representing a juvenile arc similar to Kohistan. 

 

3.3: Distance vs. Tdm Transects 

The BC Transect shown in Figure 1.12 (red line) was further graphically analyzed 

by plotting the sample ages with the N-S distance relative to the farthest northern point 

above the BC Block boundary (Figure 3.9). For comparison, a transect from the Berthe 

Terrane and Quebecia near Manicouagan were also plotted. 

 

Figure 3.9: Model age/distance transect graph for the BC Transect (Published data from 

Thomson et al., 2011; Dickin and Higgins, 1992).  

 

The BC Transect in Figure 3.9 begins north of the proposed old block boundary 

(m=0) where the samples are Mesoproterozoic in age (1.5-1.55 Ga) which represent 

Quebecia. As the transect moves into the old block boundary, the plotted samples yield 

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

A
ge

 (
Td

m
)

Distance (m)

BC Transect Berthe Terrane Quebecia



34 

 

much older ages (1.7-1.9 Ga) and have been correlated with a Berthe Terrane transect 

(green circles) to show the similarity in age on the graph. As the BC transect moves out 

of the proposed old block boundary, the samples are again younger and correlate with 

well with a small Quebecia transect (yellow squares).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



35 

 

Chapter 4: Discussion 

4.1 Discussion of Results 

The present study has mapped crustal formation ages of the Quebecia Terrane 

(1.52 ± 0.09 Ga) in contrast to the Paleoproterozoic block identified (1.81 ± 0.07 Ga). An 

interpolation map was created to highlight the Paleoproterozoic ages and ultimately, 

determine a shape for this old Baie Comeau panel extending through the Quebecia 

Terrane (Figure 4.1). 

 
Figure 4.1: An inverse distance weighted interpolation of the Baie Comeau (BC) area in 

Central Quebec; Highlighting a possible shape for the Paleoproterozoic panel extending 

through the Quebecia Terrane.  

 

BC 



36 

 

As shown in Figure 4.1, the interpolation succeeded in highlighting the older 

Paleoproterozoic ages within the Baie Comeau area (blue) as two or three broken panels, 

as opposed to Hynes’ (2010) one large panel (Figure 1.10). There was no solid evidence 

to link the Baie Comeau segments to the Saguenay, however as this model shows two or 

three separate blocks, it is not inconceivable that they are still from the same tectonic 

event and were broken due to Grenville metamorphism.  

To further validate the highlighted panel from Figure 4.1, the regional geology was 

incorporated into ArcGIS along with the interpolation. Figure 4.2 shows the regional 

geology (obtained from Energie et Ressources naturelles, Québec) overlain by possible 

BC block fragments drawn in an effort to agree with the both the interpolation and the 

mapped geology. By comparing the two figures, it can be seen that there are strong NS 

geologic features that cut across the interpolation in Figure 4.1 (shown by the yellow star 

in Figure 4.2), suggesting that there is a break in the BC panel and it is instead divided 

into several separate segments that take the form of a mega-boudins. Since there are no 

roads within this area for sample collection, we rely on the geologic mapping for the 

shape of the BC fragment in that area.  

 



37 

 

 

Figure 4.2: Possible configuration of the BC block fragments overlaying the regional 

geology. Pinks and greys: granitoid orthogneiss, oranges: anorthosite, yellow: mainly 

paragneiss. Yellow star indicates areas of NS linear features (Geologic maps from 

Energie et Ressources naturelles, Québec) BC: Baie Comeau. 

B
C

 



38 

 

 

 

By comparing the Sm-Nd signatures from this study with previous published 

work in Chapter 3, it is shown that this old block exhibits a similar mixed source 

signature to the Berthe Terrane. The old block may have been detached from the 

Paleoproterozoic margin of Laurentia and reaccreted between two blocks of the Quebecia 

Terrane. This leads to a model involving a division of Quebecia into separate north and 

south accreting terranes. The exact mechanics of this event are still unclear, however, 

comparison with a modern analogue may shed some light on the process.  

The tectonic evolution of the Grenville Province has many similarities to that of 

the Sumatra region in Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia, like Laurentia, is a complex 

assembly of crustal terranes and volcanic arcs with tectonic boundaries between them. It 

is possible that the tectonic history of the old crustal block identified within the Quebecia 

arc may be analogous to that of West Sumatra.  

 

4.2 Southeast Asia: A Modern Analogue 

Similar to the older BC block presented in the current study, the question of how 

West Sumatra was transported to its current position between two younger terranes was a 

problem when trying to reconstruct the plate tectonics of the Sumatra region. However, 

being of Phanerozoic age, the tectonic history of SE Asia has been reconstructed based on 

floral and faunal data, as well as its deformational history. Despite the absence of these 

data in the Grenville Province due to its older age, the mechanism behind the 



39 

 

transportation of West Sumatra can be used an analogue to explain the origin of the older 

crustal fragments contained within Quebecia.  

As shown in Figure 4.3, West Sumatra is an elongated terrane wedged between 

the Woyla terrane to the southwest and the Sibumasu terrane to the northeast. This region 

of Southeast Asia is also often referred to as Sundaland. A more detailed tectonic map of 

these terranes is shown in Figure 4.4. 

 
Figure 4.3: Continental tectonic blocks in Southeast Asia (Barber and Crow, 2009) 

 

West Sumatra is composed mostly of Carboniferous aged units with a few 

Permian units, bounded to the northeast by Permo-Carboniferous units of Sibumasu (East 

Sumatra) and to the southwest by the younger Jurassic-Cretaceous units of the Woyla 

terrane (Figure 4.4). The contact between West Sumatra and the Sibumasu (East Sumatra) 

terrane is marked by the Medial Sumatra Tectonic Zone (MSTZ); this zone is marked by 



40 

 

highly deformed rocks including schists and gneisses, and is suggested to be the main 

locus of translation of West Sumatra outboard Sibumasu. Ultimately, understanding the 

tectonic events that placed West Sumatra outboard of Sibumasu may allow the Sumatra 

region to be used as an analogue to the Quebecia Arc. 

 
Figure 4.4: Distribution of the stratigraphic and tectonic units in Sumatra; darker shade 

indicate outcrop, lighter tons indicate areas where pre-Tertiary is overlain by Tertiary 

and Quaternary sediments (Barber and Crow, 2009) 

 

In the Late Paleozoic, Asia as a whole was amalgamated from terranes derived 

from the northern margin of East Gondwana. Although Sibumasu and West Sumatra are 

of similar age, mapped floral and faunal data strongly suggests that these terranes had 

different origins (Barber and Crow, 2009); Sibumasu from western Gondwana, and West 

Sumatra from Cathaysia, a northern peripheral region of Gondwana (Figure 4.5). During 

MSTZ 



41 

 

the Early Permian, Cathaysia was a peripheral region of Gondwana that would eventually 

make up the landmasses of China and South Asian countries, including the Sumatra 

region. In Figure 4.5, Cathaysia is shown as the collection of South China, East Malaya, 

Borneo and West Sumatra. Based on floral and faunal evidence, West Sumatra originated 

as a piece of Cathaysia, while Sibumasu came from western Gondwana. 

 

Figure 4.5: Paleogeography of NE Gondwana and SE Asian terranes in the Early 

Permian, showing the subduction of the Palaeo-Tethys between Sibumasu and Cathaysia, 

and the opening of the Meso-Tethys between Sibumasu and Gondwana (Barber et al., 

2005). 

 

 

 

 



42 

 

The tectonic history of the Sumatra region can be loosely summarized in 3 major 

steps:  

(1) While the Paleotethys was still spreading in the Early Permian, its northern margin 

began to subduct beneath Cathaysia. Meanwhile, Sibumasu began to rift from Western 

Gondwana (toward Cathaysia, Figure 4.5). 

(2) In the late Permian to early Triassic, Sibumasu collided with Cathaysia (Figure 4.6). 

(3) Strike-slip movement along the MSTZ placed West Sumatra outboard of Sibumasu 

(shown in Figure 4.7). 

 
Figure 4.6: Paleogeography of NE Gondwana and SE Asian Terranes in the Late 

Permian (Barber et al., 2005) 

  



43 

 

 

Figure 4.7: Paleogeographic map of the SE Asian terrane in the Early Triassic (Barber et 

al., 2005) 

 

It is suggested that West Sumatra moved westwards from the southeastern 

extremity of Cathaysia (Figure 4.5) via strike-slip faulting along the MSTZ to its current 

position outboard of Sibumasu (shown in Figure 4.6 and 4.7 as East Sumatra). 

Hutchinson (1994) suggested that this translation occurred during the Cenozoic; However 

a comparison of Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic sequences of the eastern Sumatra 

Sibumasu Terrane shows continuity of Middle to Upper Triassic sediments across West 

Sumatra, the MSTZ, Sibumasu and Malaya (Figure 4.8) – suggesting that these blocks 

had their present relationships before Mid-Triassic times (Barber et al., 2005).  



44 

 

Figure 4.8: Comparisons of the sediment sequences in Sibumasu (Eastern Sumatra) and 

Western Sumatra (Barber and Crow, 2005)  

 

These sedimentary sequences also show no record of sediments for the late Permian/early 

Triassic, therefore it is suggested that the translation of West Sumatra to its position 

outboard of Sibumasu occurred during this time (Barber et. al, 2005).  

Therefore, using the detailed tectonic history of West Sumatra as an analogue, it is 

plausible that a Paleoproterozoic crustal panel was translated southwest from the Berthe 

Terrane during the accretion of Quebecia in multiple stages, causing it to become inserted 

between a north and south portion of the younger Mesoproterozoic Quebecia terranes.  

 

 



45 

 

4.3 Orogenic Model 

Utilizing Barber and Crow’s 2003 cross-section for the evolution of Sumatra as a 

basis, a similar model can be proposed for the tectonic history of the old crustal fragment 

within Quebecia (Figure 4.9). In this model, blocks are transported out of and into the 

line of cross section by transcurrent movement along the margin. 

 

Figure 4.9: Proposed tectonic model for placement of the old block within the Quebecia 

Terrane (After Barber and Crow, 2003).  

Erosion Line 



46 

 

During the mid-Paleoproterozoic, the BC block was originally a piece of the 

Berthe Terrane to the north (Figure 4.9, A). Subduction under Laurentia began in the 

early Mesoproterozoic, bringing the Quebecia arc to accrete at the margin (Figure 4.9, B). 

Between these two periods, strike slip tectonics would have transported the BC block 

south from its origin similar to how the WSB was transported along the MSTZ to its 

current position outboard of Sibumasu.  The BC block would have then reaccreted 

between a south and north portion of the Quebecia Terrane (Figure 4.9, C). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



47 

 

 

Chapter 5: Conclusions 
 

The current study aimed to further outline the boundary of the Paleoproterozoic 

block defined by Dickin and Higgins (1992) and later Hynes (2010) in the Baie Comeau 

region of Central Quebec, Canada. Figure 5.1 shows a summary of the final mapped BC 

block fragments (dark green) and their spatial relation to their proposed origins in the 

Berthe Terrane (light green). The complete dataset allows a re-examination of the 

questions raised by Condie (2013) regarding gaps in the ages of crustal material on the 

Laurentian margin. 

  
Figure 5.1: a map of the north eastern portion of the Grenville Province showing the old 

blocks (dark green), Quebecia (yellow), Makkovikian-age Berthe and Molson Lake 

Terranes (green), Labradoria (blue) and Archean (pink). BC: Baie Comeau. 

Makkovikian-aged 

crust  

Labradoria 

Quebecia 

BC 



48 

 

Similar to Condie’s zircon age histogram (Figure 1.5), Figure 5.2 presents a 

compilation of the data from the current study. The red bar (1.65-1.69 Ga) represents 

samples which are geographically located between areas of old and young crust, and 

therefore their intermediate ages are attributed to local mixing phenomena.  

 

Figure 5.2: A histogram summary of the model ages for this study. Red bar indicates the 

border samples as outlined in Table B-3. 

 

These locations are shown in Figure 5.3, which is an enlargement of the area 

around Baie Comeau to show the locations of the 1.65-1.69 Ga age samples relative to 

the older and younger crustal blocks. Based on their locations, these samples do not 

represent an actual crustal formation event and therefore indicate there is a real gap in 

crustal formation ages in the study area.   

 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2 2.05

Fr
eq

u
en

cy

Tdm Age (Ga)



49 

 

 
Figure 5.3: Enlargement of area around Baie Comeau, showing the boundary samples 

(X’s) in relation to the surrounding blocks of old and young crust 

 

 

 

 

 



50 

 

The crustal formation age gap demonstrated in Figure 5.2 corresponds to Condie’s 

gap in U-Pb zircon ages (Figure 1.5). This substantiates the case that there is a genuine 

gap in crustal formation between the Labradorian and Pinwarian events (the latter 

representing Quebecia).  

Based on the modern analogue that was presented in Chapter 4, it is suggested 

that crustal evolution on the Laurentian margin during the Mesoproterozoic involved 

transport of crustal terranes along the continental margin during arc accretion processes. 

This suggests that the evolution of the margin did not involve major removal of crustal 

material, but simply rearrangement of existing terranes. Hence it is concluded that there is 

a genuine gap of crustal formation on the Laurentian margin between the Labradorian and 

Pinwarian events.  

One of the issues raised by this argument is the question of the termination of the 

Labradorian terrane east of Manicouagan (Figure 5.1). It could be suggested that 

Labradorian-aged crust was removed by subduction, but Dickin (2000) argued that the 

original extent of Labradorian crust is marked by the extent of the Trans-Labrador 

Batholith (Figure 1.8). This late Labradorian igneous suite is associated with the 

accretion of the Labradorian terrane to Laurentia. The fact that it terminates just to the 

east of Manicouagan suggests that this was the original limit of the Labradorian terrane 

(Dickin, 2000). 

In order to better understand the possible point of origin of the old crustal panels 

in the Baie Comeau area, it would be necessary to conduct more detailed mapping of the 

western continuation of the Berthe Terrane (Figure 5.1). This is an area with poor access 



51 

 

that has not been mapped in detail, but additional study of the boundary between 

Makkovikian/Labradorian and Pinwarian aged crust could clarify whether this is a 

suitable site for the detachment of the Baie Comeau old crustal fragments.  

 Since Quebecia is now divided into north and south terranes to accommodate an 

old panel, it should now be regarded as a Composite Arc Belt. A similar idea was 

proposed in Ontario for a Composite Arc Belt within the Central Metasedimentary Belt 

(Carr et al., 2000), but Dickin and McNutt (2007) argued that the proposed Composite 

Arc Belt of Ontario is actually a failed back arc rift zone. This conclusion was based on 

the geometry of the model age distribution, the presence of alkaline rocks and marbles, 

and the rift-like geochemistry of mafic volcanics and intrusions (Smith and Holm, 1990). 

In the present study none of the above criteria are met, and the Quebecia Composite Arc 

Belt consists of much larger accreted terranes with distinct ages and calc-alkaline 

signatures, making it a much more convincing candidate for a Composite Arc Belt.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



52 

 

References 
 

Bachelor, R.A., and Bowden, P. (1985). Petrogenetic interpretation of granitoid rock  

series using multicationic parameters. Chemical Geology, 48, 43-55. 

 

Barber, A.J. and Crow, M.J. (2003). Evaluation of Plate Tectonic models for the  

development of Sumatra. Gondwana Research, 20, 1-28. 

 

Barber, A. J., Crow, M. J. and Milsom, J. S. (2005). Sumatra: Geology, Resources  

and Tectonic Evolution. Geological Society Memoir no. 31. 

 

Barber, A.J. and Crow, M.J. (2009). The structure of Sumatra and its implications for  

the tectonic assembly of Southeast Asia and the destruction of Paleothethys. 

Island Arc, 18, 3-20. 

 

Carr, S.D., Easton, R.M., Jamieson, R.A., Culshaw, N.G. (2000). Geologic transect  

across the Grenville orogeny of Ontario and New York. Can. J. Earth Sci. 37, 

193-216. 

 

Condie, K.C. (2002). Breakup of a Paleoproterozoic supercontinent. Gondwana Res., 5,  

41-43. 

 

Condie, K.C. (2013). Preservation and recycling of crust during accretionary and  

collisional phases of Proterozoic orogens: A bumpy road from Nuna to Rodinia. 

Geosciences, 3, 240-261. 

 

Debon, F., and LeFort, P. (1983). A chemical-mineralogical classification of common  

plutonic rocks and associations. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. Earth Sci., 73, 135–149. 

 

DePaolo, D.J. (1981). Neodymium isotopes in the Colorado Front Range and crust –  

mantle evolution in the Proterozoic. Nature, 291, 193-7.  

 

DePaolo, D.J. and Wasserburg, G.J. (1976a). Nd isotopic variations and petrogenic  

models. Geophys. Res. Lett,. 3, 249-252. 

 

DePaolo, D.J. and Wasserburg, G.J. (1976b). Inferences about magma sources and mantle  

structure from variations in 143Nd/144Nd. Geophys. Res. Lett., 3, 743-746.   

 

Dickin, A.P., and Higgins, M. (1992). Sm/Nd evidence for a major 1.5 Ga crust-forming  

event in the central Grenville province. Geology, 20, 137–140. 

 

Dickin, A.P., and McNutt, R.H. (2007). The Central Metasedimentary Belt (Grenville  

Province) as a failed back-arc rift zone: Nd isotope evidence. Earth and Planetary 

Science Letters, 259, 97-106. 



53 

 

Dickin, A.P. (2000). Crustal formation in the Grenville Province: Nd isotope evidence.  

Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 37, 165-181. 

 

Dickin, A.P. (2005). Radiogenic Isotope Geology 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Press  

Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. 

 

Green, T.H., Brunfeldt, A.O., and Heier, K.S. (1969). Rare earth element distribution in  

anorthosites and associated high grade metamorphic rocks, Lofoten-Vesteraalen, 

Norway. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 7, 93-8.  

 

Hutchinson, C.S. (1994). Gondwana and Cathaysian blocks, Palaeothethys sutures and  

Cenozoic tectonics in South-East Asia. Geologische Rundshau, 82, 388-405. 

 

Hynes, A., Indares, A., Rivers, T., and Gobeil, A. (2000). Lithoprobe line 55: integration 

of out of phase seismic results with surface structure, metamorphism and 

geochronology, and the tectonic evolution of the eastern Grenville Province. 

Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 37, 341–358. 

 

Hynes, E. (2010). Nd isotope delineation of crustal terranes in the Bancroft area of  

Ontario and the Saguenay and Baie Comeau regions of Central Quebec: Ensialic 

rifting and arc formation. MSc Thesis, McMaster University. 

 

Jagoutz, O.E., Burg, J.P., Hussain, S., Dawood, H., Pettke, T., Iizuka, T., and Maruyama,  

S. (2009). Construction of the granitoid crust of an island arc part I: 

geochronological and geochemical constraints from the plutonic Kohistan (NW 

Pakistan). Contrib Mineral Petrol, 158, 739-755. 

 

Kerr, A. and Fryer, B.J. (1994). The importance of late and post orogenic crustal growth  

in the Early Proterozoic: Evidence from Sm-Nd isotopic studies of igneous rocks 

in the Makkovik Province, Canada. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 125, 71-

88. 

 

Ketchum, J.W.F., Culshaw, N.G., and Barr, S.M. (2002). Anatomy and orogenic history  

of a Paleoproterozoic accretionary belt: the Makkovik Province, Labrador, 

Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 39, 711-730. 

 

Kimmerle, S. (2014). Nd Isotope mapping near Manicouagan, Grenville Province of  

Quebec. BSc Thesis, McMaster University. 

 

Le Bas, M.J., Lemaitre, R.W., Streckeisen, A. and Zanettin, B. (1986). A Chemical  

Classification of Volcanic-Rocks Based on the Total Alkali Silica Diagram. 

Journal of Petrology, 27, 745-750. 

 

 



54 

 

McCulloch, M.T, and Wasserburg, G.J. (1978). Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr chronology of  

continental crust formation. Science, 200, 1003-11. 

 

McMenamin, M.A.S., and McMenamin, D.L.S. (1990). The emergence of animals: The  

Cambrian breakthrough: New York, Columbia University Press. 

 

Moumblow, R. (2014). Nd isotope mapping of crustal boundaries within the Eastern  

Grenville and Makkovik Provinces, Southern Labrador. PhD Thesis, McMaster 

University. 

 

Nelson, B. K. and DePaolo, D.J. (1984). 1700 Myr greenstone volcanic successions in  

southwestern North America and isotopic evolution of Proterozoic mantle. 

Nature, 312, 143-6. 

 

Pesonen, L.J., Mertanen, S., and Veikkolainen, T. (2012). Paleo- 

Mesoproterozoic supercontinents—a paleomagnetic view. Geophysica, 48, 5–48. 

 

Piper, J.D. (1987). Palaeomagnetism and the Continental Crust. New York: Wiley. 

 
 

Rivers, T., Martignole, J., Gower, C.F., and Davidson, A. (1989). New tectonic divisions 

of the Grenville Province, southeastern Canadian Shield. Tectonics 8, 63–84. 

 

Rivers, T. (1997). Lithotectonic elements of the Grenville Province: review and tectonic  

implications. Precambrian Research, 86, 117-154. 

 

Rogers, J.J.W. and M. Santosh. (2002). Configuration of Columbia, a Mesoproterozoic 

supercontinent, Gondwana Res., 5, 5–22 

 

Sawkins, F.J. (1976). Widespread continental rifting: some considerations of timing and  

mechanism. Geology, 4, 427-430. 

 

Slaman, L. (2013). Nd Model Age Mapping and Crustal Evolution of the Manicouagan  

Region, Quebec. BSc Thesis, McMaster University.  

 

Smith, T.E., Holm, P.E. (1990). The geochemistry and tectonic significance if pre- 

metamorphic minor intrusions of the Central Metasedimentary Belt, Grenville  

Province, Canada. Precambrian Research, 48, 341-360.  

 

Spray, J.G., Thompson, L.M., Biren, M.B., and O’Connell-Cooper, C. (2010). The  

Manicouagan impact structure as a terrestrial analogue site for lunar and martian 

planetary science. Planet. Space Sci., 58, 538–551. 

 

 



55 

 

Système d'information géominière du Québec. Energie et Ressources naturelles,  

Québec.Gouvernement du Québec. Accessed September, 2014. 

<http://sigeom.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/signet/classes/I1108_afchCarteIntr?l=a> 

 

Thomson, S.D., Dickin, A.P., and Spray, J.G. (2011). Nd isotope mapping of Grenvillian  

crustal terranes in the vicinity of the Manicouagan Impact Structure. Precambrian 

Research, 191, 184-193.  

 

Wegner, A. (1967). The Origin of Continents and Oceans. English translation of 4th  

edition [1929]. London: Methuen. 

 

Wilson, J. T. (1966). Did the Atlantic close and then re-open? Nature, 211, 676–681. 

 

Wynne-Edwards, H.R., (1972). The Grenville Province. Geological Association of  

Canada Special Paper, 11, 263-334.  

 

Zelek, M. and Dickin, A. (2013). Nd isotope mapping of crustal terranes in the Parent- 

Clova area, Quebec: Implications for the evolution of the Laurentian margin in the 

Central Grenville Province. Geosciences, 3, 448-465. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



56 

 

Appendix A: Field and Laboratory Techniques  

A1 – Introduction 

 The analysis for the Sm-Nd method involves three broad steps of field 

collection and sample powdering, chemical processes on the samples, and mass 

spectrometry. Each step has an associated well-defined methodology as described 

below, and must be followed precisely in order to ensure repeatability and valid, 

comparable results.  

A2 Field Sample Collection 

Orthogneiss samples were collected at road cut outcrops within Central 

Quebec. Sample distribution was primarily controlled by presence and access of 

logging roads and availability of outcrop within the study areas. Sample selection 

was based on the availability of fresh, unweathered and relatively homogenous 

rocks, so that the crustal formation of that rock sample would be accurate 

representation of the unit as a whole. A 12 lb. sledge hammer and crow bar was used 

to extract the samples, as well as utilization of proper personal safety equipment. At 

each location a GPS reading was taken and sample location was recorded on the site 

map. 

A3 Pulverization 

To prepare samples for chemical dissolution, they first have to be crushed into a 

fine powder within the rock crush room on McMaster University campus. First, samples 

were scrubbed with a wire brush in order to remove any contamination such as moss and 

dirt, and then using a hydraulic splitter, the samples were split into smaller ~5cm3 pieces. 



57 

 

These pieces were then processed through a jaw crusher, which first would be 

contaminated with some of the current sample in order to avoid dust contamination from 

previous samples. The jaw crusher would grind the sample into gravel sized ~1cm3 

pieces. The gravel would then be divided in half using a table top random sorter, leaving 

behind enough to fill and run a disc mill, yielding a powdered sample.  

A4 Chemical Dissolution 

Teflon coated plastic bombs were labelled with the sample name and treated 

to remove static to avoid mass inaccuracies. Each bomb, with lid, was then placed on 

an analytical scale and their weight recorded. 150mg of sample powder was added to 

each corresponding bomb with a clean spatula, reweighed and recorded. 

In order to separate the Neodymium and Samarium from the sample, silicate 

and carbonate components must first be dissolved. This dissolution of the sample 

powder took place in the Spectrochemistry Clean Lab at McMaster University. The 

bombs were lined up in a fume hood where 10ml of Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) was 

added to each and the lids secured tightly. The bombs were then placed in protective 

plastic jackets and placed in a 140°C oven for 4 days. The bombs were then removed 

when cooled, and then placed on hot plates for evaporation. After the HF was 

evaporated, 5ml of concentrated nitric acid (HNO3) was loaded in each and the 

bombs were returned to the hotplates. After evaporation, 5ml of 6 molar 

Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) was added to each bomb and again placed in the oven 

overnight. WHIMIS protocol for handling hazardous chemicals was followed at all 

times. 



58 

 

The samples were then split so that both isotope ratio (IR) and isotope 

dilution (ID) analysis can be performed. Samples are first diluted with 10ml of de-

ionized water and then bomb, sample, and lid, were placed on the analytical scale to 

be weighed and recorded. Each sample was then split into two beakers, one for IR 

and one for ID, where samples marked ID were then spiked with a 150Nd-149Sm 

enriched solution. This process was done by weighing the spike bottle, tarring the 

mass and adding approximately 150mg of spike to each sample. The spike bottle 

would then be reweighed and the amount of spike recorded. After completion, 

beakers were then placed on hotplates for evaporation.  

A5 Chromatography 

 In order to concentrate the Neodymium and Samarium in each sample, 

column chemistry was conducted in two stages. The first stage uses the method of 

cation exchange chromatography, which separates major elements and isolates the 

rare earth elements (REE) based on their binding affinities to the resin within the 

columns. The second stage is Rare Earth Element Chromatography, which separates 

out Nd and Sm.  

 In preparation for the first stage cation columns, 0.4 M HCl was used to 

dissolve the samples to a total of 2ml within test tubes and then centrifuged. 1ml of 

each sample was loaded with a pipette into the cation columns, and then washed 

through with 20ml of 3 M HNO3, which removes Na, Ca and other major elements. 

10ml of 3 M HNO3 is then washed through to collect the REEs. After collection, the 



59 

 

samples were placed under heat lamps for evaporation and 1mL of 0.4 M HCl was 

added in order to load the samples into the next stage of columns. 

 Next 1ml of each sample was loaded using a pipette into the REE 

chromatography columns. The samples were washed through with 10ml of 0.4 M 

HCl, then 10ml of 0.4 M HCl to collect the Nd in all samples. Next, for just the ID 

samples, 2ml of 1 M HCl was washed through, and then 12ml of 1 M HCl was used 

to collect the Sm. The resulting samples were evaporated under heat lamps. One drop 

of 0.0003 M H3PO4 was added to the residue once dry, and then evaporated again 

until near dryness.  

A6 Isotopic Analysis via Mass Spectrometry 

 The samples were then prepared to be loaded into the VG isomass 345 mass 

spectrometer in the Isotope Geochronology lab at McMaster University. 0.4µL of 0.2 

molar H3PO4 was added to the dried samples and the solution was then loaded on the 

center of a double rhenium tantalum filament bead. A 2 amps current was then 

passed through the bead to dry the sample, and then the beads were loaded into the 

mass spectrometer for analysis. 

 A La Jolla standard was run with every barrel and produced a mean value 

of0.511855. The resulting analyses for the duration of this study are shown in Table A-1. 

All spiked samples analyses with a run precision >0.02% were rejected or repeated, along 

with unspiked samples with a run precision of >0.01%. 

 

 



60 

 

Appendix B: Data Tables 

Table B-1: Nd isotope analysis results for Quebecia samples (1.46-1.64 Ga) in the 

study area. 

 

Map # Sample Easting Northing Nd ppm Sm ppm Sm147 Nd143 WRP Tdm (G)

Quebecia (<1.65Ga) Nd144 Nd144

1 PI11 411169 5474428 52.0 11.56 0.1345 0.512263 0.011 1.50

2 PI10 415227 5470693 40.1 8.25 0.1243 0.512118 0.013 1.57

3 PI32 426340 5440750 40.6 8.83 0.1315 0.512209 0.011 1.54

4 PI 1 437315 5455428 36.1 6.80 0.1139 0.512052 0.011 1.51

5 PI33 448510 5460560 74.5 14.40 0.1167 0.512123 0.022 1.44

PI33R 75.1 14.86 0.1196 0.512170 0.011 1.41

6 PI23 453032 5426200 127.3 22.28 0.1059 0.512004 0.013 1.47

PI23 R 75.5 13.12 0.1050 0.511995 0.009 1.47

7 PI25 445278 5436567 10.8 1.79 0.1005 0.511903 0.015 1.53

8 PI24 446868 5430992 46.3 9.09 0.1185 0.512104 0.014 1.50

9 PI22 458205 5422647 28.6 4.64 0.0979 0.511901 0.011 1.50

10 PI21 471499 5414452 27.1 4.73 0.1055 0.511944 0.012 1.55

11 PI20 474053 5409209 38.7 6.60 0.1030 0.511980 0.014 1.46

12 FV24 449018 5514007 80.1 16.45 0.1242 0.512076 0.010 1.64

13 FV20 439660 5499750 25.2 5.76 0.1383 0.512269 0.010 1.56

14 FV19 440430 5496410 48.4 10.57 0.1319 0.512170 0.012 1.62

15 FV41 464567 5452464 74.3 13.24 0.1078 0.511919 0.014 1.61

16 FV9 467360 5449220 45.0 8.39 0.1126 0.512094 0.012 1.43

17 FV6 472460 5445900 24.0 4.33 0.1089 0.511951 0.009 1.59

18 FV32 480756 5432720 72.7 11.00 0.0914 0.511874 0.014 1.46

19 FV31 493168 5414655 45.8 7.40 0.0977 0.511883 0.008 1.52

20 n20** 498400 5406200 12.3 2.31 0.1143 0.512014 0.012 1.57

21 BC66 491720 5502230 85.7 15.34 0.1082 0.512027 0.012 1.47

22 BC62 500260 5495860 27.6 5.92 0.1298 0.512204 0.016 1.52

23 BC58 527390 5457040 35.6 8.42 0.1450 0.512470 0.023 1.27

BC58R 25.2 5.99 0.1437 0.512471 0.017 1.24

24 BC30 528276 5455362 153.5 25.90 0.1020 0.511973 0.013 1.46

25 BC18* 531190 5450230 105.63 14.51 0.0830 0.511758 0.025 1.50

26 BC17* 531310 5450150 52.55 11.03 0.126929 0.512156 0.024 1.55

27 BC19* 532420 5438440 46.72 9.91 0.128283 0.512169 0.013 1.56

28 m132** 518000 5546400 39.52 8.60 0.1315 0.512197 0.012 1.56

29 m121** 517700 5536400 16.07 3.01 0.1131 0.512016 0.012 1.55

30 ma114** 518300 5530400 20.36 2.78 0.0835 0.511855 0.012 1.39

31 m103** 517900 5520500 45.43 9.32 0.1241 0.512116 0.012 1.57

32 SV53 533610 5524100 50.3 11.08 0.1332 0.512230 0.013 1.52

33 SV52 533720 5518590 103.4 19.13 0.1119 0.512025 0.010 1.52

34 SV50 532990 5513000 98.6 16.90 0.1036 0.511973 0.013 1.48

35 BC54 538426 5474664 21.9 4.26 0.1176 0.512050 0.010 1.57

36 ma40** 538300 5474300 27.18 5.46 0.1214 0.512097 0.012 1.56



61 

 

Table B-1 Continued 

 
 

 

Map # Sample Easting Northing Nd ppm Sm ppm Sm147 Nd143 WRP Tdm (G)

Quebecia (<1.65Ga) Nd144 Nd144

37 BC5* 539290 5468490 18.20 4.05 0.1334 0.512202 0.024 1.59

38 MX5 541027 5466237 15.1 3.20 0.1282 0.512148 0.014 1.59

39 BC53 541832 5466329 40.8 7.78 0.1153 0.512034 0.016 1.56

40 MX6 541546 5465554 18.2 3.77 0.1253 0.512090 0.014 1.63

41 MX31 540888 5453128 34.7 7.15 0.1244 0.512107 0.010 1.59

42 MX32 540547 5452397 23.9 4.90 0.1239 0.512099 0.013 1.60

43 MX12 544294 5443177 79.0 14.86 0.1137 0.512139 0.010 1.37

MX12R 59.8 11.24 0.1136 0.512146 0.014 1.36

44 BC16* 544290 5443160 85.06 16.03 0.1139 0.512121 0.019 1.40

45 SV47 558410 5526420 30.7 6.26 0.1232 0.512137 0.016 1.52

46 SV48 564890 5527470 33.7 6.55 0.1176 0.512103 0.012 1.49

47 SV43 555290 5514170 32.6 6.50 0.1204 0.512120 0.011 1.51

48 MX24 551934 5492440 55.7 7.55 0.0820 0.511879 0.010 1.35

49 MX22 552560 5486628 21.0 5.15 0.1485 0.512340 0.010 1.63

MX22R 24.2 5.98 0.1495 0.512389 0.009 1.55

50 MX18 554398 5473099 15.2 2.42 0.0965 0.511829 0.015 1.58

51 bc9* 554300 5464340 29.2 5.71 0.1184 0.512054 0.012 1.58

52 BC7* 550410 5462130 26.00 5.47 0.1271 0.512169 0.015 1.54

53 ma12** 552300 5460700 4.38 0.85 0.1167 0.512045 0.012 1.57

54 BC8* 554100 5459970 18.83 4.53 0.1455 0.512322 0.021 1.61

55 BC10* 555260 5454820 22.66 5.19 0.1384 0.512258 0.022 1.59

56 MX9 555417 5448557 17.9 4.14 0.1402 0.512320 0.012 1.48

57 SV9 563059 5464881 11.2 1.74 0.0935 0.511746 0.015 1.64

58 SV10 562003 5460996 107.0 17.49 0.0988 0.511895 0.014 1.52

59 SV15 561170 5455440 29.1 6.88 0.1429 0.512413 0.012 1.35

60 sv14 561920 5455350 21.6 5.05 0.1416 0.5123231 0.014 1.52

61 BC51 558187 5454333 30.8 5.29 0.1037 0.511897 0.017 1.59

62 MX26 558561 5453955 33.4 6.16 0.1115 0.511978 0.013 1.58

63 BC50 558991 5453339 18.0 3.47 0.1169 0.512226 0.013 1.29

64 SV38 573400 5492640 22.0 3.29 0.0902 0.511728 0.016 1.62

65 SV21 598540 5478770 26.7 4.80 0.1087 0.511976 0.011 1.55

66 sv26 600200 5470740 25.2 5.36 0.1287 0.512166 0.015 1.57

67 n29** 599600 5466600 13.43 2.60 0.1171 0.512081 0.012 1.51

68 sv20 597630 5465510 29.0 5.26 0.1096 0.511993 0.013 1.54

69 n31** 605400 5473400 n/a n/a 0.1208 0.512091 0.012 1.56

70 SV25 617230 5474060 37.6 7.82 0.1256 0.512123 0.011 1.59

71 n32a** 617800 5463800 42.79 7.78 0.1099 0.511981 0.012 1.56

72 n32b** 617800 5463800 32.07 6.29 0.1186 0.512059 0.012 1.57

73 SV24 628100 5483100 34.7 7.56 0.1319 0.512219 0.010 1.53



62 

 

Table B-2: Nd isotope analysis results for BC Block samples (1.7-2.0 Ga) in the study 

area. 

 
 

Map # Sample Easting Northing Nd ppm Sm ppm Sm147 Nd143 WRP Tdm (G)

BC Block (1.7-2.0 Ga) Nd144 Nd144

74 FV23 448038 5508638 24.4 5.61 0.1387 0.512058 0.012 2.00

75 FV21 448602 5500027 43.6 10.07 0.1395 0.512138 0.009 1.86

76 FV18 441170 5495630 31.4 5.65 0.1087 0.511872 0.008 1.70

77 FV17 441580 5494580 37.3 6.50 0.1053 0.511713 0.012 1.87

78 FV16 444970 5491210 54.5 11.60 0.1288 0.512049 0.012 1.78

79 FV15 446980 5487460 44.9 9.28 0.1248 0.512013 0.011 1.76

80 FV14 449600 5484110 47.5 10.93 0.1390 0.512159 0.009 1.80

81 FV13 451030 5481450 41.0 8.05 0.1187 0.511888 0.020 1.85

82 FV11 457490 5468000 43.8 8.58 0.1184 0.511843 0.012 1.92

83 FV10 461860 5458480 35.3 7.06 0.1210 0.511912 0.010 1.86

84 PI28 443689 5451490 24.3 5.45 0.1352 0.512121 0.013 1.79

85 PI27 441966 5443150 40.4 7.41 0.1110 0.511816 0.013 1.82

86 FV34 467118 5450520 34.9 6.08 0.1052 0.511758 0.012 1.80

87 FV7 469620 5447800 33.6 6.58 0.1184 0.511973 0.015 1.71

88 FV5 480370 5435610 26.7 5.80 0.1317 0.512108 0.011 1.73

89 FV3 485460 5424460 40.0 8.90 0.1343 0.512116 0.009 1.78

90 FV43 490510 5419885 45.0 9.91 0.1330 0.512130 0.013 1.72

91 BC45 502240 5484700 49.5 9.79 0.1196 0.511879 0.010 1.88

92 BC43 503090 5477350 56.2 10.81 0.1163 0.511811 0.009 1.93

93 BC41 507740 5474930 46.1 8.93 0.1170 0.511874 0.011 1.84

94 BC38 512800 5472500 51.0 9.79 0.1160 0.511834 0.010 1.88

95 BC37 512940 5470020 53.1 10.37 0.1181 0.511897 0.010 1.82

96 BC36 513300 5469120 49.2 9.20 0.1130 0.511856 0.013 1.79

97 BC35 515000 5466270 73.6 15.62 0.1284 0.512045 0.012 1.78

98 BC34 516280 5465350 30.5 5.87 0.1163 0.511909 0.015 1.77

99 BC32 518060 5463110 54.7 10.70 0.1183 0.511878 0.010 1.86

BC32r 51.4 10.13 0.1191 0.016

100 BC31 525753 5458688 26.9 5.81 0.1305 0.512103 0.013 1.72

101 MA67** 529700 5493700 42.21 8.56 0.1226 0.511925 0.012 1.87

102 BC1* 520710 5490080 50.32 10.08 0.1210 0.511852 0.024 1.96

103 MA58.1** 532600 5486700 49.16 9.50 0.1168 0.511791 0.012 1.97

104 BC4* 532930 5480320 22.29 4.97 0.1348 0.512135 0.012 1.750

105 MA42.7** 536300 5475300 14.94 3.11 0.1257 0.511960 0.012 1.87

106 MX1 537956 5475316 44.4 8.11 0.1103 0.511808 0.012 1.82

107 BC52 541897 5464262 58.2 11.62 0.1207 0.511905 0.015 1.86

108 MA25.8** 543100 5464300 26.90 5.40 0.1212 0.511911 0.012 1.86

109 MX16 541385 5453756 29.0 5.59 0.1164 0.511846 0.013 1.87

110 MX14 541280 5449224 12.8 2.51 0.1184 0.511966 0.012 1.72

MX14R 11.7 2.30 0.1190 0.511990 0.030 1.69

111 BC15* 548980 5448590 9.64 2.09 0.1312 0.512051 0.016 1.83

112 MX23 554025 5489780 28.4 6.20 0.1319 0.512047 0.017 1.84



63 

 

Table B-2 Continued 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table B-3: Nd isotope analysis results for intermediate aged samples (1.65-1.69 Ga) 

in the study area.  

 
 

 

Map # Sample Easting Northing Nd ppm Sm ppm Sm147 Nd143 WRP Tdm (G)

BC Block (1.7-2.0 Ga) Nd144 Nd144

113 MX21 553026 5483441 23.1 4.85 0.1266 0.512056 0.010 1.72

MX21R 28.7 5.96 0.1258 0.512060 0.010 1.70

MX21R2 24.4 5.08 0.1256 0.512043 0.015 1.73

114 MX19 554461 5476630 22.5 3.90 0.1048 0.511778 0.011 1.77

115 SV8 562814 5463707 10.1 1.99 0.1191 0.511949 0.013 1.76

116 MB1*** 558900 5451200 9.09 1.78 0.1240 0.511957 0.012 1.84

117 BC13* 563060 5458500 20.25 3.92 0.1170 0.511827 0.023 1.92

118 SV39 571680 5496260 31.0 6.52 0.1273 0.511977 0.016 1.88

119 SV35 576210 5481030 21.6 4.24 0.1184 0.511926 0.020 1.78

SV35R 19.2 3.73 0.1172 0.511921 0.015 1.77

120 SV31 567330 5471370 27.7 5.12 0.1117 0.511784 0.012 1.88

121 BC14* 567560 5461070 15.23 2.83 0.1123 0.511891 0.011 1.73

122 SV7 570007 5460291 15.2 2.86 0.1133 0.511920 0.010 1.70

123 NS27** 571800 5459200 14.12 2.44 0.1045 0.511808 0.012 1.71

124 SV1 573078 5459472 20.0 3.93 0.1188 0.511945 0.013 1.76

125 SV2 584607 5461846 38.9 7.28 0.1130 0.511802 0.018 1.88

126 SV3 586772 5463491 35.6 6.67 0.1132 0.511774 0.018 1.92

127 SV4 591728 5461964 20.1 3.59 0.1079 0.511762 0.016 1.84

128 SV28 593390 5462770 39.5 8.22 0.1258 0.511931 0.011 1.93

Map # Sample Easting Northing Nd ppm Sm ppm Sm147 Nd143 WRP Tdm (G)

Border (1.65-1.69 Ga) Nd144 Nd144

129 FV40 463281 5453423 47.9 9.01 0.1138 0.511960 0.011 1.65

130 FV33 467690 5448735 40.0 8.01 0.1210 0.512029 0.010 1.66

131 BC2* 522130 5491930 49.60 9.74 0.1187 0.511881 0.012 1.68

132 BC6* 547332 5461716 24.2 4.45 0.1110 0.511947 0.012 1.66

133 MX15 540790 5451217 9.6 1.76 0.1106 0.511924 0.013 1.65

134 MX13 542982 5449224 37.7 9.30 0.1491 0.512336 0.015 1.66

135 MX34 550356 5450697 36.0 7.37 0.1236 0.512047 0.013 1.68

136 SV13 562310 5455330 26.2 5.62 0.1298 0.512121 0.015 1.67



64 

 

Table B-4: Major and trace element analyses

 

T
d

m
 (

G
a

)
S

iO
2

A
l2

O
3

F
e

2
O

3
M

n
O

M
g

O
C

a
O

N
a

2
O

K
2

O
T

iO
2

P
2

O
5

L
O

I
T

o
ta

l
Q

P
S

r
Y

Z
r

Q
u

e
b

e
c

ia

B
C

 5
1

.5
9

6
3

.8
3

1
5

.3
2

6
.4

7
0

.1
4

9
1

.6
3

.9
6

4
.5

3
1

.5
8

0
.9

0
1

0
.2

4
1

.2
8

9
9

.9
1

2
8

-1
8
3

3
9

7
2

1
1

4
5

B
C

 1
7

1
.5

5
5

6
.2

4
1

5
.4

6
1

0
.5

8
0

.1
7

8
2

.6
9

5
.9

1
3

.7
1

2
.4

5
1

.7
7

6
0

.5
6

0
.7

5
1

0
0

.3
7

0
-1

7
3

3
7

0
4

8
3

7
9

N
S

 2
0

1
.5

7
6

9
.5

7
1

5
.7

6
1

.8
4

0
.0

1
2

.3
9

2
.5

9
3

.5
5

3
.1

1
0

.2
2

0
.1

1
0

.8
5

1
0

0
.0

1
7

5
-9

5
5

7
0

1
3

1
0

4

N
S

 2
9

1
.5

1
6

4
.9

1
6

.8
5

.1
5

0
.0

6
1

.3
7

4
.7

3
3

.9
6

1
.4

2
0

.5
8

0
.1

9
0

.8
4

1
0

0
.0

1
4

6
-1

8
2

8
2

9
1

3
2

7
1

N
S

 3
1

1
.5

6
6

0
.0

9
1

6
.8

6
8

.1
0

.1
4

3
.7

7
3

.5
9

2
.7

2
.7

6
0

.7
0

.2
3

1
.0

6
1

0
0

.0
1

4
5

-9
2

3
8

7
2

6
1

8
6

N
A

 3
2

a
1

.5
6

6
8

.9
4

1
5

.9
4

.0
2

0
.0

5
1

.7
8

2
.6

1
3

.0
3

2
.4

2
0

.6
0

.1
8

0
.4

7
1

0
0

.0
2

0
3

-9
3

5
0

9
3

2
2

4
2

N
S

 3
2

b
1

.5
7

7
2

.2
8

1
4

.9
7

2
.2

5
0

.0
1

0
.8

3
1

.1
8

2
.8

6
4

.7
6

0
.2

3
0

.0
6

0
.5

7
1

0
0

.0
1

9
4

-1
2

2
0

4
2

6
1

8
0

M
A

 1
2

1
.5

7
7

0
.2

8
1

6
.5

5
2

.0
4

0
.0

2
0

.9
8

3
.5

7
4

.2
9

1
.3

5
0

.2
2

0
.1

0
.6

1
0

0
.0

1
8

1
-1

7
3

5
4

2
6

8
4

M
A

 4
0

1
.5

6
6

2
.9

1
1

7
.2

3
5

.9
4

0
.1

2
2

.1
9

3
.7

3
4

.1
9

2
.2

0
.7

4
0

.2
5

0
.5

1
0

0
.0

1
2

3
-1

5
5

5
2

1
2

3
1

9
7

M
A

 1
0

3
1

.5
7

6
8

.1
1

4
.7

4
5

.0
7

0
.1

3
0

.7
7

2
.9

2
3

.3
8

3
.6

0
.7

7
0

.2
2

0
.3

1
0

0
.0

1
5

8
-8

5
2

6
1

5
2

3
8

1

M
A

 1
1

4
1

.3
9

7
1

.0
5

1
6

.1
1

.6
2

0
.0

3
0

.3
3

2
.1

1
4

.2
3

3
.8

1
0

.3
1

0
.1

1
0

.3
1

0
0

.0
1

5
2

-9
3

4
8

1
5

1
5

6

M
A

 1
2

1
1

.5
5

6
7

.0
1

1
7

.4
5

4
.1

2
0

.1
7

0
.7

1
4

.2
3

3
.9

8
1

.5
6

0
.3

0
.1

7
0

.3
1

0
0

.0
1

6
0

-1
7
1

6
0

9
1

5
8

3

M
A

 1
3

2
1

.5
6

7
1

.3
5

1
4

.2
7

3
.9

0
.0

7
0

.4
3

1
.8

8
3

.3
2

3
.9

9
0

.5
6

0
.1

3
0

.1
1

0
0

.0
1

8
2

-5
6

1
8

7
5

0
2

8
0

L
S

J
 4

1
.5

5
7

1
.7

1
1

6
.1

1
3

.0
3

0
.0

5
0

.8
8

2
.8

2
5

.0
3

2
.5

8
0

.4
1

0
.1

1
1

0
2

.7
1

4
8

-1
5
8

N
S

 9
1

.5
5

6
7

.7
4

1
7

3
.3

3
0

.0
1

0
.9

4
3

.7
7

4
.4

7
1

.6
7

0
.3

6
0

.1
6

0
.5

5
1

0
0

.0
1

5
2

-1
7
6

6
2

8
1

0
1

0
3

N
S

 1
1

1
.5

4
7

1
.2

2
1

5
.9

1
.9

3
0

.1
3

0
.8

4
2

.4
8

4
.4

6
2

.0
7

0
.2

0
.1

0
.6

7
1

0
0

.0
1

7
8

-1
4
4

5
1

4
8

8
4

N
S

 1
8

1
.5

8
6

4
.4

3
1

6
.7

8
5

.5
4

0
.1

1
.2

2
.2

7
3

.3
4

.5
8

0
.7

3
0

.3
4

0
.7

3
1

0
0

.0
1

2
7

-5
0

3
9

8
2

4
5

1
3

M
A

 1
5

3
1

.5
6

7
1

.4
6

1
6

.1
5

2
.4

8
0

.0
1

0
.2

4
2

.9
3

3
.6

4
2

.4
1

0
.2

8
0

.1
0

.3
1

0
0

.0
1

9
3

-1
1
8

5
0

9
1

5
1

2
5

M
A

 1
7

8
1

.5
6

6
9

.2
6

1
5

.5
9

3
.6

6
0

1
.0

9
3

.4
1

3
.8

2
2

.3
3

0
.3

9
0

.1
5

0
.3

1
0

0
.0

1
7

1
-1

3
5

4
6

0
1

8
1

2
6

M
A

 1
8

2
1

.5
7

7
1

.9
8

1
5

.4
4

2
.3

5
0

.0
6

0
.5

5
1

.4
6

3
.1

7
4

.4
6

0
.3

3
0

.1
0

.1
1

0
0

.0
1

8
5

-3
3

3
0

6
2

7
2

0
3

M
A

 1
9

9
1

.5
6

6
7

.7
3

1
7

.6
4

3
0

.0
1

0
.8

9
3

.9
7

4
.5

9
1

.4
4

0
.3

7
0

.1
6

0
.2

1
0

0
.0

1
5

0
-1

8
8

9
6

7
1

1
1

0
2

L
S

J
 1

1
.5

4
6

5
.5

3
1

6
.7

6
5

.7
6

0
.1

1
.7

8
3

.4
2

3
.9

2
1

.6
0

.4
6

0
.2

7
0

.4
1

0
0

.0
1

6
3

-1
5

3
3

0
1

6
0

1
1
2

L
S

J
 2

1
.5

9
6

7
.9

5
2

.3
8

2
.3

8
5

.2
9

1
6

0
-7

2
3

5
6

4
3
9
7

M
B

 2
1

.5
4

6
6

.0
6

1
3

.2
9

5
.7

2
0

.1
1

2
.2

9
3

.9
6

3
.1

9
3

.2
4

1
.0

6
0

.1
8

0
.9

1
0

0
.0

1
4

8
-1

0
5

1
7

7
3

9
2

5
9

B
C

 B
lo

c
k

B
C

 3
1

1
.7

2
5
7
.3

1
1
7
.7

8
.6

2
0
.1

1
4

2
.3

9
5
.1

3
4
.2

1
.6

0
.9

2
6

0
.2

8
0
.2

4
9

8
.5

8
8

-1
9
3

4
4
8

2
7

1
9
3

B
C

 4
1
.7

5
6

2
.3

1
5

.8
2

7
.9

2
0

.1
7

2
2

.4
3

4
.5

6
3

.4
7

2
.8

6
0

.7
7

7
0

.2
9

0
.4

1
0

1
.0

1
1

9
-1

3
3

3
8

5
2

6
1

3
2

B
C

 3
4

1
.7

7
6
7
.9

1
1
3
.8

4
.9

8
0
.0

7
5

1
.1

1
2
.8

2
.7

9
4
.0

6
0
.7

4
9

0
.2

0
.1

8
9

8
.7

1
6

8
-5

4
1
8
7

2
6

2
3
7

B
C

 1
4

1
.7

8
6

9
.7

4
1

5
.1

6
2

.1
2

0
.0

4
3

0
.6

8
2

.4
6

4
.0

9
3

.8
0

.2
8

2
0

.0
9

0
.6

7
9

9
.1

1
4

5
-9

5
8

1
1

1
4

1
1

0

B
C

 3
5

1
.7

8
6
9
.2

2
1
3
.5

1
4
.9

6
0
.0

6
0
.6

6
2
.4

2
2
.7

2
4
.9

7
0
.8

7
9

0
.2

2
0
.3

4
1

0
0

.0
1

6
2

-2
5

4
5
0

6
4

9
4
0

B
C

 3
6

1
.7

9
6
8
.6

4
1
4
.0

5
4
.5

8
0
.0

6
1

0
.7

1
2
.4

3
2
.9

9
4
.4

3
0
.5

5
8

0
.1

5
0
.2

8
9

8
.9

1
6

2
-4

6
1
7
6

4
3

2
6
7

B
C

 3
7

1
.8

2
6

5
.7

5
1

4
.2

1
5

.7
5

0
.0

8
0

.8
9

2
.9

7
3

.1
4

.1
6

0
.7

3
6

0
.2

0
.1

3
9

8
.0

1
4

1
-6

5
2

0
7

4
3

3
1

9



65 

 

Table B-4 Continued 

 

 

T
d

m
 (

G
a

)
S

iO
2

A
l2

O
3

F
e

2
O

3
M

n
O

M
g

O
C

a
O

N
a

2
O

K
2

O
T

iO
2

P
2

O
5

L
O

I
T

o
ta

l
Q

P
S

r
Y

Z
r

B
C

 1
5

1
.8

3
7

1
.4

5
1

5
.2

5
1

.2
2

0
.0

4
2

0
.3

4
2

.2
6

4
.7

1
2

.3
5

0
.1

2
4

0
.0

3
0

.4
8

9
8

.3
1

6
8

-1
4
2

7
1

0
2

0
1

0
2

B
C

 4
1

1
.8

4
6
9
.6

1
3
.8

1
4
.4

7
0
.0

5
6

0
.6

3
2
.1

2
2
.7

5
5
.2

6
0
.5

3
1

0
.1

3
0
.2

1
9

9
.6

1
6

1
-1

5
1
3
5

4
9

3
4
1

M
B

 1
1
.8

4
7
3
.9

8
1
5
.2

4
1
.2

3
0
.0

6
0
.0

2
1
.5

7
4
.3

7
3
.0

6
0
.1

0
.0

7
0
.3

1
0

0
.0

1
8
6

-1
0
4

4
5
4

1
5

6
5

B
C

 3
2

1
.8

6
6

8
.1

2
1

3
.5

6
4

.7
9

0
.0

5
4

0
.6

9
2

.6
1

2
.9

4
4

.5
0

.6
5

6
0

.1
6

0
.5

2
9

8
.6

1
5

7
-4

6
1

8
5

5
1

3
9

5

B
C

 3
8

1
.8

8
6

9
.2

1
4

.3
5

4
.2

1
0

.0
5

5
0

.6
6

2
.2

2
2

.8
6

5
.5

0
.5

7
0

.1
4

0
.4

1
0

0
.2

1
4
9

-1
5

1
4

0
4

8
2

9
6

B
C

 4
5

1
.8

8
6

8
.6

7
1

4
.1

2
4

.9
7

0
.0

6
7

0
.8

1
2

.5
9

2
.9

3
4

.8
8

0
.6

6
8

0
.1

6
0

.2
4

1
0

0
.1

1
5
2

-3
7

1
6

0
4

7
3

6
2

B
C

 1
3

1
.9

2
7

0
.4

6
1

5
.0

9
3

.0
8

0
.0

5
6

1
.0

5
2

.2
3

3
.4

3
3

.6
1

0
.3

6
3

0
.1

0
.7

6
1

0
0

.2
1
7
7

-7
4

2
8

1
2

3
1

3
1

B
C

 4
3

1
.9

3
7

0
.0

1
1

4
4

.2
3

0
.0

5
3

0
.6

6
2

.1
7

2
.7

3
5

.3
3

0
.5

8
2

0
.1

2
0

.3
7

1
0

0
.3

1
6
2

-1
3

1
2

9
5

2
3

5
0

B
C

 1
1
.9

6
7

0
.3

2
1

3
.9

2
4

.3
3

0
.0

5
5

0
.6

6
2

.3
7

2
.5

6
5

.7
1

0
.5

9
6

0
.1

4
0

.3
4

1
0

1
.0

1
5
8

-3
1

3
5

5
3

3
3

9

M
A

 2
5

1
.8

6
6

5
.0

6
1

5
.9

8
5

.4
7

0
.0

6
1

.6
2

2
.9

1
2

.8
4

3
.4

5
0

.6
9

0
.2

2
1

.7
1

0
0

.0
1

6
2

-7
0

3
7

9
2

4
1

9
0

M
A

 4
2

1
.8

7
7

2
.4

2
1

5
.3

9
2

.0
4

0
.0

1
0

.1
8

2
.3

7
3

.7
9

3
.2

9
0

.2
1

0
.1

0
.2

1
0

0
.0

1
8
2

-9
5

3
4

5
2

1
9

4

M
A

 5
8

1
.9

7
6

9
.9

3
1

4
.1

7
4

.3
4

0
.1

0
.5

9
2

.2
7

2
.8

3
4

.8
6

0
.5

6
0

.1
5

0
.2

1
0

0
.0

1
6
7

-2
8

1
3

0
5

4
2

9
6

M
A

 6
7

1
.8

7
7

0
1

4
.0

3
4

.2
8

0
.0

6
0

.5
5

2
.4

1
2

.7
6

4
.8

7
0

.6
0

.1
4

0
.3

1
0

0
.0

1
6
8

-2
8

1
8

6
4

0
3

1
6

B
e

rt
h

e

M
C

 2
8

1
.7

1
7

5
.6

1
3

.1
8

1
.4

1
0

.0
3

2
0

.2
1

.4
2

2
.6

2
5

.2
3

0
.1

2
9

0
.0

3
0

.3
1

1
0

0
.2

2
0

7
1

1
7

7
4

8
1

3
4

M
C

 1
2

1
.7

2
7

3
.4

2
1

2
.9

3
.9

4
0

.0
7

7
0

.5
4

1
.9

2
2

.3
6

4
.7

4
0

.4
0

5
0

.1
5

0
.2

3
1

0
0

.7
2

0
8

-1
0

1
9

7
7

9
3

1
0

M
C

 2
3

1
.7

6
7

6
.7

3
1

2
.1

5
2

.0
5

0
.0

2
8

0
.2

9
1

.5
5

2
.0

1
5

.1
8

0
.3

7
3

0
.0

9
0

.2
7

1
0

0
.7

2
3

3
1

8
1

5
8

2
5

2
9

7

M
C

 2
6

1
.7

6
7

1
.6

4
1

4
.3

5
2

.6
3

0
.0

3
7

0
.7

3
2

.0
4

3
.1

8
4

.5
4

0
.3

6
3

0
.1

5
0

.4
7

1
0

0
.1

1
7

5
-4

2
3

2
8

1
5

2
0

8

M
A

 2
3

6
.6

1
.7

8
6

9
.3

2
1

5
.6

1
3

.7
9

0
.0

8
0

.9
9

3
.3

0
3

.8
1

2
.5

7
0

.3
6

0
.1

6
1

0
0

.0
1
6
8

-1
2
7

F
T

 2
3

1
.8

6
5

.0
7

1
6

.1
3

5
.7

1
0

.1
2

1
.3

7
3

.3
8

4
.7

0
2

.8
5

0
.5

3
0

.1
5

1
0

0
.0

1
0
9

-1
5
1

F
T

 2
4

1
.8

6
7

.3
4

1
5

.6
4

6
.0

4
0

.0
8

0
.9

9
2

.9
8

2
.3

2
3

.6
6

0
.7

1
0

.2
2

1
0

0
.0

1
8
6

-5
0

M
C

 1
1

1
.8

3
7

5
.3

4
1

3
.1

6
1

.0
7

0
.0

2
4

0
.1

3
0

.9
8

2
.4

3
6

.0
8

0
.0

7
9

0
.0

2
0

.2
1

9
9

.5
1

9
9

3
3

1
2

9
1

1
1

9

F
T

 2
7

1
.8

4
7

1
.3

0
1

5
.0

3
3

.1
3

0
.0

5
0

.8
2

3
.1

5
4

.3
8

1
.7

3
0

.3
4

0
.0

7
1

0
0

.0
1
8
0

-1
6
1

M
A

 2
4

0
.7

1
.8

6
7

4
.1

6
1

4
.3

8
2

.3
3

0
.0

3
0

.3
2

1
.8

8
3

.4
9

2
.9

6
0

.3
9

0
.0

5
1

0
0

.0
2
1
4

-8
3

M
Q

 2
5

1
.8

7
6

8
.2

1
1

4
.6

6
5

.5
2

0
.0

8
0

.5
9

2
.9

7
2

.9
3

4
.0

6
0

.7
3

0
.2

4
1

0
0

.0
1
6
3

-6
1

M
A

 2
3

2
.8

1
.8

8
6

5
.5

0
1

5
.9

9
5

.3
5

0
.2

6
1

.8
2

4
.1

0
4

.1
4

1
.7

8
0

.8
0

0
.2

6
1

0
0

.0
1
4
3

-1
6
9

S
K

 8
1

.9
7

2
.5

4
1

4
.5

8
2

.8
0

.0
5

9
0

.7
9

3
.8

9
3

.8
8

1
.1

7
0

.2
6

5
0

.1
0

.2
1

1
0

0
.3

2
0

7
-1

7
0

1
0

6
1

1
3

2
1

0

M
C

 1
4

1
.9

2
7

2
.5

9
1

2
.8

8
5

.1
6

0
.0

6
8

0
.4

3
2

.2
6

2
.4

3
4

.0
5

0
.5

8
7

0
.1

8
0

.0
3

1
0

0
.7

2
1

2
-3

3
1

6
7

3
6

4
1

5

S
K

 9
1

.9
4

7
0

.5
5

1
5

.4
2

3
.3

2
0

.1
2

8
1

.0
2

4
.3

4
.1

1
.0

8
0

.3
4

5
0

.1
5

0
.2

8
1

0
0

.7
1

8
6

-1
8

6
6

9
8

1
4

2
1

3

M
A

 2
2

8
.8

1
.9

6
5

0
.4

7
1

8
.3

2
7

.7
8

0
.1

3
8

.4
8

1
1

.3
7

2
.1

5
0

.7
9

0
.3

7
0

.1
3

1
0

0
.0

5
9

-2
5
5

M
C

 6
1

.9
6

6
7

.6
3

1
5

.2
5

4
.9

5
0

.0
6

5
1

.4
6

2
.9

3
2

.9
6

3
.3

7
0

.7
5

0
.2

7
0

.3
9

9
.9

1
7

4
-7

6
2

4
7

3
3

3
1

0

F
T

2
6

1
.9

7
6

7
.7

8
1

6
.9

5
2

.4
0

0
.0

6
0

.6
3

2
.4

5
4

.5
0

4
.6

6
0

.4
6

0
.1

1
1

0
0

.0
1
0
3

-9
0

M
C

 2
4

2
.0

9
7

0
.8

7
1

3
.3

6
5

.0
7

0
.0

7
1

0
.5

1
2

.1
7

2
.1

8
5

.0
4

0
.5

6
7

0
.2

0
.0

9
1

0
0

.1
1

9
0

-2
1

6
8

6
6

3
7

1



66 

 

Table B-5: La Jolla Standard Analyses (143Nd/144Nd) 

Date 𝑁𝑑143

𝑁𝑑144  
Date 𝑁𝑑143

𝑁𝑑144  

13/03/2012 

21/05/2012 

 

 

21/05/2012 

11/06/2012 

 

18/06/2012 

02/07/2012 

23/07/2012 

13/08/2012 

01/10/2012 

 

 

 

21/10/2012 

22/10/2012 

29/10/2012 

12/11/2012 

 

19/11/2012 

28/12/2012 

07/01/2013 

14/01/2013 

01/04/2013 

06/05/2013 

 

 

03/06/2013 

10/06/2013 

 

1/07/2013 

 

22/07/2013 

 

12/08/2013 

26/08/2013 

.511856 

.511874 

.511854 

.511868 

.511839 

.511834 

.511861 

.511847 

.511846 

.511860 

.511844 

.511854 

.511876 

.511836 

.511874 

.511842 

.511823 

.511848 

.511841 

.511865 

.511851 

.511870 

.511873 

.511876 

.511856 

.511848 

.511829 

.511871 

.511856 

.511854 

.511896 

.511880 

.511869 

.511853 

.511864 

.511857 

.511858 

16/09/2013 

 

 

 

23/09/2013 

 

 

14/10/2013 

18/11/2013 

 

02/12/2013 

23/12/2013 

27/01/2014 

 

10/02/2014 

 

12/05/2014 

 

 

20/05/2014 

2/06/2014 

8/07/2014 

11/08/2014 

08/12/2014 

 

15/12/2014 

.511888 

.511854 

.511864 

.511853 

.511853 

.511857 

.511850 

.511869 

.511846 

.511839 

.511860 

.511846 

.511838 

.511829 

.511857 

.511827 

.511861 

.511859 

.511846 

.511860 

.511841 

.511853 

.511838 

.511856 

.511851 

.511856