Petrogenetic Modeling of a 

Potential Uranium Source Rock, 

Granite Mountains, Wyoming
Petrogenetic Modeling of a 

Potential Uranium Source Rock, 

Granite Mountains, Wyoming

By JOHN S. STUCKLESS and A. T. MIESCH

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1225

A study of the origin of 

a uraniferous granite

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1981
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

JAMES G. WATT, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Doyle G. Frederick, A cting Director

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Stuckless, John S.

Petrogenetic modeling of a potential uranium source rock, Granite Mountains, Wyoming.

(Geological Survey Professional Paper 1225)

Bibliography: p. 16

Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.16:1225

1. Uranium ores-Wyoming-Granite Mountains. 2. Granites-Wyoming-Granite Mountains.

I. Miesch, Alfred T., joint author. II. Title. III. Series: United States Geological Survey

Professional Paper 1225. 

QE390.2.U7S78 553.4'932'09787 80-607867

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402
CONTENTS

Abstract ---------------------------

Introduction -----------------------

Analytical methods -----------------

Sample selection and preparation 

Chemical methods--------------

Computer techniques -----------

Discussion -------------------------

Petrography -------------------

Discussion Continued

Geochemistry ---------------------------

Q-mode factor analysis -----------------

End-member compositions --------------

Magma derivation ----------------------

Paragenesis and effects on differentiationSummary and conclusions ------------------

References cited ----------------------------

Page

3

4

9

11

14

16

16

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1. Generalized geologic map showing Archean rocks and sample localities for the Granite Mountains, Wyo. ---------------------

2. Molar plot in the ternary system A1 203 , Na2 0+K2 0, CaO for samples from the granite of Lankin Dome, Wyo. -----------

3. Ternary plot of the normative quartz, albite and orthoclase for samples from the granite of Lankin Dome, Wyo. ---------

4. Chrondrite-normalized rare-earth-element patterns for samples from the granite of Lankin Dome, Wyo. -----------------

5. Factor variance diagram for 29 samples of the granite of Lankin Dome, Wyo. and 38 constituents -----------------------

6. Factor variance diagram for 29 samples of the granite of Lankin Dome, Wyo. and 33 constituents -----------------------

7. Chondrite-normalized rare-earth-element patterns for hydrothermally altered samples and their unaltered equivalents ----

8. Ternary plot of normative anorthite, albite, and orthoclase for samples from the granite of Lankin Dome, Wyo. ----------

9. Chondrite-normalized rare-earth-element patterns for epidote and biotite with their respective host rocks and for epidotes 

normalized to their host rocks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page

2

4

4

5

7

8

12

13

15

TABLES

Page

TABLE 1. Original chemical data and normative mineralogy and corresponding factor-solution data --------------------------------- 20

2. Chemical data and normative mineralogy for altered granitic rocks and rocks of uncertain relation to the main intrusion - 26

3. Miscellaneous chemical data -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25

4. Statistical summary of the chemical data for samples from the granite of Lankin Dome, Wyo. ------------------------- 28

5. Proportions of variance accounted for by the five-factor solutions for 29 samples -------------------------------------- 28

6. Compositions of end members for the factor models ----------------------------------------------------------------- 29

7. Mixing proportions for model A----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30

8. Mixing proportions for model B----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30

9. Proportional differences between original chemical data and data represented by the factor solution -------------------- 31

10. Proportional differences between original chemical data and data derived from the factor solution for altered granitic

rocks and rocks of uncertain relation to the main intrusion ----------------------------------------------------- 34

ill
PETROGENETIC MODELING OF A POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE 

ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

By JOHN S. STUCKLESS and A. T. MIESCH

ABSTRACT

Previous studies of the granite of Lankin Dome have led to the conclusion that this granite was a source for the sandstone-type uranium 

deposits in the basins that surround the Granite Mountains, Wyo. Qmode factor analysis of 29 samples of this granite shows that five bulk 

compositions are required to explain the observed variances of 33 constituents in these samples. Models presented in this paper show that 

the origin of the granite can be accounted for by the mixing of a 

starting liquid with two ranges of solid compositions such that all five 

compositions are granitic.

There are several features of the granite of Lankin Dome that suggest 

derivation by partial melting and, because the proposed source region 

was inhomogeneous, that more than one of the five end members may 

have been a liquid. Data for the granite are compatible with derivation 

from rocks similar to those of the metamorphic complex that the 

granite intrudes. Evidence for crustal derivation by partial melting includes a strongly peraluminous nature, extremely high differentiation 

indices, high contents of incompatible elements, generally large 

negative Eu anomalies, and high initial lead and strontium isotopic 

ratios. If the granite of Lankin Dome originated by partial melting of a 

heterogeneous metamorphic complex, the initial magma could 

reasonably have been composed of a range of granitic liquids.

Five variables were not well accounted for by a five-end-member 

model. Water, CO2 , and UCh contents and the oxidation state of iron 

are all subject to variations caused by near-surface processes. The Qmode factor analysis suggests that these four variables have a distribution determined by postmagmatic processes. The reason for failure of 

CsO2 to vary systematically with the other 33 variables is not known. 

Other granites that have lost large amounts of uranium possibly can be 

identified by Q-mode factor analysis.

INTRODUCTION

The Granite Mountains are composed of Archean 

metamorphic rocks, granites, and diabase dikes (fig. 1). 

The metamorphic rocks are thought to represent a 

sedimentary-volcanic sequence that was metamorphosed at amphibolite grade about 2,860 m.y. (million 

years) ago (Peterman and Hildreth, 1978). Compositionally, the metamorphic assemblage ranges from 

tonalite to granite with volumetrically minor amounts of 

amphibolite and serpentinite (Peterman and Hildreth, 

1978). The dominance of micaceous units suggests that 

the metamorphic sequence is strongly peraluminous.

The metamorphic rocks were intruded by at least two 

granites. Zircon ages show that the granite of Long Creek 

Mountain crystallized 2,640±20 m.y. ago, and the 

granite of Lankin Dome formed 2,595±40 m.y. ago 

(Ludwig and Stuckless, 1978).

The metamorphic rocks were intruded by at least two 

granites. Zircon ages show that the granite of Long Creek 

Mountain crystallized 2,640± 40 m.y. ago (Ludwig and 

Stuckless, 1978).

The granite of Lankin Dome forms most of the exposed 

Precambrian in the Granite Mountains region, and is of 

particular interest because of its probable relation to the 

three uranium districts that surround the Granite 

Mountains. Rosholt and Bartel (1969) used whole-rock 

U-Th-Pb analyses of surface samples to provide evidence 

that the granites of the Granite Mountains lost as much 

as 1011 kg (kilograms) of uranium during the Cenozoic. 

They proposed that this uranium was the source for the 

central Wyoming deposits. Subsequent, more detailed 

studies have shown that the upper 50 m (meters) of 

granite of Lankin Dome lost an average of 20 /ig/g 

(micrograms per gram) or about 80 percent of the 

original uranium (Rosholt and others 1973), and that 

uranium has been mobilized to depths in excess of 360 m 

(Stuckless and Nkomo, 1978). Analyses of the granite of 

Long Creek Mountain (Stuckless and Nkomo, 1978) and 

of the metamorphic rocks (Nkomo and Rosholt, 1972) 

suggest that these units have not lost as much uranium 

(in terms of either percent or absolute amount) as the 

granite of Lankin Dome.

In order to develop a model for the petrogenesis of this 

potential source rock we have examined major- and 

minor-element data for the granite of Lankin Dome by 

the use of an extended form of Q-mode factor analysis 

(Miesch, 1976a, b). This method of modeling allows examination of the variation in all the chemical variables 

simultaneously and can be used to determine the 

number of end members required to account for the 

variability in each variable to any degree specified.
2

108°00'

POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

107°45' 107°30'

MAP LOCATION

Diabase dike 

Granite of Lankin Dome 

Granite of Long Creek Mountain 

Unassigned granitic rocks 

Metamorphic rocks

 IR-11 Sample locality

20 KILOMETERS

FIGURE 1. Generalized geologic map showing Archean rocks and sample localities for the Granite Mountains, Wyoming. 

Geology from Stuckless and Nkomo (1978) and Peterman and Hildreth (1978).

ANALYTICAL METHODS 

SAMPLE SELECTION AND PREPARATION

Samples analyzed in this study were selected from a 

suite of more than 300 drill-core samples and a suite of 

nearly 350 surface samples that had been collected at approximately 1600-m intervals. Samples, used for complete chemical analysis (column O, table 1), were 

selected on the basis of U, Th, and K concentrations and 

petrographic examinations so as to yield a group that 

showed the maximum observed diversity and a group 

typical of the majority of samples. Hydrothermally 

altered rocks and rocks of questionable relationship to 

the granite of Lankin Dome were analyzed for the sake of 

completeness (table 2), but these analyses were not used 

in the petrochemical modeling. As explained in the section on Q-mode factor analysis, certain of the chemical 

constituents were not used for petrogenic modeling. 

These data are given in table 3.

One to 5 kg of rock were crushed for each sample. All 

weathered or stained joint surfaces were removed prior to 

crushing. Samples were coarsely crushed to -32 mesh. A

split of approximately 50 g (grams) was prepared at 

 100 mesh for chemical analyses.

CHEMICAL METHODS

Major-element concentrations were determined by the 

single-solution technique (Shapiro and Brannock, 1962; 

Suhr and Ingamells, 1966). Stated accuracies in terms of 

the amount present are: ±1 percent for SiO2, ±2 percent 

for A1 2O3 and ±1-10 percent for the remaining major oxides (those reported in terms of weight percent, tables 1, 

2, and 3) depending upon the amount present.

Minor-element concentrations except for U and Th 

(those reported in terms of parts per million, tables 1, 2, 

and 3) were determined by instrumental neutron activation analysis (Gordon and others, 1968). Estimates of accuracy range from ±5 to 20 percent of the amount present. For a few samples, counting statistics for certain 

rare earths were poor (largely due to the interference of 

uranium), and the data reported in tables 1 and 2 were 

obtained by graphical extrapolation between the 

chondrite-normalized abundances of adjacent rare 

earths. Uranium and Th concentrations were deter-
GEOCHEMISTRY

mined by isotope dilution and mass spectrometry for 

most of the samples (Stuckless and Nkomo, 1978). These 

values were supplemented by delayed-neutron determinations for U (Millard, 1976) and gamma-ray 

spectrometry determinations for Th (Bunker and Bush, 

1966, 1967). The general accuracy for reported U and Th 

values is ±2 percent.

COMPUTER TECHNIQUES

The CIPW normative mineral compositions reported 

in tables 1 and 2 were computed using the program 

GNAP (Graphic Normative Analysis Program of Bowen, 

1971). Petrochemical modeling was accomplished by the 

use of extended Q-mode factor analysis (Miesch 1976a, 

b) with scaling modifications as described in the section 

on Q-mode factor analysis.

DISCUSSION 

PETROGRAPHY

The granite of Lankin Dome exhibits a wide range in 

grain size and texture. Most of the granite is medium 

grained, but fine- and coarse-grained zones are not uncommon. Samples are typically hypidiomorphicgranular, but allotriomorphic-granular textures are common and porphyritic textures have been observed.

The range in mineralogic composition for an estimated 

95 percent of the granite is small (Stuckless and others, 

1978). Subequal amounts of quartz, oligoclase, and 

microcline generally account for more than 90 percent of 

the granite by volume and commonly account for more 

than 95 percent; hence, the granite of Lankin Dome is a 

granite by the classification of Streckeisen (1973). 

Biotite is the dominant minor constituent with modal 

contents generally between 2 and 10 percent. In a few 

samples, the biotite content is as high as 20 percent (for 

example, IR-8 and IR-12, table 1) and some highly 

leucocratic samples have only trace amounts of biotite 

(for example, GM1-825 and GMl-1011, table 1). These 

extreme compositions are located within relatively small 

masses (tens of meters in diameter) that could be interpreted as largely reacted xenoliths or as magmatic 

segregates. For the most part, the granite is remarkably 

free of xenoliths, segregates, or schlieren.

Magnetite and primary epidote are either minor or 

trace constituents in all samples. Epidote is usually 

abundant enough to be considered a minor constituent, 

whereas magnetite is most commonly a trace constituent. Muscovite, some of which may be primary, is a 

trace constituent in most samples and is a minor constituent in most leucocratic samples. Garnet is abundant 

in a few leucocratic samples.

A variety of trace or accessory minerals has been identified, but only zircon and apatite are ubiquitous.

Uranothorite has been separated from one sample 

(Ludwig and Stuckless, 1978). Semiquantitative 

microprobe analyses have identified fine-grained ilmenorutile and highly altered sphene, monazite, and 

xenotime. These last three minerals have not been found 

in mineral separates, presumably due to their low abundance and friable nature.

The habit and character of the minerals is similar to 

that observed in most granites. Quartz is generally 

anhedral and exhibits undulatory extinction. Plagioclase 

varies from anhedral to subhedral. Most of the 

plagioclase is weakly zoned and contains minor amounts 

of sericite. Inclusions of quartz and accessory minerals 

are common. In some samples, plagioclase contains 

anhedral microcline. Phenocrystic microcline is 

generally subhedral and perthitic with sparse inclusions 

of plagioclase, quartz, and accessory minerals. In some 

samples, microcline is highly poikilitic with optically 

continuous, globular quartz.

Biotite is anhedral and invariably poikilitic with 

microscopic opaque oxides. Inclusions of euhedral zircon 

and apatite are common, as is minor alteration to 

chlorite. Primary epidote is subhedral to euhedral and 

generally occurs as large (5-10 mm) (millimeters) 

crystals rimmed by biotite, but single crystals 10-20 mm 

long are common. Secondary epidote, which is absent in 

most samples, but abundant in some hydrothermally 

altered zones, occurs as a fine-grained alteration product 

of plagioclase or as fine-grained veinlets. Within the 

hydrothermally altered samples, epidote 

pseudomorphically replaces biotite such that the 

poikilitic inclusions are preserved. Primary and secondary epidote also differ in trace-element content, as discussed in the section on paragenesis. Semiquantitative 

microprobe analyses show that most of the epidote is low 

in iron, but that some of the epidote tends towards an allanite composition. Magnetite occurs as subhedral to 

euhedral crystals as much as 1.5 cm (centimeters) in 

diameter.

GEOCHEMISTRY

The range in major-element compositions for the 

granite of Lankin Dome (table 4) is remarkably small, 

especially considering that the analyzed samples were 

selected to yield maximum diversity. Most of the samples are close to the average composition for all the samples as shown by the small standard deviations for the 

major elements (table 4). The compositions are highly 

evolved as indicated by the differentiation indices 

(Thornton and Tuttle, 1960) which range from 76 to 97 

with all but five analyses greater than 90. All but one of 

the analyzed samples are peraluminous (fig. 2) according 

to the definition of Shand (1951) and all contain normative corundum (table 1). When projected onto the ter-
POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

nary system Q-Ab-Or, all the samples plot near the 

center of the diagram (fig. 3), with nearly half the samples falling along the polybaric minimum-melt compositions for the system SiO2-NaAlSi3O8-KAlSi 3O8-H2O 

(Tuttle and Bowen, 1958; Luth and others, 1964). The 

field occupied is similar to that for 281 peraluminous 

granites (Luth and others, 1964). The trace-element content of the analyzed samples is much more variable than 

the major-element content as can be seen by their ranges 

and standard deviations relative to their means (table 

4). Except for scandium and rubidium, the range is 

greater than an order of magnitude, and for chromium 

and tantalum the range is greater than two orders of 

magnitude (table 4).

The REE (rare-earth-element) data are generally 

typical of highly evolved magmas. Four general types of 

patterns are presented in figure 4: (1) a steep, strongly 

light-rare-earth-enriched pattern with small negative to 

positive Eu anomaly, (2) a steep, strongly light-rareearth-enriched pattern with a large negative Eu 

anomaly, (3) a pattern with moderate enrichment in the 

light rare earths, a negative Eu anomaly, and a heavyrare-earth-trend much flatter than the light-rare-earthtrend, and (4) a pattern with middle-rare-earth depletion and generally low REE contents. Examples of all 

but the last of these types can be found in the Paleozoic 

granites of New England (Buma and others, 1971) and in 

the Pikes Peak Batholith (Barker and others, 1976).

Uranium and thorium contents for the granite of 

Lankin Dome are anomalously high relative to values 

cited as typical for granite (for example, U=4 ppm 

(parts per million) and Th = 18 ppm, Rogers and Adams,

AI 203

Na 2O+K2O 20 CaO

FIGURE 2. Molar plot in the ternary system A12O3 , Na2 O + K2O, CaO 

for the 29 samples of the granite of Lankin Dome, Wyo., used for the 

Q-mode factor analysis.

Ab 20 40 60 80 Or

FIGURE 3. Ternary plot of the normative quartz, albite, and 

orthoclase for the 29 samples of the granite of Lankin Dome, Wyo., 

used for the Q-mode factor analysis. Plus signs mark the position 

for the minimum melt compositions in the system NaAlSisOsKAlSi3Os-SiO2-H2O (vapor present) for pressures of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 

and 3.0 kb (kilobars) (Tuttle and Brown, 1958) and of 5.0 and 10.0 

kb (Luth and others, 1964).

1976a, b). The Th content for 255 surface samples, which 

contain more than 2 percent biotite, ranges from 17.9 to 

200 ppm with an average content of 48.4 ppm (Stuckless 

and others, 1978). Uranium content for 236 unmineralized samples ranges from 0.53 to 19.7 ppm and 

averages 4.5 ppm (Stuckless and others, 1978), but this 

average value is also anomalous if the average loss of 80 

percent U from surface samples is considered (Rosholt 

and others, 1973; Stuckless and Nkomo, 1978).

Q-MODE FACTOR ANALYSIS

The method of extended Q-mode factor analysis is 

used to resolve a complex compositional system into one 

that is simpler and easier to contemplate and represent 

in diagrams or on tabular summaries. Examples of this 

type of resolution are plentiful in petrology. For example, the plagioclase system contains five essential 

elemental constituents Si, Al, Na, Ca, and O. 

However, the universal practice is to describe approximate plagioclase compositions in terms of only two constituents, albite and anorthite. In the same manner, 

granitic rocks of the Granite Mountains are composed of 

several dozen elements, but the approximate compositions of most samples can be given in terms of only five 

end members. The end members for the plagioclase 

system are taken by convention as pure albite (Ab) and 

pure anorthite (An), but it is theoretically possible, even 

though somewhat awkward for most common purposes, to
Q-MODE FACTOR ANALYSIS

500

100

50

10

t 1

IT

Q

Z

O 0.5

I

^500

LU

<

CO

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I

100

50

10

0.5

La Pr Eu Tb Ho Tm Lu La Pr 

REE ATOMIC NUMBER

Eu Tb Ho Tm Lu

FIGURE 4. Chondrite-normalized REE (rare-earth element) patterns for the 49 samples of the granite of Lankin Dome, 

Wyo., used for the Q-mode factor analysis model. Chondrite values from Evensen and others (1978).
POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

use, for example, An5 and An95 . The end members could 

have any compositions within the plagioclase system. 

Similarly, there are no unique end members for the 

Granite Mountains system; they are chosen not by 

mathematical criteria, but by geologic judgment that is 

based on other field and laboratory observations. The 

end members must, however, have compositions within 

the Granite Mountains compositional system. The 

remainder of this section describes in sufficient detail 

the Q-mode procedures that were used so that anyone so 

inclined may reproduce the computations by the 

methods described in references already cited. Others 

may find the mathematical discussion of little interest 

and can proceed to the sections that discuss the results.

In order to examine the data by the extended form of 

Q-mode factor analysis, the analytical data were first expressed as oxides, except for F and Cl, and then the sum 

was adjusted to 100 percent. These adjusted values are 

referred to as the original data throughout this report to 

distinguish them from recomputed values obtained from 

the factor models.

The statistics in table 4 show that the constituents 

vary greatly in average (mean) concentration (73.75 

weight percent for SiC>4 to 0.000028 weight percent for 

Tm2O3 and L^Oa) and in variability as measured by the 

standard deviation (2.16 weight percent for SiO2 to 

0.000021 weight percent for Tm^O^). If the data were 

used in this form, the outcome would be dominated 

overwhelmingly by the constituents with the higher 

variabilities, such as the major oxides and especially 

Si02. However, minor constituents may be at least as 

diagnostic of magmatic processes as the major constituents; also, as just discussed, the relative 

variabilities for each of the minor constituents are larger 

than those for the major constituents. The data were 

therefore scaled to give each constituent equal weight in 

the outcome of the analysis.

Scaling for Q-mode factor analysis is commonly done 

by adjusting the range of each variable to extend from 

zero to one. If this is done, the means and variances of 

the scaled data remain unequal, even though they are 

much closer to being equal than before scaling. In order 

to avoid this problem, each variable was scaled to yield a 

mean of precisely 0.5 and a standard deviation of 0.17. 

The value of 0.17 is the largest possible standard deviation that will yield all positive value in the scaled data, 

thus preserving the properties of the cosine-theta 

measure of similarity described by Imbrie and Purdy 

(1962).

Extraction of the principal components of the cosinetheta matrix followed the procedures of Klovan and 

Imbrie (1971). Methods of extended Q-mode factor 

analysis (Miesch 1976a, b) were then used to derive 

matrices of principal-component composition scores and

composition loadings. The product of the complete 

matrix of composition loadings (29 rows and 29 columns) 

and the complete matrix of composition scores (29 rows 

and 38 columns) is precisely equal to the matrix of the 

original data (tables 1 and 3). Repetition of this 

procedure using only 2 to 10 principal components, 

rather than the complete matrices, and comparison of 

the computed data with the original data, led to the factor variance diagram in figure 5.

The factor variance diagram (fig. 5) shows that when 

the 29 sample vectors are projected from 29 dimensions 

onto a plane (two factors), the resulting vectors represent 

compositions that are markedly different from the 

original compositions. The variances for about one-half 

the variables in the computed data (represented by the 

projected vectors) are less than 26 percent of the 

variances in the original data. Hence, a two-factor solution, which could have been used to develop a model 

with two end members, is clearly inadequate.

Figure 5 also shows that a three-factor solution is considerably better than the two-factor solution and that 

four- and five-factor solutions are better still. Note that 

at least five factors are required to account for the 

variance in Na2O which is a major constituent. The fivefactor solution preserves more than 64 percent of the 

variance of the original data for each constituent except 

for Fe2O3 , CO2, H2 O, Cs2O3 , and UO2 . Expressed in 

another way, the data as represented by the fivedimensional vector system compare rather closely with 

the original data of the 29-dimensional system. Except 

for the five constituents just listed, the correlations 

between the original data and the data represented by 

the five-factor solution are all better than 0.80 (square 

root of 0.64). The proportions of variance accounted for 

do not improve substantially for a six-factor solution, 

and the variances in all 38 constituents are not satisfactorily accounted for until the nine-factor solution is 

reached (fig. 5).

Three of the five constituents that are not well accounted for by the five-factor model (Fe2C>3, CO2 , and 

H2O) are known to be sensitive to alteration processes, 

such as weathering. Stuckless and Nkomo (1978) have 

shown that uranium was lost from most of the analyzed 

samples during the Tertiary and that a few drill-core 

samples gained uranium. Consequently, the variabilities 

for these four constituents are not expected to be closely 

related to those controlled largely by magmatic 

processes. The reason for Cs2O not to vary closely with 

the remaining 33 constituents is not known, but high 

analytical error does not appear to be the cause. A second derivation of a factor solution was attempted after 

elimination of the apparently mobile oxides and with 

Fe2O3 mathematically combined wtih FeO as total iron.

The revised factor-variance diagram (fig. 6) based on
Q-MODE FACTOR ANALYSIS

DC

O

LL

O 

LLJ

ID 

O 

O 

O

<

LLJ

O

QC

O 

Q_

O

QC 

Q_

SiO2 

AI 2 03 

A Fe2O3 

+ FeO 

X MgO 

CaO

V N32O

K2O 

H 2O 

TiO2 

P2 05

A BaO 

+ Rb 2O 

X SrO 

OZrO2 

V La 2O3

---XNd2O3

©Gd2O3

HDy 2O 3

fflVb2O3

HCs 2 O

QEu 2O3

DTbsOs

-A Lu 2Oa

XHfO2 

OSc 2O3 

vCoO 

HCr2O3

10

NUMBER OF FACTORS

FIGURE 5. Factor variance diagram for 29 samples of the Lankin Dome, Wyo., and 38 constituents.
POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

CC

O

Li.

Q 

111

D 

O 

O 

O

< 

111 O

CC

>

Li.

O

CC 

O

CL

O

CC 

CL

Si02

AI 2 03 

A FeO

MgO 

X CaO

Na2O 

V K2 O

TiO2

P 2 05

MnO

Cl 

H F

ThO2

BaO

Rb2O 

DSrO 

OZrO2 

A La 2O3 

-l-Ce2O3 

X Nd 2O3 

O Sm 2O3 

V Gd 2O3

Dy2O3 

X

Eu 2O3 

© Tb2O 3

Tm2O3 

ffl Lu 2O3

Ta2O3 

0HfO2 

D Sc 2O3 

OCoO 

A Cr2O3

0.1

10

NUMBER OF FACTORS

FIGURE 6. Factor variance diagram for the matrix of 29 samples of the granite of Lankin Dome, Wyo., and 33 constituents. FeO

is total iron calculated as FeO.
END-MEMBER COMPOSITIONS

33 constituents, shows rather clearly that the original 

data can be represented well by a five-factor solution 

(that is, a five-dimensional vector system). The proportions of the variances in each constituent accounted for 

by the two five-factor solutions, one based on 38 constituents and the other based on 33, are given in table 5. 

The lowest value from the solution based on 33 constituents is 0.645 which is for F. This and the other three 

constituents for which the proportion of variance accounted for is less than 0.75 (Cl, BaO, and Ta2O5 ) all 

have poor analytical precisions relative to their standard 

deviations (table 4). The proportions of variance accounted for are especially high for the major oxides and 

light rare-earth oxides.

END-MEMBER COMPOSITIONS

The calculated chemical analyses derived from the 

five-factor solution based on 33 constituents are given in 

table 1 (column R) where they may be compared with 

the original data (column O). These calculated analyses 

can be produced from any petrochemical model containing five end-members, providing that each of the five 

end-member compositions can be represented by a vector within the vector system defined by the factor solution. Therefore, any number of petrochemical models 

may be derived, all of them mathematically satisfactory. 

The choice among the models must be based on 

petrologic or geologic criteria.

The five-dimensional vector space can be scanned and 

an infinite number of mathematically possible endmember compositions identified. Once five compositions 

have been selected, the mixing proportions (composition 

loadings) required for each sample must be determined 

in order to arrive at the calculated sample compositions 

given in column R (table 1). If end members are selected 

arbitrarily, the calculated mixing proportions are 

generally unreasonable for most of the samples.

In the present study, the search was narrowed considerably by assuming that four of the five end members 

could be represented as solid materials that were either 

subtracted from or added to another end member that 

consisted of a liquid. It was reasoned that the four solid 

materials might be represented among the 29 samples 

which were selected to include all compositional extremes observed within the intrusive body. Alkali feldspar might be expected to be a dominant phase in any 

subtracted solid and such solids could therefore be identified by positive or small (relative to the rest of the intrusive body) negative europium anomalies. Solid 

material either similar to that melted to form the granite 

or residium brought up with the granite would likewise 

be expected to have less negative europium anomalies 

than the average for the batholith. Four samples with

positive or only slightly negative Eu anomalies are the 

following: IR-8, IR-12, IR-21, and SDNE-3.

As is evident from table 1, the compositions 

represented by the vectors for the chosen samples, in the 

five-dimensional vector system, are partly negative (that 

is, the calculated concentrations of a few trace elements 

are less than zero). The reason for the negative concentrations is that these four samples are of extreme 

compositions and their representative vectors occur near 

the margins of the vector system, slightly beyond the 

limit at which the values for some of the least abundant 

constituents are zero. In order to avoid the negative 

values, the four vectors representing the compositions of 

samples IR-8, IR-12, IR-21, and SDNE-3 were moved at 

increments towards a central vector, which represented 

the average compositions of all 29 samples, until the 

composition represented was entirely positive. The 

modified compositions were labeled IR-8+, IR-12+, 

IR-21 + and SDNE-3+, and are given in table 6; the extent of modification may be seen by comparing the compositions in table 6 with the corresponding values in 

table 1.

Having identified four compositions that might be 

those of solid materials subtracted from or added to a 

liquid phase to cause petrochemical variations, only 

identification of plausible compositions of the liquid 

remained. This identification was done by a computer 

trial-and-error procedure wherein a vector representing 

the liquid was moved systematically throughout the fivedimensional vector space. Each change in the vector 

position represented a change in the starting composition for use in the trial-and-error calculations. After each 

change, the required mixing proportions were derived for 

the remaining 25 samples (the samples listed in table 1, 

excluding those chosen as end members: IR-8, IR-12, 

IR-21, SDNE-3).

Regardless of the liquid composition used, the composition of sample IR-11 (table 1) could be approximated only by subtracting liquid from a combination of 

the four solid compositions (IR-8+, IR-12+, IR-21+, 

and SDNE-3+, table 6). The composition of sample 

IR-11 is similar to that of sample IR-8 (table 1) and may 

have originated by much the same process that produced 

IR-8. The Q-mode models to be developed will make no 

attempt to account for the origin of the four solid end 

members, nor do they account for the origin of sample 

IR-11; they will account for only the remaining 24 

samples.

In interpretation of the results for the trial-and-error 

procedure, any liquid that led to non-negative proportions for the liquid, for all 24 samples, was tentatively 

satisfactory. These liquid compositions and required 

mixing proportions of the five end members were then 

printed and examined. Three general types of
10 POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

petrochemical models became apparent. One type of 

model would explain the compositional variation in the 

granite by adding and subtracting the four solid phases 

in a completely unsystematic way. One sample would be 

explained by the subtraction of three solids and addition 

of one, but another sample might require the addition of 

'all four solids. All possible combinations occurred among 

the 24 samples for each starting liquid for this type of 

model. All models of this type were rejected as unnecessarily complex.

The second type of model that emerged from the trialand-error calculations explained the compositional 

variation by addition to the starting liquid of materials 

ranging in composition between IR-8+ and IR-12+ 

(table 6) and subtraction of materials ranging in composition between IR-21+ and SDNE-3+ (table 6). 

Thus, only one material would be added and only one 

subtracted, even though each material varied in composition within a two-component range. As an example 

of this type of model, one of the possible liquid compositions is given in table 6 (model A), and the required mixing proportions are given in table 7. The mathematical 

adequacy of model A can be tested by mathematically 

mixing the five end-member compositions in table 6 in 

the proportions given in table 7 for each sample. The 

resulting compositions are those shown under the (R) 

columns of table 1, which approximate the original compositions given under the (O) columns. The specific compositions of the materials added and subtracted for each 

sample according to this model can be calculated from 

the end-member compositions and the mixing proportions.

An attractive feature of model A is that compositions 

ranging between IR-8-I- and IR-12-1- are added to the 

magma in the formation of each sample composition, 

and compositions ranging between IR-21+ and 

SDNE-3+ are subtracted in the formation of each sample. Thus, the compositions in each range play a consistent role. Physically, this model could be envisioned as 

incorporating a range of contaminants from the 

metamorphic sequence and settling of precipitated 

minerals. Conceivably, materials were first added to the 

magma (and possibly melted) and subtraction by 

precipitation occurred later. However, a more reasonable 

expectation is that addition of material from higher 

parts of the magma chamber occurred simultaneously 

with subtraction. Part of the solid material added must 

also have been subtracted because the absolute sums of 

the negative mixing proportions generally exceed the 

proportions of liquid (table 7).

A less attractive feature of model A is the general 

magnitude of the mixing proportions for most samples. 

The mixing proportions for sample GMl-739, for example, call for separation of approximately 81 parts of solid

phases from approximately 82 parts of liquid plus accumulated crystals. This mixing proportion indicates 

that sample GMl-739 represents little more than 1 percent of the total materials that were at one time present 

in the part of the magma chamber represented by this 

sample. This high degree of differentiation is not impossible inasmuch as this sample, like many of the other 29, 

represents only a small part of the intrusive body that 

was selected as being compositionally extreme. The 

compositions of less extreme samples can be approximated by mixing the end-member compositions in 

smaller proportions (table 7), and therefore, according to 

the model may have originated by lesser degrees of 

magmatic differentiation. Nonetheless, the large absolute magnitude of the mixing proportions and the 

strong probability of the addition of precipitated crystals 

to lower parts of the magma chamber led to consideration of a third type of model.

The third type of model that emerged from the trialand-error calculations involves the same two compositional ranges of solid materials as used for the type-2 

models, but neither range is consistently added or subtracted. Also, models of the third type involve mixing 

proportions that are considerably smaller than those involved with models of the second type. One of the possible liquid compositions for models of the third type is 

given in table 6 (model B) and the required mixing 

proportions are given in table 8. The mixing proportions 

for sample GMl-739 indicate that it may have formed 

from about 10 percent of the total liquid plus accumulated solid materials rather than about 1 percent as 

in model A. Mixing proportions for most other samples 

are smaller as well. According to model A, 18 of the 24 

samples represent less than 5 percent of the liquid plus 

accumulated oxide materials, whereas according to 

model B, 20 of the 24 samples represent more than 10 

percent of the liquid plus accumulated solid materials. 

Although in both models the volume of subtracted 

materials is large, model A suggests that much of the 

batholith should consist of cumulates with compositions 

intermediate to IR-21+ and SDNE-3 + . Such compositions are not observed. Model B suggests that the 

batholith is a mixture of five bulk compositions, which is 

consistent with the observed data.

All the Q-mode models of mixing examined during 

this study require large amounts of solid relative to the 

volume of the starting liquid. Thus, more than one of the 

five end-member compositions seem likely to have been 

actually a liquid. If these liquids were partial melts of 

the various felsic units in the metamorphic sequence, 

they would be fairly similar to each other in majorelement composition (Steiner and others, 1975), but 

each liquid would have a trace-element composition that 

depended on that of its specific source unit (Hanson,
MAGMA DERIVATION 11

1978). These predicted relations can be seen graphically 

on figure 6. The variance in SiO2 , A1 2O3, CaO, Na2O, and 

K2 O can be explained well by a four-end-member 

system; it is the variances in several of the trace elements that require a five-end-member system to adequately reproduce the data.

Specific criteria needed to search the infinite number 

of vectors for possible liquid compositions were not 

available, and therefore no attempt was made to model 

the petrogenesis by mixing of liquids with or without 

solids. Such a model would be based on the same data as 

that used in the construction of figure 6, and hence five 

end members would still be required.

The degree to which each of the 29 samples fits the 

five-factor solution based on 33 constituents can be seen 

in table 9. The body of the table shows the change in concentration value, caused by projection, for each of the 33 

constituents in each sample as a proportion with respect 

to the original value. Thus, the values in table 9 are 

derived by (R-O)/O, where O is the value under column 

O of table 1 and R is the value under column R. Note 

that the largest absolute values in the body of table 9 

tend to be for the constituents that are less well accounted for by the five-factor solution based on 33 

variables (table 5, fig. 6).

The degree to which individual samples fit the fivefactor solution is given by the communalities on the last 

line of table 9. The original sample compositions were 

first represented as vectors in 29-dimensional space and 

were then projected into 5-dimensional space on the 

basis of the factor variance diagram (fig. 6). Each of the 

vectors was of unit length before projection and 

somewhat less than unit length in its projected position. 

The differences in length are related to the distances of 

projection, and therefore serve as indicators of the differences between the compositions represented by the 

vectors before and after projection. The communalities 

on the last line of table 9 are the squares of the vector 

lengths after projection. Note that most of the communalities are greater than 0.980 and that the lowest 

sample communality for the 29 samples is 0.939.

The values in table 10 were derived in the same manner as those in table 9, but pertain to sample compositions not used to derive the factor solution. The first six 

samples are of albitized granite; the next seven samples 

are of silicified-epidotized granite (sample GR-3 is only 

partially altered); the next two samples are from the 

granite of Long Creek Mountain; and the last five samples are of uncertain relationship to the granite of 

Lankin Dome. The communalities suggest that three of 

the granites of the last group (SD-1, SDNE-12, and 

SD-4) are probably related to the granite of Lankin 

Dome. The communalities also show that the granite of 

Long Creek Mountain is at least in part chemically 

similar to the granite of Lankin Dome.

The communalities for the albitized and silicifiedepidotized granites show that the chemical compositions 

of these rocks have been changed markedly by 

hydrothermal alteration. The proportional differences 

between the chemical values as projected into the fivedimensional system (defined by the orginal 29 samples) 

and the actual compositions (table 2) show which elements have most likely been strongly affected by the 

hydrothermal alteration. The compositions of the 

albitized samples differ most strongly from those of the 

projected compositions in K2 O, CaO, P2Os, MnO, CoO, 

Rb2O, SrO, ZrO, and BaO. The compositions of the 

silicified-epidotized samples differ most strongly from 

those of the projected compositions in FeO, MgO, K2O, 

P2O5 , CoO, Rb2O, BaO, and Lu2 O3 . Note that, in 

general, the actual and projected values for the REE are 

similar. This similarity can be seen qualitatively in 

figure 7 where REE paterns of altered granite are compared with spatially related, unaltered granites. The 

REE and other elements for which original and projected 

values are similar probably were not mobilized during 

the hydrothermal alteration.

MAGMA DERIVATION

The granite of Lankin Dome has several characteristics that suggest derivation by partial melting of rocks 

similar to the metamorphic sequence that it intrudes. 

The granite is highly evolved as indicated by the high 

differentiation index of Thornton and Tuttle (1960), the 

strongly enriched light REE, the large negative Eu 

anomaly for most of the samples, the high Rb in relation 

to K or Sr (K/Rb=200 to 400, Rb/Sr=2 to 6), and high 

contents of incompatible elements such as U and Th. 

Although all these features can result from either high 

degrees of fractional crystallization or low degrees of partial melting, partial melting of a granitic (and already 

evolved) source appears to be necessary to account for 

such a highly evolved character. The initial liquids 

calculated by Q-mode factor analysis are already highly 

evolved in both major and minor elements and even 

these liquids require large amounts of differentiation to 

match the observed sample compositions. Furthermore, 

the granite is fairly homogeneous and lacks mafic 

equivalents. The most mafic samples are quartz monzonites and these appear to be xenolithic.

The characteristics of the granite of Lankin Dome are 

similar in most respects to granites described as S-type 

(Chappell and White, 1974). The most obvious feature is 

the strongly peraluminous nature of the granite of 

Lankin Dome; a characteristic that Chappell and White 

(1974) ascribe to derivation from pelitic rocks. As 

pointed out by Whitney and others (1976), peraluminous 

compositions cannot be developed from metaluminous 

magmas by simple fractionation of quartz and feldspar. 

Thus, peraluminous granites seem to necessitate
12 POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

500

LU

cr Q

z 

O 

I 

O

100

50

10

0.5 J_J I I I I I I I I I

P B 

I I

500

100 

50 

10 

5 

05

- C

I I I I I I

- D

I

La Pr Eu Tb Ho Tm Lu La Pr 

REE ATOMIC NUMBER

Eu Tb Ho Tm Lu
MAGMA DERIVATION 13

peraluminous sources. Because such sources are crustal, 

high initial isotopic ratios, such as '"Sr/^Sr, 206Pb/204Pb, 

and 208Pb/204Pb, are expected. Although large errors are 

assigned to published values of these ratios for the 

granite of Lankin Dome, the ratios are somewhat high 

relative to those expected for mantle-derived rocks 

(Peterman and Hildreth, 1978; Stuckless and Nkomo, 

1978).

The granite of Lankin Dome differs from typical Stype granites in one important aspect. O'Neil and others 

(1977) have reported that S-type granites have consistently high 5018 values relative to spatially related Itype granites (10.4 to 12.5 versus 7.7 to 9.9). Four 50 18 

values for samples that span most of the compositional 

range in the granite of Lankin Dome range from 5.88 to 

8.45%o (per mil) (J. R. O'Neil, written communications, 1976). The low 50 18 values observed in the 

Granite Mountains may be due to derivation from 

moderately high grade metamorphic rocks. Epstein 

and Taylor (1967) have reported that the 5018 values 

for pelitic rocks decrease with increasing grade of 

metamorphism.

Derivation of the granite from amphibolite facies rocks 

suggests that the granite might have relatively low water 

content and that therefore most of the partial melting 

and crystallization would take place under water-undersaturated conditions. Although the data are equivocal, 

the major-element data do suggest water-undersaturated conditions. Compositions projected into the QAb-Or system (fig. 3) lie to the right of the poly baric 

minimum for water-saturated melts. Although this shift 

can be caused by the anorthite component of plagioclase 

(Winkler, 1967), it is in the same direction as that 

observed for the polybaric anhydrous minimum (Luth, 

1969). If the whole-rock compositions represent liquids 

at equilibrium, then their positions, as plotted in figure 

3, suggest water undersaturation.

Figure 8 shows the normative feldspar compositions 

plotted on the An-Ab-Or system. Also shown are the lowtemperature bivariant liquid positions for 2 and 8 kb 

(kilobars) projected from the system CaAl 2Si208- 

NaAlSi3 08-Si02 (Whitney, 1975). The plot of the data 

suggests fractional crystallization and (or) partial

Ab 2C 40 60 80 Or

FIGURE 8. Ternary plot of the normative anorthite, albite, and 

orthoclase for the 29 samples of the granite of Lankin Dome, Wyo., 

used for the Q-mode factor analyses. The position of the bivalent 

liquid in equilibrium with quartz, two feldspars and vapor is shown 

for water vapor pressures of 2 and 8 kb (kilobars) (Whitney, 1975).

melting at less than 2 kb for water-saturated conditions 

or at higher pressures for water-undersaturated conditions. The five samples that plot above the 8-kb curve 

(fig. 8) include three mafic rocks that could be interpreted as largely reacted xenoliths and two leucocratic rocks that may represent late-stage liquids. The 

abundant zones of hydrothermal alteration and ubiquitous deuteric alteration indicate that a free vapor 

phase had evolved by the end of the crystallization. If 

the two leucocratic samples represent late-stage liquids 

that coexisted with a free vapor phase, then the total 

pressure during partial melting and crystallization must 

have been at least 8 kb, and the apparent low water pressure for most of the samples probably represents a waterundersaturated history.

Probably the end stages, and possibly all the crystallization, took place under conditions of high oxygen 

fugacity. This high /Q2 is indicated by the occurrence of

FIGURE 7. Chondrite-normalized REE (rare-earth element) patterns for hydrothermally altered samples (shown by circles) 

and unaltered equivalents (shown by lines only). Chondrite values from Evensen and others (1978). A, Four patterns for 

samples from drill hole GM-1 with albitized samples from depths of 48.2 and 50.3 m and unaltered samples from depths 

of 38.4 and 49.7 m. B, Five patterns for samples from drill hole GM-1 with albitized samples from depths of 230.7 and 

290.5 m and unaltered samples from depths of 225.3, 251.5, and 308.2 m. C, Pattern for a silicified-epidotized sample 

(SD-8) and an unaltered sample SDNE-3 from the southeast part of the Granite Mountains (samples are separated by 

nearly 4 km). D, Pattern of a silicified-epidotized surface sample (BRG-1) collected 60 m east of drill hole GM-1 and an 

unaltered sample from 2.7-m depth in GM-1.
14 POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

primary epidote and magnetite, both of which are ubiquitous. Semiquantitive microprobe determinations and 

optical data show that the epidote has a fairly low iron 

content and as such would be in equilibrium with 

magnetite only under conditions of high /o2 (Holdaway, 

1972; Naney, 1977). In several samples, magnetite and 

hematite appear to be intergrown. This intergrowth suggests crystallization on the magnetite-hematite buffer, 

but the hematite may have formed secondarily.

PARAGENESIS AND EFFECTS ON 

DIFFERENTIATION

Petrographic data and published experimental studies 

indicate that the paragenesis for the granite of Lankin 

Dome was simple and support the conclusion of the Qmode factor model that large amounts of solid separation 

would be necessary to effect the observed changes in the 

whole-rock chemistry. Zircon and apatite occur as early, 

near-solidus phases and although separation of neither 

phase has a significant effect on major-element concentrations, both phases have a pronounced effect on 

REE concentrations (Buma and others, 1971; Nagasawa, 

1970). However, both minerals are present in extremely 

low abundances (Stuckless and Nkomo, 1980), and the 

high affinity of zircon for uranium coupled with the 

anomalously high uranium content of the granite at the 

time of crystallization provide evidence against significant separation of these minerals.

Quartz was the first major phase to crystallize, as indicated by the lack of inclusions of all but the accessory 

minerals in the larger quartz phenocrysts. It was 

probably followed shortly by the penecontemporaneous 

crystallization of oligoclase and potassium feldspar (now 

microcline). In general, the major mineral assemblage 

was probably close enough to the liquid composition so 

as to cause little change in the major-element composition through fractional crystallization. Such features as 

low Sr content and strong Eu anomalies observed in 

several samples may have developed by separation of 

these major phases, but as suggested by the Q-mode 

models the net separation of any group of major phases 

was probably minor.

Small amounts of magnetite are included within all 

the felsic minerals, and hence magnetite may have 

formed throughout the crystallization history. The 

separation of magnetite would have a pronounced effect 

on iron concentration as well as on the concentrations of 

several of the transition metals. However, most of the 

magnetite is associated with epidote and biotite and 

probably formed late in the crystallization sequence with 

these minerals.

Experimental work by Naney (1977) has shown that 

epidote forms in rocks of granite composition by reaction 

of biotite with the melt toward the end stages of crystallization. Petrographic examinations indicate that biotite

and epidote were both late-forming phases in the granite 

of Lankin Dome and as such are likely loci for incompatible elements left in the melt. Isotopic studies (Stuckless 

and Nkomo, 1980) have shown that these two minerals 

are the dominant sites for U and Th in an unleached 

sample of the granite of Lankin Dome. REE analysis of 

epidote from three samples and biotite from two samples 

show that epidote does indeed have high REE concentrations (fig. 9).

Barker and others (1976) have proposed that epidote 

may have a strong effect on the REE concentrations in 

granitic rocks. However, the late appearance of epidote 

makes separation of this mineral unlikely except for 

small volumes of filter-pressed material. Furthermore, 

our data suggest that epidote may have an equal affinity 

for all the rare earths or that it may possibly accept the 

light REE in preference to the heavy REE. Figure 9 

shows the REE concentrations in three epidote samples 

relative to REE concentrations in the whole rock. The 

diagram indicates an exclusion of Eu and a preference 

for light REE relative to heavy REE. However, if epidote 

formed extremely late in the crystallization history, the 

liquid with which it was in equilibrium would be strongly 

impoverished in Eu due to feldspar crystallization 

(Nagasawa and Schnetzler, 1971) and somewhat impoverished in heavy REE relative to light REE due to 

zircon crystallization (Buma and others, 1971). Hence, 

epidote seems likely to be simply a good host for many of 

the incompatible trace elements that are available 

toward the end stage of crystallization (U, Th, and 

REE). For this reason, epidote's apparent high partitioning coefficients may not accurately reflect true partitioning coefficients because the melt in which it formed was 

greatly enriched in trace elements relative to the whole 

rock.

Sample MS-1 is from a silicified-epidotized zone. The 

analyzed epidote is judged to consist of both primary 

and secondary epidote. The REE contents and distribution are similar to those in the epidotes of primary origin 

(fig. 9). The REE content of the epidote of mixed origin 

relative to that of the whole rock is the lowest of the three 

samples. This may suggest dilution effect by the secondary epidote that formed as a replacement of all the 

biotite and hence may have had lower contents of REE 

available during crystallization.

Lead-isotope studies show that all the analyzed 

epidotes have lost U and Th (Ludwig and Stuckless, 

1978; Stuckless and Nkomo, 1980). Therefore, the 

reported REE abundances possibly are different from 

those present at the time of crystallization. Isotopic data 

for the analyzed biotites (Stuckless and Nkomo, 1980) 

show that these have been open systems to an even larger 

degree. The biotite from PD-5 has lost large amounts of 

U, Th, and Pb. The low REE content relative to that of 

the whole rock may be due to loss of REE.
10000 c:

1000 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 

Sample Gm-2-1550 ~

1 I II I I I I I I I I I

PARAGENESIS AND EFFECTS ON DIFFERENTIATION

10000

15

100

 1000

 100

10

- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -

30000

10000 

1000

I I I I I I I I I I I I I 300

100

100

50

10

T I I I I I I

GM-2 

La Co Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu La Co Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu

REE ATOMIC NUMBER

FIGURE 9. Chondrite-normalized REE (rare-earth element) patterns for epidote and biotite with their host rocks and epidotes 

normalized to their respective host rocks. Analyzed biotites contained abundant opaque inclusions that are associated with 

uranium and possibly thorium (Stuckless and others, 1977: Stuckless and Nkomo, 1980).
16 POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

If the granite of Lankin Dome has been a particularly 

favorable source rock for secondary uranium deposits, 

then rocks with similar characteristics and petrogenesis 

might reasonably be expected to be favorable uranium 

source rocks. The extended Q-mode factor analysis of the 

chemistry of the granite of Lankin Dome has placed 

several constraints on the petrogensis of this granite and 

has provided independent evidence for the secondary 

mobility of the uranium within the granite. In addition, 

Q-mode analysis has provided some insights into the 

chemical effects of two types of late-stage hydro thermal 

alteration that are prevalent in the granite of Lankin 

Dome and which may be common to other favorable 

uranium source rocks.

Five-end-member compositions are required to account for most of the variance of 33 oxides in 29 analyzed 

samples. Models presented in this paper consist of mixing a liquid with two ranges of solid compositions. 

However, if adequate constraints for end-member liquid 

compositions could be developed, the mixing of more liquids and fewer solids (still with a total of five end 

members) would be equally satisfactory in a mathematical sense and might be more accurate petrogenetically if the granite formed by the partial melting of an 

inhomogeneous section of metamorphic rocks. 

Regardless of the physical interpretation of the 

mathematical results, obviously the relationships among 

the 29 samples are moderately complex.

Four elements and the oxidation state of iron are not 

well accounted for by the five-factor model. Water and 

C02 contents and the oxidation state of iron are all subject to variations caused by near-surface processes. 

Isotopic studies have shown that near-surface processes 

have affected U contents in this granite as well. The 

reason for the failure of Cs2 0 to vary closely with the 

other 33 constituents is unknown, but it may be that for 

this granite, the cesium content is subject to nearsurface effects and thus, like the four variables, has a 

distribution determined mostly by post-magmatic 

process.

Several features of the granite suggest derivation by 

partial melting of rocks similar to those of the 

metamorphic complex which it intrudes. The granite is 

strongly peraluminous and hence was most likely 

derived from a crustal source. The major-element compositions yield high differentiation indices and even the 

most mafic samples approximate the minimum melt 

composition in the system Q-Or-Ab. The granite is 

strongly enriched in several incompatible minor elements such as U, Th, and the light rare earths. These 

major- and minor-element characteristics suggest 

derivation from an evolved granite source. The generally 

large negative Eu anomalies indicate that feldspar was

an important mineral in the residium after partial 

melting, which would be expected for rocks similar to 

those of the metamorphic complex. Initial isotopic ratios 

for both lead and strontium are high relative to those expected for an Archean mantle and similar to those that 

probably existed in the metamorphic complex at the 

time the granite was formed.

All the chemical characteristics of the granite of 

Lankin Dome are consistent with those of S-type 

granites. The 5018 values are low relative to those cited 

as typical of S-type granites. The low 5018 values are 

reasonable if the S-type source experienced a high grade 

of metamorphism prior to the partial melting event. This 

metamorphism would also have the effect of forming a 

fairly dry source region such that only small degrees of 

partial melting could take place under water-saturated 

conditions. The existence of vapor-absent liquids is suggested by the compositions for most of the granite of 

Lankin Dome as projected into the normative An-Ab-Or 

system.

The evolution of a water-saturated liquid towards the 

end stage of crystallization is suggested by ubiquitous 

zones of late-stage hydrothermal alteration and by the 

An-Ab-Or projection of two samples interpreted as latestage liquids. Projection of the composition of the 

hydrothermally altered samples into the fivedimensional system defined by the 29 samples of the 

granite of Lankin Dome shows that both albitization and 

silicification-epidotization have changed the distribution of several elements, but that REE distribution was 

apparently unaffected.

At least the end stages of crystallization must have 

taken place under conditions of high /o2 as indicated by 

the coexistence of epidote and magnetite. It has been 

postulated previously that separation of epidote might 

have a pronounced effect on REE patterns of granitic 

magmas; however, the late-crystallization of epidote 

makes such an effect unlikely. Furthermore, epidote 

analyzed during the present study seems to have incorporated large amounts of most of the incompatible elements that were enriched in the last crystallizing melt 

such that no REE were strongly enriched relative to 

others.

REFERENCES CITED

Barker, F., Hedge, C. E., Millard, H. T. Jr., and O'Neil, J. R., 1976, 

Pikes Peak batholith; geochemistry of some minor elements and 

isotopes, and implications for magma genesis, in R. C. Epis, and 

R. J. Weimer, eds., Studies in Colorado field geology: Professional 

Contributions of Colorado School of Mines, no. 8, p. 44-56.

Bowen, R. W., 1971, Graphic normative analysis program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Computer Contribution no. 13, 80 p.; available 

only from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, 

VA. 22150 as Kept. PB2-06736.

Buma, G., Frey, F. A., and Wones, D. R., 1971, New England granites; 

trace-element evidence regarding their origin and differentiation:
REFERENCES CITED 17

Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 31, p. 300-320. 

Bunker, C. M., and Bush, C. A., 1966, Uranium, thorium, and radium 

analyses by gamma-ray spectrometry (0.184-0.352 million 

electron volts), in Geological Survey research 1966: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional paper 550-B, p. B176-B181.

 1967, A comparison of potassium analyses by gamma-ray 

spectrometry and other techniques, in Geological Survey research 

1967: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 575-B, p. 

B164-B169.

Chappell, B. W., and White, A. J. R., 1974, Two contrasting granite 

types: Pacific Geology, v. 8, p. 173-174.

Epstein, S., and Taylor, H. P., Jr., 1967, Variations of O'YO16 in 

minerals and rocks: in P. H. Abelson, ed., Researches in 

geochemistry: New York, John Wiley & Sons, p. 29-62.

Evensen, N. M., Hamilton, P. J., and O'Nions, R. K., 1978, Rare-earth 

abundances in chondritic meteorites: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 42, p. 1199-1212.

Gordon, G. E., Randle, K., Goles, G. G., Corliss, J., Beeson, M. H., 

and Oxley, S. A., 1968, Instrumental activation analysis of standard rocks with high resolution gamma-ray detectors: Geochimica 

et Cosmichimica Acta, v. 32, p. 369-396.

Hanson, G. N., 1978, The application of trace elements to the 

petrogenesis of igneous rocks of granitic composition: Earth and 

Planetary Science Letters, v. 38, p. 26-43.

Holdaway, M. J., 1972, Thermal stability of Al-Fe epidote as a function of /o, and Fe content: Contributions to Mineralogy and 

Petrology, v. 37, p. 307-340.

Imbrie, John, and Purdy, E. G., 1962, Classification of modern Bahamian carbonate sediments, in Classification of carbonate 

rocks A symposium: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Memoir 1, p. 253-272.

Klovan, J. E., and Imbrie, John, 1971, An algorithm and FORTRANIV program for large-scale Q-mode factor analysis and calculation 

of factor scores: International Association for Mathematical 

Geology Journal, v. 3, p. 61-77.

Ludwig, K. R. and Stuckless, J. S., 1978, Uranium-lead isotope 

systematics and apparent ages of zircons and other minerals in 

Precambrian granitic rocks, Granite Mountains, Wyoming: 

Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 65, p. 243-254.

Luth, W. C., 1969, The systems NaAlSi 3O8 -SiO2 and KAlS3OrSiO2 to 

20 kb and the relationship between H2O content, PH o and 

Ptotal in granitic magmas: American Journal of Science, v. 267-A 

(Schairer Volume), p. 325-341.

Luth, W. C., Jahns, R. H., and Tuttle, O. F., 1964, The granite system 

at pressures of 4 to 10 kilobars: Journal of Geophysical Research, 

v. 69, p. 759-773.

Miesch, A. T., 1976a, Interactive computer programs for petrologic 

modeling with extended Q-mode factor analysis: Computers and 

Geosciences, v. 2, no. 4, p. 439-492.

 1976b, Q-mode factor analysis of geochemical and petrologic

data matrices with constant row-sums: U.S. Geological Survey

Professional Paper 574-G, 47 p. 

Millard, H. T., Jr., 1976, Determinations of uranium and thorium in

USGS standard rocks by the delayed neutron technique, in F. J.

Flanagan, compiler and editor, Descriptions and analyses of eight

new USGS rock standards: U.S. Geological Survey Professional

Paper 840, p. 61-65. 

Nagasawa, H., 1970, Rare earth concentrations in zircons and apatites

and their host dacites and granites: Earth and Planetary Science

Letters, v. 9, p. 359-364. 

Nagasawa, H., and Schnetzler, C. C., 1971, Partitioning of rare earth,

alkali and alkaline earth elements between phenocrysts and

acidic igneous magma: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 35,

p. 953-968. 

Naney, M. T., 1977, Phase equilibria and crystallization in iron- and

magnesium-bearing granite systems: Stanford, Calif., Stanford

University, Ph. D. Thesis, 229 p.

Nkomo, I. T., and Rosholt, J. N., 1972, A lead-isotope age and U-Pb 

discordance of Precambrian gneiss from Granite Mountains, 

Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 800-C, p. 

C169-C177.

O'Neil, J. R., Shaw, S. E., and Flood, R. H., 1977, Oxygen and 

hydrogen isotope compositions as indicators of granite genesis in 

the New England Batholith, Australia: Contributions to 

Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 62, p. 313-328.

Peterman, Z. E., and Hildreth, R. A., 1978, Reconnaissance geology 

and geochronology of the Precambrian of the Granite Mountains, 

Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1055, 22 p.

Rogers, J.J.W., and Adams, J.A.S., 1969a, Uranium, in K. H. 

Wedepohl, ed., Handbook of geochemistry, v. 2, no. 4: Berlin, 

Springer-Verlag, p. 92-B to 92-0.

____1969b, Thorium, in K. H. Wedepohl, ed., Handbook of 

geochemistry, v. 2, no. 4: Berlin, Springer-Verlag, p. 90-1 to 90-O.

Rosholt, J. N. and Bartel, A. J., 1969, Uranium, thorium, and lead 

systematics in Granite Mountains, Wyoming: Earth and 

Planetary Science Letters, v. 7, p. 141-147.

Rosholt, J. N., Zartman, R. E., and Nkomo, I. T., 1973, Lead isotope 

systematics and uranium depletion in the Granite Mountains, 

Wyoming: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 84, p. 

989-1002.

Shand, S. J., 1951, Eruptive rocks: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 

488 p.

Shapiro, Leonard, and Brannock, W. W., 1962, Rapid analysis of 

silicate, carbonate, and phosphate rocks: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1144-A, 56 p.

Steiner, J. C., Jahns, R. H., and Luth, W. C., 1975, Crystallization 

of alkali feldspar and quartz in the haplogranite system 

NaAlSi3 O8-SiO2-H2O at 4 kb: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 86, p. 83-98.

Streckeisen, A. L., 1973, Plutonic rocks Classification and 

nomenclature recommended by the IUGS Subcommission on the 

systematics of igneous rocks: Geotimes, v. 18, no. 10, p. 26-30.

Stuckless, J. S., Bunker, C. M., Bush, C. A., Doering, W. P., and 

Scott, J. H., 1977, Geochemical and petrological studies of a 

uraniferous granite from the Granite Mountains, Wyoming: U.S. 

Geological Survey Journal of Research, v. 5, no. 1, p. 61-81.

Stuckless, J. S., Bunker, C. M., VanTrump, George, Jr., and Bush, C. 

A., 1978, Radiometric results and areal distribution for granitic 

samples from the Granite Mountains, Wyoming: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 78-803, 51 p.

Stuckless, J. S., and Nkomo, I. T., 1978, Uranium-lead isotope 

systematics in uraniferous alkali-rich granites from the Granite 

Mountains, Wyoming; implications for uranium source rocks: 

Economic Geology, v. 73, no. 3, p. 427-441.

Stuckless, J. S., and Nkomo, I. T., 1980, Preliminary investigations of 

U-Th-Pb systematics in uranium-bearing minerals from two 

granitic rocks from the Granite Mountains, Wyoming: Economic 

Geology, v. 75, no. 2, p. 289-295.

Suhr, N. H., and Ingamells, C. O., 1966, Solution technique for 

analysis of silicates: Analytical Chemistry, v. 38, p. 730-734.

Thornton, C. P., and Tuttle, O. F., 1960, Chemistry of igneous 

rocks I. Differentiation index: American Journal of Science, v. 

258, p. 664-684.

Tuttle, O. F., and Bowen, N. L., 1958, Origin of granites in the light of 

experimental studies in the system NaAlSiaOs-KAlSiaOsCaAlSi2Os-H2O: Geological Society of America Memoir 74, 

153 p.

Whitney, J. A., 1975, The effects of pressure, temperature and X H2Q 

on phase assemblages in four synthetic rock compositions: Journal of Geology, v. 83, p. 1-31.

Whitney, J. A., Jones, L. M., and Walker, R. L., 1976, Age and origin of 

the Stone Mountain Granite, Lithonia district, Georgia: 

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 87, p. 1067-1077.

Winkler, H.G.F., 1967, Petrogenesis of metamorphic rocks, (revised 2d 

ed.): New York, Springer-Verlag, 237 p.
TABLES 1-10
20 POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

fMoo»n«r»»-ocfM'O'O»-»-

|

a 5JII

C o

 o -o

c c

O 53

I

-e

CM O O CM lO

O CMOOO «MOOO

 r- i tt O)"J fl»r\J-»- CM 

o o o o o>»'O«r»ir\rM'Or«^ooo<'»-f>ooN-

 O in oo oo 

OO«T»f'">fMf>OO'OK»»-'OoOO<'>S'

T- CM T- fM »*- «-

O O O O

^jr«^f*.«/-»^fMoo»ni/"\«-^N.'O>»-

f>f*-'OO'O>»-fMfM>»i Oxr<-)T-OO«/"»

T- CO CO O «-

co «o «- oo

 O fM IT\ 

 

«- «- K> CO O

OO O

KIO O

O O O O

t\lf\)O'OO<'f>JT-O'O 

fv T- «r\ KI ^ »- f\)

O O O O

o o o o

«-r\j oo

0000

mm mmmnmmvinmnn 10

OO O CM OOOOOOOOOOOwOoi

CMCMOO OlOOO CMCMCM CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMOeMO

>s-»nO>a-O»-ooooOfO»-o

OT-OOOO>»OOf\)OOOO

Ox «-OOOXf>OO*1OOOO 

r\i Kt rvt

f\) fM Kl

CoOOOO>»KlOfMinOT-OO 

CM T- ro «-
Sample GM1-

0

163

R

DOH-3

0 R

IR-21

0 R

GM1-8

0 R

PO-5

0 R

Weight percent

Si02

A1 2 0 3

FeO

MgO

CaO

Na 2 0

K20

Ti02

P 2 0 6

Cl

F

73.95

14.50

1 .35

0.41

0.5?

3.78

5.11

0.14

0.01

0.02

0.02

73.98

14.08

1 .86

0.33

0.61

3.40

5.30

0.16

0.06

0.02

0.01

73.66

14.65

1.27

0.55

0.77

3.46

5.29

0.14

0.06

0.00

0.00

73.37

14.44

1.50

0.36

1.02

3.57

5.30

0.18

0.07

0.02

0.02

72.86 72.77

15.25 15.14

1.14 1.21

0.40 0.43

2.21 1.85

4.21 4.28

3.41 3.75

0.19 0.20

0.05 0.10

0,04 0.04

0.03 0.03

73. 24

14.62

1.82

0.41

0. 76

3. 34

5.39

0. 12

0.06

0.03

0. 01

73.41

14.40

1,82

0.37

0.79

3.59

5.15

0.17

0.07

0,02

0.02

74.22

14.07

1.36

0.29

0.95

3.36

5.30

0,19

0.05

0.00

0.00

74.39

13.81

1.94

0.37

0.93

3.25

4.79

0.18

0.07

0.02

0.02

Parts per million

SC20 3

Cr 2 0 3

MnO

CoO

Rb 2 0

SrO

Zr0 2

BaO

La 2 0 3

Ce 2 0 3

Nd 2 0 3

Sm 2 0 3

Eu 2 0 3

G d 2 0 3

Tb 2 0 3

Oy 2 0a

Tm 2 0 3

Yb 2 0 3

Lu zO 3

Hf02

Ta 2 0s

Th0 2

Q

C

Z

Or

Ab

An

HI

En

Fs

Cm

II

AD

Fr

6.95

30.00

84

1 .48

169

106

276

570

141.35

273.96

98.64

15.52

0.830

15.54

2.270

14.30

0.750

4.65

0.620

5.97

0.74

63.92

29.85

1.88

0.04

30.22

31.87

2.48

0.03

1 .02

2.26

0.00

0.27

0.02

0.04

7.43

1 5.91

208

2.74

263

77

280

545

113.68

P10.77

81 .06

14.39

0.655

12.62

1.823

10.60

0.576

3.58

0.488

7.24

1.13

84.33

30.95

1.81

0.04

31.34

28.68

2.65

0.33

0.83

3.21

0.00

0.30

0.14

0.02

6.03

20.07

167

1 .47

146

166

103

651

28.52

47.19

18.16

3.73

0.580

3.80

0.560

3.41

0.190

1.15

0.150

3.71

0.62

13.31

29.99

1.93

0.02

31.29

29.30

3.56

0.00

1.37

2.13

0.00

0.27

0.14

0.00

4.53

23.07

242

2.61

170

171

154

660

47.51

82.28

29.16

4.67

0.620

3.93

0.587

3.68

0.280

2.01

0.325

4.01

0.43

30.53

28.76

1.16

0.02

31.33

30'. 11

4.66

0.03

0.90

2.50

0.00

0.34

0.16

0.02

1.06 1.33

2.96 1.57

93 117

3.38 3.04

89 106

338 335

190 173

1255 1160

16.95 29.98

22.68 43.28

8.11 11.39

1.16 0.72

0.960 0.907

0.96 -0.22

0.130 -0.064

0.76 -0.34

0.050 -0.018

0.32 -0.11

0.050 -0.019

5.36 4.62

0.21 0.42

5.33 10.87

Norms (weight

29.50 28.51

0.78 0.94

0.03 0.03

20.19 22.18

35.42 36.02

10.68 8.63

0.07 0.06

1.00 1.07

1.80 1.91

0.00 0.00

0.36 0.39

0.12 0.23

0.05 0.04

8. 18

7.55

260

2.33

259

126

270

786

79.02

146.49

58.35

11.31

0.680

10.47

1.640

9,93

0. 510

2,77

0.330

6.80

0.90

70.35

percent)

29.82

2.07

0. 04

31.87

28.07

3.47

0. 05

1.03

3.19

0.00

0,23

0. 14

0. 01

6.86

16.00

228

2.94

241

110

258

576

96.82

178.55

67.82

11 .91

0.659

10.40

1,514

8.91

0.512

3.26

0.460

6.69

0.99

70.63

29.43

1.65

0.04

30.49

30.29

3.53

0,03

0.92

3.10

0.00

0.33

0.16

0.02

5.00

13.41

167

2.35

219

170

314

584

159,02

283.00

100,83

14.19

0.800

9.12

1.070

5.27

0,220

1.23

0.170

6.52

1.47

79.46

31.03

1.16

0.05

51.57

28.51

4.48

0,00

0.71

2.20

0.00

0.37

0.12

0.00

5,97

12.51

109

3.18

231

161

306

898

124.72

226.51

85.46

14.47

0.901

12.12

1.684

9.39

0.419

2.31

0.264

7.72

1,13

85.33

33.42

1.76

0.05

28.37

27.41

4.20

0,04

0.93

3.29

0.00

0,34

0.17

0.03
TABLE 1. Original chemical data and normative mineralogy (0) for 29 samples of granitic rocks from the Granite Mountains

Wyo., and corresponding data represented by the factor solution (R) Continued

Samp le

Si0 2

A1 2 0 3

FeO

MgO

CaO

Na 2 0

K 2 0

Ti0 2

P20 S

Cl

F

SczOa

Cr 2 0 3

MnO

CoO

Rb 2 0

SrO

Zr0 2

BaO

La 2 0 3

Ce 2 0 3

Nd 2 0 3

Sm 2 0 3

Eu 2 0 3

Gd 2 0 3

TbzOa

Dy 2 0 3

Ttn 2 0 3

Yb 2 0 3

Lu 2 0 3

Hf 02

TazOs

Th0 2

BRG-5

0

74.61

14.01

1.11

0.18

0.74

3.25

5.68

0.08

0.08

0.02

0.02

3.30

2.23

183

1.15

226

179

162

1120

51 .31

93.09

38.00

7.20

0.670

6.33

0.990

5.79

0.340

2.27

0.310

4.81

0.82

44.12

R

75.34

13.88

0.97

0.17

0.71

3.47

5.16

0.09

0.05

0.02

0.01

3.62

9.46

132

1.02

189

116

158

669

56.32

97.77

37.31

6.54

0.551

5.66

0.810

4.76

0.275

1.75

0.?47

4.29

0.65

4?. 35

GM1-

0

73.93

14.18

1.60

0.31

0.87

3.52

5.13

0.15

0.07

0.02

0.02

7.20

6.92

199

2.40

248

94

260

711.

80.80

146.09

62.06

11.41

0.630

9.99

1.480

8.46

0.440

2.46

0.330

6.90

0.86

75.08

126

R

73.94

14.25

1.64

0.33

0.80

3.57

5.02

0.15

0.06

0.02

0.02

6.13

11.98

186

2.55

234

117

252

640.

94.76

173.32

65.96

11.55

0.673

10.01

1 .444

8.41

0.461

2.87

0.391

6.58

0.99

69.18

GM2-65

0

73.01

14.56

2.26

0.33

0.88

3.76

4.76

0.13

0.09

0.03

0.02

5.16

7.98

190

6.52

218

98

207

599

86.55

154.32

58.93

12.06

0.530

10.74

1.600

8.37

0.410

2.56

0.350

5.46

0.80

61.88

R

Weight

72.99

14.62

1.87

0.42

1.04

3.75

4.79

0.19

0.08

0.02

0.02

Parts

6.35

12.82

210

3.35

226

158

270

705

95.70

175.16

65.53

11.23

0.755

9.60

1.387

8.11

0.451

2.83

0.390

7.00

0.99

67.17

GM2-125

0

Percent

74.72

13.55

1.69

0.29

0. 73

3.54

5.06

0. 12

0.08

0.02

0.02

per million

6.26

10.85

239

3.12

260

104

249

592

81.58

148.03

56.25

11. 16

0.550

10.42

1 .480

7.80

0.400

2.72

0.390

6. 21

1. 10

65.69

R

74.48

14.07

1.46

0.26

0.68

3.49

5.17

0.13

0.06

0.02

0.01

5.74

11.76

175

2.00

231

97

229

601

87.57

159.55

61.21

10.84

0.610

9.48

1.368

7.99

0.443

2.78

0.383

6.02

0.93

65.43

SD-16

0 R

75.40 74.86

14.09 14.51

0.70 0.58

0.14 0.14

1.01 0.86

4.05 4.02

4.36 4.76

0.07 0.07

0.05 0.05

0.01 0.02

0.01 0.01

2.73 2.65

1.84 -0.57

222 146

0.67 0.52

185 173

95 130

86 124

341 618

16.40 26.42

25.64 42.31

11.82 16.07

2.39 3.01

0.460 0.450

2.06 2.73

0.290 0.424

1.87 2.78

0.120 0.215

0.76 1.53

0.110 0.237

3.36 3.68

0.83 0.58

31.02 23.78

Norms (weight percent)

Q

C

Z

Or

Ab

An

Hi

En

Fs

Cm

II

Ap

Fr

31 .54

1.35

0.02

33.64

27.38

3.?6

0.03

0.46

1.95

0.00

0.15

0.19

0.03

33.14

1.43

0.02

30.51

29.25

3.26

0.03

0.41

1 .66

0.00

0.16

0.11

0.02

30.58

1.46

0.04

30.35

29.68

3.86

0.03

0.78

2.74

0.00

0.29

0.17

0.03

30.75

1 .65

0.04

29.72

30.14

3.58

0.03

0.81

2.81

0.00

0.29

0.15

0.02

29.15

1.87

0.03

28.13

31.67

3.82

0.05

0.82

3.97

0.00

0.24

0.21

0.02

28.90

1.58

0.04

28.35

31.63

4.67

0.04

1.05

3.15

0.00

0.37

0.19

0.03

31.81

1. 15

0.04

29.91

29.83

3.10

0.03

0. 73

2.95

0.00

0.23

0. 19

0.03

31.65

1.64

0.03

30.57

29.48

3.05

0.03

0.66

2.50

0.00

0.24

0.13

0.02

32.42 30.97

0.99 1.29

0.01 0.02

25.77 28.17

34.25 33.92

4.72 4.02

0.02 0.03

0.35 0.34

1.20 0.98

0.00 -0.00

0.13 0.12

0.12 0.12

0.01 0.02
Sample

SM-3

0 R

SONE-9

0 R

SONE-3

0 R

GM1-841

0 R

GM1-814

0 R

Weight percent

SiOa

A1 2 0 3

FeO

MgO

CaO

Ma 20

K Z 0

Ti0 2

P 2 0 5

Cl

F

Sc 2 0 3

Cr 2 03

MnO

CoO

Rb 2 0

SrO

Zr0 2

BaO

La 2 0 3

Ce 2 0 3

Nd 2 0 3

Sm zOa

EuzOa

GdaOa

Tb20a

Oy 2 0 3

Tm 2 0a

Yb 2 0 3

Lu 2 0 3

Hf0 2

Ta 2 0 5

Th0 2

Q

C

Z

Or

Ab

An

Hi

En

Fs

Cm

II

Ap

Fr

75.16

13.75

1.17

0.25

1.00

3.51

4.72

0.16

0.07

0.02

0.0?

2.94

5.05

162

1.82

171

152

213

708

46.02

79.69

29. H

4.12

0.740

2.74

0.360

2.07

0.160

1.18

0.170

4.38

0.83

45.56

33.60

1.?3

0.03

27.90

29.61

4.55

0.03

0.63

1.92

0.00

0.31

0.17

0.03

74.85

14.08

1.05

0.23

1.01

3.59

4.80

0.12

0.06

0.02

0.02

2.85

8.27

113

1.57

163

181

163

842

52.16

87.85

32.03

5.18

0.676

4.18

0.578

3.34

0.17«

1 .10

O.U7

4.37

0.58

35.00

32.60

1.29

0.02

28.38

30.22

4.72

0.04

0.58

1.76

0.00

0.22

0.14

0.03

75.24

13.76

0.85

0.20

0.98

3.42

5.22

0.08

0.05

0.03

0.02

2.19

3.11

79

1.34

147

197

109

652

43.94

80.24

31.28

5.11

0.670

3.39

0.440

2.52

0.100

0.58

0.070

3.46

0.66

16.92

32.64

0.86

0.02

30.90

28.71

4.56

0.05

0.50

1.45

0.00

0.15

0.12

0.03

75.58

13.82

0.83

0.17

0.96

3.48

4.83

0.09

0.05

0.02

0.02

1.97

6.80

77

1.01

151

179

140

881

44.90

72.66

26.43

4.18

0.657

3.27

0.435

2.44

0.115

0.66

0.080

3.78

0.51

29.86

34.19

1.26

0.02

28.57

29.30

4.50

0.03

0.42

1.38

0.00

0.17

0.12

0.03

76.85

13.36

0.55

0.18

0.87

3.04

4.76

0.09

0.05

0.02

0.00

0.50

2.20

44

0.45

116

263

71

1515

65.07

85.56

25.04

2.52

0.920

1.37

0.100

0.46

0.030

0.18

0.020

1.92

0.19

31.68

38.62

1.69

0.01

28.16

25.59

4.27

0.03

0.45

0.88

0.00

0.17

0.12

0.00

76.64

13.24

0.68

0.12

0.96

3.09

4.95

0.08

0.04

0.02

0.02

Parts per

0.49

10.41

13

0.61

118

206

108

1044

39.10

57.75

20.13

2.70

0.723

1.72

0.168

0.66

-0.023

-0.32

-0.073

2.82

0.32

21.82

Norms (weight

37.18

1.14

0.02

29.29

26.06

4.59

0.03

0.29

1.12

0.00

0.15

0.10

0.03

72.20

15. 72

0. 37

0. 10

0.28

3.95

7. 20

0.05

0.03

0.01

0.00

million

4.57

15.86

293

0. 13

195

50

14

250

8.75

10.35

2.89

0.58

0. 190

0.99

0.230

2.08

0. 340

2.91

0.520

0.68

0.05

6. 89

percent)

20.72

0.97

0.00

42.56

33.40

1.26

0.02

0.25

0. 64

0.00

0. 10

0.07

0.00

73.69

14.87

0.66

0.16

0.49

3.99

5.95

0.08

0.04

0.01

-0.00

4.56

19.72

353

0.44

185

37

35

103

-8.63

-17.38

-5.95

-0.23

0.097

0.64

0.227

2.33

0.373

3.11

0.565

1.48

0.20

3.81

26.04

1.07

0.01

35.20

33.72

2.18

0.01

0.39

1.15

0.00

0.15

0.09

0.00

74.72

14.95

0.54

0.00

0.65

4.62

4.30

0.04

0.06

0.01

0.01

0.34

2.17

105

0.38

215

40

305

288

16.25

22.93

7.23

1.08

0.240

1.07

0.160

1 .09

0.080

0.51

0.070

2.43

1.08

17.02

29.79

1.67

0.05

25.41

39.03

2.86

0.02

0.00

0.94

0.00

0.08

0.14

0.01

74.78

14.94

0.25

0.09

0.96

4.51

4.22

0.03

0.05

0.02

0.01

2.07

-14.93

118

0.01

177

132

130

615

17.60

26.41

10.54

2.30

0.406

2.21

0.363

2.52

0.201

1.42

0.215

4.11

0.72

21.10

30.28

1.36

0.02

24.98

37.99

4.47

0.04

0.23

0.43

-0.00

0.06

0.12

0.02
24 POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

^

to

 S'-§

"e

3 

0

^

 S'e

s

CD

Qj -e *o "" 2

11«» +j H-- G

fi O

 §0

£^

 - ^

'3 c S-2

CUD ^

VL "«

0 0

to

£ t 

~ o

s «

c a

a ^ * <*>

05 -e

<M -fcj

fe fc> 5.-°

P?^ e

&2 "i o &£>

a. £;

 S 0

e "

C C3 

d, -Q

 2 oc "M

11^ 1

e &

"i ^

0 S

 8 73

"Q O

 1 ^

1

"o 

 S

1

*""*

w

J

to

CM

ro

t

f

u>

ofO

^"

t

1 

f

o

f.

^~

0

9

£

O

l/%

CM

oc

t

*~

5

OJ

»-

t

OC*~

2

a.

£

<O 

(/)

ac

O

ac

O

oc

o

DC.

0

oc

o

 g

%

$

^I^S^rCo^SSSS

OrOOOOfOmOOOO

r*. ^

t\JOO>OOOO'O>Jf\Jt-ir\

^^ ««-'0^-ro,-ooo

 oroooorotnOOOO r*. 

4/> V O IA ^ IA N» K> CM O O

oorotr»o«-0»ooooo

>*->coooroooooo

r*. «- i

if\ ^ f/^ fM ^~ C3 CD 00 ^ CD CD

asrtn^^N-ooooo

mrooooroiooooo K "

CD ^ ^^ ^ ^D 1^ O* ^3 (^ CD CD

roN.N.OfM«-tr>0000

tnrOOOOfO'OOOOO

N. .- |

>»OO^OON.rO>»CM^O

«-or».«-«-^^«-ooo

JOfOOOOCM'OOOOO

f^ ^

CMOiA^ir.0.00000

>»>»OOOfOtnOOOO

^ ^~

*^^^J?. SSoooo

«*>»ooo>»tnoooo r*. 

t £ ~ r 0 5 ° £ o S 0

-o jo o o ^ m ^ o c o o

f^^rMeorMJTif^^^KiTOr^ >*O^'*eOCOOO

iorooo^ro>»oooc

r^ T 

CO

01 O O « «3

O e»OOO «OOO

£<££1 *z££avu.

c

1

!R

a.

 g

£

eo a o «-

OOO «- <-N.O^«-OOtAOOOOCM>O«-tA-4-CM

« O>j>»OO> >»>Of\J IM

^ ^~ ^~ l^»

0 O 0 0

IM«fl>OtAO^^'Otr>IM CM

«- IM

00 O >O «-

IM JO I O CM CM «- 1 I 1 «-

ro co I

o o o o

O^ ^~ CD CO tf% ^~ 00 1^* fO CD 1^ CM IO ^3 IO CD ^*

*"*"'"'*'**" *~

O * 10 O

f*^ 00 4O CD r^» ^~ ^3 ^D 00 O^ ^^ ^ V^ O^ ^3 ^~ 00

ff) O* GO ^~ CM O* ^~ ^~ ^~

CM «- «-

0000

CMO ^.forvifo^^

K> «- (Nl

CM o> >» r^

N.^ CM O^OCM^^-OfNjfMfOlO-^OfNJ^-

«- CO r^ ITS ITS ir» I i i

(Nl «- IM

o o o o

 - <O 00 fM CM <O

IM «-

l/> OC <NI CM

ooo tri rooo>»oo«-coo*ro>»-oo>»-fM>»-r».

>» »-or^tr»»-»- iiiiii

«- CM O

o o o o

-J- O Ki K13O^u^'MCO-*l>O»-fOOx » -

ir»f^ »r> f^rMf»-<Of^f^^>cOfMoOv OfM

00>»OOvfOiOrMIMO>»OOOOOOC'0«-0>0

fM o r^ u*» o * T 

rv ro

coco cococococococococococo 10

OO O « OOOOOOOOOOOcnON

CllCMOO CllOOO CM CMCMCMCMOICM CMCMCMCMO CMO

wi£<Sawiilm*oIwi2S£oi^^ji*^

I

£

5

"?

^

'"'

c

£

z

SSSoS^S^^S^SS

tnr^CDCMtnrOCDCDr^CDCDCDCS

K> JO CM

oor*-« o>rMf\jr\joooo>o*oo

N-^OOOOIAO^OOOCMO*-

tT(^0«-OCMOOOOOOO

K> JO IM

o* o o o o* r^ o *"> ro o r*» IA o

^IMO«OOOIAO«-0>OOOO

oot-or^-ooooooooo

^ CD ^~ OO CD 00 ^D CD M CD i/^ O^ ^3

Or^OOMN.OMO^O^-00

«-OOfO^«-OOOOOOO fO M ro

OO ^O CD t^l M *O CD f^ ^^ CD M if\ CD

 O«-OO>-OCOOCM»OO«-OO

o«-ooo«oooo«-oooo

K> »O CM

>»OON.N.OCMN.fOOOir»0

rOOOO^OOOOCMCMOIMOO

O«-OOIAOOO«-OOOO

K) ^ fM

o.*-o>»>nooroo>0'-oo

r^^OforrrvjOOOOOOO

^i ^o fO

""§S°^ctS°oo~o

O»«-O«\J>*r-OOOOOOCj

fM to ro

^OO^fMCCOftSo^^O

IT1T-OOCO--4-COOOOOO

ro fM IM

r^o^-»-ov i^-i/v o^Oooo^-

oo-oeoo^^OfMr^oo* c

 4-OOOGOOlSSOOOOOOO

fO fM fM

1. J3 C -COTE Q. t~
TABLE 3. Miscellaneous chemical data for 49 samples from the Granite Mountains, Wyo.,

Sample No.

IR-8 SONE-4 IR-11 SD-11 GM1-67 GM1-374 GM1-163 DDH-3 IR-21 GM1-8 PO-5 

Weight percent

Fe 2 0 3 

FeO 

H 2 0 

C0 2

1 .40 

2.60 

D.79 

0.02

1.80 

1 .00 

0.50 

0.03

1.00 

?.80 

0.61 

0.03

1.10 

0.72 

0.66 

0.01

1.10 

1.10 

0.65

0.08

0.60 1.20 

1.30 0.24 

0.70 1.23 

0.02 0.00

0.90 

0.44 

0.77 

0.02

0.33 

0.84 

0.38 

0.06

0.76 

1.12 

0.58 

0.01

0.50 

0.88 

0.63 

0.02

Parts per million

U 

Cs

Sample No.

1.01 

0.65

GM1-126

2.27 

0.94

GM2-65

0.36 

0.85

GM2-125

1.77 

0.94

SD-16

12.30 

1.80

GM1-285

11.00 1100.00 

1.03 0.60

SM-3 SONE-9

1 .56 

2.44

SONE-3

0.96 

1.36

GM1-841

9.94 

2.24

GM1-814

6.92 

1.50

6*11-581

Weight percent

Fe 2 0 3 

FeO 

H 2 0 

C0 2

3.55 

1.10 

0.72 

0.04

1 .20 

1.20 

0.53 

0.05

0.30 

1.40 

0.53 

0.06

0.14 

0.56 

0.68 

0.02

0.20 

0.92 

0.59 

0.01

0.54 0.59 

0.68 0.32 

0.70 0.44 

0.03 0.02

0.43 

0.16 

0.40 

0.01

0.00 

0.36 

0.39 

0.01

0.06 

0.48 

0.38 

0.01

0.00 

0.36 

0.51 

0.03

Parts per million

U 

Cs

Sample No.

8.90 

1 .45

Gf 1-101 1

5.27 

1.85

GM1-739

7.69 

2.48

GM1-1325

3.18 

3.20

GM1-201

45.50 

1.20

GM1-159

5.86 1.90 

1.46 1.97

GM1-165 GM1-954

0.55 

0.28

GM1-757

2.20 

0.54

GM1-1156

23.50 

0.61

GR-5

5.40 

0.50

GR-3

Weight percent

Fe 2 0 3 

FeO 

H 2 0 

C0 2

0.10 

0.68 

0.47 

0.03

0.14 

0.40 

0.38 

0.0?

0.23 

0.40 

0.64 

0.02

O.OQ 

0.40 

1.78 

0.03

0.64 

0.52 

0.77 

0.05

0.90 0.67 

0.16 1 . 20 

1.28 0.56 

0.02 0.04

0.10 

0.36 

0.59 

0.02

0.32 

0.56 

0.41 

0.01

0.08 

0.16 

0.99 

0.02

1.00 

0.76 

0.78 

0.01

Parts per million

U 

Cs

Sample No.

4.07 

O.S6

SD-8

4.78 

0.47

MS-1

18.60 

1.53

3RG-1

4.92 

0.35

TCM-2

7.64 

0.55

OOH-4

107.00 20.90 

0.29 1.59

SO-1 SDNE-12

20.30 

0.20

SD-4

4.54 

0.88

SD-6

2.64 

0.43

SD-17

2.23 

0.38

Weight percent

Fe 2 0 3 

FeO 

H 2 0 

C0 2

0.47 

0.16 

0.53 

0.01

0.35 

0.12 

0.55 

0.02

0.27 

0.08 

0.59 

0.03

1.80 

1.50 

0.91 

0.02

0.60 

1.10 

0.52 

0.04

0.37 0.69 

1.40 0.28 

0.58 0.48 

0.03 0.05

0.29 

0.88 

0.47 

0.02

0.32 

0.64 

0.46 

0.02

0.01 

0.52 

0.51 

0.03

Parts per million

U 

Cs

4.16 

0.09

13.00 

1.89

13.50 

0.65

2.97 

9.54

2.14 

4.24

2.63 1.59 

3.24 0.77

1.73 

3.09

2.28 

1.95

1.59 

2.36
26 POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

TABLE 2. Chemical data and normative mineralogy for 20 samples of altered granitic

Sample No. GM1-201 GM1-159 GM1-165 GM1-954 GM1-757 GM1-1156 GR-5 GR-3 GR-4 MS-6

Weight percent

Si0 2

A1 2 0 3

FeO

MqO

CaO

Na 2 0

K 2 0

Ti0 2

P 2 0 5

Cl

F

68.93

18.20

1.23

0.6?

0.25

9.76

0.54

0.23

0.05

0.03

0.04

74.51

15.13

1.12

0.44

0.33

7.56

0.56

0.14

0.0?

0.04

0.02

75.73

14.46

0.98

0.20

0.24

7.68

0.30

0.23

0.03

0.03

0.00

76.78

13.38

1.84

0.17

0.99

4.49

1 .94

0.06

0.08

0.02

0.02

78.29

12.98

0.45

0.16

0.14

7.14

0.56

0.14

0.02

0.03

0.05

78.29

13.12

0.85

0.13

1.20

5.41

0.80

0.14

0.01

0.01

0.00

51.09

29.77

0. 23

0.68

15. 39

1.11

1.21

0. 32

0.06

0.01

0.00

72.57

15.41

1.68

0.54

2.74

4.16

2.33

0.26

0.07

0.02

0.05

73.48

15.16

1.06

0.43

7.53

0.80

1.00

0.32

0.06

0.02

0.00

76.30

14.27

0.26

0.27

5.36

2.33

0.76

0.19

0.10

0.03

0.01

Parts per million

Sc 2 0 3

Cr 2 03

MnO

CoO

Rb 2 0

SrO

Zr0 2

BaO

La 0 3

Ce 2 0 3

Nd 2 0 3

Sm 2 0 3

Euj0 3

Gd 2 0 3

Tb 2 0 3

0/203

Tm 2 0 3

Yb 2 0 3

Lu 2 0 3

Hf 0 2

Ta 2 0 5

Th0 2

Q

C

Or

Ab

An

HI

Wo

En

Fs

II

Tn

Ap

Fr

14.28

16.19

18

2.06 52

58

224

93

196.7?

297.68

97.94

14.97

1.260

9.24

1 .263

7.00

0.360

2.27

0.312

6.49

0.25

34.91

8.20

1 .36

3.19

82.47

0.67

0.05

0.00

1.55

1.88

0.44

0.00

0.12

0.07

6.D1

6.51

50

1.59

45

42

246

91

58.01

100.08

40.53

7.21

0.473

7.73

1.059

6.23

0.350

2.?0

0.291

6.89

0.86

71.75

26.65

1.75

3.3?

63.75

1.05

0.07

0.00

1.10

1.83

0.27

0.00

0.17

0.03

6.23

31.62

33

0.57

18

45

137

424

90.71

144.47

55.31

9.96

0.620

10.61

1 .129

6.75

0.323

1.84

0.241

6.22

0.67

64.54

28.67

1.17

1.79

64.37

1.01

0.05

0.00

0.50

1.42

0.44

0.00

0.07

0.00

14.69

6.82

1393

1.01

90

42

386

174

10.99

15.46

5.70

1 .21

0.189

2.39

0.705

6.91

1.329

1 1.74

2.206

6.81

1.56

11.26

Norms

39.65

2.35

11.47

37.90

4.29

0.03

0.00

0.43

3.54

0.12

0.00

0.19

0.03

4.32

18.53

56

0.36

21

11

68

61

9.28

12.85

5.22

0.77

0.098

1.07

0.185

1.40

0.172

1.36

0.252

3.97

1.06

8.42

3.05

24.87

121

0.51

32

19

68

46

19.14

33.77

12.26

2.69

0.185

2.99

0.415

2.34

0.126

0.74

0.097

2.23

0.66

17.09

1. 59

12.42

27.

0.20

32

843

164

163

8.95

13.78

4.80

0.97

0. 128

0.93

0. 139

0.96

0.069

0.42

0.062

4.96

0.43

29.87

3.23

21.92

128

2.77

48

382

153

818

38.99

62.21

19.74

3.15

0.704

2.05

0.268

1.70

0.081

0.50

0.061

4.48

0.40

30.22

4.74

26.70

75

0.31

27

504

159

258

87.11

128.15

4K68

6.95

1.616

4.66

0.635

3.43

0.138

0.75

0.091

4.46

0.75

19.87

3.12

5.69

37

0.35

29

388

271

157

64.44

99.09

37.77

5.64

0.973

4.22

0.606

3.37

0.173

1 .05

0.138

7.57

0.23

42.83

(weight percent)

34.14

0.58

3.33

60.26

0.21

0.05

0.00

0.40

0.61

0.27

0.00

0.05

0.10

40.49

1.21

4.73

45.69

5.90

0.02

0.00

0.32

1.35

0.27

0.00

0.02

0.00

6.97

0.00

7. 14

9.30

72.83

0.02

1.25

1.71

0.00

0. 50

0. 15

0. 14

0.00

32.10

1.39

13.80

35.08

12.81

0.03

0.00

1.34

2.68

0.50

0.00

0.17

0.09

48.32

0.00

5.94

6.65

34.91

0.03

0.87

1.08

1.44

0.61

0.00

0.14

0.00

48.39

0.16

4.49

19.49

25.97

0.05

0.00

0.68

0.16

0.37

0.00

0.24

0.00
TABLES 27

rocks and rocks of uncertain relation to the main intrusion at the Granite Mountains, Wyo.,

Sample No. SD-8 MS-1

flRG-1 TCM-2 DDH-4 SD-1 SDNE-12 SD-4 SD-6 SD-17

Weight percent

Si0 2

AL 2 0 3

FeO

MqO

CaO

Na 2 0

K 2 0

Ti0 2

P20 5

Cl

F

75.39

U.80

0.58

0.16

6.60

2.00

0.09

0.15

0.08

0.02

0.01

75.88

14.75

0.44

0.09

5.62

2.71

0.08

0.23

0.05

0.03

0.00

82.29

11.11

0.33

0.18

3.06

2.14

0.51

o.m

0.10

0.02

0.02

67.76

15.76

3.13

1.71

3.D1

4.42

3.31

0.39

0.25

0.00

n.oo

72.31

15.47

1.65

0.57

2.31

4.52

2.61

0.29

0.06

0.00

0.04

73.67

14.41

1.76

0.45

1.62

3.35

4.26

0.17

D.09

0.01

0.02

74.15

14.05

0.90

0.29

1.10

3.21

5.82

0.08

0.08

0.03

0.02

74.88

14.09

1.15

0.20

0.99

3.62

4.73

0.10

0.07

0.01

0.02

76.05

13.43

0.93

0.31

0.81

4.21

3.91

0.08

0.08

0.03

0.02

72.58

15.60

0.54

0.17

1.33

4.38

5.00

0.03

0.07

0.02

0.00

Parts per million

Sc 2 0 3

Cr 2 0 3

KnO

CoO

Rb 2 0

SrO

Zr0 2

BaO

La?0a

Ce 2 0 3

Nd 2 0a

Sm 2 03

Eu 2 0a

Gd 2 0a

Tb 2 0 3

Dy 2 0a

Tm 2 03

Yb 2 C 3

Lu 2 0 3

Hf0 2

Ta 2 0s

Th0 2

2.27

2.37

3<r

0.29

16

665

153

102

70.94

102.12

26.36

3.77

0.972

2.26

0.045

1.34

1.678

0.24

0.026

3.28

0.11

40.50

4.61

17.16

45

0.27

2

576

163

94

55.09

94.99

35.47

7.02

0.639

5.61

0.751

4.24

0.195

1.09

0.137

4.70

0.81

50.14

5.34

5.17

53

0.39

62

463

245

122

69.60

133.76

50.19

8.60

0.697

9.11

1.478

9.99

0.629

4.18

P. 591

6.06

0.90

57.78

10.33

93.30

650

10.03

124

610

175

697

49.80

108.63

41.09

7.40

1.325

4.98

0.612

3.58

0.195

1.??

0.171

4.02

1.58

22.50

1.37

24.80

201

4.01

76

355

148

829

32.51

50.11

15.93

2.93

0.709

1.85

0.243

1.34

0.046

0.25

0.026

4.22

0.48

22.05

5.36

7.18

290

3.03

165

89

191

949

45.70

76.18

25.33

4.55

0.705

4.33

0.607

3.31

0.127

0.72

0.082

5.32

0.95

34.87

0.65

6.57

88

2.47

180

399

110

1725

32.59

55.82

19.66

2.50

0.511

1.77

0.208

1.20

0.069

0.48

0.064

3.36

0.39

13.59

5.81

2.72

185

1.20

192

52

126

690

33.87

57.05

22.30

5.22

0.524

5.50

0.880

6.15

0.448

3.07

0.446

3.67

1.50

28.06

4.31

5. 14

347

1.44

183

75

96

587

16.69

34.62

13.09

2.66

0. 348

3.58

0.600

4.09

0. 332

2.37

0. 330

2.99

2.47

17.22

1.84

0.00

94

0.47

167

291

54

2049

27.26

44.78

21.40

4.61

1.145

4.98

0.763

5.03

0.442

3.23

0.487

1.17

0.52

16.70

Norms (weight percent)

Q

C

Or

Ab

An

HI

Wo

En

Fs

II

Tn

Ap

Fr

49.27

0.00

0.53

16.79

31.25

0.03

0.41

0.40

0.83

0.29

0.00

0.19

0.01

47.79

0.15

0.48

22.73

27.59

0.05

0.00

0.23

0.43

0.44

0.00

0.12

0.00

61.36

1.78

3.02

17.99

14.45

0.03

0.00

0.46

0.45

0.19

0.00

0.24

0.02

18.75

0.03

19.61

37.44

13.32

0.00

0.00

4.26

5.24

0.74

0.00

0.60

0.00

29.38

1.25

15.46

38.31

10.83

0.00

0.00

1.43

2.59

0.55

0.00

0.14

0.07

32.78

1.60

25.23

28.31

7.38

0.02

0.00

1.11

3.00

0.33

0.00

0.22

0.02

30.20

0.73

34.48

27.02

4.87

0.05

0.00

0.73

1.55

0.15

0.00

0.19

0.03

32.73

1.44

27.99

30.62

4.34

0.02

0.00

0.50

1.98

0.19

0.00

0.17

0.03

34. 13

1.07

23. 12

35 . 4 3

3.41

0.05

0.00

0. 77

1.64

0. 15

0.00

0.19

0.03

24.81

0.77

29.60

37.04

6.13

0.03

0.00

0.43

0.96

0.06

0.00

0.17

0.00
28 POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

TABLE 4. Statistical summary of chemical data for 29 samples of 

granitic rocks from the Granite Mountains, Wyo.,

Mean Standard deviation Mi ni mum Ma x i mum

Weight percent

Si0 2

A1 2 0 3

FeO

MgO

CaO

NaiO

K 2 0

Ti0 2

P 2 0 5

Cl

F

73.75

14.40

1 .40

.33

1.04

3.66

4.97

.16

.07

.02

.02

2.16

.72

.92

.30

.72

.41

.92

.16

.05

.02

.02

67.44

13.36

.36

.00

.18

2.97

2.80

.00

.01

.00

.00

76.85

16.00

3.88

1 .21

2.90

4.62

7.20

.72

.24

.07

.07

Psrte per million

Sc 2 0 3

Cr 2 0 3

MnO

CoO

Rb 2 0

SrO

Zr0 2

8aO

La 2 0 3

Ce 2 0 3

Nd 2 0 3

Sm 2 0 3

Eu 2 0s

6d 2 0 3

Tb 2 0 3

Dy 2 0s

Tm 2 0 3

Yb 2 0 3

Lu 2 0 3

Hf 0 2

Ta 2 0 5

Th0 2

4.25

14.81

192

2

178

176

182

744.48

58.58

102.47

37.11

6.08

.67

5.08

.74

4.42

.28

1.88

.28

4.78

.60

38.97

2.27

14.81

106

3

53

159

114

490.57

43.67

81.12

28.23

4.46

.46

3.91

.57

3.40

.21

1 .49

.24

2.55

.35

24.52

3.40 .70~

24

0

89

19

14

49.09

5.54

7.60

2.87

.47

.06

.70

.10

.46

.03

.18

.02

.60

.01

1.48

8.18

74.66

493

11

260

650

425

2067.76

159.02

283.00

100.83

15.52

2.34

15.54

2.27

14.30

.78

5.69

.91

10.47

1 .47

79.67

TABLE 5. Proportions of variances accounted for by the five-factor 

solutions developed from data for 29 samples with 38 and 33 

variables

[Leaders (- - -(indicate no value]

Const i tuent

Si0 2

AL 2 0 3

Fe 2 0 3

FeO

MgO

CaO

Na 2 0

K 2 0

Ti0 2

P 2 0 5

Cl

F

C0 2

H 2 0

Sc 2 0 3

Cr 2 0 3

MnO

CoO

Rb 2 0

SrO

Zr0 2

Cs 2 0

BaO

La 2 0 3

Ce 2 0 3

Nd 2 0 3

Sm 2 0 3

Eu 2 0 3

Gd 2 0 3

Tb 2 0 3

Dy 2 0 3

Tm 2 0 3

Yb 2 0 3

Lu 2 0 3

Hf 0 2

Ta 2 0 5

Th0 2

U0 2

38 variables

0.913

0.815

0.634

0.697

0.903

0.921

0.814

0.785

0.886

0.803

0.693

0.643

0.176

0.504

0.750

0.715

0.662

0.836

0.686

0.907

0.703

0.282

0.742

0.885

0.932

0.957

0.972

0.881

0.927

0.901

0.885

0.892

0.876

0.861

0.772

0.657

0.860

0.212

33 variables

0.953

0.815

---

0.928

0.908

0.935

0.885

0.819

0.860

0.814

0.676

0.645

_--

---

0.799

0.853

0.680

0.853

0.761

0.884

0.764

---

0.729

0.889

0.901

0.943

0.974

0.860

0.933

0.899

0.855

0.823

0.795

0.770

0.798

0.673

0.879
TABLES

29

TABLE 6. Compositions of parent magmas and end members for the factor models

Parent magmas End members

Const i tuent Model A Model B IR-8 + IR-12+ IR-21+ SDNE-3 +

Percent

Si0 2

A1 2 0 3

FeO

MgO

CaO

Na 2 0

K 2 0

Ti0 2

P 2 0 5

Cl

F

73.77

14.72

1.09

0.32

1.41

. 4.06

4.16

0.15

0.08

0.03

0.02

74.38

14.18

1.19

0.28

1.09

3.57

4.89

0.14

0.06

0.02

0.02

69.46

15.46

3.11

0.93

2.55

3.90

3.61

0.44

0.16

0.05

0.05

75.83

13.81

0.56

0.13

1 .02

3.50

4.84

0.08

0.05

0.02

0.02

73.02

14.99

1.22

0.40

1.68

4.16

4.00

0.19

0.09

0.03

0.03

75.95

13. 53

0.84

0. 16

0.97

3.24

4.97

0.09

0.05

0.02

0.02

Parts per million

Sc 2 Os

Cr 2 0s

MnO

CoO

Rb 2 0

SrO

2r02

BaO

La 203

Ce 2 0s

Nd 2 03

Sm 2 0s

Eu2 Os

Gd 2 0s

Tb 2 03

Dy 2 0s

Tm 2 0a

Yb20s

Lu 203

Hf0 2

Ta 2 0s

Th0 2

2.33

1.00

113

2

146

246

180

966.83

44. 12

72.21

24.70

3.63

0.770

2.66

0.362

2.13

0.115

0.71

0.090

4.88

0.60

26.98

3.02

13.25

144

2

155

195

156

840.03

48.15

80.39

28.52

4.42

0.691

3.49

0.485

2.85

0.485

1.12

0.164

4.12

0.49

30.33

4.84

27.43

208

8

117

477

335

1515.86

102.05

178.29

58.30

7.51

1.476

4.85

0.607

3.15

0.104

0.47

0.034

8.00

0.61

45.16

0.72

6.82

67

1

121

197

91

911 .17

21.74

27.48

8.72

0.97

0.61>

0.44

0.028

0.14

0.009

0.06

0.010

2.58

0.29

12.39

1.86

4.00

130

3

120

301

172

1071.86

34.36

52.56

15.64

1.65

0.852

0.73

0.081

0.52

0.037

0.26

0.037

4.58

0.45

15.78

1.42

11. 37

58

1

134

195

123

955. 52

42.60

66.46

23. 56

3.44

0.697

2. 49

0.301

1. 56

0.053

0.24

0. 301

3.24

0.38

25. 56

Norms (weight percent)

Q

C

Z

Or

Ab

An

HI

En

Fs

II

Ap

Fr

30.28

1.19

0.03

24.62

34.14

6.54

0.05

0.80

1 .77

0.29

0.19

0.03

31.52

1.20

0.02

28.93

30.04

5.04

0.04

0.71

1.97

0.27

0.15

0.03

24.51

0.93

0.05

21.37

32.67

11.66

0.07

2.31

5.03

0.83

0.37

0.06

34.37

1.08

0.01

2 8 . 6.1

29.49

4.81

0.03

0.32

0.92

0.15

0.11

0.02

28.84

1.00

0.03

23.63

34.96

7.82

0.05

1.00

1.95

0.36

0.22

0.04

35.35

1. 18

0.02

29.38

27.28

4.56

0.03

0. 41

1.39

0.18

0.12

0.03
30 POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING 

TABLE 7. Mixing proportions for model A

Sample No.

SDNE-4 

SD-11 

GM1-67 

GM1-374 

GM1-163

OOH-3 

GM1-8 

PO-5 

GM2-1550 

8RG-5

GM1-126 

GM2-65 

GM2-125 

SD-16 

GM1-285

SM-3 

SDNE-9 

GM1-841 

GM1-814 

GM1-581

GM1-825 

GM1-1011 

GM1-739 

GM1-1325

Parent magma

4.3164 

0.9695 

9.6008 

22.6205 

13.5015

11 .6548 

13.2562 

5.0202 

12.8324 

6.9359

10.5023 

10.4998 

10.4888 

6.5323 

16.4833

3.5660 

1 .4267 

21.6709 

4.2836 

7.2342

16.9425 

19.9388 

22.6022 

3.9848

IR-8 +

3.2435 

0.2717 

3.4394 

9,. 7932 

4.9882

5.6085 

5.1777 

1.2091 

7.4746 

2.5436

3.7958 

3.9475 

3.8053 

2.2052 

6.9116

1.2386 

0.3026 

10.0714 

0.5469 

2.2446

7.6460 

9.6848 

10.3566 

1.9421

IR-12+

10.8313 

0.3598 

13.7188 

43.4927 

20.1557

24.9539 

21.5251 

2.2280 

31.9287 

11.4486

15.4475 

15.8444 

15.9017 

11.4074 

31.3047

5.3953 

1.5121 

48.3344 

4.7183 

11.6783

37.1089 

45.5271 

49.6258 

8.9517

IR-21+

-8.7660 

-0.0499 

-14.4637 

-39.1160 

-21.1855

-21.1699 

-21.2848 

-5.9584 

-26.5619 

-11.0240

-16.1235 

-16.1487 

-16.3347 

-9.8071 

-28.2720

-5.2280 

-1.6613 

-39.5144 

-4.1774 

-10.4375

-30.3949 

-37.8111 

-41.2863 

-7.6786

SDNE-3+

-8.6252 

-0.5511 

-11.2952 

-35.7903 

-16.4599

-20.0473 

-17.6742 

-1.4989 

-24.6737 

-8.9041

-12.6221 

-13.1 430 

-12.8612 

-9.3378 

-25,4276

-3.9719 

-0.5802 

-39.5623 

-4.3713 

-9.7195

-30.3024 

-36.3396 

-40.2984 

-6.2000

TABLE 8. Mixing proportions for model B

Sample No.

SDNE-4 

SD-11 

GM1-67 

GM1-374 

GM1-163

DOH-3 

GM1-8 

PO-5 

GM2-1550 

BRG-5

GM1-126 

GM2-65 

GM2-125 

SD-16 

GM1-285

SM-3 

SONE-9 

GM1-841 

GM1-814 

GM1-581

GM1-825 

GM1-1011 

GM1-739 

GM1-1325

Parent magma

0.8745 

0.1964 

1.9451 

4.5829 

2.7354

2.3613 

2.6857 

1.0171 

2.5998 

1.4052

2.1278 

2.1273 

2.1250 

1.3234 

3.3395

0.7225 

0.2891 

4.3905 

0.8678 

1.4656

3.4325 

4.0396 

4.5792 

0.8073

IR-8 +

1.3209 

-0.1601 

-0.8369 

-0.2823 

-1.0255

0.4173 

-0.7268 

-1.0270 

1.7589 

-0.5458

-0'.8821 

-0.7293 

-0.8665 

-0.7044 

-0.4303

-0.3497 

-0.3328 

0.4189 

-1.3610 

-0.9777

0.0996 

0.8038 

0.2893 

0.1672

IR-12+

2.3788 

-1.5386 

-5.0816 

-0.8032 

-6.2832

2.1313 

-4.4335 

-7.6026 

6.8002 

-2.1335

-5.1183 

-4.7166 

-4.6377 

-1.3844 

-0.9732

-1.5877 

-1.2817 

5.8980 

-3.6699 

-2.4879

3.9318 

6.4825 

5.3657 

1.1486

IR-21+

-1.4406 

1.5954 

1.8298 

-0.7266 

1.7279

-1 .3905 

1.2125 

2.5614 

-4.7840 

0.7470

1.7000 

1.6707 

1 .4660 

1 .2790 

-0.2981

0.8239 

0.7601 

-2.7365 

3.0922 

1.8397

-1.6417 

-3.9728 

-2.9278 

-0.9160

SONE-3+

-2.1 337 

0.9069 

3.1436 

-1.7708 

3.8453

-2.5194 

2.2621 

6.0511 

-5.3748 

1.5270

3.1 726 

2.6479 

2.9132 

0,4863 

-0.6379

1.3910 

1.5654 

-6.9709 

2.0708 

1.1602

-4.8222 

-6.3531 

-6.3063 

-0.2072
TABLE 9. Proportional differences between the original chemical data and data represented by the factor solution, for the 29 samples used to d

[Leaders (- - -) indicate indeterminate due to original value of zero]

Sample No.

IR-8 SDNE-4 IR-11 SD-11 GM1-67 GM1-374 GM1-163 DDH-3 IR-

Si0 2

A1 2 C 3

FcO

MgO

CaO

Na 2 0

K 2 0

Ti0 2

P 2 0s

Ct

F

Sc 2 0 3

Cr 2 0a

MnO

CoO

Rb 2 0

SrO

Zr0 2

BaO

La 2 0 3

Ce 2 0 3

Nd 2 0 3

Sm 2 0 3

Eu 2 0s

6d 2 0 3

Tb 2 0 3

Dy 2 0 3

Tm 2 0 3

Yb 2 0 3

Lu 2 0 3

Hf0 2

Ta 2 0 5

Th0 2

0.01

-0.01

-0.03

-0.05

0.10

-0.01

-0.01

-0.25

-0.21

0.08

-0.21

0.37

0.19

-0.26

-0.07

-0.03

-0.09

-0.06

-0.13

-0.21

-0.16

-0.11

-0.11

-0.24

-0.11

-0.15

-0.24

-0.60

-1.02

-1.71

-0.11

-0.07

0.09

0.01

-0.01

0.10

-0.16

-0.08

0.01

-0.06

0.26

-0.00

-0.05

-0.24

-0.22

0.04

0.06

-0.19

-0.05

-0.16

0.33

-0.09

-0.09

-0.02

-0.01

-0.02

0.17

-0.08

-0.01

-0.06

-0..01

0.01

0.12

0.16

-0.09

-0.27

-0.01

0.03

-0.01

0.01

0.03

-0.01

0.12

-0.18

-0.02

-0.24

0.07

-0.05

0.16

-0.23

-0.16

0.07

-0.01

-0.08

0.03

-0.05

-0.17

-0.13

-0.01

-0.06

0.20

0.22

0.21

-0.31

-0.64

-1.11

-0.10

-0.04

0.00

0.01

0.02

-0.09

-0.12

-0.19

0.00

-0.01

0.14

-0.07

0.15

-0.02

-0.10

0.10

0.15

...

0.21

-0.06

0.25

-0,00

-0.00

0.13

0.04

0.08

0.52

0.17

0.05

0.01

-0.05

-0.00

-0.10

0.10

-0.02

-0.17

0.01

0.00

-0.19

0.34

0.02

0.03

-0.05

0.11

-0.30

-0.29

-0.39

-0.16

0.50

0.50

0.26

-0.12

0.65

-0.06

0.06

0.15

0.18

0.06

0.12

0.10

0.02

0.08

0.11

-0.04

-0.07

-0.01

-0.05

0.15

-0.09

-0.00

-0.00

-0.06

-0.11

-0.32

0.03

0.14

-0.20

1.89

-0.44

...

0.08

0.05

-0.12

0.42

0.03

-0.67

-0.01

-0.64

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.11

-0.27

0.03

-0.02

-0.05

-0.19

-0.24

-0.26

-0.09

0.19

-0.25

0.00

-0.03

0.38

-0. 18

0. 17

-0.10

0.04

0.09

4.88

-0.19

-0.29

0.07

-0.47

1.48

0.85

0. 56

-0.28

0.02

-0.04

-0.20

-0.23

-0. 18

-0.07

-0.21

-0. 19

-0.20

-0.26

-0.23

-0.23

-0.21

0.21

0.54

0.32

-0.00

-0.01

0.18

-0.34

0.32

0.03

0.00

0.26

0.13

 

...

-0.25

0.15

0.45

0.77

0.17

0.03

0.49

0.01

0.67

0.74

0.61

0.25

0.07

0.04

0.04

0.08

0.51

0.75

1.16

0.08

-0.31

1.29

-0

-0.

0

0

-0.

0

0

0

0

-0.

-0.

0

-0

0

-0

0

-0

-0

-0

0

0

0

-0

-0

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-0

1

1

Communality 0.992 0.992 0.994 0.989 0.991 0.986 0.967 0.978 0
32 POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

in 

oo

fM

in 

e\i

I

CO

z:

in 

o 

i 

e\i

 O

 V

O 

in 

in

I

ro

s:

ooooooooooo ooopoooooooooooooopoop o ill i i i I I T i i I ITIIT

o 

Or-oo^inr-^Kio^l ^.fMin^^rooo^O^-inin^ooror-fvOinfMooin O>

OOOfNJfOOO^^-O I Or-K»r-O^^>tOOr-OK>O«-rorof\»r-r-OO O>

 iiiiciij t

oooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo o 

III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

K>

T-K»h-fOin«-O>oOI'OOfM K>CU^> K»h-h-K»T-T-in^^ruK»inO»^*->»'OOK» 00 

OO«-o»-OOOOO>rvj OK>rof\JOro^> oo^^i«of\»oi*r>^> >j-ooOfM*-i>Of\» O>

 t

OOOOOOOOOOO Or-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOr-r-OOO O

I I I I I I I I I I I I I II

>! 

O^-^ON.t-fMi'Oroin*- oooo^-^*-^-ooroN.ooo>Kit-o>^.fOOfMroK»ino O>

OO*-r-OOOOrO»-rO OOCOi<or-OOOOOOOt-OOOT-OOOr-O O>

 

ooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo o 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I

o

OOh-O>COO*-*-fVJfMO f">«-OO>^> OO°O«->J-*-fs-K»«-r'OKl*-*-fMOOK»O» O>

OOr-COf-OOint-fMO fM^^-Nj-O^Mr-r-r-r-O^r-r-Or-r-^-fMroO O"

 * 

ooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo o 

I I I I I I I I I I

^

OOfM>±oOfMfMOO>^o^ inror*->o^'^> fOO^-o>>o«-^-OfO* -o h~ oo in in oo O> 

OOOOOOOOOOt- «-r^OOOe\lO«-»-r-OOOOOOO«-^Or-O O>

 

ooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo o 

I I I I I I I I I I II II

o 

r-t-roo^inr^o^^^-o^oo O^> oofMN.inrsjooincuo>oo*-oooooofOr-*-o^> oo

OOt-OOOOO^*-K> ^-fMfMi-r-fOO^T-OOOr-T-r-i-T-CUfMr-CuO O>

 ! 

OOOOOOOOOOO OfOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O

I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

OOOoor-rsjr*-oOfOi I fOinoom>jOoroKJOr-OfOOl I T-K»roK»ro

.. ....*« i I . .* « t.*«. t

OOOfMOOO*-O ^-OOOOfOO^-OOOOOOOOro^-inOOO O

I I I I I I III II

o

OooroO>K»^- N- 

.O>OOinr-fMO O> 

 t

OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

I I I I I II I I I I I I

O CMOOO CMQOO 

 r- « ft> O> <0 <0 CM-r- CM »

coco cococococococococococo 10 

OO O N OOOOOOOOOOO WO 04

CMCMOOCMOOOCMCMCMCMCMCMINCMCMCMCMO CM Q
Sample No. SDNE-9 SDNE-3 GM1-841 GM1-8U GM1-581 IR-12 GM1-825 GM1-1011 GM1-

Si0 2

A1 2 0 3

FeO

MgO

CaO

Na 2 0

K 2 0

Ti0 2

P 2 0 5

Cl

F

Sc 2 0 3

Cr 2 0s

MnO

CoO

Rb 2 0

SrO

Zr0 2

BaO

La 2 0 3

Ce 2 0 3

Nd 2 0 3

Sm 2 0 3

Eu 2 0 3

Gd 2 0 3

Tb 2 0 3

Dy 2 0 3

Tm 2 0 3

Yb 2 0 3

Lu 2 0 3

Hf0 2

Ta 2 0s

Th0 2

0.00

0.00

-0.03

-0.16

-0.03

0.02

-0.08

0.13

0.02

-0.32

-0.16

-0.10

1.18

-0.04

-0.25

0.02

-0.09

0.29

0.35

0.02

-0.09

-0.16

-0.18

-0.03

-0.04

-0.01

-0.03

0.12

0.14

0.14

0.09

-0.23

0.77

-0.00

-0.01

0.23

-0.36

0.11

0.02

0.04

-0.16

-0.14

-0.04

._-.

-0.00

3.72

-0.70

0.36

0.02

-0.22

0.51

-0.31

-0.40

-0.33

-0.20

0.07

-0.21

0.26

0.60

0.43

-1.85

-2.77

-3.99

0.46

0.71

-0.31

0.02

-0.05

0.81

0.54

0.72

0.01

-0.17

0.56

0.29

-0.25

.. 

-0.00

0.24

0.20

2.43

-0.05

-0.26

1.59

-0.59

-1.98

-2.68

-3.06

-1.40

-0.48

-0.35

-0.03

0.12

0.11

0.07

0.09

1.18

2.99

-0.45

0.00

-0.00

-0.53

 

0.47

-0.02

-0.02

-0.16

-0.16

1.28

0.35

5.11

-7.88

0.12

-0.99

-0.18

2.28

-0.57

1.13

0.08

0.15

0.46

1,12

0.66

1.08

1.25

1.30

1.66

1.77

1.94

0.69

-0.34

0.24

-0.00

-0.02

0.44

 

0.27

-0.03

0.02

...

0.15

-0.07

0.13

0.29

-1.94

1.05

-0.29

0.14

0.06

0.39

-0.03

-0.09

-0.14

-0.05

-0.12

-0.27

-0.07

-0.12

-0.20

-0.26

-0.24

-0.26

-0.53

2.38

-0.01

0.00

-0.01

-0.00

0.20

-0.08

0.01

-0.01

0.56

0.10

-0.34

0.58

-0.85

6.77

0.81

-0.52

0.12

-0.26

0.40

-0.27

0.23

-0.07

-0.17

-0.87

-0.14

-1.54

-1.97

-1.99

-2.24

-2.33

-2.56

0.12

18.19

0.25

-0.01

0.01

0.10

0.06

0.60

-0.03

0.04

0.30

-0.22

0.04

...

-0.30

-0.17

0.06

-0.22

-0.01

1.39

1.59

2.76

-1.17

-1.66

-1.45

-0.08

1.83

0.30

0.46

0.56

0.39

0.43

0.50

2.19

-0.16

4.53

0.00

0.01

0.01

-0.16

0.10

0.06

-0.05

-0.53

0.12

-0.83

...

-0.15

0.38

-0.04

-0.66

0.06

-0.55

0.35

-0.18

0.03

0.09

0.32

0.49

0.08

0.24

0.02

-0.07

-0.13

-0.09

-0.11

-0.19

-0.56

0.48

-0

0

-0

-0

-0

-0

0

-0

-0

0

0

-0

-2

0

-2

-0

-0

-1

-1

-1

-0

-0

-0

0

-0

-0

-0

-0

-0

0

-0

Communality 0.993 0.980 0.977 0.955 0.970 0.986 0.988 0.992 0
34 POTENTIAL URANIUM SOURCE ROCK, GRANITE MOUNTAINS, WYOMING

TABLE 10. Proportional differences between the original chemical data and data derived from the factor 

solution, for 20 samples of altered granitic rocks and rocks of uncertain relation to the main intrusion

[Leaders (- - -) indicate indeterminate due to original value of zero]

Sample No.

Si0 2

Al?03

FeO

MgO

CaO

Na 2 0

K 2 0

Ti0 2

P 2 0 5

Ct

F

SC 2 03

Cr 2 0 3

MnO

COO

Rb 2 0

SrO

Zr0 2

BaO

La 2 0 3

Ce 2 0 3

Nd 2 0 3

Sin zOa

Eu 2 0 3

Gd 2 0 3

Tb 2 0 3

Dy 20 3

Tm 2 0 3

Yb 2 0 3

Lu 2 0 3

Hf0 2

Ta 2 0 5

Th0 2

Communa I i

Sample No.

Si0 2

A1 2 0 3

FeO

MgO

CaO

Na 2 0

K 2 0

Ti0 2

P 2 0 5

Cl

F

Sc 2 0 3

Cr 2 0 3

MnO

CoO

Rb 2 0

SrO

Zr0 2

BaO

La 2 0 3

Ce 2 0 3

Nd 2 0 3

Sw 2 0 3

Eu 2 0 3

Gd 2 0 3

Tb 2 0 3

Dy 2 0 3

Tm 2 0 3

Yb 2 0 3

Lu 2 0 3

Hf0 2

Ta 2 0 5

Th0 2

C ommuna I i

GM1-201

-0.04

0.06

0.6?

0.33

9.25

-0.25

1 .28

0.32

?.41

C.92

0.00

-0.43

-3.95

17.67

1.97

7.46

4.52

1.03

6.54

-0.60

-0.48

-0.43

-0.33

-0.31

-0.05

0.12

0.32

0.73

0.84

0.90

0.98

6.71

-0.25

ty 0.790

SD-8

-0.04

-0.02

2.94

3.00

-0.70

0.77

43.17

1.07

0.47

0.86

2.70

0.45

7.28

2.43

17.16

6.40

-0.42

0.80

12.95

0.27

0.52

0.98

0.86

0.30

1.08

11.72

1.11

-0.97

-0.69

-2.48

1.03

4.37

0.08

ty 0.609

GM1-159

-0.04

0.12

-0.31

-0.19

4.16

-0.21

3.45

-0.16

0.42

0.01

0.31

-0.29

-7.34

2.23

0.37

4.11

3.96

0.19

6.61

-0.17

-0.10

-0.17

-0.10

0.29

-0.25

-0.13

-0.05

0.08

0.12

0.15

0.24

0.66

-0.37

0.861

MS-1

-0.05

-0.01

4.11

5.92

-0.63

0.38

43.01

0.29

1.39

0.36

 

-0.32

-0.44

0.34

18.50

59.60

-0.31

0.92

14.89

0.86

0.86

0.72

0.23

1.07

0.07

-0.00

-0.12

-0.67

-1.02

-1.59

0.64

-0.00

0.07

0.770

GM1-165

-0.05

0.13

-0.17

0.56

5.21

-0.29

8.67

-0.52

2.00

0.22

 

-0.34

-2.05

3.25

2.42

11.60

3.27

1.01

0.69

-0.41

-0.32

-0.33

-0.30

-0.00

-0.42

-0.16

-0.12

0.11

0.24

0.25

0.28

0.99

-0.26

0.785

8RG-1

-0.06

0.15

2.56

-0.24

-0.78

0.31

8.82

-0.20

-0.60

-0.10

-0.08

-0.44

0.75

-1.26

2.01

2.04

-0.68

-0.10

7.31

0.44

0.31

0.33

0.29

0.18

-0.00

-0.19

-0.36

-0.67

-0.79

-0.93

-0.08

-0.04

0.18

0.795

GM1-954

-0.08

0.21

-0.36

0.72

-0.74

0.04

2.27

1.05

-0.38

-0.83

-1.37

-0.37

2.51

-0.58

0.49

2.00

-2.68

-0.79

-3.80

-1.04

-0.37

0.08

1.46

-1.95

0.81

0.27

0.00

-0.41

-0.47

-0.51

-0.57

-0.68

0.77

0.778

TCM-2

-0.03

0.05

0.30

-0.28

-0.16

-0.08

0.44

0.48

-0.28

___

 

-0.16

-0.35

-0.20

0.01

0.12

-0.28

0.73

0.42

0.65

0.38

0.12

-0.25

-0.04

-0.24

-0.05

0.08

0.93

1.38

1.99

0.74

-0.85

0.36

0.911

GM1-757

-0.05

0.21

-1.48

-0.69

7.48

-0.27

5.06

-1.00

1 .80

-0.03

-0.68

-0.80

-2.84

0.52

-2.65

7.06

13.67

0.85

9.62

-1.38

-2.00

-1.82

-1.11

2.66

-0.81

-0.48

-0.19

-0.21

-0.24

-0.38

0.09

-0.23

0.15

0.753

DDH-4

-0.02

0.01

0.11

0.07

-0.11

-0.03

0.46

-0.02

0.98

-_-

-0.20

1.27

-0.56

0.02

0.16

0.56

0.02

0.45

0.37

0.36

0.44

0.33

-0.25

0.41

-0.45

-0.45

-0.33

0.75

1.43

2.81

0.31

-0.04

-0.20

0.958

GM1-1156

-0.05

0.14

-0.45

0.27

-0.04

-0.17

4.06

-0.51

5.10

1.60

 

-0.34

-1.52

-0.08

0.32

4.26

8.19

1.21

15.09

0.27

0.12

0.13

-0.06

1.82

-0.27

-0.18

-0.02

0.33

0.55

0.72

1.01

0.08

0.30

0.799

SD-1

-0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

-0.18

0.11

0.10

0.26

-0.06

1.55

0.13

-0.16

1.41

-0.33

0.16

0.02

1.63

0.14

-0.06

0.51

0.59

0.69

0.46

0.1R

0.22

0.23

0.32

0.97

1.26

1.82

0.04

-0.35

0.20

0.976

GR-5

-0.62

0. 14

67.82

7.73

-0. 10

10.31

-6.54

7.25

14.03

21. 16

15.02

6. 51

60.95

245.50

-2.94r

1.76

7.68

23.93

26.95

33.47

23.77

6. 25

41.71

-2.29

-1.45

0.06

4.63

7.50

10.14

5.77

1. 76

-0. 12

0.467

SDNE-12

0.02

-0.02

-0.09

-0.33

-0.00

0.05

-0.16

0.36

-0.32

-0.30

-0.11

0.73

0.79

-0.11

-0.52

-0.33

-0.46

-0.01

-0.44

-0.05

-0.21

-0.26

-0.30

0.36

-0.44

-0.54

-0.62

-0.78

-0.84

-0.87

-0.14

-0.27

0.19

0.972

GR-3

-0.02

0.00

0.17

0.19

-0.22

0.02

0.59

0.14

0.74

0.93

-0.31

-0.09

-0.47

0.38

0.79

1.37

0.01

0.53

0.53

0.40

0.46

0.40

-0.02

0.56

-0.22

-0.30

-0.38

-0.37

-0.37

-0.35

0.32

0.24

-0.25

0.963

SD-4

-0.00

0.02

-0.25

-0.21

-0.34

0.07

0.07

-0.27

-0.35

0.61

-0.49

-0.25

0.37

-0.02

-0.31

0.10

0.56

0.27

-0.29

0.45

0.54

0.54

0.24

-0.19

0.08

0.02

-0.10

-0.18

-0.19

-0.17

0.25

-0.49

0.51

0.971

GR-4

-0.04

-0.08

2.65

1 .38

-0.65

2.23

3.13

0.59

1 .67

1.21

 

-0.02

0.91

0.58

28.89

2.17

0.09

1.36

6.55

0.70

1.01

1.07

0.61

0.16

0.54

0.29

0.05

-1.09

-1.90

-3.02

0.85

-0.38

2.20

0.709

SD-6

-0.01

0.09

-0. 52

-0. 71

-0. 11

-0.00

0.20

-0. 55

-0.46

-0.39

-0.43

-0.27

-2.41

-0.58

-0.94

0.08

0.21

0. 44

-0.13

0.85

0.52

0.63

0.63

0.06

0.15

0.07

0.00

-0.12

-0.15

-0.08

0. 41

-0.70

0.83

0.890

MS-6

-0.04

-0.00

7.71

1.23

-0.62

0.48

3.87

0.54

0.15

0.31

2.97

-0.15

1.49

-0.08

13.88

3.14

0.05

0.11

9.03

0.61

0.79

0.61

0.48

0.41

0.33

0.10

-0.07

-0.95

-1.42

-2.07

-0.04

2.01

0.21

0.803

SD-17

0.03

-0.05

0.05

-0.05

-0.26

-0.04

-0.08

1.48

-0.23

0.04

-- 

0.35

---

0.68

0.48

-0.01

-0.49

1.24

-0.69

-0.29

-0.35

-0.51

-0.57

-0.60

-0.63

-0.60

-0.57

-0.56

-0.55

-0.52

2.12

0.04

0.09

0.936

;U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 777-O34/SO