Saskatchewan Geological Society Special Publication Number 14: MINEXPO'96 SYMPOSIUM - Advances in Saskatchewan Geology and Mineral Exploration, Proceedings of a Symposium, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan 21 - 22 November, 1996. Editors: K.E. Ashton and C.T. Harper, 1999

C. Uranium Deposit Studies and Exploration Techniques, Pages 85-94.

The Sue D and E Uranium Deposits, Northern Saskatchewan: Evidence for Structurally Controlled Fluid Circulation in the Athabasca Basin

D. Baudemont
Cogema Resources Inc., Suite 1100, 123 - 2nd Avenue South, Saskatoon, SK S7E 7E6
A. Pacquet
Groupement des Sciences de la Terre, Division Miniere de la Crousille, Route de Saint-Pardoux, 87640 Razes, France

The Sue D and E uranium deposits are high-grade, basement-hosted deposits located in the McClean Project area in northern Saskatchewan. They were discovered in 1990 and 1991 respectively. They are part of a cluster of deposits, called the Sue deposits, which are either Athabasca Group sandstone hosted (Sue A and B) or basement hosted (Sue C, D, and E), and occur along two parallel graphitic zones at the contact between the granitic dome of Collins Bay to the east and a sequence of Aphebian paragneiss to the west.

Sue D is a 200 m long by 15 m wide deposit situated 100 m south of the Sue C deposit. It shows a vertical extension of about 200 m. An upper, low-grade lens is separated from a high-grade lower lens by a small barren interval. Sue E has a total strike length of 250 m, with the bulk of the reserves present in a 100 m long section at the lease boundary. The deposit is believed to extend southward into the adjoining property.

Sue D and E mineralization comprises three generations of uranium minerals, successively uraninite, pitchblende, and coffinite. The predominant nickel arsenide is niccolite (NiAs). U/Ni and U/As ratios are similar, at about 2.5 and 1.7 respectively, and strongly contrast with those of the Sue C monomineralic mineralization at about 56.2 and 45.9.

Although showing definite structural similarities with the basement-hosted Sue C deposit, Sue D and E are more strongly influenced by cross-cutting faults. Overall, both display a complex geometry influenced by N12°E striking reverse faults and associatedflat structures, as well as northwest-dipping dextral faults. In the Sue D deposit, the latter control the general lozenge shape of the deposit and the internal distribution of nickel arsenides.

Alteration is marked by early silicification, which is strongly developed in the footwall, followed by hydromuscovite and Fe-chlorite, and later syn-mineralization Mg-chlorite. The second phase of mineralization (pitchblende) may be associated with illite development. In Sue D, kaolinization is predominant (85%) in the sandstones just above the unconformity, as well as in the upper basement (65%). This late alteration phase is responsible for a strong leaching associated with low-grade remobilized coffinite mineralization.

The Sue D and E uranium deposits are part of a cluster of high-grade unconformity-related deposits located in the northeastern Athabasca Basin, approximately 6 km west of the Rabbit Lake mine site (Figure 1). Although related to vein-type deposits such as Eagle Point, Sue C, and McArthur River, they form a specific sub-type of Ni-As rich basement-hosted deposits.

Figure 1 - Geological framework of the Sue D and E uranium deposits.

The Wollaston Domain, which represents the hinterland of the Trans-Hudson Orogen, consists of infolded Archean granite and Early Proterozoic paragneiss (Figure 1), exposed as alternating "domes" and "basins" due to polyphase folding. A detailed description of the stratigraphic, metamorphic, and early tectonic evolution of the Wollaston Domain is provided by Lewry and Sibbald (1980). Peak metamorphism occurred around 1830 to 1812 Ma (Annesley and Madore, 1994). Emplacement of late tectonic granite ca. 1820 Ma (Annesley et al., 1992; Bickford et al, 1994) was followed by ductile to brittle transpressive faulting along northeast, east-west, and north-south planes (Fedorowich et al., 1996, Baudemont, 1997; Elliott, in press).

A rapid uplift of the reworked Trans-Hudson hinterland preceded the deposition of early Mid- Proterozoic unmetamorphosed red bed sediments ca. 1820 to 1770 Ma such as the Martin and the Lower Baker Lake groups (Fraser et al., 1970; Wanless and Loveridge, 1972; LeCheminant et al., 1979). Deposition of fluvial sandstone started almost simultaneously around 1750 Ma (Miller et al., 1989; Gall, 1994) in both the bowl-shaped Athabasca Basin (Ramaekers, 1980) and the fault-bounded Thelon basins.

Diagenesis of the sandstone as well as hydrothermal events involved movement of basinal fluids (Kotzer and Kyser, 1995) over a relatively long period of time from initiation ca. 1600 Ma (Fahrig and Loveridge, 1981) to deposit formation ca. 1400 to 1300 Ma. A model proposed by Kotzer and Kyser (1990) involved interaction of basin-derived oxidized brines and reduced basement fluids. Diagenesis of the sandstone was followed by modest crustal extension marked by emplacement of the Mackenzie diabase dykes at 1270 Ma (Fahrig, 1987; LeCheminant and Heaman, 1991).

Post-sedimentation anorogenic tectonic activity involved reactivation of graphitic basement structures. At the scale of both the Athabasca Basin and the Churchill Province sensu lato, tectonic activity was heterogeneous with coexisting extensional (Baudemont and Fedorowich, 1996) and transpressive to strike-slip regimes (Baudemont et al., 1993, Baudemont, 1994). Although brittle faulting and fracturing appears to be a constant in all Athabasca uranium deposits, the primary role of these structures (presence of dilation zone, fluid pressure changes, reductant role of the graphite and major fluid drain) is still subject to discussion.

The Sue trend is located on the western flank of the Archean Collins Bay granitic dome. Early Proterozoic metasediments occur in a tight curviaxial syncline resulting from successive northwest- and northeast- trending fold events. Foliation dips steeply to the east. Two main graphitic units approximately 80 m apart occur within the felsic and cordierite-sillimanite-garnet paragneiss (Figure 2). The Sue A and B sandstone mineralization is associated with the eastern unit; the western one hosts the C, D, and E vein-type basement mineralization. Reverse faulting produced a 5 to 30 m downdrop of the western (footwall) block along both graphitic structures (Figure 3).

Figure 2 - Geological map of the Sue trend.

Figure 3 - Schematic section across the Sue trend based on drill holes. Legend as in Figure 2.

Each unit displays a distinct geophysical response: horizontal loop EM (Max-Min) for the eastern unit and DC resistivity for the western one. The Sue A, B, and C deposits were discovered between 1988 and 1991, at the intersection of northeast-trending VLF conductors and either Max- Min or DC resistivity conductors (Baudemont et al., 1993). The Sue A and B deposits belong to the sandstone-hosted subtype and show many similarities to deposits such as the Collins Bay B and D zones, Key Lake, and Midwest. They are relatively low grade (1.26% and 0.73% U respectively) and very rich in Ni and As. The Sue C-CQ deposit is a basement-hosted deposit which bears strong similarities to the McArthur (McGill et al., 1993) and Eagle Point deposits (Eldorado Resources Ltd., 1986). It consists of high-grade (4.5% U), low Ni-As vein-type mineralization which occurs just below the unconformity.

Northeast-trending dextral and northwest-trending normal-sinistral structures are associated with the main north-south fault system. The northeast-trending set is graphite-bearing and favourable to mineralization whereas the northwest-trending set is barren and is commonly associated with silicification in the basement. All three systems extend upwards into the sandstone and induce variable offset of the unconformity. The sandstone is 60 to 80 m thick and typically strongly altered. Primary hematite is rarely preserved and the sandstone appears as a pale, bleached kaolinite- and illite-rich rock. Common clay- rich breccia occurs along the two main north-south fault zones.

The Sue D deposit is located 100 m south of the southern tip of the Sue C mineralization. It is a 100 m by 30 m, north-south-elongated polygonal body which extends down plunge for about 130 m from the unconformity (Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4 - Cross-section of the Sue D deposit.

Figure 5 - Plan view of the Sue D deposit showing two-dimensional U₃O₈grade tonnage (GT) contours.

Approximate reserves stand at 15001U at an average grade of 1 percent. The mineralized zone is divided into an upper, low-grade (0.3 percent U) and a lower high-grade (1.7 percent U) lens. Uranium depletion is interpreted as the result of post-mineralization circulation of meteoritic water resulting in intense kaolinitization. Kaolinite represents 85 percent of the clay mineral component in the lower sandstone and 65 percent in the upper basement, contrasting markedly with the predominantly illite-rich clays associated with mineralization (Quirt, 1993; Pacquet and Reyx, 1994) of the lower mineralized zone (Figure 6).

Figure 6 - Summary log of the basement in drill hole S378 at Sue D. Clay mineralogy profile from X-ray diffraction of 13 selected samples. SS, sandstone; U/C, unconformity; MACG, mineralized and altered cordierite- rich gneiss (possible altered metapelite); GPG, graphitic paragneiss (metapelite); QFBG, quartz-feldspar-biotite gneiss (psammite); and CPG, cordierite-rich paragneiss (metapelite to psammopelite).

Ore mineralogy also reflects the occurrence of U remobilization. In the lower lens, moderate-reflectance pitchblende is the dominant U mineral. In the upper lens, mineralization consists mainly of coffinite replacing pitchblende. Associated minerals consist of variable amounts of Ni-arsenides and sulpharsenides. The most common Ni mineral is niccolite (Quirt, 1993; Pacquet and Reyx, 1994), although minor gersdorfflte (NiAsS) and rammelsbergite (NiAs₂) also occur.

Mineralization occurs along the contact between the western graphite-bearing unit of the hanging wall and the quartz-feldspar-biotite (QFBG) paragneisses and "quartzites" of the footwall. Overall, the mineralized zone is complex. Three main types of structures appear to control the shape and attitude of the high-grade zone (Figure 4).

1. A north-south-trending, east-dipping reverse fault corridor, which represents the southern extension of the main Sue C fault. The main fault plane runs along the graphite-"quartzite" contact and has a 5 to 10 m vertical offset at the unconformity.
2. A system of flat-lying faults, having a westward displacement of the upper block, was probably initiated at a low angle to the maximum stress direction within the competent "quartzites". It is interpreted as a Riedel-type, en echelon minor set, that typically limits the down-plunge extent of mineralization and controls a significant part of the high-grade ore development.
3. A northeast-trending, westerly dipping fault system which commonly separates the vertically stacked high-grade, barren, and low-grade zones. It was identified as the principal structural control for Ni-As mineralization (Figures 7 and 8).

Figure 7 – Plan view of Ni grade contours at the Sue D deposit.

Figure 8 - High-grade Ni-As-U mineralized section showing large niccolite rosettes cemented by pitchblende, drill hole S378, Sue D deposit.

The Sue E deposit is located 350 m south of the Sue D. Mineralization was intersected over a 250 m strike length north of the property boundary and is known to extend south of the claim line. The 25 m by 10 m drilling pattern was thought insufficient to warrant probable reserves calculation. Mineralization grades 1.76 percent U and contains 0.7 percent Ni and 1.1 percent As. A 125 m long weakly mineralized zone to the north grades southwards into the high-grade southern portion of the deposit which extends to the property line (Figure 9). Similar to the Sue C deposit, mineralization plunges gently to the south.

Figure 9 - Average uranium grade contours at the Sue E deposit.

Similar to the Sue D and C deposits, the Sue E mineralization is spatially associated with the western graphitic conductor, located about 100 m west of the basement granite. Mineralization is hosted by both the graphitic paragneiss, and the silicified paragneiss ("quartzite") (Figure 10). It consists of a fault-bounded, pitchblende-rich clay with significant amounts of niccolite, which is very similar to the Sue D mineralization.

Figure 10 - Section across the Sue E deposit. Legend as in Figure 2.

Also like the Sue D deposit, the main north-south fault system shows a modest vertical offset and is associated with both flat-lying and steep westerly dipping structures. The latter appear to partly control the attitude of the main fault-bounded vein.

Both core observation and fluid inclusion studies support post-metamorphic silica metasomatism to be the cause of the quartz-rich zones (so called "quartzite"). The quartz-rich zones do not form a continuous, foliation parallel unit with a well-defined stratigraphic position. Instead, they show many variations in thickness along strike, from a few metres at the Sue D deposit to more than 100 m immediately south of Sue C (Sue CQ). The "quartzites" commonly become thicker at depth at least to the extent of drill hole penetration, about 150 m below the unconformity. They are only a few metres thick in the upper basement (0 to 50 m below the unconformity) suggesting that the paleosurface exerts some influence in the development of the quartz-rich zones. Formation of the "quartzites" is interpreted as an early event, because they are systematically crosscut by mineralization and mineralization-related clay-rich faults.

Ghost textures of pegmatites or garnet-rich paragneiss are common in the Sue E and D areas. A spectrum of weakly to intensely silicified gneisses and pegmatites was observed in the vicinity of the massive quartz zones in the footwall, suggesting progressive quartz metasomatism.

Recent study of two samples of the Sue C footwall, revealed saline aqueous inclusions within unaltered quartz of highly silicified paragneiss and pegmatoid (Pagel and Ahamdach, 1995). Homogenization temperatures are low, ranging from 50° to 155°C. Fusion temperatures of -25.5° to -45.7°C of liquid- vapor inclusions, as well as the presence of halite cubes in 20 percent of the inclusions, indicate highly saline, Ca-Mg-rich brines. Quartz metasomatism results from the circulation of low-temperature diagenetic brines, quite similar to those identified in the silicified sandstone at the McArthur River deposit (Kotzer and Kyser, 1995; Pagel and Ahamdach, 1995).

In both Sue E and D, there is a poor correlation between U and Ni-As mineralization. Although the Ni-As concentrations are spatially associated with the U oxides, they form northeast- striking trends which contrast with the north-south control of uranium (Figure 5). This raises the problem of the relative timing of U and Ni-As mineralization. Three possible scenarios can be envisaged:

1. monometallic (Sue C) and polymetallic (Sue D and E) mineralization events are not contemporaneous,
2. Ni-As mineralization does not co-precipitate with U, and
3. Ni-As deposition represents a different phase of a single mineralizing event.

Metallogenic studies, on Sue D and E mineralized samples, revealed the common intergrowth of Ni-arsenides and U-oxides (Figure 11) indicating their coeval precipitation (Pacquet and Reyx, 1994). They also show that U-oxides from the weakly remobilized Sue E deposit are similar to those observed at Sue C, implying that the two types of deposits are contemporaneous.

Figure 11 - U-Ni-As mineralization at the Sue E deposit showing zoned intergrowth of Ni-arsenides (1) and moderate to high-reflectance U-oxides (2).

To summarize, it appears that polymetallic Ni-As-rich mineralization controlled by northeast-trending structures coexists with north-south-controlled U mineralization. This supports the presence of two different types of fluids coexisting in a fault- intersection-type structural trap. In the Sue C deposit, which is weakly influenced by north-east-trending faults, monometallic mineralization largely dominates. At Sue D and E, where northeast structures are an important part of the structural picture, nuggets of high-grade Ni-As coexist with U.

Regional Control of Ni-As Mineralization

Distribution of Ni-As mineralization within the known deposits was examined to determine if the structural control exerted by northeast-trending structures could be extrapolated to the rest of the Athabasca Basin. A simple correlation between northeast-trending structures and Ni-As mineralization appears unlikely as the northeast-trending McArthur River deposit is strictly monometallic.

Logarithmic-scaled plots of U/Ni and U/As ratios of northeastern Athabasca Basin deposits show that, except for Sue E and D, sandstone-hosted deposits are systematically richer in Ni-As than those hosted by basement rocks (Figure 12).

Figure 12 - Logarithmic plots of U/Ni and U/As ratios for major northeastern Athabasca Basin uranium deposits.

As one might expect more influence of basement- derived polymetallic fluids in basement-hosted deposits, the opposite pattern appears as a rather surprising fact. However, all known basement-hosted deposits are associated with major reverse faults, and recent hydrological studies of active reverse faults have shown that displacement tends to draw fluids downwards (Muir Wood, 1994). Therefore, in the Athabasca Basin, it is likely that syn-mineralization, reverse structural traps were responsible for concentrating basinal fluids.

Of the sandstone-hosted deposits in the northeastern Athabasca Basin, deposits with a strong influence of northeast-trending structures such as Midwest, Collins Bay A, B, and D, Jeb, and Sue A and B all have a higher relative Ni-As content than east-west-controlled deposits such as Cigar Lake and McClean.

The source of such highly concentrated Ni and As, along with commonly anomalous Cu, Mo, Co, and many other metals, remains unclear. Post-Hudsonian anorogenic magmatism and remobilization of older, basin-derived mineralization are among the possible sources. These polymetallic brines are likely to move over great distances as they are mainly controlled by strike-slip faults (Sibson, 1987; Muir Wood, 1994).

The Sue D and E deposits are part of a newly identified subtype of unconformity uranium deposits characterized by basement-hosted Ni-As-rich mineralization. Except for the Eagle Point and Dominique-Peter deposits, recognition of basement- hosted steeply dipping vein deposits started in 1989 with the discovery of Sue C and McArthur River deposits. Although they remain difficult targets due to their narrow widths and off-EM conductor locations, it is likely that other similar deposits will yet be found in the Athabasca Basin.

Mineral deposition and remobilization result from a series of successive fault-controlled fluid movements. An early, highly saline, low-temperature fluid, probably contemporaneous with the sandstone diagenesis, induces significant silicification along both the north- and north-northwest-trending fracture systems. Partial to total metasomatic replacement of all minerals by quartz occurs in the metasediments and pegmatites of the proximal western fault block. The regional extent of this silicification is unknown as distinction of silicified zones and metaquartzite remains problematic.

During a phase of post-Athabasca Group anorogenic tectonism ca. 1400 to 1300 Ma, a series of structural traps were formed at the intersection of northeast- and north-trending faults. Competency contrast between the quartz-rich and graphitic metasediments appears to have played a significant role in the occurrence of open structures in a compressive regime.

Coexistence in space and time of Ni-As-rich and Ni-As-poor deposits, in spite of a poor correlation between U and Ni-As mineralization, indicate a decoupling of monometallic and polymetallic fluids, which are channeled at local scale by north- and northeast-trending structures respectively. However, this mineralization model cannot be extrapolated regionally as circulation of the different brines appears to depend upon other factors. Predominance of monomineralic mineralization in the basement is explained by the hydrodynamic nature of brittle reverse faults which promote downward movement of fluids.

This update on the Sue deposits was initiated by Jean Mondy, Vice-president Exploration at Cogema Resources Inc. On site, Fabien Ey, Ken Wheatley, John Pukas, John Harper, Steve Wilson, and Lome Allen were all involved between 1990 and 1993 at various stages of data acquisition and interpretation. Irvine Annesley, Catherine Madore, and Dave Quirt of the Saskatchewan Research Council completed a first- phase petrographic, metallogenic, and clay mineralogy study in 1993. Jean Reyx (Groupement des Sciences de la Terre, Cogema, France) conducted all recent metallogenic studies on mineralized samples. Maurice Pagel and Nourreddine Ahamdach of the CREGU, Nancy, France were both involved in the fluid inclusions study. Mark Basaraba at Cogema Resources Inc. drafted all the figures.

Annesley, I.R. and Madore, C. (1994); A geological study of the Wollaston-Mudjatik Domain Boundary in the Wollaston Lake area, Hearne Province, Saskatchewan; Sask. Resear. Counc., Rep. R-1230-6-C-94,110p.

Annesley, I.R., Madore, C., and Krogh, T.E. (1992): U-Pb zircon, titanite, and monazite ages from the Wollaston Domain - a summary; in Summary of Investigations 1992, Saskatchewan Geological Survey, Sask. Energy Mines, Misc. Rep. 92-4, p61-65.

Baudemont, D. (1994): Sissons Schultz South, NWT, regional tectonics and structural control of mineralization; report on summer 1994 investigation, Cogema Resources Inc., unpubl. internal rep., 16p.

________ (1997): Structural analysis of the McArthur deposit, northern Saskatchewan; Cogema Resources Inc., unpubl. internal rep., no. 97-cnd-32-01, 29p.

Baudemont, D. and Fedorowich, J. (1996): Structural control of uranium mineralization at the Dominique-Peter deposit, Saskatchewan, Canada; Econ. Geol., v91, p855-874.

Baudemont, D., Piquard, J.P., Ey, F., and Zimmerman, J. (1993): The Sue uranium deposits, Saskatchewan, Canada; Explor. Mining Geol., v2, no3, p179-202.

Bickford, M.E., Collerson, K.D., and Lewry, J.F. (1994): Crustal history of the Rae and Hearne provinces, southwestern Canadian Shield, Saskatchewan: Constraints from geochronologic and isotopic data; Precamb. Resear., v68, p1-21.

Eldorado Resources Limited (1986): The Eagle Point uranium deposit (Saskatchewan, Canada); in Gilboy, C.F. and Vigrass, L.W. (eds.), Economic Minerals of Saskatchewan, Sask. Geol. Soc., Spec. Publ., No. 8, p78-88.

Elliot, C.G. (1995): The Tabbernor Fault, and Proterozoic and Phanerozoic movements in Saskatchewan and Manitoba; in Hajnal, Z. and Lewry, J. (eds.), LITHOPROBE Trans-Hudson Orogen Transect, Rep. 48, p148-155.

Fahrig, W.F. (1987): The tectonic setting of continental mafic dyke swarms: Failed arm and early passive margin; Geol. Assoc. Can., Spec. Pap. 34, p331- 349.

Fahrig, W.F. and Loveridge, W.D. (1981): Rb-Sr isochron age of weathered pre-Athabasca Formation weathered gneiss, northern Saskatchewan; Rb-Sr and U-Pb isotopic age studies; in Current Research, Part C, Geol. Surv. Can., Pap. 81-1C, p127-129.

Fedorowich, J.S., Stauffer, M.R., Kerrich, R., Lewry, J.F., and Farrar, E. (1996): Age of deformation along the western margin of the Reindeer Zone, Trans-Hudson Orogen: ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar ages from Needle Falls Shear Zone; Geol. Assoc. Can., Annual Meeting, Winnipeg, Manitoba, May 1996, Prog. Abstr., pA28.

Fraser, J.A., Tremblay, L.P., Donaldson, J.A., and Fahrig, W.F. (1970): Helikian basins and geosynclines of the northwestern Canadian Shield; in Baer, A.J. (ed.), Symposium on basins and geosynclines of the Canadian Shield., Geol. Surv. Can., Pap. 70-40, p213-231.

Gall, Q. (1994): The Proterozoic Thelon paleosol, Northwest Territories, Canada; Precamb. Resear., v68, p115-137.

Kotzer T.G. and Kyser T.K. (1990): The use of stable and radiogenic isotopes in the identification of fluids and processes associated with unconformity-type uranium deposits; in Beck, L.S. and Harper, C.T. (eds.), Modern Exploration Techniques, Sask. Geol. Soc., Spec. Publ. No. 10, p115-131.

________ (1995): Petrogenesis of the Proterozoic Athabasca Basin, northern Saskatchewan, Canada and its relationship to diagenesis, hydrothermal uranium mineralization and paleohydrogeology; Chem. Geol., v120, p45-89.

LeCheminant, A.N., Leatherbarrow, R.W., and Miller, A.R. (1979): Thirty Mile Lake (65P, Wl/2) map area, District of Keewatin; in Current Research, Part B, Geol. Surv. Can., Pap. 79-1B, p319-327.

LeCheminant, A.N. and Heaman, L.M. (1991): U-Pb ages for the 1.27 Ga Mackenzie igneous event, Canada: Support for a plume initiation model; in Geol. Assoc. Can./Miner. Assoc. Can., Prog. Abstr., pA73.

Lewry, J.F. and Sibbald, T.I.I. (1980): Thermotectonic evolution of the Churchill Province in northern Saskatchewan; Tectonophysics, v68, p45-82.

McGill, B.D., Marlatt, J.L., Matthews, R.B., Sopuck V.J., Homeniuk, L.A., and Hubregtse, J.J. (1993): The P2 North uranium deposit, Saskatchewan, Canada; Expl. Min. Geol., v2, no4, p321-331.

Miller, A.R., Cumming, G.L., and Krstic, D. (1989): U-Pb, Pb-Pb, and K-Ar isotopic study and petrography of uraniferous phosphate-bearing rocks in the Thelon Formation, Dubawnt Group, Northwest Territories, Canada; Can. J. Earth Sci., v26, p867-880.

Muir Wood, R. (1994): Earthquakes, strain-cycling, and the mobilization of fluids; in Parnell (ed.), Geofluids, Origin, Migration, and Evolution of Fluids in Sedimentary Basins, Geol. Soc., Spec. Publ. No.78, p85-98.

Pacquet, A. and Reyx, J. (1994): McClean Sue D, petrography and XRD results; Cogema Resources Inc., unpubl. internal rep. 8579-80, 12p.

Pagel, M. and Jaffrezich H. (1977): Analyses chimiques des saumures des inclusions du quartz et de la dolomite du gisement d'uranium de Rabbit Lake (Canada). Aspect méthodologique et importance génétique; Comptes-rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris, t284, Série D, p113-116.

Pagel, M. and Ahamdach N. (1995): Étude des inclusions fluides dans les quartz des gisements d'uranium de l'Athabasca et du Thelon (Canada); CREGU internal rep., 6p.

Quirt, D.H. (1993): Sue Project, ore petrography and geochemistry; Sask. Resear. Counc., Rep. R- 1230-17C-93,42p.

Ramaekers, P. (1980): Stratigraphy and tectonic history of the Athabasca Group (Helikian) of northern Saskatchewan; in Summary of Investigations 1980, Saskatchewan Geological Survey, Sask. Miner. Resour., Misc. Rep. 80-4, p99-106.

Ramsay, J.G. (1967): Folding and Fracturing of Rocks; McGraw-Hill, New York, 568p.

Sibson, R. H. (1987): Earthquake rupturing as a mineralizing agent in hydrothermal systems; Geol., v15, p701-704.

Wanless, R.K. and Loveridge, W.D. (1972): Rubidium- strontium isochron age studies; Rep. 1, Geol. Surv. Can., Pap. 72-23, 70p.

Windley, B.F. (1993): Proterozoic anorogenic magmatism and its orogenic connections; J. Geol. Soc. London, v150, p39-50.

D. Baudemont and A. Pacquet