A preliminary look at lithium in the United Kingdom

A PRELIMINARY LOOK AT LITHIUM IN THE UNITED KINGDOM K. E.

BEER

Institute of Geological Sciences.S. W. England Unit. Hoopcrn House. Exeter. EX4 6DT. England

W. M.

EDMUNDS

Institute of GeologicalSciences,HydrogcologicafUnit, Maclean Building,CrowmarshGitford, Wdlittgford. Bnolrrnd

and

J. R. HAWKES Institute of GeologicalSciences.Petrology Unit. Exhibition Road. London. SW7 2DE. England (Rtceiued 25 Octobtr

1977: rtceiwd /or publicafion

2 Lkcaber

1977)

Ah&act-This brief account of lithium in the United Kingdom presentsdata relating to rbundanccs in various rocks. mineralsand grotmdwaters.Devon and Cornwafl are rcaaonabfywell endowedwith lithium. but dctaikd investigationsare rquircd to establish whether economic potential exists. Other sourcesof interest include groundwaters circulating locally in sedimentary formations of Carboniferws age and certain m&al waters isauingfrom Carboniferouaand Lower Palaaozoicrocks.

INTRODUCTION

far, lithium has attracted comparatively little qeochemical or economic interest in Britain, with the consequence that most published data are of an incidental rather than a specific nature. So

Neverthekss, the present compilation and assessment of published and unpublished rock, mineral and groundwater analyses, coupled with new information from some Comish mine waters, suggestsdefinite lines along which further enquiry could proceed. LITHIUM

IN ROCKS

AND

MINERALS

Recorded lithium values result from a variety of analytical techniques: group analysis. optical and atomic absorption spectroscopy, and flame photometry. The quantities of data relating to particular rock and mineral types are also very variabk. Therefore, no attempt has been made to distinguish between determinations accordii to the analytical techniques employed, nor to weight &ares for any rock or mineral species in terms of the numbers of results available.The following five tables show only arithmetic means and ranges derived from raw data. It is likely that some figures for lithium have been overlooked. even though approximately 10.000chemical analyses were searched. Individual determinations presented as per cent I&O were converted 6rst to an elemental ligure (using the multiplying factor 0.46457) and then to ppm. Ail mean values are quoted to the nearest whole number. Table 1 shows mean and range figures derived for the principal sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rock types. As the more detailed breakdown of information in Tables 2-4 illustrates, a&t&l coverage is unsatisfactorily biased from compositiomd, temporal and spatial points of view. Therefore, none of the mean values in Table 1 should be taken too literally. However, they broadly substantiate the known geochemical behaviour of lithium in crustal rocks. Among sediments, for example, peiites from marine. brackish and freshwater environments contain the highest general concentrations. The lithium is probably associated chielIy with clay minerals (Horstman,’ Tardy d al.‘) although there is only one analysis to support this statement. A clay mineral (? halioysite) from Carboniferous strata is reported to contain 789ppm Li (see Table 5). The mean value obtained for peiites (181 ppm Li) is signifIcantiyhigher than 6gures quoted 281

K. E. BEER et ul. Table I. Summary of available lithium data for British rocks. a...

..d

m.

I

T.bl.

JIM,

9.

5 i.9 I

“0

*mp.o.u.

6.t.

k5 ( 3- 450)

Lnt?.~.lo rmk. (owlial4 auih Ll-u9.. o.6 -0.ic.I o.. Toal. r*) *oak. (.x.ludln( alga L%-trrl..: I.. T&l. h)

a..*.

Int.m.bi.t. Acid rock.

rook.

bluai4

.6...111t... Fi....#

pogmotlt..)

M.a.uiti. sr.nit.., sawi..... p.m.tit... "e..l. .M 1.t.m.di.t.* 1..vroplym "Add" a.9r.@rn.

26

3 153 168 ::

Table 2. Lithium in sedimentary rocks.

..t

i

for argillaceous rocks by Heier and Billings’ and by Horstman.’ This is due largely to 41 analyses of material of Carboniferous age, which include 22 samples of Coal Measure seat-earths from Derbyshire showing mean and range figures of 248 (23-929)ppm Li (Worssam’). Analyses of impure Carboniferous limestones and dolomites similarly are responsible for the relatively high mean values for carbonate rocks shown in Table I. An impression that environmental conditions during this particular period may have favoured the concentration of lithium is further strengthened by a result of 90 ppm Li for one solitary Carboniferous sandstone specimen. The clay mineral studies of Tardy er al.’ suggest that the arid conditions in Permo-Triassic times should, perhaps, have been even more favourable for the accumulation of lithium.

A preliminary look at lithium in the United Kingdom Table 3. Lithium in metamorphicrocks.

especially in clay strata associated with evaporite beds. As yet. no lithium-rich clay horizons have been identitkd, nor do the three available determinations on Permo-Triassic clay material (which range from 92 to 139ppm Li) form a basis for any judgement in this matter. Available information on U.K. sediments is too scanty for further useful comment, except in respect of groundwaters and the possibility that circulation within Carboniferous formations may locally be producing waters with signifkant concentrations of lithium. The mean values for metamorphic rocks (Tabk 1) are unpromising in an economic sense. but they provide a clear general picture of the behaviour of lithium during regional metamorphism. The highest kvels occur in rocks of greenschist facies. Of particular interest is the fact that associated intermediate and basic volcanic rocks apparently contain as much (51 ppm Li) or nearly as much (36 ppm Li) lithium, on average, as the sediments (4g ppm Li) and acid volcanic rocks (50 ppm Li, see Table 3). Under conditions of greenschist facies metamorphism. it seems that lithium must move from original clay mineral sites in the 6ner grained sediments to new sites among secondary minerals generated in basic and intermediate material. The present data (Table 1) suggest that, with increasing grade, lithium is redistributed according to rock composition with kvels of concentration analogous to those found in equivalent igneous

284

K. E.

BEER

N

al.

rock types. Thus the mean lithium content of granitic gneisses (30 ppm Li) is virtually the same as that of intermediate (29 ppm Li) and of acid (28 ppm Li) rocks, whereas the mean value for pyroxene-granulites (16 ppm Li) corresponds closely with that of basalts and gabbros (18 ppm Li). By coincidence, the mean of the two results for eclogites (9ppm Li) is identical to the figure derived for 27 ultrabasic rocks. In the detailed breakdown of metamorphic rock data (Table 3). one set of figures calls for comment. Nine Dahadian limestone samples from Shetland give a mean value of 132ppm Li. which contrasts sharply with the mean figure of 20 ppm Li for 5 1 comparable limestone samples from the Scottish mainland. No geochemical explanation can yet be offered. Lithium values for most igneous rocks lie within expected ranges (Table 1). Possible exceptions are those for the lamprophyres, but no comparative data exist. Genuinely anomalous results are confined to a group of 5 Carboniferous basic and ultrabasic differentiate rocks from Derbyshire and another group of 3 Tertiary basalt specimens from Rockall Bank, North Atlantic. These samples show a mean lithium content of around 1OOppm Li as against the respective mean levels of 18ppm Li and 9ppm Li derived for all other basic and ultrabasic rocks. The highest amounts of lithium occur in certain potassic granites. greisens and pegmatites, which because of the relative numbers of analyses involved, are treated separately in Table 1. Amalgamation of this data with that for acid igneous rocks as a whole (167 ppm Li) clearly produces a distorted overall mean figure. A partial breakdown of information relating to high-lithium acidic rocks is given in Table 4, but from an economic viewpoint, comment is restricted here to data from the most interesting igneous bodies. They occur in the south-western English counties Devon and Cornwall. Table 4. Lithium in igneousrocks.

Figure 1 shows the location of several Carboniferous granite bodies and one Tertiary granite (Lundy). Six of the Carboniferous bodies (the Stilly Isles, Land’s End, Carnmenellis, St. Austell, Bodmin and Dartmoor) are named on account of their size, along with three smaller intrusions (Godolphin, Cligga Head and St. Michael’s Mount) which locally contain appreciable lithium. One fine-grained Na-K-Li-pegmatite known as the Meldon Aplite is also marked on the map. Except in the Meldon Aplite and in parts of the Godolphin and St. Austell masses, the principal rock type is biotite-adamellite [American terminology:- (biotite) quartz-monzonite; Streckeisen:s- (biotite) granite]. Analyses of 107 samples of this material from nine of the intrusions (including Tertiary Lundy) produce mean and range figures of 278 W-743) ppm Li.

A preliminary look at lithium in the United Kingdom

K. E. BEER PI a/.

286

Most of the lithium seems to occur in biotite, amounts reported ranging from 650 to 6922 ppm Li. The Godolphin Granite and much of the St. Austell Pluton are characterized by a lithium-mica (“lithionite”) rather than biotite, but are otherwise generally similar in composition. Six Godolphin samples yield mean and range figures of 1119 (185-2276) ppm Li (Stone?. Unfortunately, the only published lithium data for the St. Austell Granite relate to partly altered material in which values are exceptionally low, 39 (20-121) ppm (Exley’). However, mean and range figures derived from 6 “lithionite” analyses [ 11475(5296-19074) ppm Lil suggest an overall lithium content comparable with that of the Godolphin rock. The Cligga Head Granite represents a lithium-rich variant apparently resulting largely from greisening processes. Eleven samples provide mean and range figures of 703 (340-1400) ppm Li. while a single greisen specimen from St. Michael’s Mount is reported to contain 3763 ppm Li. In the case of the Cligga rocks, lithium occurs mainly in muscovite with recorded levels between 1161 and 2741 ppm Li (Hall’). Although only about 12 m wide at surface, the Meldon Aplite dyke has a strike length of 3.5 km. It consists predominantly of medium-grained. albite-quartz-K-feldspar-lepidolite-rock bearing accessory topaz and lithium-tourmaline. Other lithium minerals found in small quantities include petalite, spodumene and amblygonite-montebrasite. Seven analyses of dyke material yield mean and range figures of 4229 (195l-7400) ppm Li. Chaudhry and Howie9*” have reported ranges of 16725-29733ppm Li for the lepidolite and 54367062ppm Li for the tourmaline. None of these granitic rocks is currently of ore-grade. In the future, all may have economic significance with respect to circulating groundwaters; some only with regard to the extraction of lithium-bearing mica. Field appreciation suggests, for example, that the lithium content of the St. Austell Granite is large, potentially of the order of several million tonnes, although it is quite another matter predicting how much of this lithium could be recovered. Not only will future work in SW. England need to consider geological and economic factors. but also to take account of questions concerning the environment. There are numerous analyses of major rock-forming minerals such as feldspar. hornblendic amphibole and dinopyroxene which indicate mean lithium contents respectively of the orders of 20, IO and 10ppm Li, and isolated olivine and garnet specimens are reported to contain ~5 ppm Li. However, the information presented in Table 5 is of more direct interest. It suggests, for instance, that biotite in igneous and in some metamorphic rocks assumes the role played by clay minerals in sediments; namely that of the principal host for lithium. Clearly. muscovite, tourmaline (including the variety schorlite) and sodic amphiboles can also incorporate appreciable lithium. The “Iithionite” referred to earlier and in Table 5 appears from field studies to be in part metasomaticaIly altered biotite. It may turn out that the lithium-bearing diopside and pargasite from the Lewisian Tiree Marble, and the secondary ?cancrinite from the alkah-syenite complex of Loch Borrolan are only of geochemical interest, but the hydrothermal vein occurrences of cookeite (Brammall et 41.“) and of lithiophorite-cryptomelane (Wilson et ~1.“) warrant some further investigation. LITHIUM

IN GROUNDWATERS

on lithium in UK groundwaters have heen obtained from a variety of published and unpublished sources during regional and local studies of British aquifers. The log [Li/Cl X IOO] vs log Cl plot is used as a convenient means of representing results from a wide range of geographic and stratigraphic sources in addition to a range in salinity, and it affords a means of comparing results with those from North America (Smith”). Groundwaters have been grouped in Fig. 2 according to the geological formation from which they probably originate: the sources of the data where previously published are mentioned below, otherwise they represent unpublished data. Lithium abundance relative to the other aIkali metals has been discussed elsewhere for the Carboniferous Limestone (Edmunds”). Lincolnshire Limestone (Edmunds”), Triassic Sandstone (Edmunds and Morgan-Jones’6) and Carboniferous brines (Edmunds”). In all four studies, the relatively high LilCl ratios were found at low chloride levels. This represents an acquisition by groundwater of Li at an early stage in freshwater diagenesis due to ion exchange following retention of those heavier alkali metals which have smaller hydrated ionic radii. Whereas lithium continues to be partitioned Data

A preliminary look at lithium in the United Kingdom Table 5. Lithium in selected minerals.

nhl~e

.inar.1

(Psantlte“in

AlMnt1.x (?c.uIcrlnlt*). in aorolul:u).

prodUSt

or

nepbellne.

,

697(

-

I.?.

7 : t.?

f :

lA‘ii 36-

::: %*71).

5

6 19 1: 1

67 -

365 B:

strongly in the groundwater relative to the host rock with incnasing salinity, the LilCI ratios typically decrease on mixing with residual saline solutions or brines. most of which are derived from marine water [log (Li/Cl x 100)= -3.071 impoverished in lithium. Within the principal UK aquifers, there is no anomalous accumulation of Li. Median Li’ values for the Carboniferous Limestone and Lincolnshire Limestone shallow groundwaters are I7 and 34 ppb respectively, considerably higher than in the Triassic Sandstone aquifer of the West Midlands, although some higher LifCl ratios are found in dilute Bunter Sandstone groundwaters of the East Midlands (Fig. 2). Some local anomalies stand out against this background, including sub-thermal waters in Derbyshire of which the springs at Bakcwell have the highest LX1 ratios. Compositional trends with increasing salinities are indicated by interstitial waters in Chalk core material from a horehole at Trunch (Norfolk); saline waters show only slight enrichment above the original sea water composition. The greatest enrichment in Li/Cl ratio in the UK occurs in waters draining the Cornish mining areas which are discussed more fully below. Significant enrichment also occurs in some saline waters and brines in certain geological situations; many of these brines have absolute Li concentrations in the range IO-IOOppm Li and fall well within the range of North American brines with economic potential (Smith.13White et a/.‘*). Brines in the Coal Measure sandstones of Durham and Northumberland (Edmunds”) typically have lithium enrichment IO-150 times sea water composition; a few brines have much lower Li/CI ratios and these are considered to represent derivation from or mixing with groundwaters in contact with evaporites in the overlying Permian. Since results given here for the Carboniferous relate only to one small area, it is considered likely that other formation brines in the U.K. where evaporite association is not dominant may have lithium enrichment to a level that could be of economic interest. Apart from the groups already mentioned, other data on groundwater lithium abundances are scanty. A high IX1 ratio has been recorded in low salinity groundwater from Enville Beds (Carboniferous) in Shropshire. Several of the former spas developed for mineral waters are also reported to contain high lithium (Edmunds et aI.‘?. particularly some derived from preEOY Vol. 3 No. 3-E

8

-2.

-2.

$ -‘.

!

P \ I I \

i

:

\

tt

I’

\

\

\

I’

t \

tt

\

\

I’

\

Fig. 2. Variation diagram: log

L’x [’Cl

I00

vs log Cl plol of various groundwaters in the United Kingdom

1

A preliminary look at lithium in the United Kingdom

28!J

Carboniferous formations. Kipon and Llandrindod Wells have anomalously high LilCl ratios whilst Builth Wells, Llangammarch Wells, Bridge of Allan (Scotland) as well as Harrogate reportedly have enrichment in lithium: these results represent old analyses and. in some cases. mineral waters are no longer accessible. Clearly, before any water or brine is considered as a resource, the hydrogeology of the formation must be evaluated to derive values for formation storage and transmissivity. in relation to the hydrogeochemistry. At this stage emphasis has been placed only on the hydrogeochemical anomalies and, with the exception of Cornwall. no assessment of volumes of water available has been attempted. LITHIUM

BRINES

IN CORNISH

MINES

Saline springs in Comish mine workings first attracted attention in the mid-19th century when it was recognised that some were warmer than normal. Lithium enrichment was recorded from springs in Wbeal Clifford and Wheal Seton, and lithium was detected in several other mine waters (Collins?. Without exception, the warmest waters issue from, or immediately adjacent to, vuggy quartz-lined cross-courses which trend approximately N-S at right angles to the productive metalliferous veins, which they cut and postdate. The distribution of recorded underground lithium brines is shown in Fig. 1 and representative analyses of water samples collected in 1969 from selected seepages and springs in two working mines are given in Table 7. From Fig. 2 it can be seen that these waters have the highest lithium accumulation of any groundwater in the UK. Comparison of the analyses suggests that a ‘discrimination can be made on the basis of Li/Na ratio between water rising up through the crosscourses and that percolating downwards through the lodes or wall-rocks. It may also be significant, that only the crosscourse waters carry strontium in detectable amounts. Commenting on Occurrences known at that time, Collin8’ regarded the saline springs as deep circubuions of sea water, the composition of which had been greatly modified by reaction with the rocks through which it had gassed. A meteoric origin for saIine spring water from South Crofty Mine is indii by recent oxygen isotope studies (Alderton and Sheppard”) and the very low Mg/Ca ratios indicate that a sea water origin can be ruled out. The chemical differences between ascending and descending waters suggest that the former are enriched in the soluble products from mica and feldspar breakdown. The increase in trace element content, especially lithium, probably reflects merely an increase in reactivity related to heat and prolonged rock-water interaction. The springs occur in a region of high heat ffow (Tammemagi and Wlteildor?? attributed, in part, to the radioactive content of the granites and this may be adequate to energise the deeply circulating convection cells which necessarily exist in the porous crosscourses. From the analytical evidence, however, the author (K.E.B.) believes that the deep penetration of reactive water induces kaolinisation of the granite adjacent to crosscourses and that this exothermic process augments and perpetuates the thermal cycle. Underground springs exhibit only moderate flows (Tables 6 and 7). but it has been calculated that the water pumped annually from South Crofty Mine contains at least 30 tonnes of lithium and the flow from Wheal CiitIord a further 24 tonnes. More unsampled saline issues occur in South Crofty Mint. Wheal Jane and Mount Wellington Mine, and these may be expected to contain some lithium. As a first priority in resource assessment further chemical, physical and hydrogeological data are required for all the underground springs in working mines. Vigilant surveillance needs to be maintained as mining develops to ensure the systematic recording of any new springs which may be encountered. The tapping of known sources in abandoned mines, and the search for new sources, will depend largely upon economic considerations, not least upon cheap and efficient extraction purification methods. CONCLUSIONS

Three main conclusions emerge from this review: (1) The greatest known lithium enrichments in Britain are located in Cornwall and Devon where granitic rocks and saline groundwaters may offer potential sources for economic exploitation.

K. E. BEER ef al. Table 6. Partial analyses of Lithium waters in mines now abandoned (in ppm). .ihWl

or

Date

ana1yelia

Cl

Temperature

now

9170

104

17

1192

2038

2293

3705

Ill

23

139

%

90

6270

12

1162

2k9k

lb28

0.027

0.035

0.303

'C

(1itres/hr)

1871

5614

Li

Ll/tf4

a73

I

K

ca

!fine

sstow

1064

SOlA Na

Botallack

&lea1

clifr0r.3

51

33

41 000

13 650

Approx. depth rran surrace (metrea)

503

455

330

;+nsalClirford: Hot Lode on th? 230-rathom level; close to ~F~IIICOUPLIC.

on 16O-rPthoClevel *t inteFSection Oi North Cn’mterLad?

sea1 seten:

and

~~-~c.e.course.

Botallack !'ine: Crowns Lode on

ths

?4>-fnthom level: 18aues room the lode.

Tabk 7. Partial analyses of lithium waters from working mines (in ppm).

SC2

SZ&

SC6

SC?

SC8

;135

PH

7.1

6.8

7.8

7.8

7.3

3.0

Cl

3343

1100

15?0

265

to830

2790

9c

160

a0

100

125

110

,220

280

620

120

3800

950

K

60

20

30

10

reo

55

Li

37

118

27.6

C%

675

sr

25

I@

87

49

29

0.330

0.028

0.028

SO4 Na

LI/NS

7.0 305

47.5 320

(r

5

2.5 150

14.2 0.021

535

224a

ND

45

11

77

28

0.031

0.029

42

30

3P

32

41

16

(litr.s/hr) Approx.depth.rrom Buriscs (natran)

13 650

small

27 000

20 Ooo

27 000

13 650

570

616

616

6?6

ND

Analysta:

Temperature‘C Estimated ri0w

= Not

South

dettcted.

cr0rty

2:

South Crafty 4: South Croity 6:

No.

R.A.

5 Crossc~ursa

698

108

Nicholson & L.::.Rundle, r970. at

intarcssctlon with No. 9 Lode,

310-fathom level. Reeves Lode on 335-fathornlevel; SlQht

derivation uncertain. No. 2 Cro..cour.e’ at intenxction

ri0w from

poor,

with To. 10 Lode.

335-fathom level.

South Crafty 7:

No. i0 Lad.?about C rnetresfro3 sarple sc6.

Scuth Crafty 8:

Crcsaco~lrsein main haulage drive, 380-fathom level.

ATlea Jane 5:

Bil303. intersecting vwt

Crosscourse. No. 3 level.

A preliminary look at lithium in the United Kingdom

291

(2) Some Carboniferous sediments display significantly high geochemical levels of lithium and locally may contain groundwaters of possible commercial interest. (3) Large gaps exist in our knowledge of the geographicaland stratigraphical distribution of lithium in Great Britain. Further areas of enrichment probably await recognition. At the present time the United Kingdom has no research programmespecifically designed to identify and evaluate its domestic lithium resources, but a limited amount of additional data slowly accumulates from on-going geological and hydrological studies. In the short term. petrogenetic re-examination of the Comubian granites and geothermal investigations in Comwall should contribute to the picture of lithium distribution in this province and allow a better estimate of its potential economic significance. Effective resource appraisals,however, can only be attained through the medium of directly applied longer term research employing all the pertinent disciplines of geology, chemistry and engineering to assess both the availability and extractability of lithium contained in British rocks and waters. It is the authors’ belief that this review indicates where geological research could be profitably initiated and hopefully extended. Ackno~Iedpemenr-The paper is publishedby permissionof Ihc Director. institute of GeologicalSciences.Grcst Britain.

REFERENCES 1. E. L. Horatman, Gcochim. Cormochim. Acfo 12. I (1957). 2. Y. Tardy, Ct.Rrempp and N. Trauth, Geochim.Cosmochim.Acto 36,397 (1972). 3. K. S. H&r and G. K. Bilfings. Hund6oo&of Geochemistry.If-l. 3-B-t-3-O-l. Springor-Verlag.Berlin (1969). 4. B. C. Worsaam. Bull. Geol. tiea. GI. Brifoin 63. I (1977). 5. A. L. Stnckeiscn. N. 16. hfinee.Abh. 107f2u.3). I44 f 1967). 6. M. Stone. Pmt. Geol. Assoc. 06. I55 (1975). 7. C. S. Exky. Q. 1. Gcol. Sot. London 114. I97 (1959). 8. A. Hall. feoc. Geol. Assor. 82. 209 (1971). 9. hi. N. Chnudhryand R. A. Hawk, Minemf. Ma.8 39,289 (1973). IO. hf. N. Char&y and R. A. Honda, Mine&. Meg. 4.747 (1976). I I. A. Bramtnalf.J. G. C. Lcoch and F. A. Ban&tar, Mine&. A@. U, 507 (1937). 12. hf. J. Wilson, M. L. Borrow and W. 3. McHardy, m&ml. Meg. 37.618 (1970). 13. C. L. Smith, U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper l#B, 103 (1976). 14. W. hf. Edmunds. Rep. Ins/. Geol. 55. No. 7117(19711. 15. W. M. Edmunds. Pmt. Symp. Hydrugeochem.and Biochem.. Tokyo. pp. 5Ob526 (1970). Clarke Co.. Washineon. (1973). 16. W. M. Edmundsand M. Morgan-Jonas,Q. 1. Engug Gsd 9.73 (1976). 17. W. M. Edmunds. fmns. Inst. Min. Metal/. Y. 339 (1975). 18. D. E. White. J. M. Thompsonand R. 0. Foumicr. b.S. 6. S. Pmj. Paper HII. 58 (1976). 19. W. hf. Edmunds.B. J. Taylor and R. A. Downing. A-Ewvpe. Rrpt. XXII&h Sess. Int. Geol. Gong. C:echosloeakia 13. 139 (1969). 20. 1. H. Collins, Tmns. Roy. Geol. Sot. Cornwall II, I (1912). 21. D. H. M. Aldenon and S. M. F. &ppard, Tnnu. Inrr. iWin. Me&U. Saction B, 86. Bl91 (1978). 2 H. Y. Tammemagi and J. Whcildon. Geophys.1. Roy. Astr. !&u. 31.83 (1974).

SOURCE

REFERENCES

FOR THE

LITHIUM

ANALYSES

OF ROCKS

AND

MINERALS

I. Open-tile analytical records. Petrology Unit. institute of Gwlogkal Sciences. 2. I.G.S. analyses by the Laboratory of the Govcmmcnt Chemist. Analysis Fik. Petrology Unit. Institute of Geological Sciences. 3. G. Armstrong. K. C. Dunham. C. 0. Harvey. P. A. Sabim and W. F. Waters. Mineml. Msg. 29.683 ( 1951). 4. R. Cave. Geol. 1.4.291 (1965). 5. Mem. Geol. Syru. Min. Res. Gf. B&sin 3l, I (1956). 6. P. S. Kcaling. Mineml. Mug. 31.331 (1956). 7. D. S. Wood and J. C. Harper. ihqwoi and Manchester Geol. 1.3. 18) (1962). 8. P. A. Mohr. Geol. Maa. 99. 267 (1962). 9. R. A. Higazy. 1. Geol. 62. I74 (1954). IO. P. A. Mohr. Mincml. Meg. 31.324 (1956). I I. D. G. W. Smith. 1. Per& IO. 34 (H&9). 12. R. L. Oliver, Q. 1. Geol. Sot. London 117.499.407 (I%II. 13. W. E. Trcmktt, Pmt. Yorks. Gee/. Sot. 3k 48 (1972). 14. G. H. Francis, G&. hfa8.%,32 (1958). 15. 7. W. Bloxham and J. B. Alkn. 7’mns. Roy. Sot. Edinbur;lh il.20 (1960). 16. R. St. J. Lambert and A. B. Pook. Pmt. Geol. Assoc. 75.9 (1%4). 17. G. H. Francis, Bull. Brir. Museum. Minerplosy l(5). I56 (1958). 18. G. H. Francis. Bull. Brit. Museum. MineeaI~y l(6). I90 (1964). 19. R. Dcamley. Q. J. Gee/. Sot. London 119.272 (1963). 20. J. G. Holland and R. St. J. Lambert, Geol. h. 10.340-342 (1972).

292

K. E. BEERet al.

21. A. C. Dunham. Q. /. Gcol. Sot-. London 123.347 (19681. 22. R. St J. Lambcrt and J. G. Holland. Pror. Geol. Assor. $2.333 (19711. 23. M. J. O’Hara. 1. Per&. 2.270 (l%l). 24. B. Dash, P. K. Chowdhary and D. R. Bowes, Scot. J. GeoL IO.48 (1974). 25. R. G. Park. Seal. 1. Geol. 2. 186(1966~. 26. M. J. O’Hara. Mixem/. Msg. 32,850 (l%l). 27. M. J. O’Hara. GeoL Mag, n. 147 (1%8). 28. M. C. Farrand. GeoL Msg. 97.489 tI968). 29. D. H. Green. 1. Geol. 72. 547 (1964). 30. S. R. Nockolds and R L. Mitchell. Duns. Roy. Sot. Edinbvglr 61.545 (1949). 31. S. R. Nockolds and R L. Mitcbcll, Tmr~. ROY. Sot. l%lab~ 61.538-539.543 (1949). 32. D. H. Green. I. PeftvI. 5. 145 (Tabk 2. columnsV-IX only) (1%4). 33. P. J. Wyllic and H. 1. Drever. Trans. Roy. Sot. Edinburgh (6. 173 (1963). 34. H. H. Read and B. T. Haq. Pmr. Geol. Alroe. 74.204 (1963). 35. R. R. Harding. Fmns. Roy. Ser. Edinburgh 66.435.437 (1967). 36. R. Dcamley. Q. 1. Gee/. See. London 119.283 t1%3). 37. A. C. Dunham. Mineml. Msg. 33.894 (1%4). 38. S. R. Nockolds and R Alkn, Gwchim. Cosmochim. Acta 9.66 (1956). 39. H. H. Read and B. T. Haq. Pmt. Geof. Assoc. 76. IS, 18 (1965). 40. M. K. Wells. A. C. S. Smith and J. F. W. Bowles. Mineml. Msg. 39. !22 fl974). 41. D. G. W. Smith. /. hrml. 10. 35 (1%9). 42. D. R. Groome and A. Hall. Mineml. Msg. 39.624 (1974). 43. D. R. Bowes and A. hi. Hoouood. Mineml. Map. 37.428 (1%9). 44. C. D. Gribbk. Scot. I. Geooii.. 75-77 (1974). ‘. 45. D. S. Buist. Geol. Msg. 96. 250 (1959). 46. E. M. Patterson, Geoi. Mag. 88,234 (1945). 47. D. R. Groome and A. Hail. Mineml. Msg. 39.625.626.633 (1974). 48. R. St. J. Lambcn and J. G. Holland. Pmt. Geol. Assoc. 8X336.349.342 ( 1971 b. 49. C. E. Tillcy. GeoL Msg. 96. 504 (1959). 50. D. S. Buist. Geol. Msg. 95.463 11958). 51. J. G. Holland, Pmt. Yo&. Gee/l.Sot. 36.94-95 (1967). 52. I. R Butler, Geochim.Cosmochim. Acfa 4, 160, 166 (1953). 53. A. Hall. fmc. Geol. Assoc. 82.213 (1971). 54. M. Stone. f’mr. Geol. Assoc. 86. 164 (1975). 55. C. S. Hitchen, Q. J. Geol. Sot. London 9. 172 (1934). 56. J. H. Wailer. Midland Natumlist 12. 155 (1889). 57. A. C. hmnbam, Q. J. GeoL Sot. London 123.338-339 (1968). 58. D. G. W. Smith, 1. Petrol 10.38 (1969). 59. G. hi. Francis. Geol Msg. 92.438 (1955). 60. G. D. Nicholls and D. H. Loring, GeoeMm. Cosmochim.Acfa 26, 183.207 (l%2). 61. R. 1. Hawker, /. Perrol. 3.230 (1962). 62. A. Brammalt, J. G. C. Leech and F. A. Bannister. Mineral. Mag. 24.51 I (1937). 63. M. J. Wilson, M. L. Berrow and W. 1. !&Hardy. Mineml. Msg. 37.622 (1970). 64. M. N. Chaudhry and R. A. Howie. Mineml. Msg. 0.747 (1976). 65. W. A. Deer. R. A. Howic and J. Zussman.Roclr Foning Minemls Vol. I. p. 307. Longnans. London (1%7).. 66. G. M. Power. Mineml. Msg. 36. lOS0(1968). 67. A. Hall. Pmt. Geol. Assoc. 82.226 (1971). 68. M. N. Chaudhry and R. A. Howic. Mineml. Msg. 39.290 (1973). 69. A. Johnstonc.trans. Geoi. Sot. Edinburgh 6. 17 (1893). 70. E. K. Cundv. W. Windle and 1. H. Warren. Clov Mineml. Bull. 28. I52 11960). 71; A. Hall and-J. N. Walsh. Scot. J. Geol. 8.267 (i972). 72. Ma. Geol. Suiv. Gt. Bktain, p. 63 (1909). 73. W. T. Harry. Tmns. Roy. Sot. Edinburgh 63.400 11958). 74. S. R. Nockolds and R. L. Mitchell, Tmas. Roy. Sot. Edinbugh 61. ME. 55&553.56&565 (1949). 75. R. St. J. Lamkrt. 7iuns. Roy. Sot. Edinbumh 63.582 (1959). 76. J. N. Walsh. Mineml. Msg. 0. 342 (1975). 77. A. Brammah and H. E. Hatwood. Q. 1. Geol. Sot. London $8.234 (1932). 78. A. Brammail and H. E. Harwood, Minemi. Msg. 28.23 (1923). 79. C. S. Hitchens. Q. 1. Geol. Sot. London 9@. 173 (19344). f!il. W. A. Deer. Mineml. Msg. 24.4% (1937). 81. H. W. Haslam. J. Petrol. 9. % (1968). 82. D. R. Groome and A. Hall. Mineral. Msg. 3R 637 (1974). 83. 0. von Knorring and R. Dcamley. Mineral. Msg. 32,372 (1959). 84. B. C. Worssam, Bull. Geol. Sum. Gt. Britain 63, 14-15 (1977). 85. Analyses by the Analytical and Ceramics Unit, GcochemicaiDivision, Institute of Gcologkal Scicnccs.