Broken Hill area, Australia, as a Proterozoic fold-and-thrust belt: implications for the Broken Hill base-metal deposit: contributed remarks; authors' reply

Discussion by B.P.J. Stevens of the paper, published in Trans. IMMA, vol.104, 1995, p.B1-B17, is presented together with the authors' response. Stevens questions the authors' radically different interpretation of the structural geology of the Broken Hill Block, considering that the descriptive part of the paper is a useful addition but that the conclusions are unwarranted on the basis of the data presented. A number of major points of disagreement are outlined and half a dozen additional minor points listed. In response, the authors admire Stevens's contribution to unravelling the geology of the area but defend their attempts to take the regional studies a step further, pointing out that he has misquoted what they wrote and arguing that because of the assumptions underpinning the derivation of the present stratigraphy it cannot be used to constrain structural models. With regard to shear zones, they cite the extensive earlier literature and refer to horizontal displacements shown on maps produced by Stevens et al. Detailed discussion follows of the stratigraphy and of the stratigraphic correlation problems resulting from failure to recognise the presence and significance of shears, particularly those parallel to stratigraphy. The remobilised position of the Pb mineralisation in the North Mine open cut is reiterated. It is concluded that there is an urgent need for systematic isotopic dating in the area to constrain the stratigraphy