Polygenetic and polychronic uranium mineralization at deposits of the Khiagda ore field, Buryatia

Kochkin, B. T.; Tarasov, N. N.; Andreeva, O. V.; Asadulin, En. E.; Голубев, В. Н.

doi:10.1134/s1075701517020015

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the Ra/U chemical ratios are 0.86–1.26, and the equilibrium coefficient (Kp) for U and Ra is calculated as 0.27–0.37 using the following formula: Kp = Ra/(U × 3.4 × 10 −7 ). The contents of Th are (4.3–5.1) mg/kg and the ratios of U/Th are 100–400, indicating that there was secondary uranium enrichment for the sandstone ores in the later exogenetic mineralization stage (Kochkin, Tarasov, Andreeva, Asadulin, & Golubev, 2017; Xia, 2015). The bulk sulphur content varies from 0.673 to 0.88%, the total organic carbon content ranges from 0.160 to 0.428%, and the chemically determined Fe 3+ /Fe 2+ ratios are 0.65–1.0, reflecting the good reducibility of the mineralized sandstones (Dai et al, 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sandstone-hosted uranium deposits are normally generated by the longterm repeated infiltration and reformation of uranium-bearing oxidized water, leading to the development of an open and low-temperature metallogenic system(Kochkin et al, 2017;Ludwig, Goldhaber, Reynolds, & Simmons, 1982;Min, Peng, Wang, & Osmond, 2005; F I G U R E 6 Correlation between UO 2 and TiO 2 , P 2 O 3 , and MnO of the uranium minerals from microprobe data in Kamust uranium deposit, eastern Junggar BasinWright, 1955;Xia, 2015). Nevertheless, a large number of exploratory missions and studies have been carried out by many domestic and overseas scholars.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Litho‐mineralogy, geochemistry, and chronology for the genesis of the Kamust sandstone‐hosted uranium deposit, Junggar Basin, NW China

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Kamust sandstone‐hosted uranium deposit was recently discovered within the Middle Jurassic Toutunhe Formation of the eastern Junggar Basin. In this study, polarizing microscope and scanning electron microscope observation, electron microprobe analysis, and laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry measurement were carried out to define the petrology, mineralogy, and geochemistry of these sandstone‐hosted uranium ores. In addition, sulphur isotope signatures for the associated ore‐stage pyrites and the ore‐forming age were determined. The results show that the mineralized sandstones, which exhibit excellent reducibility with abundant organic matter and pyrites, are characterized by the secondary accumulation of uranium and are slightly enriched in rare earth elements (REE) and light REE (LREE). The uranium deposits are mainly composed of a large amount of uraninite, followed by some coffinites and uranium‐bearing titanium minerals and very few sorptive uranium‐bearing materials. Uranium minerals primarily exist within the interior and edge of clastic particles in colloidal, dispersed, and vein form, and some are closely interweaved with the colloidal and framboidal pyrites and carbonaceous detritus. Both uraninite and coffinite are strongly enriched in REE and LREE, as determined by in situ trace element measurements. Moreover, the δ34S values of the associated ore‐stage pyrites mostly range from −41.66 to −19.33‰, indicating biological origin, and light 32S demonstrates the relatively low‐temperature and open‐system mineralization processes related to the microbial anaerobic action on the organic matter. One of the δ34S values (6.88‰) is possibly caused by Rayleigh isotope fractionation due to the utilization of residual heavy 34S in the relatively later closed‐like mineralization system. The ore‐reforming ages of 27 ± 3.2 Ma, 22.4 ± 3.9 Ma, and 21.3 ± 2.3 Ma were obtained by U–Pb isotopic dating combined with U–Ra balance correction, corresponding to the rapid uplift event caused by the remote effect of the collision between the Indian and Eurasian plates at the end of the Palaeogene. In conjunction with the tectonic–sedimentary evolution of the study region, a four‐stage ore‐forming model for the Middle Jurassic Toutunhe Formation is preliminarily constructed: ① Development of ore‐bearing strata, ② initiation of the mineralization stage from the Late Jurassic to the Early Cretaceous, ③ deep burial by lacustrine and flood mudstone from the Cretaceous to the Palaeogene, and ④ the superimposed ore‐forming stage during the Neogene. These research results provide significant benefits for further uranium prospecting and in situ leach process mining in this basin.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Litho‐mineralogy, geochemistry, and chronology for the genesis of the Kamust sandstone‐hosted uranium deposit, Junggar Basin, NW China

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The smallest of the obtained values is significantly younger than the age of the main stage of uranium mineralization of the KhOF (ca. 12 Ma (Golubev et al, 2013)), and the maximum is 9 Ma older than the onset of deposition of rocks of the Dzhilinda Formation (Kochkin et al, 2017b) hosting the uranium mineralization. Variations in the U-Pb age and 234 U/ 238 U ratio characteristic in the ores of the Namaru deposit indicate the uranium migration that took place in the ore body of the deposit after its formation, as well as a possible change in the uranium concentrations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Variations in the U-Pb age and 234 U/ 238 U ratio characteristic in the ores of the Namaru deposit indicate the uranium migration that took place in the ore body of the deposit after its formation, as well as a possible change in the uranium concentrations. Hence, it follows that the development of the permafrost layer that 2.5 Ma ago covered the catchment area of paleovalleys with meteoric oxygen-containing waters did not provide the expected (Kochkin et al, 2017b) conservation of uranium ores and U migration processes took place at the deposit, including during the Quaternary. This may be due to the possible reactivation of the hydrodynamic regime in the recent past during partial thawing of the permafrost zone (Paleoklimat…, 2009;Vaks et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(3) inflow of reducing waters through fault zones from the basement (Mashkovtsev et al, 2010;Kochkin et al, 2014); inflow sources of cold carbonic water with pH ~ 5 in the ore-bearing horizons (Kochkin et al, 2017a). Taking into account these features of the KhOF, two stages are distinguished in the development of its ore-forming system: the first is infiltration ore formation with the involvement of meteoric oxygen-containing waters; the second is conservation of uranium ores (Kochkin et al 2017b).…”

Section: Geology Of the Depositmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Post-Ore Processes of Uranium Migration in the Sandstone-Hosted Type Deposits: 234U/238U, 238U/235U and U–Pb Systematics of Ores of the Namaru Deposit, Vitim District, Northern Transbaikalia

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess the nature of the post-ore behaviour of uranium in the Namaru deposit (Khiagda ore field), U–Pb isotope systems and the isotopic composition of uranium (234U/238U and 238U/235U) were studied. The studied samples represent different ore zones of the deposit and were collected along cross-sections both vertically and horizontally. Wide variations in the isotopic composition of uranium and U–Pb isotopic age have been established. Deviations of the 234U/238U ratio from equilibrium values, which for some samples exceed 50%, along with significant variations in the isotopic age, indicate that permafrost layer, which covered the catchment areas of paleovalleys with meteoric oxygen-containing waters ca. 2.5 Ma ago, did not lead to preserving uranium ores at the deposit. Uranium migration took place during the Quaternary period. The effective combining the U–Pb dating and 234U/238U data in assessing the post-ore redistribution of uranium made it possible to recognize: removal of uranium from some zones of the ore body and its accompanying redeposition in others. Wide variations in the 238U/235U (137.484–137.851) ratios throughout the entire studied cross-sections can be explained by the different locations of samples relatively to the ore deposition front and change in redox conditions as this front advanced. Depletion of the light isotope 235U in the lower zone of the ore body may be associated with the influence of ascending carbonic waters established in the regional basement. The effect of such waters on uranium-bearing rocks causes predominant leaching of light 235U.

show abstract

Paleochannel Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposits of Vitim Ore Region

Doynikova

2021

Uranous Mineralogy of Hypergene Reduction Region

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polygenetic and polychronic uranium mineralization at deposits of the Khiagda ore field, Buryatia

Cited by 15 publications

References 7 publications

Litho‐mineralogy, geochemistry, and chronology for the genesis of the Kamust sandstone‐hosted uranium deposit, Junggar Basin, NW China

Litho‐mineralogy, geochemistry, and chronology for the genesis of the Kamust sandstone‐hosted uranium deposit, Junggar Basin, NW China

Post-Ore Processes of Uranium Migration in the Sandstone-Hosted Type Deposits: 234U/238U, 238U/235U and U–Pb Systematics of Ores of the Namaru Deposit, Vitim District, Northern Transbaikalia

Paleochannel Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposits of Vitim Ore Region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About