Trap Magmatism and Ore Formation in the Siberian Noril'sk Region

Ryabov, V.V.; Shevko, A.Ya.; Gora, M. P.

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6881-9

Cited by 26 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, both types of these rocks fall in the area of subalkaline basalts in the diagram SiO 2 vs Na 2 O + K 2 O, similar to the rocks of the Ivakinsky formation [15][16][17][29][30][31].…”

Section: Major Componentsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…To compare the studied rocks with typical rocks of the Ergalakh complex from the Kharaelakh trough and the Norilsk complex (the Norilsk 1 intrusion), we constrain series diagrams that demonstrate the behavior of major oxides during the crystallization reflected in MgO variations ( Figure 6). Table S1 and Table 1; Norilsk 1 intrusion-unpublished authors' data, the Ergalakh data from the Kharaelakh trough-are from [16], Ergalakh (Ryabov)-data from the Ergalakh intrusion in the Norilsk trough [17].…”

Section: Major Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Geochemistry and Geochronology of Southern Norilsk Intrusions, SW Siberian Traps

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Norilsk ore region is characterized by the occurrence of numerous intrusions comprising the PGE–Cu–Ni deposits. The Turumakit area, within the Southern Norilsk Trough, also contains many mineralized mafic intrusions of probably similar economic potential to the known Norilsk deposits. We study igneous rocks from three boreholes within the Turumakit area, sampling gabbro-dolerites and trachydolerites related to the Norilsk and Ergalakh complexes, as well as an outcrop of the Daldykan gabbro-dolerite intrusion. Our petrographical, mineralogical and geochemical data, as well as the U–Pb dating of extracted baddeleyites and zircons, primarily discriminate between the sub-alkaline rocks of the main Turumakit area and the Ergalakh trachydolerites located in the Norilsk and Talnakh ore junctions. Coarser grained Turumakit trachydolerites (with pegmatite segregations) contrast finer grained Ergalakh trachydolerites by having: (1) higher TiO2 (up to 5.5 wt %) compared with 2.2 wt %–3.3 wt % in the typical Ergalakh rocks; (2) low U, lower La/Yb and La/Sm ratios (5–7), in contrast to 8–10 ppm, 2.5–2.6 and 3.0–3.3, respectively, for the Ergalakh trachydolerites; and (3) their age was determined by U–Pb methods on baddeleyite and zircon (244.8 ± 2.7 Ma), and it appears likely that the mafic rocks traditionally attributed to the Ergalakh complex within the Turumakit area are younger than the Norilsk intrusions (250 ± 1.4 Ma). These data strongly indicate an emplacement of Turumakit intrusions during the end of a ~5 Myr magmatic evolution of the Norilsk district. It is therefore proposed that the sub-alkaline rocks of the Turumakit area belong to a separate intrusive complex within the Norilsk district.

show abstract

Section: Major Componentsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Major Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geochemistry and Geochronology of Southern Norilsk Intrusions, SW Siberian Traps

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The petrography, geochemistry and mineralogy of volcanic rocks has been presented in numerous publications [9,14,25,31,[34][35][36][37][38][39][60][61][62]. The rock texture changes from aphyric to porphyric and glomeroporphyric.…”

Section: Volcanic Rocks Of the Siberian Traps Provincementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second model of the deposits origin suggests that ores were formed in a closed magmatic system. Although many geologists [4,[7][8][9]14,43,68,118,119] advocated a closed magmatic system, the greatest contribution to this model was made by Likhachev [5][6][7]45]. This hypothesis supposes a differentiation of primary mantle magma enriched in sulfides before its emplacement in the modern chamber.…”

Section: Analysis Of the Noril'sk Deposits Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are two widespread models of the sulfide ore origin in the Noril'sk area suggesting ore formation either in closed or in open magmatic system. The first hypothesis suggests that the sulfides were transported by magma from deep zones of the crust or mantle into the shallow chamber where they formed a disseminated and massive ore [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. The second model proposes the sulfide formation in situ due to the long-term flow of magma to the surface and its interactions with surrounding rocks, in particular, the evaporates that provided a source of sulfur [10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unique PGE–Cu–Ni Noril’sk Deposits, Siberian Trap Province: Magmatic and Tectonic Factors in Their Origin

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The unique and very large PGE–Cu–Ni Noril’sk deposits are located within the Siberian trap province, posing a number of questions about the relationship between the ore-forming process and the magmatism that produced the traps. A successful answer to these questions could greatly increase the possibility of discovering new deposits in flood basalt provinces elsewhere. In this contribution, we present new data on volcanic stratigraphy and geochemistry of the magmatic rocks in the key regions of the Siberian trap province (Noril’sk, Taimyr, Maymecha-Kotuy, Kulyumber, Lower Tunguska and Angara) and analyze the structure of the north part of the province. The magmatic rocks of the Arctic zone are characterized by variable MgO (3.6–37.2 wt %) and TiO2 (0.8–3.9 wt %) contents, Gd/Yb (1.4–6.3) and La/Sm (2.0–10.4) ratios, and a large range of isotopic compositions. The intrusions in the center of the Tunguska syneclise and Angara syncline have much less variable compositions and correspond to a “typical trap” with MgO of 5.6–7.2 wt %, TiO2 of 1.0–1.6 wt %, Gd/Yb ratio of 1.4–1.6 and La/Sm ratio of 2.0–3.5. This compositional diversity of magmas in the Arctic zone is consistent with their emplacement within the paleo-rift zones. Ore-bearing intrusions (the Noril’sk 1, Talnakh, Kharaelakh) are deep-situated in the Igarka-Noril’sk rift zone, which has three branches, namely the Bolsheavamsky, Dyupkunsky, and Lower Tunguska, that are prospected for discovering new deposits. One possible explanation for the specific position of the PGE–Cu–Ni deposits is accumulation of sulfides in these long-lived zones from the Neoproterozoic to the Mesozoic era during magmatic and metamorphic processes. Thus, trap magmatism, itself, does not produce large deposits, but mobilizes earlier formed sulfide segregations in addition carrying metals in the original magmas. These deposits are the results of several successive magmatic events, in which emplacement of the traps was the final event.

show abstract

Introduction: Formulation of the Problem and Its Urgency

Krivolutskaya

2016

Siberian Traps and Pt-Cu-Ni Deposits in the Noril’sk Area

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trap Magmatism and Ore Formation in the Siberian Noril'sk Region

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Geochemistry and Geochronology of Southern Norilsk Intrusions, SW Siberian Traps

Geochemistry and Geochronology of Southern Norilsk Intrusions, SW Siberian Traps

Unique PGE–Cu–Ni Noril’sk Deposits, Siberian Trap Province: Magmatic and Tectonic Factors in Their Origin

Introduction: Formulation of the Problem and Its Urgency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About