Том 58, № 2 (2016)

Seven main ore-forming systems—porphyry and epithermal; orogenic related to granitic intrusions; magmatic ultramafic; volcanic-hosted massive sulfide and volcanic–sedimentary; sedimentary basins; related to alkaline magmatic activity; and placers and weathering mantles—are sources of high-tech critical metals. The following promising types of ore deposits containing high-tech critical metals as by-products are recognized: Cu–Mo porphyry, Fe–Cu–Au and Pb–Zn skarn, base-metal epithermal, volcanic-hosted massive sulfide, base-metal stratiform, various tin deposits, and placers containing rare metals including REE. The mineral resources of critical metals in Russia are compared with those known in other countries. The contents of high-tech critical metals in ores of some noble-metal deposits of the Russian Northeast are reported. It is shown that the subsurface of Russia possesses considerable mineral resource potential for hightech critical metals, which allows new enterprises to be created or production of operating enterprises to increase.

The Zhaima gold–sulfide deposit is located in the northwestern part of the West Kalba gold belt in eastern Kazakhstan. The mineralization is hosted in Lower Carboniferous volcanic and carbonate rocks formed under conditions of marginal-sea and island-arc volcanic activity. The paper considers the mineralogy and geochemistry of primary gold–sulfide ore and Au-bearing weathering crusts. Au-bearing arsenopyrite–pyrite mineralization formed during only one productive stage. Disseminated, stringer–disseminated, and massive rocks are enriched in Ti, Cr, V, Cu, and Ni, which correspond to the mafic profile of basement. The main ores minerals are represented by finely acicular arsenopyrite containing Au (up to few tens of ppm) and cubic and pentagonal dodecahedral pyrite with sporadic submicroscopic inclusions of native gold. The sulfur isotopic composition of sulfides is close to that of the meteoritic standard (δ³⁴S =–0.2 to +0.2). The ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar age of three sericite samples from ore veinlets corresponds to the Early Permian: 279 ± 3.3, 275.6 ± 2.9, and 272.2 ± 2.9 Ma. The mantle source of sulfur, ore geochemistry, and spatial compatibility of mineralization with basic dikes allow us to speak about the existence of deep fluid–magmatic systems apparently conjugate with the Tarim plume.

The uranium deposits of Bulgaria related to the Late Alpine tectonomagmatic reactivation are subdivided into two groups: exogenic–epigenetic paleovalley deposits related to the basins filled with upper Eocene–lower Oligocene volcanic–sedimentary rocks and the hydrothermal deposits hosted in the coeval depressions. The geological and lithofacies conditions of their localization, the epigenetic alteration of rocks, mineralogy and geochemistry of uranium ore are exemplified in thoroughly studied paleovalley deposits of the Maritsa ore district. Argumentation of the genetic concepts providing insights into both sedimentation–diagenetic and exogenic–epigenetic mineralization with development of stratal oxidation zones is discussed. A new exfiltration model has been proposed to explain the origin of the aforementioned deposits on the basis of additional analysis with consideration of archival factual data and possible causes of specific ningyoite uranium ore composition.