Ore-Bearing Magmatic Systems with Complex Sn–Au–Ag Mineralization in the North-Eastern Verkhoyansk–Kolyma Orogenic Belt, Russia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
minerals Article Ore-Bearing Magmatic Systems with Complex Sn–Au–Ag Mineralization in the North-Eastern Verkhoyansk–Kolyma Orogenic Belt, Russia Vera A. Trunilina * and Andrei V. Prokopiev Diamond and Precious Metal Geology Institute, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Lenin Av. 39, 677980 Yakutsk, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +7-914-101-6992 Abstract: This paper reports the results of a study of magmatic rocks with Sn–W–Au–Ag mineraliza- tion from the Kuranakh, Elikchan, and Istekh ore fields in the Northern batholith belt of the north- eastern Verkhoyansk–Kolyma orogenic belt in Eastern Russia. Using petrographic, mineralogical, geochemical, and isotopic methods, we determined the mineral compositions, petrochemistry, and geochemistry of magmatic rocks, the P–T conditions of their generation and crystallization, and their geodynamic affinity. The studied magmatic rocks have common geochemical characteristics that likely reflect the influence of fluids supplied from a long-lived, deep-seated mantle source. The ore fields are characterized by Sn–W–Au–Ag–Pb polygenetic mineralization. The magmatic and metallogenic evolution comprised five stages for the formation of magmatic rocks and ores. During the first stage (Berriasian–Barremian), arc-related magmatic rocks formed in an active continental margin setting and were associated with Au–Ag mineralization. The second, third, and fourth stages (Aptian–Campanian) took place in a crustal extension and rift setting, and were accompanied by Citation: Trunilina, V.A.; Prokopiev, Au–Ag and Sn–W mineralization. During the fifth (post-magmatic) stage, Sn–Ag–Sb and Pb–Ag A.V. Ore-Bearing Magmatic Systems with Complex Sn–Au–Ag mineralization occurred. Mineralization in the North-Eastern Verkhoyansk–Kolyma Orogenic Belt, Keywords: petrography; mineralogy and geochemistry of magmatic rocks; ore mineralization; Russia. Minerals 2021, 11, 266. Verkhoyansk–Kolyma orogenic belt https://doi.org/10.3390/min11030266 Academic Editors: Fernando Noronha and Jaroslav Dostal 1. Introduction In the northern Verkhoyansk–Kolyma orogenic belt (NE Asia), two major metallogenic Received: 16 January 2021 belts are recognized: the Yana-Kolyma and North-Verkhoyansk. Their principal metals Accepted: 1 March 2021 are tin and gold [1,2] (Figure1). The largest high-tonnage Sn deposits are concentrated in Published: 4 March 2021 the north-eastern part of the orogenic belt, including those of Deputatskoye, Churpunya, Polyarnoye, and Odinokoye (North-Verkhoyansk metallogenic belt). Many of these de- Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral posits have complex metallogenic characteristics, with Sn most commonly accompanied with regard to jurisdictional claims in by W, Pb, Zn, Bi, Sb, and less commonly, Ag and Au. Such deposits are known in Alaska, published maps and institutional affil- Erzgebirge (Germany), Spain, Kazakhstan, Australia, and Bolivia, where tin mineralization iations. occurs in association with Au, W, Bi, As, and Sb [3]. The origin of the deposits is gener- ally associated with the emplacement of granitoids. Flerov [4] identified the following stanniferous formations in the Verkhoyansk–Kolyma orogenic belt: batholith-like gran- ites with associated cassiterite–quartz, greisen and skarn deposits, as well as Sn-bearing Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. pegmatite deposits; diorite–granodiorite–granites with cassiterite–silicate–sulphide and Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Sn–polymetallic deposits; and subvolcanic granites with greisen and cassiterite–silicate This article is an open access article mineralization. In addition to these, Mitrofanov [5] recognized a tin porphyry formation distributed under the terms and associated with subvolcanic intrusions accompanied by explosive breccias. However, conditions of the Creative Commons despite various studies of tin metallogeny, there is no consensus regarding the genesis Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ of parental granitoid melts, the evolution of these melts, and the sources of metals. The 4.0/). granitoids are considered to have been derived from crustal, mantle, and crustal–mantle Minerals 2021, 11, 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11030266 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals Minerals 2021, 11, 266 2 of 29 melts [6–11]. The polygenetic nature of the ore–magmatic systems, that is, their formation as a result of the existence of magma chambers at different depths, is an important indicator of their high levels of mineralization [12,13]. High Sn content and the presence of cassiterite, native tin, and its intermetallic compounds in basaltic melt derivatives have been noted by many studies [14–18]. Thus, the available data allow the consideration of deep-level melts as one of the possible sources of tin and associated metals. According to Efremov [19], the metallogenic profile of granitoids is controlled mainly by the composition of magma chambers in the metasomatized mantle, whereas the formation of tin-bearing granitoids is related to the mixing of deep-seated melts and continental crust material. However, most researchers have identified crustal strata as the main source of tin, and consider that tin-bearing magmatic complexes form by the interaction of mantle and upper-crustal melts, although mantle-level heat flows and fluids initiate magma generation in the crust, leading to the fractionation of ores [20–22]. Figure 1. Tectonic map of the north-eastern Verkhoyansk–Kolyma orogenic belt, modified from [1,2]. Minerals 2021, 11, 266 3 of 29 Primary gold deposits can be subdivided into orogenic, epithermal, and intrusion- related deposits [23–25]. Goryachev and Pirajno [26] proposed an expansion of this classi- fication by adding detailed systematics of Phanerozoic orogenic gold mineralization, in accordance with the mineralogical–geochemical features of the ores. Goryachev [27] recog- nized three types of orogenic gold mineralization in the Verkhoyansk–Kolyma orogenic belt: Au–sulphide, veinlet-disseminated; Au–quartz, veined; and Au–Bi (gold–rare-metal). All types of deposits and occurrences are hosted in Permian–Jurassic clastic rocks within and near granitoid plutons. A somewhat different classification has been proposed by Khanchuk [28]: Au–Ag–quartz deposits associated with intrusions of various composi- tions; Au–rare-metal deposits accompanying granodiorite and granite intrusions; and Au–sulphide mineralization spatially associated with monzonite and granite intrusions. Au–Ag epithermal deposits are associated with volcanic rocks and subvolcanic plutons of andesite–rhyolite composition. Current explanations for the genesis of gold mineralization are as diverse as those for tin deposits, including from largely crustal [29] to largely mantle (for a number of Au–Hg– Sb and Ag–Sb deposits) [30] origins, to the currently favored mantle–crustal genesis [31,32]. Borisenko et al. [33] concluded that the formation of large Au–sulphide deposits in North Asia involved multiple stages of ore-deposition, magmatism, and polygenetic source rocks for the ore materials, as in the case of large Sn deposits. The sources of the melts were reworked crustal substrata and juvenile material, which served to enrich the crust with gold [25]. The aim of this study was to obtain new information about the genesis of complex tin deposits and associated gold mineralization in the north-eastern Verkhoyansk–Kolyma orogenic belt, by investigating the structurally complex ore fields of Kuranakh, Elikchan, and Istekh as case studies. 2. Methods We established the internal structure of magmatic rock units, their relationship with one another, and their relationship with ore bodies. All types of magmatic rocks and ore zones present in the studied deposits were sampled for analytical investigation (more than 200 samples were sampled). The petrography of granitoid massifs and dykes in the ore fields was studied using an Olympus optical microscope (Leica, Germany), allow- ing conclusions to be drawn regarding the crystallization and evolutionary paths of the contributing melts. The composition of rock-forming and accessory minerals was studied using the Camebax-micro x-ray microanalyzer (Cameca, Courbevoie, France) and a Jeol JSM-6480LV scanning microscope (JEOL, Tokyo, Japan). Complete whole-rock geochemical analyses and quantitative spectral and inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP–MS) analyses of element contents in ores were performed, followed by mathematical processing of the data using the CGDkit, Igpet, and PetroExplorer software [34–36]. On this basis, we determined the generation and crystallization conditions of the melts and identified potential ore-bearing units. Feldspars were studied using optical methods with a Fedorov universal stage (the Fedorov method) [37], allowing the determination of zoning patterns and structural or- dering of minerals. The Fedorov method involves determining the shape and orientation of the optical indicatrix in a crystal. The degree of structural (or crystal) ordering (SO) is defined as the amount of deviation of the real (observed) spatial lattice of a crystal from the ideal (theoretical) spatial lattice, with this deviation decreasing with increasing temperature [38,39]. All analyses, with the exception of ICP–MS, were conducted at the Diamond and Precious Metal Geology Institute (DPMGI) of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yakutsk, Russia. Chemical compositions of the rocks were determined using conventional wet-chemistry