افق های کانه دار، رخساره های کانسنگ، کانی شناسی، ژئوشیمی و الگوی تشکیل کانسار سولفید توده ای آتشفشان زاد (VMS) باریت- سرب- مس ورندان، جنوب غرب قمصر
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Varandan Ba-Pb-Cu deposits are located15 km southwest of the town of Qamsar and approximately 7 km south west of the Qazaan village, in the Urumieh- Dokhtar magmatic arc. The Kashan region that is situated in west-central Iran hosts several barite-base metal deposits and occurrences, the biggest ones are the Varandan Ba-Pb-Cu (case considered in this study) and the Tapeh-Sorkh (Khalajmaasomi et al., 2010) and Dorreh Ba (Nazari, 1994) deposits. Previous researchers (Izadi, 1996; Farokhpey et al., 2010) have proposed an epithermal model for formation of the Varandan deposit. However, based on some feature of the deposit, it seems that this genetic model may not be correct. Therefore, it is necessary to do more precise research studies on the deposit. The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the genesis of the Varandan deposit based on geological, ore facies, mineralogy, wall rock alterations, and geochemical studies. Materials and methods A field study and sampling was performed during the summer of 2013. To assess the geochemical characteristics of the deposit, about 17 systematic samples from different ore facies of the first, second and third sub-horizon were collected for petrography and mineralogy, and for inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy(ICP-AES), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) geochemical analysis methods. The microscopic studies were done in the optics laboratory of the Shahrood University, and the geochemical analyzes were conducted in laboratories of the Center of Research and Mineral Processing Ore Minerals of Iran, Karaj, Iran. Results The host sequence in the Varandan deposit involves three units, from bottom to top: Unit1: grey, green siliceous tuff, brecciated tuff, crystal tuff and andesite; Unit2: white grey nummulitic limestone, limy tuff and marl: and Unit3: tuff breccia and crystal lithic tuff. Mineralization in the Varandan deposit has occurred as four ore sub-horizons in Unit1, as lenticular to tabular ore bodies concordant to layering of the host rocks. Based on textural, structural and mineralogical studies, the Varandan deposit consists of five ore facieses including: 1) veins-veinlets (stringer zone) that involves cross-cuting barite, quartz and sulfide veins-veinlets, 2) brecciated barite and massive pyrite (vent complex zone) involving replacement texture, 3) massive barite and sulfide (massive zone), 4) alternations of barite- and galena- rich bands (Bedded-banded zone) and; 5) iron-manganese-bearing hydrothermal-exhalative sediments. Primary ore minerals are barite, galena, chalcopyrite, pyrite, sphalerite, tetrahedrite, magnetite, oligiste, braunite, pyrolusite and bornite, accompanied with secondary minerals such as native copper, cuprite, digenite, covellite, chalcosite, goethite, hematite and malachite. Gangue minerals consist of chlorite, sericite, quartz and calcite. Major wall rock alterations in the deposit are chloritic and quartz- sericitic. For determining the type of ore of the Varandan deposit, the Cu/Zn ratio for the barite and sulfide ore of the first, second and third sub-horizon are 1.08, 0.12 and 11.08, respectively. This lies in the yellow ore for the first and third sub-horizon, and it falls in the black ore for the second sub-. Discussion According to the basic characteristics of mineralization such as geometry of ore bodies, textures and structures, ore facies, wall rock alterations, mineralogy, fluid inclusions data, metal zonation and geochemical features, the Varandan deposit could be classified as a bimodal-felsic or Kuroko-type voclanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposit, similar to those of the Hokuroko basin in Japan (Ohmoto and Skinner, 1983; Hoy, 1995, Huston et al., 2011). The Varandan deposit has been formed in an intra-arc setting due to subduction of the Neo-Tethyan oceanic crust beneath the Iranian plate during the Middle Eocene. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the Grant Commission for research funding of Iranian Mines and Mining Industries Development and Renovation Organization (IMIDRO) and the University of Shahrood. References Farokhpey, H., Shamsi-Poor, R. and Nasre-Esfahani, A. 2010. Economic petrology of granitoid Ghazaan: study of metal deposit. The Conference on Applied Petrology, Khorasgan Azad university, Tehran, Iran. Hoy, T., 1995. Noranda/kuroko Massive Sulphide Cu-Zn deposits. In: D.V. Lefebure and G.E. Ray (Editors), Selected British Colombia Mineral deposit Profiles, volum 1- Metallics and Coal. British Columbia Ministry of Energy of Employment and Investment open file, Canada, pp. 53-54. Huston, D., Relvas, J., Gemmell, J.B. and Drieberg, S., 2011. The role of granites in volcanic-hosted massive sulphide ore-forming systems: an assessment of magmatic-hydrothermal contributions.Journal of Mineralium Deposita, 46(5-6): 473-507. Izadi, H., 1996. Geology, petrografy and genises of Ba-Pb Kashan Ghamsar Ghazaan. M.Sc. thesis, Khorasgan Azad university, Tehran, Iran. 160 pp. Khalajmaasomi, M., Lotfi, M. and Nazari, M., 2010. Tapeh-Sorkh Mine mineralization model designation Bijegan-Delijan Central Province. Journal of Land and Resources, 1(2): 33-43. (in Persian) Nazari, M., 1994. Study of mineralogy and ore genesis Dorreh deposit in the Kashan. M.Sc. Thesis, Tarbiat-moallem University, Tehran, Iran, 147 pp. (in Persian with English abstract) Ohmoto, H. and Skinner, B.L., 1983. The Kuroko and related volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits: Introduction and summary of new findings. In: H. Ohmoto and B.J. Skinner (Editors), Kuroko and Related Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide Deposits. Economic Geology, Canada, pp. 1-8.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".