Genesis of the Katugin rare-metal ore deposit: Magmatism versus metasomatism

Abstract

Arguments in favor of magmatic or metasomatic genesis of the Katugin rare-metal ore deposit are discussed. The geological and mineralogical features of the deposit confirm its magmatic origin: (1) the shape of the ore-bearing massif and location of various types of granites (biotite, biotite–amphibole, amphibole, and amphibole–aegirine); (2) the geochemical properties of the massif rocks corresponding to A type granite (high alkali content (up to 12.3% Na₂O + K₂O), extremely high FeO/MgO ratio (f = 0.96–1.00), very high content of the most incoherent elements (Rb, Li, Y, Zr, Hf, Ta, Nb, Th, U, Zn, Ga, and REE) and F, and low concentrations of Ca, Mg, Al, P, Ba, and Sr); (3) Fe–F-rich rock-forming minerals; (4) no previously proposed metasomatic zoning and regular replacement of rock-forming minerals corresponding to infiltration fronts of metasomatism. The similar ages of the barren (2066 ± 6 Ma) and ore-bearing (2055 ± 7 Ma) granites along with the features of the ore mineralization speak in favor of the origin of the ore at the magmatic stage of the massif’s evolution. The nature of the ore occurrence and the relationships between the ore minerals support their crystallization from F-rich aluminosilicate melt and also under melt liquation into aluminosilicate and fluoride (and/or aluminofluoride) fractions.