Next Article in Journal
Characterization of Mineralogical Species in a Copper Concentrate After Acid Pretreatment
Previous Article in Journal
Ore Genesis of the Huanggang Iron-Tin-Polymetallic Deposit, Inner Mongolia: Constraints from Fluid Inclusions, H–O–C Isotopes, and U-Pb Dating of Garnet and Zircon
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/min15050519
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Characteristics of Ore-Bearing Tectono-Stratigraphic Zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai Folded System at the Current Stage of Study

by
Eleonora Y. Seitmuratova
1,
Yalkunzhan K. Arshamov
2,*,
Diyas O. Dautbekov
1,
Moldir A. Mashrapova
1,
Nurgali S. Shadiyev
1,
Ansagan Dauletuly
1,*,
Saltanat Bakdauletkyzy
1 and
Tauassar K. Karimbekov
1
1
Institute of Geological Sciences of K.I. Satpayev, Kabanbay Batyr 69, Almaty 050010, Kazakhstan
2
Geology and Oil-Gas Business Institute Named After K. Turyssov, Satbayev University, Satbayev 22a, Almaty 050013, Kazakhstan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2025, 15(5), 519; https://doi.org/10.3390/min15050519
Submission received: 26 March 2025 / Revised: 5 May 2025 / Accepted: 9 May 2025 / Published: 14 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Mineral Exploration Methods and Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study analyzes the ore potential of the tectono-stratigraphic zones in the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system using metallogenic diagrams. These diagrams condense extensive geological and metallogenic data, illustrating stratified and intrusive formations, formation types, depositional environments, and ore loads in chronological sequence. The analysis highlights variations in ore mineralization intensity across the zones, identifying both highly and less ore-bearing areas. Most zones show polymetallic mineralization with 2 to 12 types of minerals; gold and copper are present in all zones. Temporal analysis identified key productive levels in the Late Ordovician, Early Silurian, and Early Devonian, corresponding to active stages of island arcs, forearc and backarc basins, and the Devonian volcanic–plutonic belt. The structures of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system are classified as island-arc structures of active continental margins. Comparing the ore potential of its tectono-stratigraphic zones with similar modern structures shows that, except for the Maikain zone, all others have significantly lower ore potential. The obtained data is most likely a result of the region’s poor exploration coverage. As such, future efforts should prioritize further investigation of the identified mineralization zones. This is evident from the dominance of small, medium, and large deposits, and ore occurrences in all tectono-stratigraphic zones when assessing their ore potential. Preliminary analysis of the ore potential in the tectono-stratigraphic zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system, based on metallogenic diagrams, clearly supports the need for regional and exploration studies. These should focus on poorly explored stratigraphic levels, ore-bearing geological formations, and geodynamic settings that are favorable for deposit formation. This will provide a more accurate assessment of the potential in these zones.

1. Introduction

Mineral resources are crucial to Kazakhstan’s economy, generating up to 70% of GDP and most foreign currency earnings. Expanding and strengthening the mineral resource base remains a top priority for the geological sector. This issue is especially urgent due to the decline in economically significant deposits, caused by extraction outpacing replenishment (Figure 1). A reliable mineral resource base includes both ready-to-develop deposits and promising areas with potential for new discoveries.
Figure 1 highlights the gap between mineral extraction and replenishment, underscoring the need for increased exploration. With easily discoverable deposits largely depleted, exploration now relies on scientifically justified target areas. Regional metallogenic studies, aimed at identifying prospective areas, are now rarely conducted in Kazakhstan due to the assumption that the region is already thoroughly explored. However, survey coverage is highly uneven, with some areas last surveyed in the 1960s and 1970s [1,2,3]. Of the five folded systems in the Kazakh section of the Central Asian Orogenic Belt (Figure 2) [4], the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system has been the least studied metallogenically. The Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system is located between the Zaysan and Junggar–Balkhash Hercynian folded systems. It is linearly elongated, stretching in a northwest direction for nearly 700 km, with a width ranging from 60–80 km to 170–180 km. The distinctiveness of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system lies in the prolonged duration of active magmatic processes, which manifested both during the subduction stage with the formation of an island arc system and during the development of a continental and marginal-continental belt. Notably, the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system lacks exposures of pre-geosynclinal Precambrian metamorphic rocks, suggesting that it originated on oceanic crust, a factor that likely determines its key geological features. This is primarily due to the absence of regional metallogenic studies in recent decades. Such studies are crucial for mineral exploration as they involve metallogenic analysis of systematically compiled geological data and the integration of modern theoretical concepts.
In 2023, the project “Assessment of the Ore Potential of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai Fold System Based on Modern Geotectonic Concepts” was submitted for grant funding through the Ministry of Science of Kazakhstan. It aims to develop a 1:1,500,000-scale metallogenic prospectivity map with ranked target areas to improve exploration efficiency in the region.

2. Materials and Methods

The identification of promising areas relies on objective ore-bearing factors derived from metallogenic studies of the spatial distribution of mineral deposits. Formation analysis has been a key approach in studying these relationships since Shatsky’s work in 1965 [5,6,7,8]. Bilibin Y.A. emphasized its fundamental role in metallogenic research, stating that ‘ore formation is a natural and systematic product of geological history, representing one aspect of the complex evolution of the Earth’s crust’ [5]. The formation approach, which links ore deposit to geological evolution recorded in specific assemblages of geological formations, structural characteristics, and formation conditions, has been a key research focus at the Satbayev Institute of Geological Sciences since its founding by K.I. Satbayev (Almaty, Kazakhstan) [9].
The formational (structural-compositional) method is based on rock composition and structure, which capture the key features of their formation. This approach reliably assesses the ore potential of the study area [6,7,8,9,10]. As data continue to accumulate on the link between deposit types and their geodynamic settings, integrating the formational method with geodynamic analysis has become essential [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Geodynamic reconstructions, based on actualism (analogy-based methods), identify modern geodynamic environments in ancient geological settings. Both approaches are multidisciplinary, incorporating stratigraphy, petrology, tectonics, geochemistry, and geophysics, including deep-crustal structural analysis. In modern research, geological data from any field contribute to metallogenic prediction.
Modern metallogenic studies identify spatial and temporal relationships in the distribution of mineral deposits and determine the conditions of their formation. The delineation of metallogenic units at any scale is based on a set of fundamental factors that control the formation and localization of ore deposits in the Earth’s crust. These factors are referred to as metallogenic or ore-controlling factors. The most commonly considered factors in metallogenic studies include (1) tectonic, (2) structural, (3) magmatic, (4) facies or formational, (5) stratigraphic, (6) lithological, (7) metamorphic, (8) metasomatic, and (9) erosional truncation [5].
Metallogenic diagrams of nine tectono-stratigraphic zones within the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system, mapped during Paleozoic tectono-stratigraphic zoning in Kazakhstan [29], form the core of this study. Metallogenic diagrams are presented as tables detailing the geological and metallogenic characteristics of specific tectono-stratigraphic zones. These tables include lithological and chronological sequences of stratified and intrusive formations, columns classifying their formational types, vertical sequences representing paleoenvironmental conditions during formation, and columns indicating ore mineralization at various scales—from ore occurrences to small, medium, and large deposits—all linked to ore-hosting formations [30].
The study was conducted with reference to numerous methodological guidelines, manuals, and instructions on metallogeny [31,32,33,34,35]. According to these sources, metallogenic research involves the comprehensive collection, analysis, and synthesis of data essential for interpretation and conclusions. This includes geological maps at various scales, mineral resource maps, geophysical field maps, tectonic and remote sensing-derived maps, along with other graphical and textual materials relevant to the region’s geology and metallogeny [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68]. The extensive dataset presented in the metallogenic diagrams serves as an objective foundation for a multifaceted formational-geodynamic analysis of Paleozoic metallogeny within the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system. The compiled up-to-date data on the metallogeny of the tectono-stratigraphic zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system, presented in the final columns of the metallogenic diagrams, allow for an analysis of the patterns of ore occurrence across various aspects.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of ore load in geological formations, derived from these charts (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12), has made it possible to determine their overall and qualitative ore-bearing characteristics, as well as the metallogenic specialization of its tectono-stratigraphic zones (Table 1).
The distribution of ore occurrences across the tectono-stratigraphic zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system (Table 1) indicates widespread polymetallic mineralization, with the exception of the Central Shyngys zone where only two mineralization types have been identified. The highest mineralogical diversity is observed in the Maikain and Ekibastuz–Semizbugy zones, hosting up to 11 and 12 mineralization types, respectively. In contrast, the Abraly and Kosmurun–Akbastau zones exhibit the lowest diversity, with only four and five recognized mineralization types.
As shown in Table 1 and Figure 13, the ore potential of the tectono-stratigraphic zones in the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system is currently highly uneven. The Maikain tectono-stratigraphic zone contains the largest number of mineral occurrences— a total of 150. This high mineralization intensity is primarily due to the abundance of Cu, Ni-Co, Au, Mn, Pb, Zn, Mo, Al, Fe, and Bi mineral showings, as well as numerous small deposits. Relatively high ore potential is observed in the Kindikti tectono-stratigraphic zone (V-2) with 58 occurrences and the Prishyngys tectono-stratigraphic zone (V-9) with 42 occurrences. The significant ore potential of the Maikain tectono-stratigraphic zone (V-3) is attributed to the presence of the Maikain A, B, and C copper-pyrite deposit group and the Alpys gold deposit.
In addition to the aforementioned industrial deposits of the Maikain (V-3), the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system contains other significant deposits: the large Bozshakol copper-porphyry deposit in the Bozshakol, and the pyrite deposits of Akbastau and Kosmurun in the Kosmurun–Akbastau. All these deposits were discovered in the early to mid-20th century.
Against the backdrop of the notably high ore potential of the Maikain (V-3) (150 occurrences), the relatively high potential of the Ekibastuz–Semizbugy (27), Kindikti (58), and Prishyngys (42) stands in contrast to the weaker mineralization observed in the Bozshakol (19) and Kosmurun–Akbastau (21), and the very low potential of the Central Shyngys (7), Abraly (16), and Arkalyk (12).
Data on the metallogenic characteristics of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system tectono-stratigraphic zones (Table 1) also reveal that, with the exception of the Central Shyngys (which exhibits only two types of mineralization), all others display polymetallic mineralization. The Maikain contains up to 11 varieties of ore mineralization, while the Ekibastuz–Semizbugy has up to 12. The least diverse mineralization occurs in the Abraly (4 types) and Kosmurun–Akbastau (5 types).
Despite this diversity, gold and copper mineralization dominate across all tectono-stratigraphic zones. Gold mineralization is predominant in the Bozshakol (9 occurrences), Ekibastuz–Semizbugy (7), Arkalyk (5), Central Shyngys (5), and Abraly (8). Copper mineralization, however, exceeds even gold in the Kindikti (48 occurrences), Maikain (66), Kosmurun–Akbastau (10), and Prishyngys (30), where it is represented by various-scale occurrences.
The ore potential data also define the metallogenic specialization of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system tectono-stratigraphic zones as follows: Bozshakol: gold–copper–chromium; Kendyktin: copper–gold; Maykain: copper–barium–nickel–cobalt-gold; Ekibastuz–Semizbugy: gold–silver–barium–manganese; Arkalyk: gold–copper; Central Shyngys: gold; Abraly: gold–copper; Kosmurun–Akbastau: copper–gold–manganese; Prishyngys: copper–lead–zinc–mercury–gold.
The wide spectrum of ore mineralization in the tectono-stratigraphic zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system, as presented in Table 1, is largely determined by the prolonged duration of their evolution, characterized by intense volcanic and intrusive magmatic activity—particularly during the island arc and active continental margin geodynamic regimes. Additional contributing factors include the heterogeneity of the basement and varying depths of ore-forming sources, as evidenced by the diverse ore mineralization associations that exhibit both mantle-derived (Ni, Co, Cr, Ti, etc.) and crustal (Cu, Au, Mo, Ag, etc.) signatures. However, the origins of this polymetallic mineralization require further investigation.
The observed variations in mineralization intensity among tectono-stratigraphic zones with similar paleoenvironmental formation settings may, at the current research stage, reflect differing levels of metallogenic study coverage across these zones. This finding highlights the need for additional research on the ore potential of tectono-stratigraphic zones with currently low mineralization levels—specifically the Arkalyk (12 occurrences), Central Shyngys (7), and Abraly (16).
Metallogenic diagrams provide further insight into the relative metal endowment of these zones by categorizing ore mineralization according to their scale, from minor ore occurrences to small, medium, and large deposits (Figure 13). In most zones, including Maikain and Kendykti, ore occurrences represent the predominant form of occurrence. However, small deposits are notably more common in the Ekibastuz–Semizbugy (17 occurrences) and Maikain (21) zones, reflecting a higher concentration of economically significant mineralization.
The Maikain tectono-stratigraphic zone hosts the highest concentration of medium-sized deposits (9), most of which belong to the Maikain deposit group and are classified as sulfide-rich Ba-polymetallic deposits. These deposits have been known since the early to mid-20th century, with some now depleted and others remaining in production. Additionally, the medium-sized Kosmurun and Akbastau deposits, discovered in the 20th century, are nearing depletion.
Within the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system, four large deposits have been identified. The Bozshakol Cu-porphyry deposit, which also contains Au and Pt, was discovered in 1932 by R.A. Borukaev and N.G. Kassin; however, large-scale mining did not commence until the early 21st century. The Ekibastuz-Shiderti Co-Ni deposit was mined out between 2000 and 2023. In the Kosmurun–Akbastau zone, the large Abyz (Au, Ag) and Mizek (Au, Cu, Zn) deposits, discovered in the 20th century, are now in the final stages of extraction.
Evaluating the metallogenic evolution of tectono-stratigraphic zones in a temporal framework is critical for mineral exploration. This study examines the distribution of ore deposits and occurrences within the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system, drawing on comprehensive dataset to assess mineralization across geological periods (Table 2). The analysis reveals the following distribution: Early Permian—19, Late Carboniferous—none, Early Carboniferous—56; Late Devonian—51, Middle Devonian—55, Early Devonian—149; Late Silurian—27, Early Silurian—116; Late Ordovician—118, Middle Ordovician—37, Early Ordovician—60; Late Cambrian—65, Middle Cambrian—52, Early Cambrian—59; Early Proterozoic—6, and Late Proterozoic—10.
The quantitative analysis of mineralization distribution across stratigraphic levels in the tectono-stratigraphic zones has clearly identified the most productive intervals within the Paleozoic sequence of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system—Late Ordovician (97 occurrences), Early Silurian (108 occurrences), and Early Devonian (134 occurrences). The nearly complete absence of mineralization in Late Permian, Middle Permian, and Late Carboniferous levels is particularly surprising and difficult to explain, as these stratigraphic levels exhibit widespread intrusive magmatism (typically conducive to ore formation) across all tectono-stratigraphic zones except the Maikain and Abraly, suggesting these levels require further investigation. The mineralization intensity of productive stratigraphic levels varies significantly between zones, with the highest ore potential uniquely concentrated in the Maikain where mineralization persists through nearly the entire stratigraphic column from Lower Proterozoic to Lower Carboniferous inclusive (Table 2). The ore-bearing potential of the productive Early Devonian level, with the exception of the Abraly zone, is manifested in all tectono-stratigraphic zones. The lowest ore content at this level is observed in the Bozshakol zone. In the Kindikti, Maikain, and Arkalyk zones, the Early Devonian level is characterized by significantly higher ore content compared to other stratigraphic levels. In all other tectono-stratigraphic zones, the ore-bearing potential remains quite high. Ore mineralization at the productive Early Silurian level is absent in the Bozshakol and Ekibastuz–Semizbugy zones. The ore-bearing potential of the productive Late Ordovician stratigraphic level is absent in the Bozshakol, Arkalyk, and Prishyngys zones.
Metallogenic analysis of tectono-stratigraphic zones within the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system provides a detailed evaluation of their ore potential at the current stage of exploration. Importantly, this analysis has identified gaps in knowledge—areas that remain underexplored and merit additional study in the next phase of regional metallogenic research.
This is particularly evident in the near-total absence or exceptionally weak mineralization within typically productive geodynamic settings such as island arcs and continental margin volcano–plutonic belts.
In the Bozshakol (V-1) tectono-stratigraphic zone, minimal mineralization has been identified in island arcs (Cambrian II—Early Ordovician) and in the continental-margin volcanic–plutonic belt (Devonian). Aside from the Bozshakol porphyry copper deposit, no other significant deposits or occurrences have been documented
In the Kindikti (V-2) tectono-stratigraphic zone, mineralization is also limited. Aside from the Ayak-Khodzhan copper deposit, only scattered mineralized occurrences have been recorded within formations across various geodynamic settings, including island arcs.
The Maikain (V-3) tectono-stratigraphic zone is the most mineralized, hosting several volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits that are actively mined. In addition, 17 minor deposits have been identified and require further evaluation to assess their economic viability.
The Ekibastuz–Semizbugy (V-4) tectono-stratigraphic zone is considered to have good metallogenic potential due to two large deposits: a coal deposit and a cobalt–nickel deposit. Gold occurrences are widespread, with lesser amounts of silver, cobalt, and nickel.
The Arkalyk (V-5) tectono-stratigraphic zone is still underexplored. Although mineralization occurs throughout the stratigraphic section, it is mainly confined to minor occurrences. Only five medium-sized deposits have been identified, and none are currently being developed. Limited exploration may be partly due to the zone’s location within the Semei Test Site (Soviet nuclear).
The Central Shyngys (V-6) tectono-stratigraphic zone contains three medium-sized deposits, three small deposits, and one minor mineralized occurrence. Apart from the Kelteshat copper deposit, the other occurrences are predominantly gold-bearing.
Both the Abraly (V-7) and Prishyngys (V-9) tectono-stratigraphic zones are characterized by isolated mineralized occurrences. The Abraly zone contains several gold occurrences, while the Prishyngys zone hosts a single medium-sized gold–silver deposit.
The Kosmurun–Akbastau (V-8) tectono-stratigraphic zone hosts two large and three medium-sized deposits, some of which have undergone partial mining. Additional geological exploration is needed to refine resource estimates.

4. Conclusions

The evaluation of ore endowment in the tectono-stratigraphic zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system, considering their metallogenic affinity and the spatial distribution of mineralization in both lateral and vertical dimensions, suggests limited ore potential at the current stage of geological investigation.
Over the past two decades, it has been consistently classified as a classic island-arc system that developed on oceanic crust within the Early to Late Cambrian Kazakhstan-Siberian paleo-oceanic basin [49,54,57,58,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68]. Metallogenic reconstructions indicate that the system underwent a prolonged polycyclic evolution. The structural-lithological complexes reflect distinct paleo-geodynamic settings and stages of crustal evolution within the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system. These include oceanic-stage complexes (oceanic rift zones, forearc and intra-arc basins), island-arc complexes, and continental-margin volcanic–plutonic belts. The primary paleo-geodynamic regimes of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system developed over ~170 million years. Early Paleozoic structures, including island arcs and a forearc basin with oceanic crust, formed during the Cambrian and Early Ordovician. Ensimatic island arcs dominated during the Cambrian to Early Ordovician, whereas ensialic orogeny prevailed in the Middle to Late Ordovician. In the Middle to Late Paleozoic, continental-margin volcanic–plutonic belts became the dominant structures [49,57,64].
The tectonic settings of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system parallel those of modern analogs. This similarity provides a robust framework for evaluating the metallogenic potential of its tectono-stratigraphic zones by comparing them to contemporary systems which are well known for their significant metal endowment setting [11,12,35,56,57,58,61,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. As Mitchell and Garson (1972) note in Global Tectonic Position of Mineral Deposits, ‘in terms of the number of mineral deposits per unit area, magmatic arcs likely surpass any other tectonic setting’ [18].
Preliminary data indicate that the mineral endowment of the tectono-stratigraphic zones within the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system is significantly lower than that of comparable modern tectonic settings. The Maikain tectono-stratigraphic zone may be an exception. This overall low prospectivity is likely due to the region’s limited exploration history rather than a fundamental lack of mineralization. A preliminary metallogenic assessment, based on the analysis of the metallogenic diagrams, has identified key research priorities for regional-scale metallogenic investigations. Addressing these priorities will be essential for refining the economic potential of ore systems within the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.Y.S.; software, D.O.D., M.A.M., A.D. and T.K.K.; formal analysis, Y.K.A. and S.B.; investigation, E.Y.S.; resources, E.Y.S., D.O.D., Y.K.A., N.S.S., A.D. and T.K.K.; visualization, D.O.D. and M.A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.Y.S.; writing—review and editing, E.Y.S., D.O.D. and N.S.S.; supervision, E.Y.S.; project administration, E.Y.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan, AP23485553 “Assessing the economic potential of ore mineralization in the Shingys-Tarbagatai fold system within modern tectonic concepts” (2024–2026).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Geology of the Chingiz Geoanticlinor Zone (Central Kazakhstan); Science: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1962; 168p.
  2. Zhautikov, T.M.; Polyansky, N.V.; Titov, V.I. Geology and Metallogeny of the Chingiz-Tarbagatai Megaanticlinorium; Science: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1977; 158p. [Google Scholar]
  3. Mikhailov, N.P.; Khisamutdinov, M.G.; Belyaev, A.A. Geological Formations and Metallogeny of the Chingiz-Tarbagatai Fold System; Nedra: Leningrad, Russia, 1981; 223p. [Google Scholar]
  4. Abdullin, A.A. Geology of Kazakhstan; Science of the KazSSR: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1981; 311p. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bilibin, Y.A. Metallogenic Provinces and Metallogenic Epochs; Gosgeoltekhizdat: Moscow, Russia, 1955; 88p. [Google Scholar]
  6. Rundqvist, L. (Ed.) Ore-Bearing and Geological Formations of the Earth’s Crust Structures; Nedra: Leningrad, Russia, 1981; 423p. [Google Scholar]
  7. Belyaev, A.A.; Khisamutdinov, M.G. Dependence of the type of pyrite-polymetallic deposits on the composition of ore-bearing volcanogenic formations. Geol. Geophys. 1978, 4, 57–62. [Google Scholar]
  8. Filatov, E.I.; Shiryai, E.P. Formation analysis as a basis for predictive metallogenic studies. Domest. Geol. 1995, 5, 338. [Google Scholar]
  9. Metallogeny of Kazakhstan. Metallogenic Complexes and Patterns of Their Manifestation; Kayupov, A.K., Lyapichev, G.F., Eds.; Science of the Kazakh SSR: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1983; 208p. [Google Scholar]
  10. Guild, P.W. Metallogeny: The key to exploration. Min. Eng. 1971, 1, 68–71. [Google Scholar]
  11. Mazurov, A.K. Geodynamic Conditions of the Formation of Metallogenic Complexes in Kazakhstan. Ph.D. Thesis, Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia, 2003; 43p. [Google Scholar]
  12. Volcanic Belts of East Asia. Geology and Metallogeny; Shcheglov, A.D., Ed.; Science: Moscow, Russia, 1984; 504p. [Google Scholar]
  13. Heinhorst, J.; Lehmann, B.; Ermolov, P.; Serykh, V.; Zhurtin, S. Growth of the Paleozoic crust and metallogeny of Central Asia: Data from the magmatic-hydrothermal ore system of Central Kazakhstan. Tectonophysics 2000, 328, 69–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hollister, W.F. Evaluation of the nature and sources of porphyry copper deposits. Miner. Sci. Eng. 1975, 7, 225–233. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ishihara, S. Metallogenesis in the Japanese island-arc system. J. Geol. Soc. 1978, 135, 389–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lowell, J.D. Regional features of porphyry copper deposits in the Southwest. Econ. Geol. 1974, 69, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Routier, P. A new approach to metallogenic provinces: The example of Europe. Econ. Geol. 1976, 71, 803–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mitchell, A.H.G.; Garson, M.S. Mineral Deposits and Global Tectonic Settings; Mir: Moscow, Russia, 1984; 496p. [Google Scholar]
  19. Frolova, T.I.; Burikova, I.A. Magmatic Formations of Modern Geotectonic Settings; Moscow State University Publishing House: Moscow, Russia, 1997; 320p. [Google Scholar]
  20. Buallo, G. Geology of Continental Margins; Mir: Moscow, Russia, 1985; 160p. [Google Scholar]
  21. Schultz, S.S.; Ergashev, S.E.; Gvozdev, V.A. Geodynamic Reconstructions. Methodical Manual; VNIIG: Leningrad, Russia, 1991; 144p. [Google Scholar]
  22. Study of Various Volcanic Associations of Geodynamic Settings of Island Arcs. Methodical Recommendations; VSEGEI: St. Petersburg, Russia, 1994; 68p. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kenneth, J.P. Convergents or active continental margins. Mar. Geol. 1987, 1, 341–382. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lyapichev, G.F.; Seitmuratova, E.Y. Evolution of magmatism in Kazakhstan and possible geodynamic settings of their formation. Geol. Kazakhstan 1998, 4, 38–56. [Google Scholar]
  25. Miyashiro, A.; Aki, K.; Shenger, A.J. Orogenesis; Mir: Moscow, Russia, 1985; 286p. [Google Scholar]
  26. Abramovich, I.I.; Geltman, L.S.; Zasev, V.G. (Eds.) Petrochemical Studies in Geodynamic Reconstructions (Methodological Recommendations); VSEGEI: Leningrad, Russia, 1991; 99p. [Google Scholar]
  27. Khvorova, I.V. Deposits of island-arc systems. Lithol. Useful Miner. 1987, 6, 3–19. [Google Scholar]
  28. Abramovich, I.I.; Burde, A.I.; Voznesensky, V.D.; Zubarev, S.E.; Klushin, I.G.; Klyushkin, A.V.; Kuzmin, M.I.; Kuteinikov, E.S.; Kuteinikova, N.S.; Mezhelovsky, N.V.; et al. Geodynamic Reconstructions (Methodological Manual for Regional Geological Studies); Nedra: Leningrad, Russia, 1989; 278p. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lyapichev, G.F.; Seitmuratova, E.Y. Tectono-stratigraphic zoning of the Paleozoides of Kazakhstan. Geol. Kazakhstan 1995, 5–6, 52–58. [Google Scholar]
  30. Seitmuratova, E.Y.; Goryaeva, V.S.; Baratov, R.T.; Dautbekov, D.O.; Berdina, L.E. Metallogenograms are the shortest and most objective way to identify new promising areas for prospecting for mineral deposits. In Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference “Bekzhanov Readings” Scientific, Technological and Information Support for Assessing the Subsoil of Kazakhstan, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 19–20 September 2019; pp. 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  31. Shcheglov, A.D. Fundamentals of Metallogenic Analysis; Nedra: Moscow, Russia, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  32. Starostin, V.I. Metallogeny; KDU: Moscow, Russia, 2012; 559p. [Google Scholar]
  33. Krivtsov, A.I. Applied Metallogeny; Nedra: Moscow, Russia, 1981; 279p. [Google Scholar]
  34. Fundamentals of Metallogenic Analysis in Geological Mapping; Geokart: Moscow, Russia, 1995; 468p.
  35. Sillitoe, R.H. South American Porphyry Copper Deposits and New Global Tectonics; Collection of Scientific Papers. Latin American Geology; Geological Society of Peru: Lima, Peru, 1970; pp. 254–256. [Google Scholar]
  36. Borukaev, R.A. History of tectonic development of the Chingiz geoanticlinal zone. Bull. Acad. Sci. Kazakh SSR Geol. Ser. 1961, 3, 33–60. [Google Scholar]
  37. Azerbaev, N.A. Lithological and facial features of Lower-Middle Cambrian deposits, zoning and stages of development of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai island arc. Izv. Natl. Acad. Sci. Repub. Kazakhstan. Ser. Geol. 2007, 1, 5–16. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zvontsov, V.S.; Frid, N.M. Early Paleozoic of the North-Eastern Pre-Chingizye and Western Tarbagatai. News Acad. Sci. Kazakh SSR Geol. Ser. 1991, 4, 23–42. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kaipov, A.D.; Kayupov, A.K. Ordovician Volcanism and Copper-Pyrite Mineralization of the Akbastau-Kusmurun Ore Field; Nauka: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1971; 189p. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lyalin, Y.I.; Miller, E.E.; Nikitina, L.G. Volcanogenic Formations of the Chingiz Geoanticlinorium (Central Kazakhstan); Science: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1964; 168p. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lyapichev, G.F. Pre-Paleozoic and Cambrian Intrusive Complexes of the Boshchekul Region (North-Eastern Kazakhstan); Academy of Sciences of the KazSSR: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1955; 136p. [Google Scholar]
  42. Igneous Complexes of Kazakhstan. Chingiz-Tarbagatai Fold System; Science: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1982; 168p. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nikitin, I.F. Ordovician of Kazakhstan. Part I. Stratigraphy; Science: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1972; 244p. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bandaletov, S.M. Silur of Kazakhstan; Science: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1969; 210p. [Google Scholar]
  45. Polyansky, N.V. On the structure and evolution of the earth’s crust of Eastern Kazakhstan. Geol. Kazakhstan 1999, 4, 12–23. [Google Scholar]
  46. Samygin, S.G.; Kheraskova, T.N. Formations and sedimentation environments within the early Paleozoic active margin (Chingiz Range, Central Kazakhstan). Lithol. Useful Miner. 1994, 3, 86–102. [Google Scholar]
  47. Samygin, S.G. Chingiz Shift and Its Role in the Structure of Central Kazakhstan; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1974; 208p. [Google Scholar]
  48. Khromykh, B.F. Geological Structure and Development of the Caledonides of the Boshchekul Region (Central Kazakhstan). Ph.D. Thesis, IGN AN KazSSSR, Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1988; 22p. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yakubchuk, A.S.; Degtyarev, K.E. On the nature of the junction of the Chingiz and Boshchekul directions in the Caledonides of the northeast of Central Kazakhstan. Rep. Acad. Sci. SSSR 1991, 317, 957–962. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tectonics of Kazakhstan. Explanatory Note to the Tectonic Map of East Kazakhstan Scale 1:2,500,000; Peive, A.B., Massakovsky, A.A., Eds.; Science: Moscow, Russia, 1982; 138p. [Google Scholar]
  51. Geological Map of the Kazakh SSR. Scale 1:500,000; East Kazakhstan Series; Explanatory Note; Ministry of Geology of the Kazakh SSR: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1979; 182p. [Google Scholar]
  52. Pre-Paleozoic and Paleozoic of Kazakhstan. V.1. Stratigraphy of Pre-Paleozoic, Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian of Kazakhstan; Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 1974; 276p.
  53. Apollonov, M.K. On the formational series of the Caledonides of Eastern Kazakhstan. Proc. IGS Acad. Sci. Kazakh SSR 1971, 2, 45–51. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mossakovsky, A.A.; Ruzhentsev, S.V.; Samygin, S.G.; Kheraskova, T.N. Central Asian fold belt: Geodynamic evolution and history of formation. Geotectonics 1993, 6, 3–32. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ergaliev, G.K.; Myasnikov, A.K.; Nikitin, I.F.; Polyansky, N.V.; Sergeeva, L.V.; Sergieva, M.N.; Salmenova, L.T.; Utegulov, M.T.; Tsai, D.T.; Shuzhanov, V.M. New data on the Paleozoic of the Semipalatinsk test site. Geol. Kazakhstan 1998, 4, 11–32. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ergaliev, G.K.; Myasnikov, A.K.; Fomichev, V.I. Ore-bearing levels in the paleozoids of the Semipalatinsk test site. In Minerageny and Prospects for the Development of the Raw Material Base; Part 1; Institute of Geological Sciences: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 1999; pp. 140–150. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lyubetskiy, V.N.; Lyubetskaya, L.D. Geodynamics, deep structure and metallogeny of Kazakhstan. Geol. Kazakhstan 2002, 6, 4–17. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ismailov, H.K.; Vypolzov, V.L.; Vasyukov, Y.A.; Evdokimov, I.V. Geology and useful minerals of the Semipalatinsk test site. Geol. Prot. Miner. Resour. 2002, 2, 8–10. [Google Scholar]
  59. Nikitchenko, I.I.; Uzhkenov, B.S. (Eds.) Mineral Resources of Kazakhstan: Explanatory Note to the Map of Mineral Resources of Kazakhstan at a scale of 1:1,000,000; The Committee of Geology and Subsoil Use: Kokshetau, Kazakhstan, 2002; 188p. [Google Scholar]
  60. Seitmuratova, E.Y. Late Caledonian Granitoids of the Chingiz-Tarbagatai Megaanticlinorium. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Geological Sciences, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 1984; 281p. [Google Scholar]
  61. Seitmuratova, E.Y.; Magretova, L.I.; Zhukov, P.K. Geological formations and metallogenic specialization of volcanic belts of the Paleozoides of Kazakhstan in the light of new data. In Geology of Kazakhstan; Proceedings of the XXXII International Geological Congress, Florence, Italy, 20–28 August 2004; Kazakhstan Geological Society: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2004; pp. 125–137. [Google Scholar]
  62. Novikova, M.Z.; Gerasimova, N.A.; Kurkovskaya, L.A.; Stepanets, V.G.; Yakubchuk, A.S. Stratigraphy of the Lower Paleozoic volcanogenic-siliceous strata of the Maykain-Kyzyltas ophiolite belt (Central Kazakhstan). Bull. MOIP Dept. Geol. 1993, 6, 47–63. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ergaliev, G.K.; Vasyukov, Y.A.; Klepikov, N.A.; Azerbaev, N.A.; Pirogova, T.E. Stratigraphy of the Cambrian of the Arkalyk zone of the Shyngyz-Tarbagatai folded system. In Status, Prospects and Tasks of Stratigraphy of Kazakhstan; Institute of Geological Sciences of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2002; pp. 47–49. [Google Scholar]
  64. Degtyarev, K.E. Tectonic Evolution of the Early Paleozoic Active Margin in Kazakhstan; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1999; 123p. [Google Scholar]
  65. Yakubchuk, A.S. Metallurgy of Gold in the Geodynamics of Central Asia; Lomonosov Moscow State University: Moscow, Russia, 2023; 179p. [Google Scholar]
  66. Magretova, L.I. Lower Paleozoic igneous complexes of the northern part of the Ermentau and Bozshakol anticlinorium (northeast of Central Kazakhstan). Bull. NAS RK Geol. Ser. 2003, 1, 32–51. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ryazantsev, A.V. Structural zoning of Lower Paleozoic complexes in the Boshchekul island-arc system in the northeast of Central Kazakhstan. In Essays on Regional Tectonics; Kazakhstan, T.S., Polar, U., Eds.; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 2005; Volume 2, pp. 5–39. [Google Scholar]
  68. Stetsyura, M.M. Cambrian Volcanism of the Shyngyz-Tarbagatai Folded System; IGS named after. K.I. Satbayev: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, 2007; 27p. [Google Scholar]
  69. Shcheglov, A.D. Ore Formations of the Far East Volcano-Plutonic Belts (Genetic Types and Distribution Patterns); Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1989; 229p. [Google Scholar]
  70. Nekrasov, E.M. Promising Types of Foreign Epithermal Gold Deposits. Geological Exploration Methods. Prospecting and Evaluation of Metallic Mineral Deposits; Review: Moscow, Russia, 1991; 48p. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sillitoe, R.H. Exploration and discovery of base- and precious-metal deposits in the circum-Pacific region during the last 25 years. Resour. Geol. Spec. Issue 1995, 19, 119. [Google Scholar]
  72. Hedenguist, J.W. Epithermal Gold Deposits: Styles, Characteristics, and Exploration. SEG Newsl. 1995, 23, 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  73. Shilo, N.A. Volcanic belts and their gold-silver mineralization. Smirnovsky collection-1997. In Main Problems of Ore Formation and Metallogeny; Fond Akademika Smirnova: Moscow, Russia, 1997; pp. 38–74. [Google Scholar]
  74. Seitmuratova, E.Y. Gold content of the Late Paleozoic volcanic-plutonic belts of the Jungar-Balkhash province. Geol. Razved. Nedr Kaz. 1998, 2, 13–24. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sillitoe, R.H. Exploration and discovery of base- and precious-metal deposits in the circum-Pacific region a late 1990s update. Resour. Geol. Spec. Issue 2000, 21, 65. [Google Scholar]
  76. Goncharev, V.I.; Buryak, V.A.; Goryachev, N.A. Large-volume gold and silver deposits in volcanic belts. Earth Sci. 2002, 387, 678–680. [Google Scholar]
  77. Khomich, V.G. On the metallogeny of gold and silver in the Okhotsk-Chukotka volcanic belt. Pac. Geol. 2008, 27, 119–126. [Google Scholar]
  78. Narseev, V.A.; Shashkin, V.M. Strategic direction for development of precious metals mining (problem of large-volume deposits). Geol. Miner. Resour. Manag. 2012, 1, 2–5. [Google Scholar]
Minerals 15 00519 g001
Figure 1. A histogram of the ratio of production and replenishment in accordance with the distribution of investment funds for production and geological exploration over the past 10–15 years.
Figure 1. A histogram of the ratio of production and replenishment in accordance with the distribution of investment funds for production and geological exploration over the past 10–15 years.
Minerals 15 00519 g001
Minerals 15 00519 g002
Figure 2. (A) Tectono-stratigraphic zoning scheme of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system; (B) position of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system within the Kazakh Paleozoic Orogen [4].
Figure 2. (A) Tectono-stratigraphic zoning scheme of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system; (B) position of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system within the Kazakh Paleozoic Orogen [4].
Minerals 15 00519 g002
Minerals 15 00519 g003
Figure 3. Metallogenic diagram of the Bozshakol tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Figure 3. Metallogenic diagram of the Bozshakol tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Minerals 15 00519 g003
Minerals 15 00519 g004
Figure 4. Conventional symbols for metallogenic diagrams.
Figure 4. Conventional symbols for metallogenic diagrams.
Minerals 15 00519 g004
Minerals 15 00519 g005
Figure 5. Metallogenic diagram of the Kindikti tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Figure 5. Metallogenic diagram of the Kindikti tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Minerals 15 00519 g005
Minerals 15 00519 g006
Figure 6. Metallogenic diagram of the Maikain tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Figure 6. Metallogenic diagram of the Maikain tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Minerals 15 00519 g006
Minerals 15 00519 g007
Figure 7. Metallogenic diagram of the Ekibastuz–Semizbugy tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Figure 7. Metallogenic diagram of the Ekibastuz–Semizbugy tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Minerals 15 00519 g007
Minerals 15 00519 g008
Figure 8. Metallogenic diagram of the Arkalyk tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Figure 8. Metallogenic diagram of the Arkalyk tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Minerals 15 00519 g008
Minerals 15 00519 g009
Figure 9. Metallogenic diagram of the Central Shyngys-Tarbagatai tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Figure 9. Metallogenic diagram of the Central Shyngys-Tarbagatai tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Minerals 15 00519 g009
Minerals 15 00519 g010
Figure 10. Metallogenic diagram of the Abralin tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Figure 10. Metallogenic diagram of the Abralin tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Minerals 15 00519 g010
Minerals 15 00519 g011
Figure 11. Metallogenic diagram of the Kosmurun–Akbastau tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Figure 11. Metallogenic diagram of the Kosmurun–Akbastau tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Minerals 15 00519 g011
Minerals 15 00519 g012
Figure 12. Metallogenic diagram of the Prishyngys tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Figure 12. Metallogenic diagram of the Prishyngys tectono-stratigraphic zone.
Minerals 15 00519 g012
Minerals 15 00519 g013
Figure 13. Distribution of ore occurrences of different ranks in the tectono-stratigraphic zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system at the current level of ore potential study. Indexes of the SFZ: V-1—Bozshakol; V-2—Kindikti; V-3—Maikain; V-4—Ekibastuz–Semizbugy; V-5—Arkalyk; V-6—Central Shyngys; V-7—Abraly; V-8—Kosmurun–Akbastau; V-9—Prishyngys.
Figure 13. Distribution of ore occurrences of different ranks in the tectono-stratigraphic zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system at the current level of ore potential study. Indexes of the SFZ: V-1—Bozshakol; V-2—Kindikti; V-3—Maikain; V-4—Ekibastuz–Semizbugy; V-5—Arkalyk; V-6—Central Shyngys; V-7—Abraly; V-8—Kosmurun–Akbastau; V-9—Prishyngys.
Minerals 15 00519 g013
Table 1. Ore potential of the tectono-stratigraphic zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system V (V-1–V-9) and their metallogenic specialization.
Table 1. Ore potential of the tectono-stratigraphic zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system V (V-1–V-9) and their metallogenic specialization.
Names of Tectono-Stratigraphic Zones The Intensity of Ore Potential in SFZ Based on the Number of Ore Mineralization Occurrences of Different Ranks (L.D.—Large Deposit, M.D.—Medium Deposit, S.D.—Small Deposit, O.O.—Ore Occurrence)The Number of Ore Deposits.Metallogenic
Specialization
Bozshakol V-1Au (S.D.-6, O.O.-3), Cu (L.D.-1, M.D.-1, O.O.-4), Cr (M.D.-1, O.O.-1), Mn (O.O.-1), Ni, Co (O.O.-1)19Gold–copper–chrome.
Kindikti V-2Cu (S.D.-1, O.O.-47), Au (S.D.-1, O.O.-5), Ni, Co (O.O.-2), Mn (O.O.-1), Mo (O.O.-1).58Copper–gold
Maikain V-3Cu (S.D.-6, O.O.-60), Ba (M.D.-5, S.D.-5), Ni, Co (M.D.-3, S.D.-3, O.O.-19), Au (S.D.-4, O.O.-24), Mn (S.D.-2, O.O.-7), Pb, Zn (M.D.-1, O.O.-4), Mo (S.D.-1, O.O.-1), Al (O.O.-2), Fe (O.O.-2), Bi (O.O.-1).150Copper–barium–nickel–cobalt–gold.
Ekibastuz–Semizbugy V-4Au (M.D.-1, S.D.-6), Ni, Co (L.D.-1, S.D.-1), Mn (S.D.-3), Ba (S.D.-3), Ag (S.D.-1, O.O.-5), Cr (O.O.-2), Al (S.D.-1), W (S.D.-1), Be (S.D.-1), Pb, Zn (O.O.-1).27Gold–silver–barium–manganese.
Arkalyk V-5Au (M.D.-1, S.D.-2), Cu (M.D.-1, S.D.-1, O.O.-3), Pb, Zn (M.D.-1), Be (M.D.-1), Ti, Zr (S.D.-1), Ag (O.O.-1).12Gold–copper
Central Shyngys V-6Au (M.D.-2, S.D.-2, O.O.-1), Cu (M.D.-1, S.D.-1).7Gold
Abraly V-7Au (S.D.-4, O.O.-4), Mn (M.D.-1), Cu (O.O.-5), Ag (O.O.-2).16Gold–copper
Kosmurun–Akbastau V-8Cu (M.D.-2, S.D.-3, O.O.-5), Au (L.D.-2), Mn (O.O.-7), Ag (S.D.-1), Mo (O.O.-1).21Copper–gold–manganese.
Prishyngys V-9Cu (S.D.-2, O.O.-28), Au (M.D.-1, S.D.-1), Pb, Zn (O.O.-5), Hg (O.O.-2), Fe (O.O.-1), Nb (O.O.-1), Ni, Co (O.O.-1).42Copper–lead–zinc–mercury–gold
Table 2. The intensity of ore potential in the tectono-stratigraphic zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system by stratolevels in numerical expression.
Table 2. The intensity of ore potential in the tectono-stratigraphic zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai folded system by stratolevels in numerical expression.
StratolevelsTotal Ore Potential IntensityTectono-Stratigraphic Zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai Folded System and the Number of Ore Occurrences of Different Ranks Within Them
Bozshakol
(V-1)		Kindikti
(V-2)		Maikain
(V-3)		Ekibastuz–Semizbugy (V-4)Arkalyk
(V-5)		Central Shyngys (V-6)Abraly
(V-7)		Kosmurun–Akbastau (V-8)Prishyngys
(V-9)
PermianLopingian0
Guadalupian0
Cisuralian12 5 × 1 = 57 × 1 = 7
CarboniferousPennsylvanian0
Mississippian401 × 1 = 1 5 × 2 + 1 × 9 = 195 × 3 = 155 × 1 = 5
DevonianUpper41 1 × 10 = 105 + 1 × 4 = 95 + 1 × 4 = 91 × 1 = 1 7 × 1 = 75 × 1 = 5
Middle55 1 × 9 = 91 × 12 = 125 × 3 = 151 × 1 = 1 1 × 2 = 25 × 1 = 57 + 1 × 4 = 11
Lower1345 × 1 = 55 + 1 × 16 = 225 × 4 + 1 × 17 = 375 × 2 = 107 × 3 = 217 × 1 = 7 15 × 1 = 155 + 1 × 12 = 17
SilurianWenlock32X 5 × 3 + 1 × 3 = 181 × 1 = 11 × 1 = 17 × 1 = 7 5 × 1 = 5
Llandovery108X1 × 15 = 155 × 2 + 1 × 20 = 30 5 + 1 = 67 + 5 = 125 + 1 × 3 = 87 + 1 × 4 = 115 + 1 × 21 = 26
OrdovicianUpper97 1 × 6 = 61 × 27 = 277 + 5 × 2 + 1 = 18X5 × 1 = 57 × 1 = 715 + 7 + 5 × 2 + 1 × 2 = 34
Middle375 × 2 + 1 × 2 = 125 × 1 = 55 × 1 = 55 × 2 = 10X 5 × 1 = 5
Lower555 × 2 = 10 7 + 5 × 2 + 1 × 2 = 195 × 2 = 105 × 1 = 5 5 × 2 = 10 1 × 1 = 1
CambrianFurongian35XX7 × 5 = 35X X
Miaolingian221 × 3 = 3X5 × 3 = 15X 1 × 4 = 4 X
Series 25815 + 7 + 1 = 23X7 + 5 × 3 = 221 × 2 = 25 × 1 = 55 + 1 = 6 X
Terreneuvian577 + 5 + 1 × 3 = 15X5 × 2 + 1 × 10 = 2015 + 5 = 20 1 × 2 = 2XX
ProterozoicMesoproterozoic10XX1 × 10 = 10X
Paleoproterozoic6 1 × 6 = 6
O.O.-12621056120841111338
S.D.-56562231743443
M.D.-7212 7143121
L.D.-1541 1 2
Total79969672841155237387760
The intensity of ore potential for different-ranked ore occurrences in numerical expression: Ore occurrences—1; small deposits—5; medium deposits—7; large deposits—15; no sediments—X.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Seitmuratova, E.Y.; Arshamov, Y.K.; Dautbekov, D.O.; Mashrapova, M.A.; Shadiyev, N.S.; Dauletuly, A.; Bakdauletkyzy, S.; Karimbekov, T.K. Characteristics of Ore-Bearing Tectono-Stratigraphic Zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai Folded System at the Current Stage of Study. Minerals 2025, 15, 519. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15050519

AMA Style

Seitmuratova EY, Arshamov YK, Dautbekov DO, Mashrapova MA, Shadiyev NS, Dauletuly A, Bakdauletkyzy S, Karimbekov TK. Characteristics of Ore-Bearing Tectono-Stratigraphic Zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai Folded System at the Current Stage of Study. Minerals. 2025; 15(5):519. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15050519

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seitmuratova, Eleonora Y., Yalkunzhan K. Arshamov, Diyas O. Dautbekov, Moldir A. Mashrapova, Nurgali S. Shadiyev, Ansagan Dauletuly, Saltanat Bakdauletkyzy, and Tauassar K. Karimbekov. 2025. "Characteristics of Ore-Bearing Tectono-Stratigraphic Zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai Folded System at the Current Stage of Study" Minerals 15, no. 5: 519. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15050519

APA Style

Seitmuratova, E. Y., Arshamov, Y. K., Dautbekov, D. O., Mashrapova, M. A., Shadiyev, N. S., Dauletuly, A., Bakdauletkyzy, S., & Karimbekov, T. K. (2025). Characteristics of Ore-Bearing Tectono-Stratigraphic Zones of the Shyngys-Tarbagatai Folded System at the Current Stage of Study. Minerals, 15(5), 519. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15050519

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop