Uranium deposits of the world. Asia / Месторождения урана в мире. Азия

A variety of global and regional classifi cation schemes for uranium deposits have been proposed in the past by a number of geoscientists including Heinrich (1958), Roubault (1958), Ruzicka (1971), Ziegler (1974), Mickle and Mathews (1978), Mathews et al. (1979), Nash et al. (1981), Barthel et al. (1986), Dahlkamp (1989, 1993), McKay and Miezitis (2001) mainly for deposits in the western hemisphere and by Kazansky and Laverov (1977), Boitsov (1989, 1996), Stoikov and Bojkov (1991), Petrov et al. (1995, 2000), Mashkovtsev et al. (1997), Terentiev and Naumov (1997), and others for deposits in CIS (former Soviet Union) and associated countries.Although these classifi cation schemes remain largely valid, more recent information on uranium deposits, particularly in the former eastern block countries and new research data on earlier established and defi ned types of uranium deposits justify a rearrangement and refi nement of the classifi cation scheme, which is presented further below in abbreviated form.
Th e classifi cation chapter is not restricted to types of economic deposits but includes types with marginal to no economic potential as well. Knowledge of these types are thought to be equally important as economic types, particularly in exploration, in order to recognize and understand criteria typical for subeconomic mineralization ranging in size from small mineralogical showings to almost economic occurrences in order to comprehend somewhat similar economic deposits and their parameters. While many authors in the western hemisphere prefer a descriptive, typological classifi cation with emphasis on geological setting and ore characteristics, authors of the CIS (former Soviet Union) and associated countries as well as China based their deposit classifi cation systems primarily on metallogenetic aspects (unfortunately oft en without furnishing type examples of deposits, which hampers the matching of deposit types of the two systems) <...>