Typology of uranium deposits / Типология урановых месторождений

A number of global and regional classifications of uranium deposits have been proposed in the past by Heinrich (1958), Ruzicka (1971), Ziegler (1974), Kazansky and Laverov (1977), Mickle and Mathews (1978), Mathews et al. (1979), Dahlkamp (1980), Nash et al. (1981), Barthel et al. (1986), and others. Although they remain in principle valid, recently published descriptions of uranium deposits discovered during the past exploration boom, and new research data on earlier established and defined types of uranium deposits justify a rearrangement and refinement of the classification scheme. Many open questions still exist with respect to specific provenance of the ore forming uranium and solutions, the conditions of uranium mobilization, transport and redeposition, and repetitive redistribution in many cases. Therefore a classification scheme based purely on metallogenetic criteria does not appear feasible. Instead, for all practical purposes, a typology based more on descriptive data has been given preference here. The principal recognition criteria used for the identification and definition of the individual types and subtypes of deposits include particularly lithologic and structural relationships, alteration, mineralogy, paragenesis, age constraints, and spatial geotectonic distribution of deposits. According to the chosen system, the terminology selected for types and subtypes refers primarily to the geotectonic setting or host environment of the discussed type <...>