Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the 

Haji-Gak Iron Deposit

By David M. Sutphin, Karine M. Renaud, and Lawrence J. Drew

Abstract

The Haji-Gak iron deposit of eastern Bamyan Province, eastern Afghanistan, was studied 

extensively and resource calculations made in the 1960s by Afghan and Russian geologists. 

Recalculation of the resource estimates verifies the original estimates for categories A (in-place 

resources known in detail), B (in-place resources known in moderate detail), and C1 (in-place resources 

estimated on sparse data), totaling 110.8 million metric tons, or about 6 percent of the resources as being 

supportable for the methods used in the 1960s. C2 (based on a loose exploration grid with little data) 

resources are based on one ore grade from one drill hole, and P2 (prognosis) resources are based on field 

observations, field measurements, and an ore grade derived from averaging grades from three better 

sampled ore bodies. C2 and P2 resources are 1,659.1 million metric tons or about 94 percent of the total 

resources in the deposit. The vast P2 resources have not been drilled or sampled to confirm their extent 

or quality. The purpose of this report is to independently evaluate the resources of the Haji-Gak iron 

deposit by using the available geologic and mineral resource information including geologic maps and 

cross sections, sampling data, and the analog estimating techniques of the 1960s to determine the size 

and tenor of the deposit. 

7D.1 Description of the Deposit

7D.1.1 Location

The Haji-Gak iron deposit in eastern Bamyan Province (fig. 7D–1) is about 100 kilometers (km) 

west of Kabul in the Turkman Mountains, which may be an extreme western extension of the great 

Hindu Kush range that exceeds 7,700 meters (m) in elevation in Pakistan (Bouladon and de Lapparent, 

1975). The approximate center of the deposit is at latitude 34.683 N. and longitude 68.088 E., but iron 

mineralization is said to extend discontinuously in an east-west belt over 600 km through central 

Afghanistan (Afghanistan Geological Survey, undated; Orris and Bliss, 2002; Peters, 2007). The best 

known and best exposed iron-oxide deposit in Afghanistan, Haji-Gak, forms the crest of Kohe Qarkh, 

the roughly 3,840-m high peak near the center of the deposit. It can be seen for tens of kilometers when 

viewed from the south. The focus of this study is the approximately 11-km-long northeast-trending 

exposure roughly centered at Kohe Qarkh (fig. 7D–2). Close-up images of the Haji-Gak iron deposit are 

available in Peters and others (2007) and Renaud and others (2011a). 

7D.1.2 Exploration

Exploration of the Haji-Gak iron deposit is reportedly extensive (Peters, 2007), but the only 

available sample data from the deposits came from four drill holes, several trenches and shafts, and an 

adit (Kusov and others, 1965b). Soviet and Afghan scientists sampled, mapped, and studied the HajiGak iron deposit in the mid-1960s and produced geologic maps and resource estimates that after almost 

50 years are still the definitive work on the deposit and provide the most often cited resource values 
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 571

(Kusov and others, 1965b; Orris and Bliss, 2002; Peters, 2007). Most of this summary is a translation of 

that nearly 50-year-old work that was completed before many modern concepts of ore genesis, plate 

tectonics, and radiometric age dating became commonplace.

Figure 7D–1. Panoramic view of part of the Haji-Gak iron deposit as seen from the southeast. (Original 

photographs by Jeff Doebrich, U.S. Geological Survey, 2006)

Figure 7D–2.

Geochemical stream-sediment exploration was done throughout the Haji-Gak area (Peters, 2007). In 

1972, a Franco-German group made a feasibility study on the deposit. This study suggested the 

construction of a blast furnace near the deposit, as coking coal is available from the nearby Dar-i-Suf 

district (Afghanistan Geological Survey, undated). Afghan, German, French, and Russian feasibility 

studies made on the deposit also have been completed (Afghanistan Geological and Mineral Survey, 

1967; DEMAG, 1974; Venot-Pic, 1974). In early 2011 it was speculated that a mining company would 

build a railroad to transport raw ore northward out of Afghanistan (U.S. Departments of State and 

Defense, 2011). Other iron occurrences have not been extensively explored as Haji-Gak.

Map of the Haji-Gak iron deposit in Eastern Afghanistan (after Renaud and others, 2011a,b).

In 2006, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessment team visited the area briefly, took 

photographs, and collected grab samples (Peters, 2007; Jeff Doebrich, February 2, 2006, written 

commun.). A flurry of intense interest in Haji-Gak is expected in 2011 and beyond, despite security 

concerns, because the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has invited 22 companies from such countries as 
572 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

Canada, China, India, and the United Kingdom to bid for the right to mine iron at the deposit (Robinson 

and Shalizi, 2011). 

7D.1.3 Geology

Kusov and others (1965b) detailed the geology of the Haji-Gak iron deposit and the surrounding 

area, and the British Geological Survey and the Afghanistan Geological Survey have updated the 

stratigraphic nomenclature (Afghanistan Geological Survey, undated). The Haji-Gak deposit is part of 

the iron-mineralized zone that occurs discontinuously in a 600-km-long east-west belt from Herat to the 

Panjsher River. At Haji-Gak, the iron mineralization1

 occurs within the Herat fault-zone in 

subconcordant sheets and lenses within Proterozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks 

(Afghanistan Geological Survey, undated).

7D.1.3.1 Stratigraphy at the Haji-Gak Deposit

The basement rocks of the Haji-Gak deposit are the Mesoproterozoic Jawkol Formation, which 

consists of gray silicified limestones and dolomites (probably marbles) interbedded with dark-gray 

crystalline schists and light-colored quartzites metamorphosed to amphibolite facies (Afghanistan 

Geological Survey, undated). The Neoproterozoic Kab Formation unconformably overlies the Jawkol 

Formation, which consists of dark-gray sericitic schists, interpreted as metamorphosed terrigenous 

sedimentary rocks, felsic volcanic rocks, minor marbles and phyllites, and lenses of altered volcanic 

rocks (Kusov and others, 1965b; Afghanistan Geological Survey, undated). Figure 7D–3 shows the 

stratigraphy at the Haji-Gak iron deposit. 

Neoproterozoic rocks of the Awband Formation were deposited conformably on the Kab Formation. 

The Awband Formation consists of schists, dolomitic and calcitic marbles, and sericitic quartzites 

containing interbeds of volcanic rocks. These rocks have been metamorphosed to greenschist facies. The 

Haji-Gak iron deposit consists of a series of folded and faulted iron-rich lenses. The lenses have been

altered and contain cross-cutting iron veins. The iron-bearing rocks have been widely seritized and 

silicified (Kusov and others, 1965b). The Neoproterozoic Green Schist Formation was deposited 

conformably on the Awband Formation. It consists of greenschists (metamorphosed volcanic tuffs) 

(Afghanistan Geological Survey, undated).

Upper Devonian sedimentary rocks of the Haji-Gak Formation disconformably overlie the Green 

Schist Formation. The Haji-Gak Formation consists of limestones, conglomerates, sandstones, and 

pelitic schists containing a fauna of Upper Devonian brachiopods and corals (Kusov and others, 1965b). 

It is faulted against the Green Schist Formation (Afghanistan Geological Survey, undated). Resting on 

the Haji-Gak Formation are the sedimentary rocks of the Upper Carboniferous Horzar Formation, a 

sequence of pelitic schists, quartz-rich schists, sandstones, quartzites, and conglomerates. In the 

southwest part of the area, Lower Cretaceous and younger cover rocks lie unconformably on the older 

rocks. The lower section of the Lower Cretaceous rocks consists of red conglomerates, sandstones, and 

limestones. The Neogene rocks are gently dipping beds of red conglomerates and sandstones (Kusov 

and others, 1965b). The uppermost of these younger deposits are, in part, the talus or scree deposits of 

fragmental iron-mineralized rocks that has been eroded from the in-situ iron deposit. 

 

1

In the 1960s study of the Haji-Gak deposits, Kusov and others (1965b) used the term "ore" to define any rock that was 

thought to have iron mineralization. In that study, "ore blocks" were located in "ore bodies," and "ore" was designated as in 

A, B, C1, C2, fragmental, and P2 "ore categories." In this paper on the same deposit, the term "ore" is restricted to material 

containing iron mineralization in sufficient quantity and grade and chemical combination as to make extraction commercially 

profitable (Thrush and others, 1968). Instead of "ore," the terms "mineralized material," "mineralized rock," and "resources"

are used.
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 573

Figure 7D–3. Stratigraphy at the Haji-Gak iron deposit, central Afghanistan (Afghanistan Geological Survey, 

undated; as modified from Kusov and others, 1965b). 

7D.1.3.2 Plutonic Rocks

The area of the Haji-Gak iron deposit is known for its complex magmatic activity that extended over 

a long time period and includes both plutonic and volcanic rocks. The volcanic rocks are briefly covered 

in the descriptions of the stratigraphy. 

Kusov and others (1965b) divided the plutonic rocks into five types; 1) serpentine, that occurs in thin 

(up to 5 m) dikes and sills in the Jawkol Formation and consists of green schistose fine-grained rocks; 2) 

diabases that occur as hypabyssal intrusions up to 1 km in diameter and are commonly found among the 

Paleozoic rocks in the region. Kusov and others (1965b) suggests that the diabases and serpentines were 

emplaced starting sometime after the Early Carboniferous and before the end of the Triassic or the 

beginning of the Jurassic as mafic and ultramafic magmatism ended and granitic magmatism began. 3) 

Granitic plutons are common in the region where they cut Upper Triassic deposits and are overlain by 

Middle Jurassic deposits. 4) Small granitoids occur in small massifs and stocks of plagiogranites, 

granodiorites, quartz diorites, and quartz diorite porphyries as much as 600 m wide by 2,000 m long. 

The granites and the small granitoid plutons may have had the same source as the granitoid magmatic 

complex (Kusov and others, 1965b). 5) The last plutonic rock type, alkaline rocks, occurs as sparse thin 

dikes and veins of keratophyres and stock-like bodies of metasomatic carbonatites as much as 300 m in 

diameter. They appear to have been emplaced somewhat later or simultaneously with the small 

granitoids. 
574 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

7D.1.4 Structural Geology

The structural geology of the Haji-Gak deposit is described in detail in Kusov and others (1965b) 

and summarized in chapter 7A of this report. This section is condensed from those works. 

The rocks of the Haji-Gak iron deposit form a large monocline, which coincides with the south limb 

of a larger anticlinorium. The monocline in turn contains smaller folds and fractures. The mineralized 

bodies are conformable with the host rocks and with the folded structure of the entire region. The rocks 

in the deposit strike northeast and dip steeply to the southeast. 

The eastern part of the deposit contains small-scale isoclinal, locally recumbent, folds. Faults in the 

eastern part are brittle. The central part of the deposit consists of the Awband and Green Schist 

Formations and is composed of rocks, such as iron minerals, schists, quartzite, marble, and volcanic 

rocks and alkaline plutonic rocks, which have contrasting physical characteristics. That contrast played a 

major role in the intense faulting and folding seen in this section. There are small symmetric and 

asymmetric folds, often overturned and recumbent. The schists are kink-banded. The bodies of iron 

mineralization are fractured parallel to cleavage. Banded mineralized material in the deposit is sheared 

and marked by cleavage parallel to the schistosity. In the western part of the deposit the rocks are 

deformed, especially near faults, but not as much as those rocks in the central part. The carbonate rocks 

of the western part are fractured and contain horse-tail fractures.

Faults in the Haji-Gak area are transverse, diagonal, and occasionally parallel to the bedding and 

schistosity. The faults vary from large to small, and consist of strike-slip dip-slip faults, thrust faults, 

normal faults, and shear faults along cleavage. Normal faults are present in the mineralized bodies and 

on the contacts between the bodies and host rocks. The displacement varies from 1 to a few meters and 

in places as much as 10 m. These faults usually are splays from the larger faults.

In general, Kusov and others (1965b) recognized that the Haji-Gak iron deposit has been folded and 

is confined to the limb of a monocline, which was refolded and fractured. An early period of folding was 

interpreted by Kusov and others (1965b) to have occurred at the end of the Triassic and the beginning of 

the Jurassic during the Cimmerian Orogeny. Another period of folding probably occurred in the 

Paleogene during the Alpine Orogeny, and the area is tectonically active today (Kusov and others, 

1965b). 

7D.1.4.1 Mineralized Rock

Kusov and others (1965b) identified 16 bodies (1–16) of in-situ iron mineralization and 4 bodies 

(A–D) of fragmental mineralized scree material at Haji-Gak. Of the 16 in-situ mineralized bodies, 7 are 

in the western part of the deposit, 6 in the central part, and 3 in the eastern part of the deposit. The A and 

B fragmental bodies are in the western part of the deposit; the C fragmental body is in the central part of 

the deposit, and the D fragmental body is in the eastern part of the deposit. Figures 7D–4 through 7D–6 

show the mineralized bodies in their respective parts of the Haji-Gak iron deposit. 

Kusov and others (1965b) described the in-place original (nonfragmental) mineralized material as 

being confined to the Awband Formation, which is up to 1,200 m thick and about 12 km in length along 

strike. The Haji-Gak iron deposit crops out along the southern slopes of the mountains as rocky ridges 

along the northeast-southwest trend of the ridge crest (figure 7D–1). The mineralized bodies are further 

exposed where valleys have cut the deposits. The bodies occur as tabular or lenticular masses whose 

strike and dip coincide with the predominant folded structure of the region. The mineralized bodies are 

confined to the southern limb of a regional anticlinorium. These bodies at places have been broken by 

postmineralization faults and occur in individual blocks. The mineralized material is secondarily zoned

and sheared. Mineralized material as much as 100 to 130 m below the present surface is partly oxidized 

or oxidized. The non-oxidized material is made up of magnetite (40–90 percent) and pyrite 

(2–35 percent). Partly oxidized material is divided into three types: hydrogoethite-half-martite, 

hydrogoethite-hematite-half-martite, and carbonate-half-martite. Around the Haji-Gak iron deposit, the 

country rocks have been silicified, sericitized, chloritized, and locally carbonatized. Near the 
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 575

mineralized bodies, the schists are silicified and in places converted into banded sericitic quartzites. 

Schists formed from felsic tuffs are mostly sericitized, whereas those formed from mafic tuffs are 

chloritized and carbonatized. Dolomites (probably marbles) are silicified (Kusov and others, 1965b). 

Figure 7D–4. Locations of in-situ iron mineralized bodies, fragmental bodies, and prospecting lines in the western 

part of the Haji-Gak iron deposit (after Renaud and others, 2011a, b). Small in-situ iron-mineralized body 7 and 

fragmental body A, located farther to the west, are not shown.

Figure 7D–5. Locations of in-situ iron mineralized bodies and fragmental bodies in the central part of the HajiGak iron deposit (after Renaud and others, 2011a, b).
576 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

7D.1.4.2 Fragmental Ores

Fragmental mineralized bodies are alluvial-talus slope deposits of iron-rich material weathered from 

the original in-situ Haji-Gak iron deposits. They are of limited thickness but cover considerable areas at 

the base of the outcrops of the in-situ iron deposits and spread down slope for as much as 1.5 km. The 

reported area of the deposits ranges from 100,000 m2 to 859,690 m2, and thickness ranges from 1.9 to 

17.0 m with an average of about 6.75 m (Kusov and others, 1965b). 

Figure 7D–6. Locations of in-situ iron-mineralized bodies 12 and 13 and fragmental body D in the eastern part of 

the Haji-Gak iron deposit (after Renaud and others, 2011a, b). In-situ iron mineralized body 14, located to the 

southeast of mineralized body 13, is not shown.

7D.1.5 Origin of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit

De Lapparent (1961) concluded that the Haji-Gak iron deposit was formed by the leaching of silicic 

ferrous iron formation producing a secondary concentration of hematite in favorable horizons. In 

contrast, Brueckl (1935) concluded that the Haji-Gak deposit formed by contact metasomatism.

Kusov and others (1965b), based on extensive field examination of much of the Haji-Gak iron 

deposit, proposed that it had formed at moderate to considerable depth during Early Jurassic tectonicmagmatic activity. In this scenario, mineralization occurred in three phases: (1) dolomitization and 

silicification of the country rocks and deposition of magnetite, hematite, and quartz; (2) carbonization 

and seritization of the country rocks with deposition of hematite, pyrite, and quartz with siderite and 

barite; and (3) superposed pronounced veins, veinlets, and impregnations of siderite and rare pyrite with 

quartz, and barite carbonates (Kusov and others, 1965b). 

Bouladon and de Lapparent (1975) recognized that mafic lavas and tuffs, converted to greenschists, 

always occurred near the mineralized bodies at Haji-Gak. They proposed that the Haji-Gak iron deposit 

resulted from submarine-exhalative processes synchronous with mafic volcanic activity in a succession 

of events. First, a sedimentary basin with andesitic submarine volcanism formed tuffs, lava flows, and 

sericitic and chloritic sediments of exhalative origin. At the same time, hematite and magnetite 

precipitated from mixing of the hydrothermal fluids. This could have been in a seafloor environment 

where ancient “black smokers” vented hot mineral-laden waters. Later, gabbro and diabase sills were 
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 577

intruded, which resulted in iron oxides being remobilized into fractures across gabbro boundaries and 

replacing neighboring dolomites (Bouladon and de Lapparent, 1975). Lastly, rocks of the Haji-Gak area 

were affected by two major kinds of metamorphism: firstly, of greenschist facies, contemporaneous with 

intrusive activity; secondly, mainly east of Haji-Gak, sericitic dynamometamorphism, during folding. 

Peters (2007) reported four metallurgical types of mineralized material: hydrogoethite-polymartite, 

hematite-polymartite, carbonate-polymartite, and hydrogoethite-polymartite; the latter has the highest 

iron grade. Metallurgically deleterious elements are sulfur in the form of sulfate (0.04 to <5 percent S, 

and phosphorus (7 lump samples ranged from 0.0 to 0.28 percent P2O5 (Kusov and others, 1965b; 

Peters, 2007). Pyrite-magnetite mineralization (magnetite 40–90 percent and pyrite 2–35 percent) is rich 

in iron, averaging 61.30 percent iron, but the sulfur content averages 4.56 percent (Kusov and others, 

1965b). Questions still exist as to the timing of the chemical weathering that oxidized part of the 

magnetite mineralization to hematite with lesser martite at Haji-Gak (Abdullah and others, 1977; Orris 

and Bliss, 2002). The mineralization at Haji-Gak is described as being massive, rather than interlayered,

with iron-poor shale and bands of chert as are commonly found in sedimentary iron deposits. Renaud 

and others (2011a,b) show that a sample from Haji-Gak has banding with primary textures that likely 

formed in a sedimentary setting.

7D.1.5.1 Geologic Age

The geologic age of the Haji-Gak iron deposit is not known with certainty. The modern 

interpretation shown in figure 7D–3 is that it is Neoproterozoic (Afghanistan Geological Survey, 

undated). However, in their massive work on the deposit, Kusov and others (1965b) suggested that the 

sequence of sedimentary and volcanic rocks that form the Awband Formation, where the iron 

mineralization at Haji-Gak occurs, was deposited in the early to middle Paleozoic (possibly Late 

Ordovician), on the basis of poorly preserved corals. Subsequently, Bouladon and de Lapparent (1975) 

proposed that the Haji-Gak iron deposit formed during the early Paleozoic, maybe Silurian to Lower 

Devonian based on its stratigraphic position in the Awband Formation above metamorphosed 

Proterozoic gneiss and below beds containing Late Devonian fossils. 

7D.1.5.2 Mineral Deposit Type of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit

Geologists use mineral deposit models to compare their observations with the collective knowledge 

and experience of a much wider group of geoscientists (Cox and others, 1986). Once a deposit is 

determined to fit a certain mineral deposit model, its similarity to and difference from the model can be 

discussed in terms of its genesis and other characteristics.

In the Peters and others (2007), the Haji-Gak iron deposit is not classified as to its specific mineral 

deposit type, because the U.S. Geological Survey mineral-resource specialist he consulted said that he 

could not provide “enough information on the [deposit] to determine which (if any) deposit model best 

described it.” That situation has not changed. At present, there is not enough detailed reliable, first-hand 

information available on the geology of Haji-Gak iron deposit to make a confident determination of 

which mineral deposit model it best fits. Only when better access to the deposit is secured and scientists 

can study and sample Haji-Gak with modern techniques will the deposit model that best describes HajiGak be determined. 

7D.1.6 Haji-Gak Iron Deposit in Google Earth

The Haji-Gak iron deposit can be seen clearly in images in Google Earth. It looks much as it does in 

published aerial images (Renaud and others, 2011a). That is, it appears as dark cliffs on the crests of a 

series of mountains (fig. 7D–7). The slopes are steep and the crests of the mountains form very narrow 

ridges. The three naturally divided parts of the deposit, western, central, and eastern, are identified by 

the intermittent patches of iron mineralization. The deposit consists of several roughly 1-km-long 
578 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

patches of black to dark-brown cliff faces and talus slopes where the iron deposit is exposed on the 

surface. There appear to be pods of iron mineralization near the mountain peaks with dark mottled areas 

where the iron-rich talus (fragmental mineralization) trails down the east side of the mountains 

(fig. 7D–7). When seen in Google Earth or in outcrop, it is easy to understand the enthusiasm for 

Haji-Gak as a potentially large iron mineral resource.

Figure 7D–7. Location of the three parts of the Haji-Gak iron deposit as seen from the southwest in Google 

Earth.

7D.2 Reported Resources

According to previous reports, Haji-Gak has been described as a world-class iron deposit with 

enormous mining potential (InfoMine, 2011). A look through the recent press finds reports of resources 

of 1.8 billion tons of iron “ore,” having a grade of approximately 62 percent iron, that is “truly 

significant on a global scale” (Afghanistan Ministry of Mines, 2011; InfoMine, 2011); and “the Ministry 

estimates the worth of its reserves at as much as $350-billion” (Mining Weekly, 2011). 

A major purpose of this paper is to evaluate how the resource figures were derived and to assess 

their validity. Table 7D–1 is a listing of the published resource figures for the Haji-Gak iron deposit. 

7D.2.1 Definitions of Resource Categories

The Soviet system divides mineral occurrences into seven categories, which fall into three major 

groups based on the level of exploration received: fully explored resources (categories A, B, and C1), 

evaluated resources (category C2), and prognostic resources (categories P1, P2, and P3) (Henley, 2004). 

The prospective mineral deposits are explored by drill holes, shafts, and trenches arranged in lines 
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 579

perpendicular to the strike of the deposit. These explorations form prospecting lines along which 

samples of mineralization are collected and measurements are recorded. To make the resource estimates, 

the deposits are conceptually divided into mineralized bodies, which are in turn divided into mineralized 

blocks that extend between a series of vertical planes along the prospecting lines (fig. 7D–4; Kužvart 

and Böhmer, 1978). Profiles of the mineralized bodies are drawn along the prospecting lines, areas of 

the mineralized bodies are calculated where they intersect the prospecting lines, and the volumes of the 

mineralized bodies and their tonnages of resources are calculated between the prospecting lines.

Table 7D–1. Iron resources at the Haji-Gak iron deposit identified following Afghan-Soviet exploration in the 

1960s.

[Data are from Kusov and others (1965b) and Afghanistan Geological Survey (undated). n.a., not applicable]

Soviet 

resource 

category

Equivalent classification Material type

Quantity 

(million metric 

tons) 

Percentage

of total 

material

Iron 

(percent)

Sulfur 

(percent)

A Measured or proved (highly 

detailed)

Oxidized 9.1 0.51 62.52 0.14

B Measured or proved (moderate 

detail)

Oxidized 19.2 1.08 62.69 0.09

C1 Indicated or probable Oxidized 65.1 3.68 62.15 0.13

C1 Indicated or probable Primary 16.2 0.92 61.3 4.56

C1 Indicated or probable Fragmental 1.2 0.07 60.62 0.08

C2 Inferred or possible reserves All types 314.3 17.76 n.a. n.a.

C2 Inferred or possible reserves Fragmental 2.9 0.16 n.a. n.a.

P2 Reconnaissance resources All types 1,333.30 75.33 n.a. n.a.

P2 Reconnaissance resources Fragmental 8.6 0.49 n.a. n.a.

Total 1,769.90 100.00 n.a. n.a.

7D.2.1.1 Fully Explored Resources 

Category A.—These are areas where the in-place resources are known in detail. The boundaries of 

the deposit have been outlined by trenching, drilling, and underground workings (Henley, 2004). This 

material meets the highest grade and tonnage standards with a minimum of deleterious materials, and is 

easily worked.

At Haji-Gak, category A resources have been explored and sampled by trenches, drill holes, shafts, 

and an adit. Two blocks, 3A and 4A, in mineralized body 1 meet these standards (fig. 7D–8). 

Table 7D–2 lists the resource blocks by the mineralized body in which they are located and by resource 

category (after Kusov and others, 1965b). 

Category B.—These resources are in-place and have been explored but are known only in moderate 

detail. The boundaries of the deposit have been outlined by trenching, drilling, or underground 

workings. The quality and properties of the mineralized material are known in sufficient detail to ensure 

the basic reliability of the exploitation (Henley, 2004). 

At Haji-Gak, resource blocks 2B, 5B, and 6B in mineralized body 1 have been explored in detail 

enough to fall into category B (fig. 7D–8).

Category C1.—These are areas where the in-place resources have been estimated by a sparse grid of 

trenches, drill holes, and underground workings. This category includes resources adjoining A and B 

resources and resources in very complex deposits where even a dense grid cannot determine the 

resources adequately (Henley, 2004). 

At Haji-Gak, C1 resources are exposed adjacent to and beneath the A and B resource blocks in 

mineralized body 1 (fig. 7D–8) and exposed in mineralized body 2 (fig. 7D–9). Several of the 

mineralized blocks at Haji-Gak have their C1 resources divided into C1a and C1b resources based on the 

conditions and extent of exploration. Estimates of C1a resources are made using drill holes as the 
580 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

principal source of sample data, while C1b resources rely on a combination of drill holes and 

underground workings for samples (Kužvart and Böhmer, 1978).

Table 7D–2.

[Data are from Kusov and others (1965b). All resources not in categories A, B, C1, or C2 in any mineralized body are 

included in the P2 category. Fragmental body A is too small to be evaluated]

Locations of resource blocks by mineralized body and category. 

Ore body Resource blocks by category

A B C1 C2 P

1

2

3, 4 2, 5, 6 1, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12 

2 — — 13, 14 15, 16, 17, 18 

3–8 — — — — 

9 — — — 20, 21, 22, 23 

10–16 — — — — 

Fragmental mineralization bodies

B — — — — 

C — — — — 

D — — — — 

Figure 7D–8. Vertical longitudinal projection of mineralized body 1 (see figure 7D–4) showing the prospecting 

lines, and the resource blocks within the body (after Kusov and others, 1965b).

Figure 7D–9. Vertical longitudinal projection of mineralized body 2 (see figure 7D–4) showing the prospecting 

lines, and the resource blocks within the body (after Kusov and others, 1965b).
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 581

7D.2.1.2 Evaluated Resources

Category C2.—C2 resources are based on a loose exploration grid with little data (Henley, 2004). 

The limits of the mineralization were determined by extrapolation of the identified geological structures 

and from comparison with nearby deposits. C2 resources include resources that are adjacent to A, B, and 

C1 resources in the same deposit (Henley, 2004). 

C2 resources at Haji-Gak are located in mineralized bodies 1, 2, and 9, the bodies that were explored 

to the extent that fully explored or evaluated resources were defined (figures 7D–8, 7D–9, and 7D–10). 

Figure 7D–10. Map view of resource blocks and prognosis material of mineralized body 9 (after Kusov and 

others, 1965b).

7D.2.1.3 Prognostic (Prognosis) Resources

Prognosis resources are those that are estimated for mineralized rock outside the actual limits of 

areas that have been explored in detail and are commonly based on data from trenches and from 

geochemical and geophysical surveys (Henley, 2004). Henley (2000) suggests that prognosis resources 

“are largely wishful thinking and have no equivalent” in western classifications.

Category P1— Indirectly estimated resources that may extend beyond the limits of C2 resources. 

There are no P1 resources identified at Haji-Gak by Kusov and others (1965b). 

Category P2—These are prognosis resources that represent possible mineral structures in known 

mineral deposits in mineralized regions (Henley, 2004). They are usually based on geochemical and 

geophysical data. Shape, mineral composition, and size of the area of mineralization are estimated by 

analogy with similar mineral occurrences in the area.

All of the known mineralized bodies at Haji-Gak, both in-situ and fragmental mineralization, have 

estimated P2 resources. These resources are roughly calculated and characterize the potential 

possibilities of the Haji-Gak deposit (Kusov and others, 1965b). P2 resources account for 93.74 percent 

of the mineralized material at Haji-Gak.

Category P3—These are any remaining resources not in other categories. Kusov and others (1965b) 

identified no P3 resources at Haji-Gak. As mapped and studied by Kusov and others (1965b), the 

16 separate mineralized zones in the Haji-Gak iron deposit are as much as 5 km long, 380 m wide, and 
582 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

extend as much as 550 m down dip (Kusov and others, 1965b; Peters, 2007). Three mineralized zones, 

numbers 1, 2, and 9, were studied in greater detail than the others by Kusov and others (1965b). 

Two types of mineralization, primary and oxidized, have been identified. Kusov and others (1965b) 

speculated that primary mineralization, which makes up about 80 percent of the resource estimate, 

occurs below a depth of about 100 to130 m and consists of magnetite (40–90 percent) and pyrite 

(2–35 percent) with minor other sulfides including chalcopyrite (single grains). Primary mineralization

averages 61.3 percent Fe, 5 percent sulfide, and 0.05 percent P. The remaining 20 percent of the deposit 

is oxidized material that consists of three hematitic mineralization types and contains about 62.8 percent 

Fe. Soviet-Afghan estimates for the entire deposit are 1,769.9 Mt, although estimates for the nearsurface oxide ore in the most explored area are 85 Mt (Categories A–C2) (Afghanistan Geological 

Survey, undated; Momji and Chaikin, 1960; Kusov and others, 1965a, b; Bouladon and de Lapparent, 

1975; Abdullah and others, 1977; http://www.bgs.ac.uk/afghanminerals/femetals.htm). A compilation by 

the U.S. Geological Survey cited the indicated resources as 100 Mt at 61.3 percent Fe and inferred

resources as 2,070 Mt at 62.83–68.68 percent Fe (table 7D–3) (Orris and Bliss, 2002). 

7D.2.2 Review of Haji-Gak Resource Calculations

Exploration of the Haji-Gak deposit was done in 1963 and 1964 by as many as 220 workers from the 

Geological and Mineral Survey Department of the Ministry of Mines of the Royal Government of 

Afghanistan with technical assistance from the Soviet Union (Kusov and others, 1965b). That 

exploration produced a series of estimates of the iron resources at Haji-Gak calculated from field 

measurements and observations. The purpose of resource calculations of a mineralized body is to 

determine the quantity, quality, and amenability to commercial exploitation of the mineralized raw 

material. These calculations are made at every stage of a deposit’s life from discovery to mining to 

closing (Popoff, 1966). Efficient extraction and production is impossible without accurate resource 

calculations.

The Soviet resource reporting system was different in principle and detail from the principal 

reporting codes used by other nations (Henley, 2004). The former Soviet system for classification of 

reserves and resources was developed in 1960, revised in 1981, and is still used today in Russia and 

other former CIS republics (Henley, 2004). Conditions pertaining to classifying the iron resources at 

Haji-Gak are listed in Kusov and others (1965b). The resource categories are described in Kužvart and 

Böhmer (1978) and Henley (2004). 

A review of the Soviet-era methodology and grade and tonnage resource calculations as described by 

Kusov and others (1965b) and explained by Popoff (1966) and Henley (2004) is appropriate to 

understand their methodology and to verify their assumptions and calculations. 

7D.2.2.1 Profiles of the Mineralized Bodies

In the 1960s when the Soviet-Afghan exploration was being done, profiles of the identified 

mineralized bodies were drawn to show the prospecting lines, trenches, an adit, and drill holes. The 

profiles were used to aid the explorationists to visualize the deposit and to determine how to best 

calculate its mineral resources. Figures 7D–8 and 7D–9 show simplified profiles of mineralized bodies 1 

and 2 (Kusov and others, 1965b). 
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 583

Table 7D–3.

[Data are from Orris and Bliss (2002)]

Information about the Haji-Gak iron deposit. 

Type of deposit Host rock age Host rock Significant minerals or 

materials Deposit size and (or) grade Comments References

Volcanosedimentary, 

hydrothermalmetasomatic

Proterozoic Ferruginous 

quartzite

Hematite, magnetite, 

martite, hematite, 

siderite, pyrite

Indicated—100 Mt grading

61.3% Fe

Inferred—2,070 Mt grading

62.83–68.68% Fe

The largest iron deposit in the 

Middle East and extends over 

600 km. There are primary and 

semioxidized ores. At least 16 

ore bodies; most are small.

ESCAP, 1995; Chmyriov 

and others, 1973; 

Abdullah and others, 

1977; Afzali, 1981
584 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

7D.2.2.2 Soviet Methodology for Estimating Areas

The methodology that the Soviet-Afghan exploration party of 1963–64 used for measuring and 

estimating iron resources of the Haji-Gak deposit included mapping the deposit at a regional scale of 

1:50,000 and locally in detail at 1:10,000. In the western part of the deposit, exploratory holes were 

drilled and shafts were sunk into the mineralized rock, trenches were dug across the deposit, samples 

were taken, and cross sections were drawn to show in profile view the vertical slices through the deposit 

along traverses (prospecting lines) at various intervals (Kusov and others, 1965b). Information from the 

prospecting lines, drill holes, and trenches was used to create the cross sections. The western part of the 

deposit has category A and B resources commensurate with this level of exploration. The central and 

eastern parts of the deposit were much less well explored and have resource categories reflecting a lesser 

certainty of the resources. Figure 7D–11 shows a cross section along prospecting line 1 (see fig. 7D–4; 

Kusov and others, 1965b). 

Figure 7D–11. Cross section along prospecting line 1 of the Haji-Gak iron deposit crossing mineralized bodies 1, 

2, and 3 (fig. 7D–4.)

As explained in Kusov and others (1965b), for resource categories A, B, C1, and C2, the cross 

sections were drawn at a scale of 1:1,000 so that the area of each resource block where it intersected 

prospecting line could be estimated by simply drawing 5 mm x 5 mm squares on the cross section (fig.

7D–11), counting the number of squares in the cross section of a particular resource block, and 

multiplying the number of squares by 25 m2

, the area represented by each 5 mm x 5 mm square at a 

scale of 1:1,000. These cross-sectional areas were used as the areas of ends of solid geometrical figures, 

such as cones, frustums, and wedges, which were selected to best represent the shapes of the mapped 

resource blocks. The volume computations were made by substituting graphically the irregular shape of 

the mineralized body with imaginary simple solid geometric figures (Popoff, 1966). Using the 
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 585

geometrical figures, their cross-sectional areas, the measured distances between the prospecting lines

along which the cross sections were drawn, and the appropriate formulas for finding the volumes of 

simple solid geometrical figures, the volumes of resources in each mineralized block were calculated 

(Kusov and others, 1965b; Popoff, 1966). Figure 7D–12 shows common geometric shapes used for 

resource calculations, figure 7D–13 shows the upper part of mineralized body 1 of the Haji-Gak iron 

deposit as represented by solid geometrical figures used in calculating the amount of resources, and 

tables 7D–4A, B, and C show the dimensions of the mineralized blocks, the geometric shapes used to 

represent the mineralized blocks, the volume of the blocks, and the amount of mineralized material in 

each mineralized block estimated in the Haji-Gak iron deposit. 

7D.2.2.3 Calculating the Iron Resources in Mineralized Body 1

The information in tables 7D–4A, B, C was used to calculate the estimated amount of ironmineralized material in all of the designated mineral blocks for categories A, B, C1, and C2 at Haji-Gak. 

For example, the first row of data in table 7D–4A shows that block 3A is located between cross sections 

3 and 4. Block 3A has an area equal to 72 25-m2

 squares or 1,800 m2 in cross section 3 and an area of 

345 25-m2 squares or 8,625 m2 in cross section 4. The unequal areas of the ends suggest that the 

geometric shape to best represent block 3A is a frustum, which table 7D–4A shows. The distance 

between cross sections 3 and 4 is listed in table 7D–4A as 202 m. The formula given in the table to 

calculate the volume of a frustum is:

V= L*((S1+S2 + sqrt (S1*S2

where V is the volume 

))/3) (1)

 L is the distance between the cross sections

 S1

 S

 is the area of one end of the frustum, and 

2

Substituting values from table 7D–4 into the formula results in:

 is the area of the other end of the frustum. 

967,176 = 202* ((1,800 + 8,625 + sqrt (1,800*8,625)) /3) (2)

if the fractions are rounded to the nearest whole number after each intermediate calculation. Multiplying 

the volumetric weight (specific gravity) of the mineralized material (in this case, 3.91 t/m3, the mean 

specific gravity of samples collected in mineralized block 3A, from table 7D–4A) by the volume of 

967,176 m3

The remainder of the A, B, C1, and C2 resources are calculated the same way. The only difference is 

the formula used to calculate the volumes of the various geometric shapes that represent the various 

mineral blocks. 

results in a tonnage of about 3,782,000 t for block 3A. The percent iron and percent sulfur 

values in table 7D–4A are averaged from geochemical samples in trenches and drill holes in the specific 

mineralized blocks. 

7D.2.2.4 Prognosis Resources

As shown above, fully explored and evaluated resource categories are based on sampling and 

exploration. In contrast, prognosis resources are unsampled and crudely estimated. Table 7D–5 shows 

the amounts of prognosis resources estimated for the Haji-Gak iron deposit and the data used to 

calculate those resources (Kusov and others, 1965b). As can be seen in the table, the lengths and widths 

are rounded to the nearest 5 or 10 m, although the down-dip thickness is measured to the nearest 0.1 m; 

the specific gravity is a constant 4.01 t/cubic meters estimated from similar samples collected in the 

better explored western part of the deposit, and the volumetric calculations are based on the formula for 

finding the volume of a rectangular prism: 

V= L × W × T
586 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

where V is the volume, 

L is the length of the mineralized block, 

 W is the width of the mineralized block, and 

 T is the down-dip thickness of the mineralized block. 

The resultant volume in m3 is multiplied by the specific gravity to determine the tonnage of mineralized 

resources in the each block. Totaling the estimates of prognosis material listed in table 7D–5 shows that 

the mineralized blocks are suspected of containing 332,674,125 m3 or 1,334,023,242 t of ironmineralized rock. While the assessment methods of the 1960s for determining the amount of prognosis 

resources may seem crude by today’s standards, the geologists were on the ground evaluating a deposit 

that in large part they could see and touch, so their resource estimates, no matter how unsophisticated, 

are based on the science of the times.

Figure 7D–12. Examples of solid geometrical figures and formulas for calculating their volumes (after Kusov and 

others, 1965b; and Popoff, 1966). Such figures were used to represent resource blocks to estimate iron resources.

7D.22.5 Fragmental Resources

Fragmental iron resources are widely developed at Haji-Gak (figures7D–1, 7D–2, and 7D–4 through 

7D–7). They form thin surficial alluvial-talus deposits over a considerable area generally at the base of 

the exposed iron deposits and spread away from the in-situ mineralization as much as 1.5 km (Kusov 

and others, 1965b). They are completely exposed or are covered with a sandy soil as much as 1.5 m 

thick. The deposits are made up of mostly iron-rich boulders from 0.5 to 2.5 m in diameter and 

averaging 61.67 percent Fe, which differs little from the in-situ material (Kusov and others, 1965b). 

Some fragments of mineralized rock are also included. The boulders may consist of hydrogoethite-half 
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 587

martite, hydrogoethite-hematite-half martite, and rarely carbonate-half martite mineralization. Four 

deposits of fragmental resources were identified by Kusov and others (1965b), and three of the four 

were evaluated for prognosis iron resources (table 7D–6). At 100,000 m2

 and 470,532 t, fragmental 

deposit A was considered too small to be a resource (Kusov and others, 1965b). The three evaluated 

deposits of fragmental iron-bearing rock are estimated to contain a total of 16,549,749 m3 or 

11,220,730 t of material.

Figure 7D–13. Resources categories A and B in mineralized body 1 of the Haji-Gak iron deposit as represented 

by solid geometrical figures used in calculating the volume of resources. The figures used are described in Kusov 

and others (1965b); not to scale. Resource blocks 2B, 3A, 4A, 5B, and 6B occur in the better explored part of

mineralized body 1.
588 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

Table 7D–4A. Estimated iron resources by resource block and mineralized body with the dimensions, the solid geometrical shapes used in the resource 

calculations, and the formulas used to calculate the volumes.

[Modified from Kusov and others (1965b). The possibly excessive number of significant figures for volumes and resources is in the original tables of Kusov and others 

(1965b)]

Mineraliz

ed block

Resource 

category

Crosssection 

number

Number of 5 

m × 5 m 

squares 

within area

Area of 

mineralized 

body (m2) 

(S)

Distance

between cross 

sections in m 

(L)

Block 

volume (m3)

Specific 

gravity 

3 (t/m ) 

Tonnage 

(1,000 t)

Iron 

(percent)

Sulfur 

(percent)

Geometric 

figure used Formula Mineralized 

material

3 A 3

4

72

345

1,800

8,625

202 967,176 3.91 3,782 63.13 0.15 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2)/3)

Hydrogoethitesemimartite

4 A 4

5

345

25

8,625

6,150

183 1,351,821 3.91 5,286 61.91 0.13 Mean-area V=L*((S1+S2)/2)Hydrogoethitesemimartite

Total A 345 8,625 9,068 62.52 0.14

2 B 2

3

58

330

1,450

8,250

214 938,818 3.91 3,671 64.32 0.07 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2)/3)

Hydrogoethitesemimartite

5 B 3

4

258

408

6,450

10,200

204 1,683,000 3.91 6,580 64.13 0.15 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2)/3)

Hydrogoethitesemimartite

4

5

408

165

10,200

4,125 186 1,434,060 3.91 5,607 61.94 0.16 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2)/3)

Hydrogoethitesemimartite

6 B 5

6

411

53

10,275

1,325

284 866,200 3.91 3,387 61.11 0.09 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2)/3)

Hydrogoethitesemimartite

Total B

Total 

A+B

19,245

28,313

–

–

–

–

1 C1 1

2

22

624

550

15,600

496 3,248,992 3.91 12,704 64.20 0.07 Angle 

greater 

than 10o 

(a=34o)

V=(α/sinα)*((S1+HydrogoethiteS2)/2)*((h1+h2 semimartite

)/3)

Total of 

1C1

12,704

7 C1 2

3

566

128

14,150

3,200

225 1,805,917.5 3.91 7,061 64.90 0.07 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2)/3)

Hydrogoethitesemimartite
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 589

Mineraliz

ed block

Resource 

category

Crosssection 

number

Number of 5 

m × 5 m 

squares 

within area

Area of 

mineralized 

body (m2) 

(S)

Distance

between cross 

sections in m 

(L)

Block 

volume (m3)

Specific 

gravity 

3 (t/m ) 

Tonnage 

(1,000 t)

Iron 

(percent)

Sulfur 

(percent)

Geometric 

figure used Formula Mineralized 

material

C1(a) 3

4

128

128

3,200

1,875

205 514,058 3.91 2,010 64.70 0.15 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2)/3)

Hydrogoethitesemimartite

4

5

128

28

1,875

700

194 240,598.8 3.91 941 61.68 0.17 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2)/3)

Hydrogoethitesemimartite

Total of 

7C1+ 

C1(a)

10,012 63.28 0.12

7 C1(b) –

4

0

206

0

5,150 140 360,500 4.12 1,485 59.27 4.29 Wedge V= (S*L)/2 Pyrite-magnetite 

ore

4

5

206

74

5,150

1,850

194 652,226.8 4.12 2,687 59.27 4.29 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2)/3)

Pyrite-magnetite 

ore

Total of 

7C1(b)

4,172 59.27 4.29

8 C1(a) 5

6

28

398

700

9,950

264 1,169,440.8 3.91 4,573 59.27 4.29 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s Hydrogoethiteqrt(S1*S2)/3) semimartite

6

7

450

579

11,250

14,475

368 4,686,066 3.91 18,323 68.83 0.1 Angle 

greater 

than 10o 

(a=16o)

V=(α/sinα)*((S1+HydrogoethiteS2)/2)*((h1+h2 semimartite

)/2)

Total of 

8C1(a)

22,896 – –

8 C

C

1(a) 5

6

74

162

1,850

4,050

264 778,800 4.12 3,209 59.27 4.29 Angle 

greater 

than 10o 

(a=18o) 

V=(a/sina)* 

(S1+S2)/2*L

Pyrite-magnetite 

ore

1(b) 6

7

162

74

4,050

4,125 368 1,489,158 4.12 6,135 59.27 4.29 Mean-area V=L*(S1+S2)/2) Pyrite-magnetite 

ore

Total of 

8C1(a)

+ C1(b)

9,344 59.27 4.29
590 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

Mineraliz

ed block

Resource 

category

Crosssection 

number

Number of 5 

m × 5 m 

squares 

within area

Area of 

mineralized 

body (m2

Distance

between cross 

sections in m 

(L)

) 

(S)

Block 

volume (m3

Specific 

gravity 

(t/m ) 3

Tonnage 

(1,000 t) )

Iron 

(percent)

Sulfur 

(percent)

Geometric 

figure used Formula Mineralized 

material

9 C1(a) 7 579 14,475 300 2,171,250 3.91 8,490 61.26 – Wedge V= (S*L)/2 Hydrogoethitesemimartite

8 0 0

C1(b) 7 165 4,125 150 309,375 4.12 1,275 59.27 4.29 Wedge V= (S*L)/2 Pyrite-magnetite 

ore

– 0 0

Total 

9C1(a)

+ C1(b)

9,765 – –

Total C1 68,893 – –

10 C2 – 0 0 246 735,950 3.91 2,878 63.87 – Cone V= (S*L)/3 Hydrogoethitesemimartite and 

carbonatesemimartite 

ores

1 359 8,975

11 C2 1 337 8,425 437 3,803,429.5 4.01 15,252 64.20 0.07 Angle 

greater 

than 100

(a=340

V=(α/sinα)*((S

)

1+

S2)/2)*((h1+h2

Hydrogoethitesemimartite and 

pyritemagnetite ore)/2)

2 339 8,475

2 339 8,475 233 1,097,033.9 4.01 4,399 61.90 2.18 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2

Hydrogoethitesemimartite and 

pyritemagnetite ore

)/3)

3 71 1,775

3 71 1,775 200 646,000 4.12 2,662 59.27 4.29 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2

Pyrite-magnetite 

)/3) ore

4 198 4,950

4 198 4,950 199 545,916.7 4.12 2,249 59.27 4.29 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2

Pyrite-magnetite 

)/3) ore

5 41 1,025

5 41 1,025 259 135,327.5 4.12 558 59.27 4.29 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s

qrt(S1*S2

Pyrite-magnetite 

)/3) ore

6 6 150

6 6 150 325 112,612.5 4.12 464 59.27 4.29 Angle 

greater 

than 10

V=(α/sinα)*((S

o

1+

S2)/2)*((h1+h2

Pyrite-magnetite 

ore

)/2)

7 24 600
Number of 5 Area of Distance Cross- Specific Mineraliz Resource m × 5 m mineralized between cross Block Tonnage Iron Sulfur Geometric Mineralized section gravity Formula ed block category squares body (m2) sections in m volume (m3) (1,000 t) (percent) (percent) figure used material 3 number (t/m ) within area (S) (L)

7 24 600 300 372,690 4.01 1,494 61.57 2.17 Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+s Hydrogoethiteqrt(S1*S2)/3) semimartite and 

pyritemagnetite ore

8 81 2,025

12 C2 8 81 2,025 106 107,325 3.91 420 63.88 0.06 Wedge V= (S*L)/2 Hydrogoethitesemimartite ore

– 0 0

Total C2 30,376 61.08 3.08

Table 7D–4B. Estimated iron resources in mineralized body 2 by resource block with the dimensions, the solid geometrical shapes used in the resource 

calculations, and the formulas used to calculate the volumes.

[Modified from Kusov and others (1965b). The possibly excessive number of significant figures for volumes and resources is in the original tables of Kusov and others 

(1965b)]

Distance Number of Area of Cross- between Specific Geometri Mineralized Resource 5 m x 5 m mineralize Block Tonnage Iron Sulfur Mineralized section cross gravity c figure Formula block category squares d body volume (m3) (1,000 t) (percent) (percent) material 3 number sections (t/m ) used within area (m2) in m (L)

13 C1(a) 4 24 600 199 144,275 3.91 564 62.86 0.10Mean- V=L*((S1+S2)/2) HydrogoethiteArea semimartite 

ore

5 34 850

13 C1(a) 5 34 850 254 180,975 3.91 708 62.36 0.10Mean- V=L*((S1+S2)/2) HydrogoethiteArea semimartite 

ore

6 23 575

13 C1(a) 6 23 575 3271,181,161.2 3.91 4,618 61.44 0.19Angle (α/sinα)*((S1+S2)/2)*((h1 Hydrogoethitegreater +h2)/2) semimartite 

than ore o 10

7 328 8,200

Total 13C1(a) 5,890 62.22 0.16

13 C1(b) – 0 0 180 121,500 4.12 501 63.33 4.83Wedge V= (S*L)/2 Pyritemagnetite 

ore

7 54 1,350

Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 591
592 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

Mineralized 

block

Resource 

category

Crosssection 

number

Number of

5 m x 5 m 

squares 

within area

Area of 

mineralize

d body 

(m2

Distance 

between 

cross 

sections 

in m (L) )

Block 

volume (m3

Specific 

gravity 

(t/m ) 3

Tonnage 

(1,000 t) )

Iron 

(percent)

Sulfur

(percent)

Geometri

c figure 

used

Formula Mineralized 

material

Total 13C1(a), 

C1(b)

6,391 – –

14 C1(a) – 0 0 3161,295,600 3.91 5,066 62.44 0.29Wedge V= (S*L)/2 Hydrogoethitesemimartite 

ore

7 328 8,200

14 C1(b) – 0 0 316 213,300 4.12 879 63.33 4.83Wedge V= (S*L)/2 Pyritemagnetite 

ore

7 54 1,350

Total

14C1(a)+ 

C1(b)

5,945 – –

Total C1 12,336 – –

15 C2 – 0 0 38 3,166.6 4.01 13 – – Cone V= (S*L)/3 Hydrogoethitesemimartite 

and pyritemagnetite 

ores

1 10 250

16 C2 1 10 250 3592,022,752.8

3

4.01 8,111 60.98 0.07Angle 

greater 

than 

10o 

(α=34o

(α/sinα)*((S

)

1+S2)/2)*((h1

+h2

Hydrogoethitesemimartite 

and pyritemagnetite 

ores

)/2)

2 571 14,275

16 C2 2 571 14,275 3033,345,604.8 4.01 13,416 61.97 0.07Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+sqrt(S1*S

2

Hydrogoethitesemimartite 

and pyritemagnetite 

ores

)/3)

3 324 8,100

16 C2 3 324 8,100 1981,732,500 4.01 6,947 61.83 0.04MeanAreaV=L*((S1+S2 Hydrogoethitesemimartite 

and pyritemagnetite 

ores

)/2)

4 376 9,400
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 593

Mineralized 

block

Resource 

category

Crosssection 

number

Number of

5 m x 5 m 

squares 

within area

Area of 

mineralize

d body 

(m2) 

Distance 

between 

cross 

sections 

in m (L)

Block 

volume (m3)

Specific 

gravity 

3 (t/m ) 

Tonnage 

(1,000 t)

Iron 

(percent)

Sulfur

(percent)

Geometri

c figure 

used

Formula Mineralized 

material

Total 15C2 

16C2

+ 28,487 61.55 0.06

17 C2 4

5

352

156

8,800

3,900

206 999,512 4.01 4,008 62.28 0.04Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+sqrt(S1*S

2)/3)

Hydrogoethitesemimartite 

and pyritemagnetite 

ores

17 C2 5

6

156

0.68

3,900

17

250 347,900 4.01 1,395 62.36 0.10Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+sqrt(S1*S

2)/3)

Hydrogoethitesemimartite 

and pyritemagnetite 

ores

17 C2 6

7

0.68

189

17

4,725

325 544,417.25 4.01 2,183 62.09 2.46Angle 

greater 

than 

10o 

(α=18o

)

(α/sinα)*((S

+h2)/2)

1+S2)/2)*((h1 Hydrogoethitesemimartite 

and pyritemagnetite 

ores

Total 17C2 7,586 62.18 1.65

18 C2 7

8

189

440

4,725

11,000

3242,476,980 4.01 9,933 63.74 2.45Frustum V=L*((S1+S2)+sqrt(S1*S

2)/3)

Hydrogoethitesemimartite 

and pyritemagnetite 

ores

19 C2 –

8

0

440

0

11,000

64 352,000 4.01 1,412 64.16 0.07Wedge V= (S*L)/2 Hydrogoethitesemimartite 

and pyritemagnetite 

ores

Total 18C2

19C2

+ 11,345 – –

Total C2 47,418 – –
594 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

Distance Number of Area of Cross- between Specific Geometri Mineralized Resource 5 m x 5 m mineralize Block Tonnage Iron Sulfur Mineralized section cross gravity c figure Formula block category squares d body volume (m3) (1,000 t) (percent) (percent) material 3 number sections (t/m ) used within area (m2) in m (L)

Table 7D–4C. Estimated iron resources in mineralized body 9 by resource block with the dimensions, the solid geometrical shapes used in the resource 

calculations, and the formulas used to calculate the volumes.

[Modified from Kusov and others (1965b). The possibly excessive number of significant figures for volumes and resources is in the original tables of Kusov and others 

(1965b)]

Number Distance Trench of 5 m x Area of between Block Specific Mineralized Resource stripping 5 m Tonnage Iron Sulfur Geometric mineralized cross volume gravity Formula Mineralized material block category 7, 8 and squares (1,000 t) (percent) (percent) figure used 3 body (m2) sections (m3) (t/m ) 8a within in m (L) area

20 C2 7 1,800 45,000 470 10,575,0 4.01 42,406 63.42 0.12Wedge V= (S*L)/2 Hydrogoethite00 semimartite and 

pyrite-magnetite ores

– 0 0

21 C2 7 1,800 45,000 1060 41,320,1 4.01 165,694 62.18 0.08Angle V=(α/sinα)*((S1+S2)/2 Hydrogoethite25 greater )*((h1+h2)/2) semimartite and 

than 10° pyrite-magnetite ores

(α=21°)

8-8a 150 3,750

22 C2 8 750 18,750 410 3,843,75 4.01 15,413 62.06 0.06Wedge V= (S*L)/2 Hydrogoethite0 semimartite and 

pyrite-magnetite ores

– 0 0

– 0 0

23 C2 8a 600 15,000 430 3,225,00 4.01 12,932 61.08 0.07Wedge V= (S*L)/2 Hydrogoethite0 semimartite and 

pyrite-magnetite ores

Total C2 236,445 62.18 0.08
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 595

Table 7D–5.

[Data are from Kusov and others (1965b). Specific gravity was estimated from similar samples collected in the better 

explored western part of the deposit. The possibly excessive number of significant figures for volumes and resources is in the 

original tables of Kusov and others (1965b)]

Estimated P2 (prognosis) resources by mineralized body.

Mineralized 

body Length (m) Width (m) Down-dip thickness (m) Volume (m3 Specific gravity (t/m ) 3

Resources

) (t)

1 2,200 370 46.5 37,851,000 4.01 151,782,510

2 240 150 35.2 1,267,200 4.01 5,081,472

3 800 105 9.7 814,800 4.01 3,267,348

4 290 55 22.6 360,470 4.01 1,445,485

5 60 20 7 8,400 4.01 33,684

6 315 150 21.3 1,006,425 4.01 4,035,764

7 210 75 11.4 179,550 4.01 719,996

7a 150 50 11.2 84,000 4.01 336,840

8 650 200 24.7 3,211,000 4.01 12,876,110

9 3,360 350 133.2 156,643,200 4.01 628,139,232

10 550 190 24.2 2,528,900 4.01 10,140,889

11 840 200 54.1 9,088,800 4.01 36,446,088

12 1,600 510 141.1 115,137,600 4.01 461,701,776

13 260 120 14.3 446,160 4.01 1,789,102

14 480 170 45.9 3,745,440 4.01 15,019,214

15 220 55 10.8 130,680 4.01 524,027

16 250 55 12.4 170,500 4.01 683,705

Totals – – – 332,674,125 – 1,334,023,242

Table 7D–6.

[Specific gravity is the mass of the iron-bearing mineralized rock per cubic meter of fragmental deposit. Estimated thickness 

is an average for the fragmental deposits based on several measurements.]

Estimated iron resources by fragmental deposit with the estimated thicknesses and areas.

Deposit Estimated 

thickness Area (m2) Volume (m3) Specific gravity (t/m3 Resource (t) )

B 6.94 859,690 5,966,249 0.678 4,045,117

C 6.94 750,000 5,205,000 0.678 3,528,990

D 6.94 775,000 5,378,500 0.678 3,646,623

Totals – 2,384,690 16,549,749 – 11,220,730

7D.3 Conclusions

The Haji-Gak iron deposit is the best explored and well exposed iron deposit along the 600-km-long 

trend of mineralization in central Afghanistan, but the fully explored and evaluated resources of the 

deposit are but a small part of the total deposit. In the early 1960s, geologists from the Soviet Union and 

the Royal Afghan Government mapped and sampled the Haji-Gak iron deposit and estimated its 

resources in several categories including prognosis resources. The fully explored (A, B, and C1) 

resources amount to 110.8 million metric tons (Mt), or about 6 percent of the deposit, while the 

evaluated (C2) and prognosis (P2) resources make up about 94 percent of the almost 1,800 Mt of 

estimated resources. The estimates of prognosis resources have been become entrenched in the 

literature.

This report examines the previous resource estimates by recreating the calculations made in the early 

1960s using the maps, cross sections, and data tables in Kusov and others (1965b). The estimates of the 

categories A, B, and C1 resources, amounting to 110.8 Mt, were found to be supported by observations 

made in the field, based on logical conclusions, and scientifically credible for the technology of the era. 

At current market conditions, the potential profit in 110.8 Mt of iron ore may not compare favorably to 
596 Summaries of Important Areas for Mineral Investment and Production Opportunities of Nonfuel Minerals in Afghanistan

the costs of mine and infrastructure development. The C2 (based on a loose exploration grid with little 

data) and P2, (prognosis) resources, however, are based on field estimations of the size of the 

mineralized bodies. Estimations of the possible iron grades of those bodies are based on observations 

from the better explored bodies, because the mineralized rocks were buried beyond the reach of the drill 

holes and shafts or were in bodies that were not explored. Further exploration has the potential to 

upgrade current C2 and P2 resources to A, B, and C1 resources and enhance the potential for iron mining 

at Haji-Gak. Much more exploration, sampling, and analysis is needed before an economic evaluation of 

the deposit can be made.

7D.4 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Bill Cannon, Avery Drake, Dan Hayba, Dave Menzie, and Klaus 

Schulz of the U.S. Geological Survey for their help and thoughtful review comments that greatly 

improved the manuscript.

7D.5 References Cited

Abdullah, Sh., Chmyriov, V.M., Stazhilo-Alekseev, K.F., Dronov, V.I., Gannan, P.J., Rossovskiy, L.N., 

Kafarskiy, A.Kh., and Malyarov, E.P., 1977, Mineral resources of Afghanistan (2d ed.): Kabul, 

Afghanistan, Republic of Afghanistan Geological and Mineral Survey, 419 p.

Afghanistan Geological and Mineral Survey, 1967, Geological structure of the Haji Gak iron deposit and 

its commercial value: Afghanistan Geological and Mineral Survey, Kabul, 13 p.

Afghanistan Geological Survey, undated, Minerals in Afghanistan—The Hajigak iron deposit: 

Secretariat for the Ministry of Mines, Kabul, Afghanistan, in cooperation with the British Geological 

Survey, 6 p., available at http://www.bgs.ac.uk/afghanminerals/femetals.htm. Accessed June 29, 2011.

Afghanistan Ministry of Mines, 2011, Hajigak iron deposit: Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, available 

at http://ww http://mom.gov.af/en/page/1382. Accessed June 29, 2011.

Afzali, H., 1981, Les ressources d'hydrocarbures, de métaux e de substances utiles de l'Afghanistan: 

aperçu général: Chronique de la Recherche Minière, no. 460, p. 29–51.

Bouladon, Jean, and de Lapparent, A.F., 1975, Le minerai de fer d'Hajigak (Afghanistan). Position 

stratigraphique, cadre géologique et type du gisement: Mineralium Deposita, v. 10, p. 13–25.

Brueckl, K., 1935, Mineral deposits of eastern Afghanistan, unpub. data.

Chmyriov, V.M., Stazhilo-Alekseev, K.F., Mirzad, S.H., Dronov, V.I., Kazikhani, A.R., Salah, A.S., and 

Teleshev, G.I., 1973, Mineral resources of Afghanistan, in Geology and mineral resources of 

Afghanistan: Kabul, Afghanistan Department of Geological Survey, p. 44–85.

Cox, D.P., Barton, P.B., and Singer, D.A., 1986, Introduction, in

DEMAG (Creusot-Loire enterprises), 1974, Feasibility study for an integrated iron and steel plant in 

Afghanistan, Duisberg, Germany, April, DEMAG, .

Cox, D.P., and Singer, D.A., eds., 

Mineral deposit models: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, p. 1–10.

de Lapparent, A.F., 1961, Un gisement de minerai de fer en Afghanistan central [Deposits of iron in 

Central Afghanistan]:

Henley, Stephen, 2000, The Russian system of resource/reserves classification: Earth Science Computer 

Applications, v.15, no. 12, p.1–2.

C.R. Academy of Science, v. 253, p. 2556.

Henley, Stephen, 2004, The Russian reserves and resources reporting system—Discussion and 

comparison with international standards: Resources Computing International Ltd., 13 p., available at 

http://www.imcinvest.com/pdf/Russian_reserves_8.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2011.

InfoMine, 2011, Hajigak Iron deposit—Request for expression of interest, Hajigak iron: Available at 

http://www.infomine.com/properties/exchange/listings/2016/property.aspx. Accessed June 29, 2011.
Chapter 7D. A Reevaluation of the Mineral Resources of the Haji-Gak Iron Deposit 597

Kusov, I.K., Smirnov, M.S., and Reshetayak, V.V., 1965a, Report on prospecting and survey at iron 

occurrences in Central Afghanistan and the Hajigak iron deposit's estimated reserves: Department of 

Geological and Mineral Survey, Kabul, unpub. data.

Kusov, I.K., Smirnov, M.S., and Reshetayak, V.V., 1965b, Report on the results of prospecting-survey 

and reconnaissance works for iron ores in Central Afghanistan with reserve calculation on Hajigak 

deposit for 1963–1964: USSR v/o Technoexport, contract no. 640, 3 volumes with English translation, 

Kabul, unpub. data.

Kužvart, M.S., and Böhmer, Miloslav, 1978, Prospecting and exploration of mineral deposits, in 

Developments in economic geology, v. 8: Oxford, New York, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 

431 p.

Mining Weekly, 2011, Afghanistan invites bids for Hajigak iron deposit: Mining Weekly, available at 

http://www.miningweekly.com/article/afghanistan-invites-bids-for-hajigak-iron-deposit-2011-01-19. 

Accessed February, 2011.

Momji, G.S., and Chaikin, S.I., 1960, Iron ores of Afghanistan: Kabul, DGMS.

Orris, G.J., and Bliss, J.D., 2002, Mines and mineral occurrences of Afghanistan: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 02–110, 95 p.

Peters, S.G., 2007, Sedimentary rock-hosted iron deposits, in Peters, S.G., Ludington, S.D., Orris, G.J., 

Sutphin, D.M., Bliss, J.D., and Rytuba, J.J., eds., and the U.S. Geological Survey-Afghanistan 

Ministry of Mines Joint Mineral Resource Assessment Team, Preliminary non-fuel mineral resource 

assessment of Afghanistan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1214 (Afghanistan 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1214) p. 344–365.

Peters, S.G., Ludington, S.D., Orris, G.J., Sutphin, D.M., Bliss, J.D., and Rytuba, J.J., eds., and the 

U.S. Geological Survey-Afghanistan Ministry of Mines Joint Mineral Resource Assessment Team, 

2007, Preliminary non-fuel mineral resource assessment of Afghanistan: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2007–1214 (Afghanistan Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1214), 852 p.

Popoff, C.C., 1966, Computing reserves of mineral deposits—Principles and conventional methods: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8283, 113 p.

Renaud, K.M., Tucker, R.D., Peters, S.G., Stettner, W.R., Masonic, L.M., and Moran, T.W., comps., 

2011a, Geologic map of the Haji-Gak iron deposit, Bamyan Province, Afghanistan, modified from the 

1965 original map compilation of M.S. Smirnov and I.K. Kusov: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2011–1185–A, one sheet, scale 1:10,000, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1185/A/.

Renaud, K.M., Tucker, R.D., Peters, S.G., Stettner, W.R., Masonic, L.M., and Moran, T.W., comps., 

2011b, Geologic map of the western Haji-Gak iron deposit, Bamyan Province, Afghanistan, modified 

from the 1965 original map compilation of V.V. Reshetniak and I.K. Kusov: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2011–1185–B, one sheet, scale 1:4,000, available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1185/B/.

Robinson, Matt, and Shalizi, Hamid, 2011, Afghanistan invites bids for Hajigak iron deposit: Reuters, 

January 19, 2011, available at http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/01/19/afghanistan-hajigakidUKSGE70I0BB20110119. Accessed June 29, 2011.

Thrush, P.W., and the Staff of the Bureau of Mines, comp. and eds, 1968, A dictionary of mining, 

mineral, and related terms: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1269 p.

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), 1995, Geology and 

mineral resources of Afghanistan: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the 

Pacific Atlas of Mineral Resources of the ESCAP Region, v. 12, 85 p.

U.S. Departments of State and Defense, cohosts, 2011, Towards a New Silk Road Conference: NESA 

Center and State Department, June 7–8, 88 p.

Venot-Pic, 1974, Feasibility study relating to the development of the Hajigak iron ore mine and 

Shabashak coal mine: Paris, France, Venot-Pic, [unpaginated].