U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5090–E

Global Mineral Resource Assessment

Sandstone Copper Assessment of the 

Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Prepared in cooperation with the Centre for Russian and Central EurAsian Mineral Studies—Natural 

History Museum, London, United Kingdom, and Mining and Economic Consulting, Ltd., Almaty, Kazakhstan
This page intentionally left blank.
Global Mineral Resource Assessment

Michael L. Zientek, Jane M. Hammarstrom, and Kathleen M. Johnson, editors

Sandstone Copper Assessment of the 

Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

By Stephen E. Box, Boris Syusyura, Timothy S. Hayes, Cliff D. Taylor, Michael 

L. Zientek, Murray W. Hitzman, Reimar Seltmann, Vladimir Chechetkin, Alla 

Dolgopolova, Pamela M. Cossette, and John C. Wallis

Prepared in cooperation with the Centre for Russian and Central EurAsian 

Mineral Studies—Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom, and 

Mining and Economic Consulting, Ltd., Almaty, Kazakhstan

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5090–E

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

This report and any updates to it are available online at:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5090/e/

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes 

only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Box, S.E., Syusyura, Boris, Hayes, T.S., Taylor, C.D., Zientek, M.L., Hitzman, M.W., Seltmann, Reimer, Chechetkin, 

Vladimir, Dolgopolova, Alla, Cossette, P.M., and Wallis, J.C., 2012, Sandstone copper assessment of the 

Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5090–E, 

63 p. and spatial data tables. 
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Geologic Overview.........................................................................................................................................2

Mineral Deposit Model .................................................................................................................................8

Assessment Methodology..........................................................................................................................14

Assessment Data ........................................................................................................................................14

Delineation of Permissive Tracts...............................................................................................................17

Selection of Grade and Tonnage Model for Resource Assessment...................................................18

Results of Probabilistic Assessments of Permissive Tracts.................................................................18

Results of the Monte Carlo Simulation of Contained Metal .................................................................20

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................21

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................21

Appendix A. Assessment Team.................................................................................................................25

Appendix B. Sandstone Copper Assessment for Tract 142ssCu8001 

(CS-1), Central Kazakhstan ...........................................................................................................26

Appendix C. Sandstone Copper Assessment for Tract 142ssCu8002 

(CS-2), Central Kazakhstan ...........................................................................................................34

Appendix D. Sandstone Copper Assessment for Tract 142ssCu8003 

(CS-3), Central Kazakhstan ...........................................................................................................47

Appendix E. Sandstone Copper Assessment for Tract 142ssCu8004 

(CS-4), Central Kazakhstan ...........................................................................................................55

Appendix F. Deposit Data Used to Develop a Grade and Tonnage Model 

for Sandstone Copper Deposits...................................................................................................61

Appendix G. Description of GIS Files........................................................................................................63

Figures

 1. Regional geologic map showing the Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan. ......................3

 2. Generalized Paleozoic stratigraphic section of the Chu-Sarysu 

Basin, central Kazakhstan. .............................................................................................................4

 3. Geologic map showing fold trends and outlines of ore deposits within the Dzhezkazgan 

sub-basin of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan. .................................................... 6–7

 4. Carboniferous and Permian stratigraphic section in the Dzhezkazgan deposit area 

Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan. .......................................................................................9

 5. Schematic diagram showing ore bodies in selected stratigraphic layers in the 

Dzhezkazgan deposit, Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan. .............................................10

 6. Schematic diagram showing southwest-northeast cross section of the Dzhezkazgan 

deposit, Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan.......................................................................11

 7. Thickness of mineralized rock within ore-bearing bed 6-I, Dzhezkazgan deposit, ChuSarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan...............................................................................................12

 8. Mineral zoning of ore bodies, Dzhezkazgan deposit, Chu-Sarysu Basin, central 

Kazakhstan. .....................................................................................................................................13
iv

 9. Tracts within the Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan, assessed 

for undiscovered sandstone copper deposits in this report...................................................15

 10. Copper endowment within the Chu-Sarysu Basin, 

central Kazakhstan, by tract.........................................................................................................20

 B1. Location map for tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1) and its known 

deposits and prospects, central Kazakhstan ............................................................................28

 B2. Cumulative frequency plot showing the results of Monte Carlo 

computer simulation of undiscovered resources in tract 142ssCu8001 

(CS-1), central Kazakhstan ...........................................................................................................32

 C1. Location map for tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2) and its known 

deposits and prospects, central Kazakhstan ............................................................................36

 C2. Locations of fold structures in tract 142ssCu8002 

(CS-2), central Kazakhstan. ..........................................................................................................37

 C3. Stratigraphic column in the vicinity of the Zhaman-Aibat and 

Taskora deposits, showing positions of ore horizon subunits, 

Chu-Sarysu Basin, Kazakhstan....................................................................................................40

 C4. Cumulative frequency plot showing the results of a Monte Carlo 

computer simulation of undiscovered resources in tract 

142ssCu8002 (CS-2), Kazakhstan. ................................................................................................46

 D1. Location map for tract CS-3 and its known prospects in central Kazakhstan.....................49

 D2. Cumulative frequency plot showing the results of a Monte Carlo 

computer simulation of undiscovered resources in tract 

142ssCu8003 (CS-3), Kazakhstan. ................................................................................................54

 E1. Location map for tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4) and its known 

prospects in central Kazakhstan. ................................................................................................57

 E2. Cumulative frequency plot showing the results of a Monte Carlo 

computer simulation of undiscovered resources 

in tract 142ssCU8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan. ....................................................................60

Tables

 1. Maps and digital data from Syusyura and others (2010) used to 

support the assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan...............................16

 2. Grade and tonnage of known sandstone copper deposits, 

Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan. .....................................................................................17

 3. Permissive tracts for the assessment of undiscovered 

sandstone copper deposits, Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan. ..................................19

 4. Estimates of numbers of undiscovered sandstone copper deposits, 

mineral resource assessment, Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan...............................20

 5. Summary of identified resources and Monte Carlo simulations of undiscovered 

resources in each sandstone copper deposit assessment

 tract, Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan...........................................................................21

 B1. Summary of selected resource assessment results for tract 

142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan....................................................................................26
v

 B2. Known sandstone copper deposits in tract 

142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan....................................................................................29

 B3. Significant prospects, occurrences, and areas with prognostic 

resource estimates in tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan ..................................29

 B4. Principal sources of information used by the assessment team 

for delineation of tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan...........................................30

 B5. Deposit estimates by individual team members for tract 

142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan....................................................................................30

 B6. Undiscovered deposit estimates, deposit numbers, tract area, 

and deposit density for tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan ................................31

 B7. Results of Monte Carlo simulations of undiscovered resources 

for tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan ....................................................................31

 C1. Summary of selected resource assessment results for tract 

142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan....................................................................................34

 C2. Known sediment-hosted copper deposits in tract 

142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan....................................................................................41

 C3. Significant prospects, occurrences, and areas with prognostic 

resource estimates in tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan ..................................44

 C4. Principal sources of information used by the assessment team 

for delineation of tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan...........................................44

 C5. Undiscovered deposit estimates for individual assessment 

subunits, tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan.........................................................45

 C6. Correlation matrix used to combine undiscovered deposit 

estimates statistically for assessment subunits in tract 

142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan....................................................................................45

 C7. Undiscovered deposit estimates, deposit numbers, tract area, 

and deposit density for tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan ................................45

 C8. Results of Monte Carlo simulations of undiscovered resources 

in tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan......................................................................45

 D1. Summary of selected resource assessment results for tract 

142ssCu8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan....................................................................................47

 D2. Significant prospects, occurrences, and areas with prognostic 

resource estimates in tract 142ssCU8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan..................................50

 D3. Principal sources of information used by the assessment team 

for delineation of tract 142ssCU8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan ..........................................52

 D4. Undiscovered deposit estimates for individual assessment 

subunits, tract 142ssCu8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan.........................................................53

 D5. Correlation matrix used to combine undiscovered deposit 

estimates statistically for assessment subunits in tract 

142ssCu8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan....................................................................................53

 D6. Undiscovered deposit estimates, deposit numbers, tract area, 

and deposit density for tract 142ssCu8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan ................................53

 D7. Results of Monte Carlo simulations of undiscovered resources in 

tract 142ssCu8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan ..........................................................................53
vi

 E1. Summary of selected resource assessment results for 

tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan ..........................................................................55

 E2. Significant prospects and occurrences in tract 142ssCu8004 

(CS-4), central Kazakhstan ...........................................................................................................58

 E3. Principal sources of information used by the assessment team 

for delineation of tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan...........................................58

 E4. Undiscovered deposit estimates for individual assessment subunits, 

tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan ..........................................................................59

 E5. Correlation matrix used to combine undiscovered deposit 

estimates statistically for assessment subunits in tract 

142ssCu8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan....................................................................................59

 E6. Undiscovered deposit estimates, deposit numbers, tract area, 

and deposit density for tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan. ...............................59

 E7. Results of Monte Carlo simulations of undiscovered resources 

in tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan......................................................................59

 F1. Table of deposits and their tonnages and metal grades, used to develop a 

grade and tonnage model for sandstone copper deposits .............................................. 61–62
By Stephen E. Box1

, Boris Syusyura2, Timothy S. Hayes1, Cliff D. Taylor1, Michael L. Zientek1, Murray W. 

Hitzman3

, Reimar Seltmann4, Vladimir Chechetkin5, Alla Dolgopolova4, Pamela M. Cossette1, and John C. Wallis1

Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, 

Central Kazakhstan

Abstract

Mineral resource assessments represent a synthesis of 

available information to estimate the location, quality, and 

quantity of undiscovered mineral resources in the upper 

part of the Earth’s crust. This report presents a probabilistic mineral resource assessment of undiscovered sandstone 

copper deposits within the late Paleozoic Chu-Sarysu Basin 

in central Kazakhstan by the U.S. Geological Survey as a 

contribution to a global assessment of mineral resources. 

The purposes of this study are to: (1) provide a database of 

known sandstone copper deposits and significant prospects in 

this area, (2) delineate permissive areas (tracts) for undiscovered sandstone copper deposits within 2 km of the surface 

at a scale of 1:1,000,000, (3) estimate numbers of undiscovered deposits within these permissive tracts at several 

levels of confidence, and (4) provide probabilistic estimates 

of amounts of copper (Cu), silver (Ag), and mineralized 

rock that could be contained in undiscovered deposits within 

each tract. The assessment uses the three-part form of mineral resource assessment based on mineral deposit models 

(Singer, 1993; Singer and Menzie, 2010). 

Delineation of permissive tracts for resources is based on 

the distribution of a Carboniferous oxidized nonmarine clastic 

(red bed) stratigraphic sequence that lies between overlying Permian and underlying Devonian evaporite-bearing 

sequences. Subsurface information on the extent and depth 

of this red bed sequence and structural features that divide 

the basin into sub-basins was used to define four permissive 

tracts. Structure contour maps, mineral occurrence databases, 

drill hole lithologic logs, geophysical maps, soil geochemical maps, locations of producing gas fields, and evidence for 

1

U.S. Geological Survey.

 2Mining and Economic Consulting Ltd., Almaty, Kazakhstan.

3

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.

4

Centre for Russian and Central EurAsian Mineral Studies—Natural History 

Museum, London, United Kingdom.

5

Russian Geological Society (RosGeo), Chita, Russia.

former gas accumulations were considered in conjunction 

with descriptive deposit models and grade and tonnage models to guide the assessment team’s estimates of undiscovered 

deposits in each tract.

The four permissive tracts are structural sub-basins of the 

Chu-Sarysu Basin and range in size from 750 to 65,000 km2

. 

Probabilistic estimates of numbers of undiscovered sandstone 

copper deposits were made for the four tracts by a group of 

experts. Using these probabilistic estimates, Monte Carlo 

simulation was used to estimate the amount of metal contained 

within each tract. The results of the simulation serve as the 

basis for estimates of the metal endowment.

The team estimates that 26 undiscovered deposits occur 

within the Chu-Sarysu Basin, and that these deposits contain 

an arithmetic mean of at least 21.5 million metric tons (Mt) 

of copper and 21,900 metric tons (t) of silver. The undiscovered deposits are in addition to the 7 known deposits 

that contain identified resources of 27.6 Mt of copper. Sixty 

percent of the estimated mean undiscovered copper resources 

are associated with the two permissive tracts that contain the 

identified resources; the remaining estimated resources are 

associated with the two tracts that have no known deposits. 

For the three tracts that contain 95 percent of the estimated 

undiscovered copper resources, the probability that each tract 

contains its estimated mean or more is about 40 percent. For 

the tract with 5 percent of the estimated undiscovered copper resources, the probability that it contains that amount or 

more is 25 percent.

Introduction

This report presents the results of an assessment of 

the late Paleozoic Chu-Sarysu sedimentary basin in central 

Kazakhstan for the occurrence of undiscovered sandstone 

copper deposits. The study was coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as part of a cooperative international 

project to estimate the regional locations and probable quantity and quality of the world’s undiscovered nonfuel mineral 

resources. This research project is developing, testing, and (or) 

applying a variety of methods to assess undiscovered mineral 
2 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

resources quantitatively to a depth of 1 km or more below 

the Earth’s surface (Briskey and others, 2001, 2007; Schulz 

and Briskey, 2003). The primary objectives are to identify the 

principal areas in the world that have potential for selected 

undiscovered mineral resources by using available compiled 

information about geology, geochemistry, geophysics, and 

previous exploration, and to present the results in the context 

of modern quantitative statistical models.

Regional assessment studies such as this one compile and 

integrate existing information by using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology so that results can be presented 

at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Data sets used in this study include 

databases and maps of the location, size, and geologic type of 

known mineral deposits and occurrences; maps and explanations of regional geology, metallogeny, petroleum geology, tectonics, geochemistry, and geophysics; and available 

information about regional mineral exploration history. The 

integrated information is used to delineate tracts of land permissive for particular types of undiscovered nonfuel mineral 

deposits and to make and constrain probabilistic estimates 

of the quantity of the undiscovered resources. The resulting 

quantitative mineral resource assessment can then be evaluated using economic filters and cash flow models for economic 

and policy analysis, and can be applied to mineral supply, economic, environmental, and land-use planning. Such economic 

evaluations are not part of this report.

In this report, we first present an overview of the geologic 

setting and history of the Chu-Sarysu Basin in central Kazakhstan (fig. 1). This is followed by a review of the characteristic 

features of sandstone copper deposits in general, and of the 

giant Dzhezkazgan deposit within the basin in particular (see 

also Box and others, in press), in order to develop a generalized model for the origin of these deposits in this basin. We 

then briefly review the mineral assessment methodology that 

has been developed by researchers at the USGS. Next, we 

summarize our mineral resource assessment of undiscovered 

sandstone copper deposits in the Chu-Sarysu Basin. Brief 

descriptions are given of the data used in the assessment and 

of the criteria used to delineate the tracts that are permissive 

for the occurrence of undiscovered deposits of this type, and 

we compare the local deposits with the global grade-tonnage 

model to test its appropriateness. Finally, we review the results 

of the probabilistic assessments of the permissive tracts and 

the results of the Monte Carlo simulations of the contained 

metal endowment of each tract.

Appendix A includes biographical information about the 

team of experts who completed the mineral resource assessment. Appendixes B through E contain summary information for each tract, including the location, geologic feature 

assessed, rationale for tract delineation, tables and descriptions 

of known deposits and significant prospects, exploration history, model selection, rationale for the estimates, assessment 

results, and references. Appendix F contains a table of grade 

and tonnage data for the 70 sandstone copper deposits. The 

grade-tonnage model was constructed from those data and 

used to simulate undiscovered resources in the Chu-Sarysu 

Basin. Appendix G describes the accompanying geodatabase 

and included feature classes which provide permissive tract 

outlines, assessment results, and data for deposits and prospects in a GIS (ESRI) format. 

Geologic Overview

The Chu-Sarysu Basin in central Kazakhstan (fig. 1) 

hosts the giant Dzhezkazgan sandstone copper deposit near its 

northern margin, as well as six other smaller deposits of the 

same type. All of the deposits occur within an Upper Carboniferous6

 (Pennsylvanian) fluvial clastic red bed sequence 

(Taskuduk and Dzhezkazgan Formations) within the basin (fig. 

2). These clastic units are considered to constitute the permissive units for undiscovered deposits within the basin because 

they appear to have confined and focused the flow of brines 

and fluids in the basin. At present (2011), mining of these 

deposits occurs to nearly 1 km below the surface, and the 

assessment of undiscovered deposits is limited to 2 km below 

the surface. A structure contour map of the base of the ore host 

strata is shown in figure 1. 

The ore host strata occur within a 3–6 km thick Lower 

Devonian to Upper Permian stratigraphic sequence (fig. 2) 

deposited in the Chu-Sarysu Basin. The axis of the basin 

coincides with the trace of an Ordovician suture between Proterozoic continental blocks (Windley and others, 2007). Basin 

strata rest unconformably on deformed Proterozoic to lower 

Paleozoic strata, intruded locally by Early Devonian granitic 

rocks. The stratigraphy of the Devonian-Permian fill of the 

Chu-Sarysu Basin can be divided into four depositional units. 

The lowest unit (1–2 km thick) consists of Early and Middle 

Devonian intermediate volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks under 

the eastern part of the basin (Windley and others, 2007) that 

interfinger westward with, and grade upward into, a Middle 

and Upper Devonian continental red bed sequence. The lower 

basinal volcanic and red bed strata were deposited within and 

beyond the present basin margins on the back-arc flank of an 

Early and Middle Devonian continental magmatic arc located 

to the east (Windley and others, 2007) that was generated by 

subduction beneath the east flank of the arc. Arc magmatism 

with similar subduction geometry stepped eastward a few hundred kilometers from Late Devonian through Permian time. 

The second unit (1–2 km thick) of the Chu-Sarysu Basin 

consists of Upper Devonian-Mississippian limestones and 

dolomites with lagoonal evaporite facies in the lower part, 

6

In this report we use the western European and American subdivision of 

the Carboniferous Period into Lower [Mississippian] and Upper [Pennsylvanian] sub-periods (with no “Middle” sub-period). In the stratigraphic nomenclature developed in the former Soviet Union, the Carboniferous is divided 

into Lower, Middle, and Upper sub-periods, and the Middle and Upper 

sub-periods encompass our Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) sub-period, 

divided at the top of the Moscovian epoch (Harland and others, 1990).
C h u - S a r y s u

B a s i n

Dzhezkazgan sub-basin

KARATAU FAULT

ZHALAIR-NAIMAN FAULT

LAKE BALKASH

KOKSHETAU FAULT

Chu uplift

Tasty uplift

1

2

3 ARADY FAULT

Muyunkum

sub-basin

Tesbulak

sub-basin

Kokpansor

sub-basin

Dv

PCms

DPv

DCpl

DPv

DCpl

DCpl

DCpl

ePz

ePz

ePz

DPv

DCpl DCpl

DCpl

DCpl

PCms

ePz

ePz

ePz

ePz

ePz

DCpl

DCpl

PCms

DCpm

Dv

PCms

DCpl

68°E 72°E

48°N45°N

60°E 

50°N40°N

KAZAKH

KAZAKHSTAN

UZBEKISTAN

Chu-Sary

EXPLANA

PCms

DCpl

Dv

DPv

ePz

DCpm

3

Elevation of base of upper  sequence relative to mea kilometers

Upper Devonian-lower C limestoneMiddle Devonian-lower  carbonate passive marProterozoic metamorphi lower Paleozoic sedimEarly Paleozoic oceanic Early and Middle Devoni rocksLate Devonian-Permian 

Geologic map units

FaultGeologic feature mentione

0.3-3.0-2.0-1.0

0 1000

200 KILOMETERS

50 100 MILES

Political boundaries from U.S. Department of State (2009).Lambert Conformal Conic Projection.Central meridian, 69° E., latitude of origin, 46° N.

cs_g1.ai

Figure 1. Geologic map of the region of the Chu-Sarysu Basin in central Kazakhstan (modified from Windley and others, 2007) with Permian and yo

Within the basin area, defined by the subsurface presence of Pennsylvanian strata, structure contour intervals are shown on the base of Pennsylvafrom Syusyura and others, 2010; sub-basins from Sinitsyn, 1991). Small isolated areas of Pennsylvanian strata outside the contiguous Chu-Sarysu B(compare with assessment tracts of fig. 9). Numbered geologic features: 1, central Sarysu uplift; 2, Kumola synclinorium; 3, Buguldzhy uplift.
4 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

0 0

1 KILOMETER

0.5 MILES

0.5

0.25

unconformity

Kingir 

Formation

Zhidelisai 

Formation

Dzhezkazgan 

Formation

Taskuduk 

Formation

Lacustrine shale sequence 

 with interbedded evaporitic 

 salt horizons, grading up into 

 lacustrine shale-limestone 

 sequence

Continental red beds (ore host

 horizon), conglomeratic in 

 upper part (Dzhezkazgan 

 Formation)

Interbedded Upper Devonian 

 limestones and evaporite salts 

 grading upward to Mississippian

 limestone sequence capped by 

 reduced marine shale

Early and Middle Devonian 

 intermediate to felsic volcanic 

 rocks grading westward and 

 upward into Middle and Upper 

 Devonian continental red beds

Deformed lower Paleozoic meta-

 sedimentary rock cut by Early 

 Devonian granites

Limestone

Shale

Red bed shale

Salt-bearing nonmarine 

 evaporites

Red bed sandstone

Red bed crossbedded

 sandstone

Red bed crossbedded

 conglomerate

Reduced marine shale

Salt-bearing marine

 evaporites

Andesitic volcanic 

 rocks

Deformed metasedimentary 

 rocks

Granite

EXPLANATION

Formation Lithology System and 

Series Description Upper Devonian and Mississippian Lower Paleo- zoic Lower, Middle, and Upper Devonian Pennsylvanian Permian

cs_g2.ai

Figure 2. Generalized Paleozoic stratigraphic section of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan (compiled from Ditmar and 

Tikhomirov, 1967; Gablina, 1981; Bykadorov and others, 2003; Alexeiev and others, 2009; Syusyura and others, 2010). Known 

sandstone copper deposits are restricted to the Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations.
Geologic Overview 5

which is a component of a regional carbonate platform-slope 

sequence of a southwest-facing passive continental margin 

located to the west of the Chu-Sarysu Basin (Cook and others, 

2002). Above a transitional reduced shale unit, the third unit (1 

km thick) of the basin fill consists of Pennsylvanian continental red beds that host the copper mineralization. Pennsylvanian 

onset of northeast-side-down, basin-margin faulting along the 

Karatau Fault (fig. 1) and the absence of Pennsylvanian and 

Permian strata southwest of the fault are evidence of Pennsylvanian subsidence of a distinct Chu-Sarysu Basin, the locus 

of deposition of Pennsylvanian to Upper Permian fill (Alexeiev and others, 2009). The Pennsylvanian red bed sequence 

is characterized by alluvial facies deposited by paleo-rivers 

that flowed into the basin from its margins: eastward from the 

western basin margin (Alexeiev and others, 2009), southward 

from the northern basin margin (Narkelyun and Fatikov, 

1989), and westward from the eastern basin margin (Glybovskiy and Syusyura, 1992). 

Finally, the uppermost Paleozoic unit (1–2 km thick) 

consists of Permian fine-grained red bed lacustrine deposits 

with interlayered evaporitic salts. The deposits grade upward 

into interlayered nonmarine limestones, marl, and fine clastic 

rocks. Isopach thickness maps of Permian salt (Zharkov, 1984) 

show distinct depocenter maxima in the Muyunkum sub-basin 

in the south and straddling the Kokshetau Fault from the 

eastern half of the Kokpansor sub-basin across the northern 

part of the Tesbulak sub-basin. Folding of the basinal sequence 

began during deposition of the Pennsylvanian Dzhezkazgan 

Formation (Gablina, 1981) but continued after deposition of 

the Permian strata, ending prior to deposition of gently dipping 

Upper Cretaceous to lower Tertiary strata (<1 km thick).

The tectonic setting of late Paleozoic basin subsidence in 

the Chu-Sarysu Basin is unclear. The Devonian volcanic rocks 

and red beds and the Mississippian carbonate sequence extend 

beyond the Chu-Sarysu Basin margins, and these units are 

related to regional subsidence rather than to localized subsidence within the basin. Alexeiev and others (2009) documented 

Pennsylvanian northeast-directed thrusting on the southwestern flank of the Chu-Sarysu Basin; they interpreted basin 

subsidence to have taken place in a foreland basin setting, 

based on flanking conglomerates and the change from marine 

to nonmarine deposition in the Chu-Sarysu Basin. A thrustbelt foreland basin setting for Pennsylvanian subsidence of 

the Chu-Sarysu Basin is unlikely, however, because available 

isopach thickness data indicate that these strata thin toward 

the southwestern basin margin (Bykadorov and others, 2003) 

rather than thicken toward the associated thrust belt, as would 

be expected in a foreland basin setting. The Chu-Sarysu Basin 

is flanked on its northeast (Zhalair-Naiman Fault: Yakubchuk, 

2004; Popov and others, 2009) and southwest (Karatau Fault: 

Allen and others, 2001; Alexeiev and others, 2009) margins by 

long parallel northwest-trending faults with complex histories 

(fig. 1). A down-to-the-east fault is buried under Tertiary strata 

in the central part of the basin (Kokshetau Fault) and parallels the basin-bounding faults. The Kokshetau Fault divides 

the northern half of the basin into two sub-basins (Syusyura 

and others, 2010). These faults may be associated with the 

formation of the depositional basin or may be related to 

post-depositional deformation of the basin, or both. Allen and 

others (2001) and Alexeiev and others (2009) suggest that the 

northwest-trending Karatau Fault along the southwestern basin 

margin experienced left-lateral transpression (nearly eastward 

compression) during onset of Pennsylvanian Chu-Sarysu 

Basin subsidence. Permian subsidence of distinct northern and 

southern salt depocenters in the Chu-Sarysu Basin implies 

the existence of a nearly east-west positive feature separating 

them, possibly an arch caused by a step-over between sinistral 

faults along the basin margin. Locally at the Dzhezkazgan 

copper deposit on the northern flank of the basin (fig. 3A), 

Pennsylvanian red bed strata appear to thin over the apparently 

syn-depositional, east-northeast-trending Kingir Anticline 

(Gablina, 1981). Such syn-depositional anticlines could indicate nearly north-south syn-depositional compression. Alternatively, the anticlines could reflect the trends of pre-existing or 

active normal faults that controlled syn-depositional diapirism 

of underlying Upper Devonian salts (Warren, 2000), reflecting 

earlier or active north-south extension. A better understanding 

of isopach thickness variations within the Chu-Sarysu Basin 

(see also Syusyura and others, 2010) and of the movement history of basin margin faults is necessary to resolve the cause(s) 

of Chu-Sarysu Basin subsidence.

The basinal strata were deformed by two nearly orthogonal trends of upright folds prior to mineralization: one set 

with east-northeast trends, and the other set with north to 

north-northwest trends (Allen and others, 2001; Alexeiev and 

others, 2009; Syusyura and others, 2010). Geologic maps of 

the basin margins and structure contour maps of the basin 

interior show evidence that these two fold trends affect upper 

Paleozoic strata throughout the basin, resulting in a domeand-basin style of intersecting folds (Allen and others, 2001). 

The relative ages of the two fold trends are uncertain. Along 

the southwestern flank of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, the northerly set is deformed by the east-northeasterly set (Allen and 

others, 2001; Alexeiev and others, 2009). In the region of the 

Dzhezkazgan deposit, however, bleaching (iron reduction) of 

the Pennsylvanian ore host rock red bed sequence (shown by 

patterns in fig. 3B), inferred to have resulted from the former 

presence of a natural gas deposit within an anticlinal trap, is 

localized along the east-northeast-trending Kingir Anticline 

and continues across intersecting north-south synclines and 

anticlines. This suggests that the east-northeast trending folds 

formed first (F1), trapping natural gas deposits, and were 

crossed by later north-south folds (F2). The Dzhezkazgan 

sandstone copper deposit is localized along the trend of an F1 

anticline where it is crossed by an F2 syncline (fig. 3), and 

therefore post-dates at least the onset of F2 folding. Throughout the basin, wavelengths of both fold sets are approximately 

10–15 km, and the intersecting folds result in complex eggcarton-like basin-and-dome fold patterns of the pre-Mesozoic 

sequence. Within the main Chu-Sarysu Basin, these folded 

strata are overlain unconformably by gently dipping Upper 

Cretaceous-Paleogene and Neogene continental strata.
F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

M

ud

Zhilandy Anticline

Kingir Anticline

Itauz Saryoba 

West

Saryoba 

East

Kipshakpay

Karashoshak

Dzhezkazgan

Zhartas

Dzhezkazgan

sub-basin

Syncline

Dzhezkazgan

67°15'E 67°30'E 67°45'E

48°15'N

48°00'N47°45'N

60°E 

50°N45°N

KAZAKH

UZBEKISTAN

Chu-Sary

EXPLANATION

Ore deposit extentMajor fault (dashed where inferred);  u, upthrown side; d, downthrown  side

M F1 syncline

F F2 anticline

M F2 syncline

F1 anticline

F

Folds (major-bold, minor-light)

Political boundaries from U.S. Department of State (2009).Asia North Lambert Conformal Conic Projection.Central meridian, 67° E., latitude of origin, 30° N.

0 5 10 KILOMETERS0 2.5 5 MILES

cs_g3a.ai

Figure 3A. Geologic map, fold trends and outlines of ore deposits within the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kaz

(Syusyura and others, 2010). Stratigraphic sub-units are distinguished by variations in color; the broader time-stratigraphic units are identifigure 3

B. The giant Dzhezkazgan sandstone copper deposit is localized in a structural saddle of the east-northeast-trending F1 Kingir Anti

where it is crossed by the major north-trending F2 syncline that localizes the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin. The Zhartas deposit occurs farther enorthern flank of the F1 Kingir Anticline, where it is crossed by another north-northwest-trending F2 syncline. The five deposits of the Zhilaare localized along another east-northeast-trending F1 anticline on the northern flank of the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin. The three western de(Itauz, Saryoba West, and Saryoba East) are elongate within and parallel to north-trending F2 synclines where they cross that F1 anticline. eastern deposits (Kipshakpay, Karashoshak) occur on the southeast flank of the same F1 anticline, but have no obvious F2 syncline interse
F

M

F

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

M

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

F

F

F

F

F

Political boundaries from U.S. Department of State (2009).Asia North Lambert Conformal Conic Projection.

Central meridian, 67° E., latitude of origin, 30° N.

Zhilandy Anticline

Dzhezkazgan

Syncline

ud

Saryoba 

West

Saryoba 

East

Kipshakpay

Karashoshak

Dzhezkazgan

Zhartas

Itauz

Kingir Anticline Dzhezkazgan sub-basin

67°15'E 67°30'E 67°45'E

48°15'N

48°00'N47°45'N

0 5 10 KILOMETERS0 2.5 5 MILES

Ore deposit extent>50% of red bed sandstones  bleached to gray>20% of red bed sandstones  bleached to gray

EXPLANATION

Permian salt-bearing  lacustrine depositsPennsylvanian red  beds (ore host horizon) Mississippian carbonate  unitsUpper Devonian red beds

Proterozoic and early  Paleozoic schists and  intrusive rocks

M F1 syn

F F2 ant

M F2 syn

F1 ant

F

Major f u, upt sideFolds (m

60°E 

50°N45°N

KAZAKHST

UZBEKISTAN

Figure 3

B. Same as figure 3

A, but with broader time-stratigraphic units identified. Areas of partial iron reduction (20 percent and 50 percent

Pennsylvanian red bed sequence are shown by different cross-hatched patterns. Note that areas of partial iron reduction are east-northeastalong F1 anticlines, even where crossed by F2 synclines.
8 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

A structure contour map of the base of the Pennsylvanian 

host strata for the copper mineralization (fig. 1) gives some 

idea of the complexity of basin structure. A northwest-elongate 

basement high, over which the ore host strata were eroded 

prior to Cretaceous overlap, occurs in the central basin. The 

central basin high plunges to the northwest and is bound on its 

northeast flank by the down-to-the-east Kokshetau Fault. This 

elongate high divides the northern half of the basin into west 

(Kokpansor) and east (Tesbulak) sub-basins (Sinitsyn, 1991), 

each of which is broadly tilted to the southwest. The pattern 

is complicated by the two orthogonal fold sets. The southern sub-basin (Muyunkum) generally is shallower than the 

northern sub-basins, with its deepest part toward the northeast. 

Isopach thickness maps of Permian salt (Zharkov, 1984) show 

a distinct depocenter maximum that straddles the Kokshetau 

Fault and the two northern structural sub-basins, indicating the 

fault and sub-basins are Early Permian or younger phenomena.

Mineral Deposit Model

Sediment-hosted stratabound copper deposits consist of 

copper-sulfide-bearing zones a few to tens of meters thick that 

are generally parallel to lithologic layering (Kirkham, 1989; 

Hitzman and others, 2005). The sulfides typically occur in 

reduced rocks near oxidation-reduction boundaries and commonly have an ore mineral zonation related to that oxidation 

boundary. Cox and others (2003) classified these deposits in 

three subtypes based on host lithology and type of reductant. 

The reduced-facies subtype typically is hosted in marine or 

lacustrine shale or carbonate rocks that contain disseminated 

organic carbon and (or) pyrite that overlie or are interbedded with red bed strata or subaerial basalt flows. The red bed 

subtype occurs within reduced zones in red bed sequences, 

typically centered on accumulations of woody plant detritus. 

The Revett subtype (referred to as sandstone copper subtype 

in this report) occur within sandstone host strata in red bed 

sequences that contain gray or green reduced-iron alteration zones. For the sandstone copper subtype, the host strata 

generally contain evidence for the former presence of fluid or 

gaseous hydrocarbons.

Hitzman and others (2005, 2010) present a general 

model for the origin of sediment-hosted copper deposits, 

with emphasis on the source, transport, and precipitation of 

the ore components within an evolving basinal hydrologic 

system. Continental, fluvial red bed sequences, commonly 

with interbedded mafic volcanic rocks, typically are considered to be the source of copper. Copper can be leached from 

these source rocks by low temperature (<93 ̊C) chloride-rich 

oxidized fluids (Rose, 1976). Chloride-rich groundwater 

brines can be produced from seawater by evolution of trapped 

connate waters, by dissolution of interstratified evaporites, or 

by incorporation of residual brines after evaporitic mineral 

precipitation. Some type of hydraulic pumping of the brines, 

probably density-driven, is necessary to circulate a sufficient 

volume of this fluid past the site of ore deposition. A source of 

sulfur and appropriate chemical and physical conditions must 

come together to focus and maintain metal precipitation at a 

particular site for a long enough period to develop a deposit of 

copper and silver.

The giant (estimated 20 Mt Cu) Dzhezkazgan sandstone 

copper deposit (fig. 3) in the Chu-Sarysu Basin is thoroughly 

studied (Gablina, 1981; Daukeev and others, 2004; Syusyura and others, 2010; Box and others, in press) and provides 

important constraints for understanding processes that led to 

formation of sediment-hosted copper deposits in this basin. 

The deposit is localized within a structural saddle along the 

east-northeast trending Kingir Anticline (fig. 3), where the 

marginal north-south Dzhezkazgan sub-basin connects to the 

larger Chu-Sarysu Basin to the south (figs. 1 and 3); thus, the 

ore body is located at the intersection of an east-northeast 

trending F1 anticline (that is, the Kingir Anticline) with a 

north-trending F2 syncline (that is, the Dzhezkazgan Syncline 

that localizes the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin). Sandstone beds 

within the Pennsylvanian red bed units that host the deposits 

have been altered to a gray color along the trend of the eastnortheast anticline by reduction of iron minerals (fig. 3B). 

The reduction of iron minerals pre-dates ore deposition and 

appears to be related to the localization of natural gas accumulations within intergranular pore spaces of sandstone horizons 

along the east-northeast-trending anticline (Gablina, 1981). 

Mixing of the oxidized ore fluid with natural gas in intergranular pore spaces resulted in precipitation of the ore minerals. 

The Dzhezkazgan sandstone copper deposit consists of 

10 ore-bearing sandstone members, numbered 1 to 10 from 

stratigraphically lowest to highest, within a 600 m Pennsylvanian stratigraphic section (fig. 4). Two to four ore-bearing 

sandstone beds occur within each ore-bearing sandstone 

member, and these beds and their incorporated ore bodies 

(“Mineralization” in fig. 5) are given the sandstone member 

numeral and a Roman numeral increasing from lowest to 

highest. Ore bodies extend over an 80 km2

 area, with distinctly 

different distributions for each ore horizon (fig. 5). Ore bodies occur within the dipping ore-bearing section over about 

a 550-m vertical range from 400 m above to 150 m below 

sea level (Daukeev and others, 2004). Arcuate (concave to 

east-northeast) ore bodies 2-I, 4-I and 6-I (fig. 5) occur at 

progressively higher stratigraphic levels down the plunge of 

the Kingir Anticline to the west-southwest but at roughly similar (±100 m) elevations (fig. 6). Stratigraphically higher ore 

bodies (8-I and 9-I in fig. 5) have elongate, northeast-trending 

shapes along and parallel to the sharp, south-southeast-dipping 

limb of the Kingir Anticline. The ore bodies appear to trend 

smoothly across north- to north-northeast-trending monoclinal 

flexures (fig. 5; shown by closely spaced structure contours 

in fig. 7) which the assessment team classifies as F2 based on 

their orientation. Because these monoclinal flexures do not 

seem to control ore body trends, thickness variations (fig. 7), 

or ore mineral zonation (fig. 8), the team concludes that these 

monoclinal flexures post-date ore deposition. Mineralization 

is inferred to have occurred after the broader F2 Dzhezkazgan 
Mineral Deposit Model 9

10-II?

8-II

8-I

10-I

9-IV

9-III

9-II

9-I

7-III

7-II

7-I

6-III

6-II

6-I

5-III

5-II

5-I

4-II

4-I

3-III

3-II

3-I

2-III

2-II

2-I

2-IV

1-II

1-I

Continental 

(mainly 

lacustrine) Continental (alluvial)

Subcontinental 

(lagoon-deltaic)

Shallow marine

D-33

D-26

D-27

D-28

D-29

D-30

D-31

D-32

D-25

D-24

D-23

D-22

D-21

D-20

D-19

D-18

D-17

T-16

T-15

T-14

D-13

D-12

D-11

D-16

D-15

D-14

D-10

D-9

D-8

D-7

D-6

D-5

D-4

D-3

D-2

D-1

T-13

T-12

T-10

T-9

T-8

T-7

T-6

T-3

T-4

T-5

T-11

T-1

T-2

C-6

C-4

C-5

C-1

C-2

C-3

50

66

41

62

57

60

39

42

79

136

Zhilandy 70-100

Perechodny—no. 10

(C pr) 3

Annennsky—no.9

(C an) 3

Akchi—no. 8

(C ak) 3

Krestovsky—no. 7

(C kr) 3

Pokrov—no. 3

(C pk) 2

Zlatoust—no. 2

(C zl) 2

Taskuduk—no. 1 

(C tsk) 2

Upper Raymondian—

no. 6

(C rm ) 3 3

Middle Raymondian—

no. 5

(C rm ) 3 2

Lower Raymondian—

no. 4

(C rm ) 3 1

Dzhezkazgan Formation (C dž) 3 Taskuduk Formation (C ts) 2 Serpukhov stage c (C s) 1 1-2 (P kn)

Zhidelisai (P žd) 1

Kingir

Lower Mississippian Pennsylvanian

Carboniferous Permian

System Series Formation and 

map unit label

Ore-bearing member 

and map unit label

Thickness,

 in meters Layer Lithology Facies complex

Ore-bearing bed Rock

color

EXPLANATION

Sandstone

Shale

Dolomite

Limestone

cs_g4.ai

Figure 4. Carboniferous and Permian stratigraphic section in the Dzhezkazgan deposit area, central Kazakhstan showing the 

stratigraphic association of named ore bodies or ore-bearing beds with specific sandstone bodies in the Pennsylvanian section.
10 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

A

B

EXPLANATION

2-I

4-I

6-I

8-I

9-I

2

9

8

6

4

Flexures

Mineralization in 

 ore-bearing bed

 Base of 

 ore-bearing member

Ore in bed 9-I Boundary of the present 

erosional surface

Ore in bed 2-I

Ore in bed 4-I

Ore in bed 6-I

Ore in bed 8-I

Zhanaiskaya Anticline

Pokro Dome

X

Y

Kresto Dome

N

0 1 MILE

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

cs_g5.ai

Figure 5. Geometry of ore bodies in selected stratigraphic layers (numbered upward from lowest; see fig. 4) within the 

Dzhezkazgan sandstone copper deposit, central Kazakhstan (from Daukeev and others, 2004). A, Combined plan view of ore 

bodies; also shown is the approximate location of cross section X–Y, which is illustrated in figure 6. B, Individual horizons from 

figure 5A shown as separate oblique-view maps. 
Mineral Deposit Model 11

EXPLANATION

Boundary of numbered ore-bearing member

Footwall of ore-bearing formation

Borehole projected onto section

Mineralized rock in numbered ore-bearing bed

X Y

SOUTHWEST NORTHEAST

400

300

200

350

250

150

100

50

0

METERS

450

9-I 8-II

7-I

6-II 6-I

5-III

5-II

5-I

4-I

3-II

4-II

3-I

5-I

4-I

2-V

2-IV 2-III 2-II

5-I

2-I

1-II

2-V

1-II

2-IV

2-IV

4-I

cs_g6.ai

Figure 6. Cross section along southwest-northeast line X–Y across the Dzhezkazgan sandstone copper deposit, central Kazakhstan 

(from Daukeev and others, 2004; location in fig. 5A); ore bodies extend through about 350 vertical meters (m) within about 550 m of 

stratigraphic section (fig. 4). Note that the basal ore horizon climbs to progressively higher stratigraphic levels moving from northeast 

to southwest into the north-northwest-trending trough of the F2 Dzhezkazgan Syncline, central Kazakhstan (fig. 3). We interpret the 

downdip pinchout of ore in each horizon to reflect the approximate location of the natural gas-ore brine interface, and assume that a 

line connecting each such interface was subhorizontal at the time of ore deposition. The apparent bowing of that horizon results from 

post-ore folding associated with the sharp late F2 flexures. 

Syncline had formed, or had begun to form, but before the 

sharp F2 subsidiary flexures had formed (that is, during the 

F2 folding episode). Detailed thickness variation within 

an individual ore body (fig. 7) shows puzzling irregularities along the broadly linear trends. Some authors (Daukeev 

and others, 2004) interpret the linear trends of ore bodies as 

resulting from fracture-controlled introduction of natural gas 

and H2S into the copper-bearing brines, but this contradicts 

the mineral zonation evidence (below).

Ore mineral zonation occurs within each ore stratigraphic horizon at the Dzhezkazgan deposit (fig. 8), progressing from hematite to chalcocite to bornite to chalcopyrite 

to pyrite (Gablina, 1981; Daukeev and others, 2004). The 

presence of djurleite within ores at Dzhezkazgan defines an 

upper temperature limit of 93oC for precipitation of the ores 

(Gablina, 1981), although evidence that djurleite is a primary 

ore mineral and not a secondary mineral transformation (for 

example, Hatert, 2005) has not been presented. This progression of mineralogic zones reflects the progressive reduction 

of an oxidized copper-bearing solution (from hematite toward 

pyrite) in the presence of sulfate (Kirkham, 1989; Gablina, 

1981) and indicates the direction of oxidized solution inflow. 

The reductant is inferred to have been mobile hydrocarbons (in particular, natural gas) within sandstone interbeds. 

The broad spread of sulfur isotopic values in the ore (δS34 

= − 4.7 to − 20.1 ‰; Chukrov, 1971) suggests an origin by 

biogenic reduction of sulfate, probably associated with the 

hydrocarbon reductant. Within each ore horizon, mineral 

zones generally are parallel to the long dimension of the ore 

body, indicating flow of the copper-bearing brines across the 

strike of each ore body (fig. 8). Zonation in bodies elongate to 

the east-northeast indicates flow toward the north-northwest 

(out of the larger Chu-Sarysu Basin into the Dzhezkazgan 

sub-basin). Bodies elongate to the northwest have zonation 

indicative of northeastward flow, out of the saddle in the 

Kingir Anticline toward its culmination. Prolonged inflow 

of the copper-bearing solutions (and retreat of the reductant 

front?) resulted in forward migration of the chalcocite and 

bornite zones over the chalcopyrite zone over time, with 

leaching and reprecipitation of copper minerals producing 

the high-grade chalcocite-bornite ore bodies (fig. 8; Gablina, 

1981). The gentle dip of the mineral zones toward the anticlinal culmination (cross section of ore body 4-I in fig. 8C) 

suggests the top of the ore brine encountered the bottom edge 

of the natural gas accumulation in the east-northeast-trending 

anticline, with ore minerals precipitating along that zone of 

brine-gas interaction (Gablina, 1981).

The team infers a simple model for the development of 

the mineralizing system within the geologic evolution of the 

basin. Localization of the Dzhezkazgan deposit at the intersection of an east-northeast-trending F1 anticline and a northtrending F2 syncline indicates that mineralization took place 

after development of the two orthogonal fold trends (possibly 

during the second fold event). New geochronological data 
3 

5 7 1311 9 7 557911 

Ore-bearing bed 6-I A 

N 

Spassky Block Pokro Dome Pokrov Kresto Dome Skaya Syncline Annenskaya Syncline Figure 7B EXPLANATION

Outcrop of the base of ore-bearing bedStructural contour of the base of ore-bearing bed  (elevation, in meters above mean sea level)

< 11–55–1010–1515–20>20

Boundary of  mineralizatIsopachs of m rock thicknBorehole

EXPLANATIO

3579

111315171921

Mineralized rock thickness, in meters

1

0 3,200 FEET0 1 KILOMETER

cs_g7.ai

Figure 7. Thickness of mineralized rock within ore-bearing bed 6-1 of the Dzhezkazgan sandstone copper deposit, central Kazakhstan (from Dauke

see fig. 5 for general location of ore body 6-1 and fig. 8 for mineralogical variation within the ore body). A, Thickness (m) of ore body 6-1 plotted over 

contour intervals of the base of ore-bearing bed 6-1 (elevation in m above sea level); location of blow-up in figure 7B is shown by the red outline. Nocontinues across and is not controlled by north-trending structural flexures, which are interpreted to post-date mineralization. B, Detailed contour mof one area of ore body 6-1.
Mineral Deposit Model 13

cs_g8.ai

EXPLANATION

Oxidized ore

Chalcocite

Bornite

Chalcopyrite

Galena

Sphalerite

Rich chalcocite-bornite 

 mineralization 

Flexures

Inferred direction of ore 

 brine movement

Red-colored siltstones 

 (cross section only)

Gray sandstones 

(cross section only)

A

B

C

D Mineralization in ore-bearing bed 2-I

Mineralization in ore-bearing bed 6-I

Mineralization in ore-bearing bed 8-I

SOUTHWEST NORTHEAST Section of the ore-bearing bed 4-I

~ 10 m

0 0.5

KILOMETER

1 

Figure 8. Mineralogical zoning of selected ore bodies of the Dzhezkazgan sandstone copper deposit, central Kazakhstan (from 

Daukeev and others, 2004). Scale for A, B, and D shown in A; scale of cross section in C shown on side (no vertical exaggeration). 

A, plan view of ore bodies within ore-bearing member 8-I; B, plan view of ore bodies within ore-bearing member 6-I; C, southwestnortheast cross section for 10-meter-thick ore body within ore-bearing member 4-I; and D, plan view of ore bodies within orebearing member 2-I. Arrows show inferred direction of ore-brine movement leading to sequential copper mineral precipitation 

from chalcocite to bornite to chalcopyrite as the oxidized fluid is gradually reduced by interaction with an inferred natural gas 

reductant within the sandstone beds. The geometry of mineralogical zones of ore body 4-1, which typically dips 10–15 degrees to the 

southwest, suggests that the oxidized ore brine interacted with the underside of the overlying natural gas reductant. 
14 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

(obtained after the assessment was completed; Box and others, 

in press) indicate that mineralization at Dzhezkazgan took 

place at about the Pennsylvanian-Permian boundary. Maturation of hydrocarbon sources and migration of natural gas into 

F1 anticlinal crests occurred prior to development of F2 folds 

and prior to mineralization. Either dissolution of underlying Upper Devonian evaporitic salts or descent of evolved 

brines residual from earliest Permian evaporite deposition 

was responsible for development of the chloride-rich brines 

which evolved into the ore-bearing solutions. The thickest Lower Permian salt accumulation (>1,000 m) defines a 

northeast-elongate trough straddling the boundary between the 

northern parts of the Kokpansor and Tesbulak sub-basins (fig. 

1; Zharkov, 1984), equidistant between the Dzhezkazgan and 

Zhaman-Aibat deposits (fig. 9). Groundwater-brine circulation 

occurred within the red bed strata within the basin and upflow 

of the dense brines was guided by structural troughs. Ore 

bodies formed where these troughs guided dense ore brines 

upward into anticlinal gas accumulations. 

The Permian lacustrine-evaporitic strata above and Mississippian reduced marine shale below the Pennsylvanian 

red bed strata (fig. 2) acted as seals to trap brine circulation 

within the red bed strata, extracting copper sorbed on the iron 

oxides and resulting in elevated dissolved copper concentrations in the brines (Rose, 1976). The onset of north-trending 

F2 folding allowed the brines to migrate into the developing Dzhezkazgan sub-basin across the sagging saddle in the 

Kingir Anticline, within which natural gas previously had been 

trapped. Interaction within the Pennsylvanian strata of these 

dense copper-bearing brines with the underside of natural gas 

accumulations in the anticlinal culmination resulted in porespace precipitation of the copper from solution and development of the sandstone copper deposits. 

Assessment Methodology

For this mineral resource assessment, an assessment team 

(appendix A) was selected whose members’ expertise includes 

the origins of ore deposits in general and of this deposit type 

in particular, the regional geology and exploration history 

of the assessed area, and the methodology of assessments of 

undiscovered mineral resources. The best available geological, geochemical, and geophysical data were integrated with 

the mineral deposit models. These data and the ideas of the 

assessment team, based on their experience, were combined to 

make predictions of the size and distribution of the undiscovered mineral resources of the area. The result is a probabilistic 

quantitative assessment of undiscovered copper, byproduct 

silver, and mineralized rock in sandstone host strata in the 

Chu-Sarysu Basin in central Kazakhstan.

The team used a three-part approach to mineral resource 

assessment (Singer, 1993) in which:

1. An area was delineated in which the geology would 

permit sandstone copper deposits to occur, and that 

area was subdivided into tracts based on geologic features that influence the favorability for the occurrence 

of this type mineral deposit; four such tracts were 

identified in the Chu-Sarysu Basin (fig. 9).

2. The grades and tonnages of known deposits in this 

basin (n=7) were compared with global grade and 

tonnage models for this deposit type (n=70; appendix 

F) to determine whether the deposits in the ChuSarysu Basin are statistically consistent with the 

global population of sandstone copper deposits. It 

was determined that the Chu-Sarysu deposits cannot 

be distinguished statistically from other deposits 

included in the model. 

3. After considering the geologic information available 

for each tract, the team of experts made probabilistic 

estimates of the number of undiscovered deposits 

for each tract consistent with the grade and tonnage 

models.

A Monte Carlo simulation program [Economic Mineral 

Resource Simulator (EMINERS)] was used to combine the 

probability distributions of the estimated number of undiscovered deposits with the distributions of grades and the tonnages 

of the selected model to obtain the probability distributions 

of undiscovered metals in each tract (Root and others, 1992; 

Duval, 2012; Bawiec and Spanski, 2012).

Assessment Data 

Specific information used to support this assessment can 

be found in Syusyura and others (2010); the file names of the 

maps and data from Syusyura and others (2010) referred to in 

this assessment are listed in table 1.

The assessment team utilized geologic maps at a variety 

of scales, most of which were published by the Soviet Union 

prior to 1991. The usefulness of these maps was limited by 

extensive cover of geologically younger units. Of considerable 

use was a geologic map of the northern two-thirds of the basin 

with Mesozoic and younger strata removed (CS-NCS_preMz-geolmap.jpg; Syusyura and others, 2010). This map 

was compiled by Kazakhstani geologists based on a Soviet 

uranium exploration program that drilled holes throughout 

the basin with 1 km spacing down to Paleozoic rocks beneath 

the Mesozoic unconformity. Also included in Syusyura and 

others (2010) are other maps and information (data layers) 

used extensively in the assessment, including structure contour 

maps, mineral occurrence databases, drill hole lithologic logs, 

geophysical maps, soil geochemical maps, locations of producing gas fields, and other layers. 

Grades and tonnages of known deposits in the ChuSarysu Basin are shown in table 2. The locations and brief 

descriptions of all known occurrences are given in appendixes 

B through E. Descriptions of the known deposits were found 

in the published literature (mostly in Russian), as well as in 
CS-4

CS-3

CS-2

CS-1

Dv

PCms

DPv

DCpl

DPv

DCpl

DCpl

DCpl

ePz

ePz

ePz

DPv

DCpl DCpl

DCpl

DCpl

PCms

ePz

ePz

ePz

ePz

ePz

DCpl

DCpl

PCms

DCpm

Dv

PCms

KAZAKHSTAN

LAKE BALKASH

KOKSHETAU FAULT

KARATAU FAULT

ZHALAIR-NAIMAN FAULT

68°E 72°E

48°N45°N

60°E 

50°N40°N

KAZ

UZBEKISTAN 

TURKMENISTAN

Ch

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

0 50 100 MILES

Political boundaries from U.S. Department of State (2009).Lambert Conformal Conic Projection. Central meridian, 69° E., latitude of origin, 46° N.

Upper Devo platformal Middle Devo carbonate Proterozoic  deformed  cover rockEarly PaleozEarly and M volcanic aLate Devoni volcanic a

Geologic map 

Fault

PCms

DCpl

Dv

DPv

ePz

DCpm

EXPL

Chu-Sarysu Ba

Area in whic occur beloTract assess sandstone 

CS-2

^ Sandstone cop

^

^

^

ZhamanAibat

Dzhezkazgan

Zhilandy group

cs_g9.ai

Figure 9. Tracts within the Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan, assessed for undiscovered sandstone copper deposits. Geologic map as in 

locations of known sandstone copper deposits (Dzhezkazgan, Zhaman-Aibat) and a group of deposits (Zhilandy group) shown by red stars.
16 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

File name Brief description of the information

CS_elev-base-mCarbonif.jpg Structure contour map showing the elevation of the base of middle Carboniferous strata and locations 

of known natural gas fields in the Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS_elev-base-Perm-salt.jpg Structure contour map showing the elevation of the base of Permian salt and locations of known natural 

gas fields in the Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS_seisprofile-borehmap.jpg Map showing locations of seismic profiles and associated boreholes for the Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS-ZA_strat-columns.jpg Stratigraphic columns for boreholes in the area of the Zhaman-Aibat copper deposit in northern 

Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS_boreholes-all.shp All available borehole locations within the Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS-DZ_geolmap.tif Geologic map (no explanation) of the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin of the Chu-Sarysu Basin and 

surrounding area.

CS-DZ_minzonation.jpg Map of metallic mineral zonations around the known sandstone-hosted copper ore bodies within the 

Dzhezkazgan sub-basin and nearby areas of the Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS-IR_mineral-leaching.shp Isolines of mineral leaching yield inferred from gravity measurements in the Irkuduk area of the 

west-central Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS-KU_Cu-geochem-halos.shp Copper geochemical halos from surficial sampling in the Kumola area of the northwestern 

Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS-NCS_deps-occurrences.shp Copper and other metal occurrences and deposits from northern part of Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS-NCS_gravity-residual.jpg Residual gravity anomalies (upward continued) for the northern part of the Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS-NCS_mag-intensity.jpg Contoured magnetic-intensity map for the northern Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS-NCS_ne-strat-columns.jpg Stratigraphic columns for boreholes in northeast part of northern Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS-NCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.jpg Sub-Mesozoic unconformity geologic map of the northern two-thirds of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, showing 

copper deposits and other features prospective for undiscovered deposits.

CS-WCS-KY_soilCu-anom.shp Soil copper anomalies in the Dyusembay-Kyzylkak area in the western part of the northern 

Chu-Sarysu Basin.

CS-ZA_strat-columns.jpg Stratigraphic columns for boreholes in the area of the Zhaman-Aibat copper deposit in northern ChuSarysu Basin.

CS-ZA_reserve-outlines.jpg Map of ore-reserve areas within the Zhaman-Aibat sandstone-hosted copper deposit mine area.

CS_elev-base-Perm-salt.jpg Structure contour map showing the elevation of the base of Permian salt and locations of known natural 

-gas fields in the Chu-Sarysu Basin.

Table 1. Maps and digital data from Syusyura and others (2010) used to support the assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, 

central Kazakhstan.
Delineation of Permissive Tracts 17

materials obtained from the Web site of Kazakhmys, PLC. 

(www.kazakhmys.com), the company that currently operates the active mines in the basin. Estimates of prognostic or 

undiscovered resources were obtained from an unpublished 

2009 report of Mining and Economic Consulting, Ltd. (MEC), 

of Almaty, Kazakhstan, relevant parts of which are extracted 

in the tract descriptions in appendixes B through E. In the 

ore classification system used in the former Soviet Union, 

prognostic resources are inferred from indirect indications 

(such as geochemical or geophysical data), mineral showings, 

or isolated sampling (Diatchkov, 1994; Jakubiak and Smakowski, 1994). The resource category of prognostic resources 

is equivalent to undiscovered resources in the classification of 

mineral resources used by the USGS (U.S. Bureau of Mines 

and U.S. Geological Survey, 1976). In Diatchkov (1994) P1 

resources may be adjacent to and extend beyond the limits of 

drill-indicated resources (“C” resources). P2 resources represent possible mineralized features in known mineral deposit or 

ore-bearing regions. Resources under the P3 category are any 

potential ore-bearing deposits based on the theoretical definition of a favorable geologic environment. 

Delineation of Permissive Tracts

Based on the known occurrences of sandstone copper 

deposits in the Chu-Sarysu Basin, the mostly unexposed host 

red bed sequence (Pennsylvanian Taskuduk and Dzhezkazgan Formations) has the possibility of hosting other undiscovered deposits of this type. However, based on present and 

projected future economic mining depths, in this assessment 

the team evaluated the likelihood of undiscovered deposits 

of this type only where that sequence is less than 2 km below 

the land surface (“permissive” for minable undiscovered 

deposits of this type). The Pennsylvanian unit is 0.3–>1.5 km 

thick and is exposed discontinuously around the margin of 

the Chu-Sarysu Basin, dipping basinward beneath younger 

rocks. The combined extent of all the tracts (fig. 9) was 

drawn to include all areas in which the top of the host rock is 

less than 2 km below the surface, which is about 1 km below 

what presently are considered the deepest ore reserves at the 

Zhaman-Aibat deposit. Areas not included in the outlined 

tract are considered to be nonpermissive for this deposit type 

because either the host unit is not present, or the top of the 

host unit is too deep (>2 km) to be exploited economically 

using current technologies.

For the northern half of the basin (north of 44 ̊40′), the 

outer margin of the combined tract area is defined by the contact between unit C1—Mississippian (outside tract)—and unit 

C2ts—Pennsylvanian Taskuduk Suite on map CS-NCS_preMz-geolmap.jpg (Syusyura and others, 2010). For the outer 

boundary on the west side of the basin (south of 44 ̊40′), the 

team defined the permissive tract boundary as the contact 

between unit C2b1—the Lower Tatarian of the Bashkir Stage 

(inside)—and unit C1v3-s—Visean, Upper Tatarian-Serpukhovian (outside) on the 1:1,000,000 scale pre-Quaternary 

geologic map of the Tashkent (K42-43) quadrangle (Klishevich and others, 1990). For the gap between the southern edge 

of map CS-NCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.jpg (Syusyura and others, 2010) and the northwest edge of the Tashkent (K42-43) 

quadrangle (Klishevich and others, 1990), the team placed the 

tract boundary along the line labeled “Depression border” on 

the map CS_elev-base-mCarbonif.jpg (Syusyura and others, 2010). For the outer boundary of the permissive tract on 

the east side of the basin (south of 44 ̊40′), the boundary is 

defined as the contact between unit C1n—Namyursky Suite 

(outside) and unit C2-3dz—Dzhezkazgan Suite (inside) on 

the 1:1,000,000 scale pre-Quaternary geologic map of the 

Table 2. Grade and tonnage of known sandstone copper deposits, Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan.

[Mt, million metric tons; %, percent; ppm, parts per million; n.d., no data]

Name Tract_ID Latitude Longitude

Ore 

 tonnage

(Mt)

Grade Contained 

Cu

Reference

Cu Ag

(%) (ppm) (Mt)

Dzhezkazgan CS-1 47.882 67.432 2,000 1.10 n.d. 22 Kirkham and Broughton, 2005

Itauz CS-1 48.165 67.385 94.1 0.92 n.d. 0.87 Kirkham and Broughton, 2005

West Saryoba CS-1 48.156 67.444 86.2 0.89 n.d. 0.77 Kirkham and Broughton, 2005

East Saryoba CS-1 48.171 67.488 91.4 0.85 n.d. 0.78 Kirkham and Broughton, 2005

Kipshakpay CS-1 48.158 67.549 38.5 0.94 n.d. 0.36 Kirkham and Broughton, 2005

Karashoshak CS-1 48.188 67.610 8.9 1.46 n.d. 0.13 Kirkham and Broughton, 2005

Zhaman-Aibat CS-2 46.850 68.941 161 1.69 19.1 2.72 A. Kim, Kazakhmys plc, written 

commun., 2009

Total 2,480 1.11 27.63
18 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Balkhash (L42-43) quadrangle (Yagovkin and others, 1978). 

For the area south of the southernmost exposure of unit C1 on 

the Balkhash map, the permissive tract boundary was placed 

along the line labeled “Depression border” on the map CS_

elev-base-mCarbonif.jpg (Syusyura and others, 2010). 

Areas within the Chu-Sarysu Basin where the top of the 

Pennsylvanian red bed sequence is deeper than 2 km (shown 

in white on fig. 9) were delineated using a structure contour map of the base of the overlying Permian salt sequence 

(CS_elev-base-Perm-salt.jpg; Syusyura and others, 2010). 

Because the surface elevation is approximately 0.35 km above 

sea level, the team used the − 1.6 km elevation contour from 

map CS_elev-base-Perm-salt.jpg (Syusyura and others, 2010) 

to approximate the 2 km depth contour. Portions of the central 

area of the basin are not permissive because the Pennsylvanian strata are absent, having been eroded off a basement high 

beneath a late Mesozoic unconformity. The boundary of the 

excluded area north of 44 ̊40′ was defined using the map CSNCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.jpg (Syusyura and others, 2010); south 

of 44 ̊40′ the boundary was defined using the map CS_elevbase-mCarbonif.jpg (Syusyura and others, 2010).

The mostly contiguous permissive area described above 

was subdivided into four assessment tracts (table 3, fig. 9) 

based on established sub-basins of the Chu-Sarysu Basin 

(Sinitsyn, 1991; Daukeev and others, 2004). Tract CS-1 

(Dzhezkazgan sub-basin) extends northward from the larger 

Chu-Sarysu Basin and narrows across the Kingir Anticline at 

the junction of the sub-basin with the main basin. The southern tract boundary was placed along the southeastern flank 

of the Kingir Anticline along and extending parallel from the 

southeastern-most east-northeast-trending faults on the map 

CS-DZ_geolmap.tif (Syusyura and others, 2010). Tract CS-2 

encompasses the Tesbulak sub-basin and is separated from the 

Kokpansor sub-basin to the west (tract CS-3) by the down-tothe-east Kokshetau Fault. Tract CS-4 in the southern half of 

the Chu-Sarysu Basin encompasses the Muyunkum sub-basin. 

It is separated physically from tract CS-2 because of erosion 

of the Pennsylvanian strata along the Chu uplift. The boundary between tracts CS-3 and CS-4 is the north flank of the 

Buguldzhy uplift, where the western continuation of the Arady 

Fault (fig. 1) trends into the 2-km-below-sea-level contour of 

the base of the Pennsylvanian strata (CS-NCS_depth-basemCarbonif.mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010). Descriptions of 

each tract, its mineral deposits and prospects, and the estimate 

of and rationale for the number of undiscovered deposits are 

given in appendixes B through E. 

Selection of Grade and Tonnage Model 

for Resource Assessment

As discussed in a previous section, all of the significant deposits and most of the occurrences in the Chu-Sarysu 

Basin are classified, based on their geologic characteristics, 

as the sandstone subtype of sediment-hosted copper deposits. 

Sandstone copper deposits occur in coarser grained, typically 

siliciclastic sedimentary rocks, such as sandstone, arenite, 

arkose, or quartzite. The organic reductant in these rocks was 

petroleum vapor or fluids that accumulated in structural or 

stratigraphic traps within a reservoir rock. Where observed, 

the organic material in the sandstone subtype deposits is 

“dead oil” or pyrobitumen. Red bed subtype deposits also 

occur in coarser grained, typically siliciclastic, sedimentary 

rocks; however, the organic reductant is carbonized terrestrial plant matter. Red bed subtype deposits commonly occur 

in Devonian or younger fluvial sandstone or conglomerate 

within the Chu-Sarysu Basin. One small mined deposit (Taskora; appendix C) is a reduced facies subtype deposit, and a 

few of the small copper occurrences in the basin are classified 

either as reduced facies or red bed subtype (appendixes B 

through E). 

To estimate the amount of undiscovered resources 

quantitatively, grade and tonnage models must be constructed 

that can serve as analogs for undiscovered deposits of a given 

type. At the time of this assessment, the team identified 70 

sandstone copper deposits worldwide for which tonnage 

and grade are reported; however, exploratory data analysis 

showed that these deposits did not form a coherent population. The team examined the deposits and decided to limit 

the comparison group to include only those that were thoroughly explored and had similar cutoff grades. Deposits with 

less than 50,000 t of contained copper were excluded from 

the model because the sites probably were underexplored 

or were small volumes of mineralized rock that would not 

be evaluated or explored given current economic conditions. Some sites in Africa were excluded because they are 

supergene-enriched deposits and were evaluated with a high 

cutoff grade. Conversely, some sites in North America were 

excluded because the reported cutoff grades were much lower 

than reported elsewhere. Using these strategies, 70 deposits, 

seven from the Chu-Sarysu Basin and 63 from other locations, were selected to model undiscovered sandstone copper 

resources in this assessment (appendix F). Student’s t-tests 

indicate that the deposits in the Chu-Sarysu Basin are not statistically different in grade and tonnage characteristics from 

other sandstone copper deposits. 

Results of Probabilistic Assessments 

of Permissive Tracts

The assessment team evaluated the available data and 

made individual subjective estimates of the numbers of undiscovered deposits in each tract by using expert judgment. After 

compilation, the individual estimates were discussed by the 

team and a consensus estimate was agreed upon for each tract. 

The rationales for the estimates for each tract are presented in 

appendixes B through E. 
Results of Probabilistic Assessments of Permissive Tracts 19

Table 3. Permissive tracts for the assessment of undiscovered sandstone copper deposits, Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan.

[km2, square kilometers]

User_ID Tract name Coded_ID Tract area

 (km2

) Permissive tract description and fundamental unit 

CS-1 Dzhezkazgan sub-basin 142ssCu8001 753 Structural sub-basin extending north from the main body of the 

Chu-Sarysu Basin, upper Carboniferous nonmarine alluvial 

clastic sequence (red beds): Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk 

Formations.

CS-2 Tesbulak sub-basin 142ssCu8002 31,680 Northeastern structural sub-basin of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, upper 

Carboniferous nonmarine alluvial clastic sequence (red beds): 

Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations.

CS-3 Kokpansor sub-basin 142ssCu8003 28,226 Northwestern structural sub-basin of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, 

upper Carboniferous nonmarine alluvial clastic sequence (red 

beds): Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations.

CS-4 Muyunkum sub-basin 142ssCu8004 64,855 Southern structural sub-basin of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, upper 

Carboniferous nonmarine alluvial clastic sequence (red beds): 

Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations.

In some cases, extensive drill evaluation of significant 

prospects has occurred, and this information was used to guide 

the estimates at the 90th and 50th percentiles. Drilling encountered some anticlinal areas in which initially oxidized red 

beds have been converted to reduced gray strata. This transformation was interpreted to identify horizons in which there 

were accumulations of natural gas, an important reductant 

that could have localized precipitation of ore minerals from 

migrating oxidized ore brines. Copper intercepts in drill holes 

also were interpreted as favorable indicators of migrating ore 

brines. Copper enrichments in soil and secondary sodium 

minerals at the surface (Beyseyev, 1967) also were considered 

as favorable indicators of the former presence of mineralizing 

brines. The presence of producing natural gas fields, either 

within or below the prospective ore horizon, also was considered to be a favorable indicator for the past presence of this 

important ore reductant.

During the assessment meeting, estimates of undiscovered 

deposits were made for 15 areas in the Chu-Sarysu Basin. Most 

of these are areas where detailed maps and other exploration 

information were compiled by MEC (Syusyura and others, 

2010). These areas of focused study correspond to structural 

traps where copper mineralization might be expected. This strategy allowed the team to assess all the prospective areas in the 

basin systematically and to make separate estimates for areas 

with little exploration information.

When the individual assessments were complete, the 

results for the 15 areas were aggregated statistically for each 

of the four tracts (sub-basins) described above. The algorithms 

described by Root and others (1992) were used to convert percentile estimates made by the assessment team into a probability distribution function for undiscovered deposits. Geologists 

in the assessment team thought that there would be some level 

of correlation between the areas that were assessed, because 

the areas occur in the same sub-basin and (or) lie along the 

same fold or fault structure. As a result, the probability distribution functions could not be combined assuming either total 

independence or total dependence. Pair-wise correlations were 

specified for the assessed areas, and the deposit estimates were 

aggregated statistically (Schuenemeyer and others, 2011). The 

aggregated deposit estimates for each tract were used as input 

for Monte Carlo simulation.

Consensus estimates of the number of undiscovered 

deposits for each tract are presented in table 4, along with 

statistics that describe the mean expected number of undiscovered deposits, the standard deviation and coefficient of 

variation associated with the estimate, the number of known 

deposits, and the implied deposit density within each tract. 

The team estimated a mean expected total of 26 undiscovered 

sandstone copper deposits in all tracts, or 3.7 times as many as 

the seven known deposits. Note that the implied deposit densities range widely between tracts (from 0.3 to 147 deposits per 

10,000 km2

), and deposit density is roughly inverse to the size 

of the tract and to the coefficient of variation of the estimate. 

Tract CS-1 is the most well-endowed tract, containing six of 

the seven known deposits in the Chu-Sarysu Basin, and its 

small size and maturity of exploration history give it the smallest coefficient of variation. Tracts CS-2 and CS-3 have smaller 

suggested deposit densities, similar to each other; the more 

intensive exploration history in tract CS-2 leads to its smaller 

coefficient of variation. The order-of-magnitude smaller 

deposit density estimated for tract CS-4 reflects the few known 

prospects there and the lack of significant mineral exploration. 

However the high coefficient of variation indicates the large 

uncertainty about the endowment of this tract, even though all 

indicators of mineralizing conditions are known to be present.
20 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Results of the Monte Carlo Simulation 

of Contained Metal

Simulation results for each tract are listed in tables of the 

individual tract descriptions (appendixes B through E). Results 

are reported at selected quantile intervals, along with the mean 

expected amount of metal, the probability of the mean, and the 

probability of no metal. The amount of metal reported at each 

quantile represents the minimum amount of metal expected. 

The quantile results represent ranked data from the 4,999 

Monte Carlo simulations. The quantiles are linked to each tract 

simulation and, therefore, are not additive. Mean estimates, 

however, can be added to obtain total estimated amounts of 

metal and mineralized rock in undiscovered deposits. The 

mean estimates for undiscovered metal in the Chu-Sarysu 

Basin are 25.1 Mt of copper and 21,900 t of silver in 2,220 

Mt of ore. Mean results for each tract are listed in table 5. 

For tracts CS-1, CS-2, and CS-3, there is about a 30 percent 

chance that the copper contained in undiscovered resources 

is equal to or greater than the mean amount of copper shown 

in table 5; for tract CS-4, there is about an 18 percent chance. 

The probability of no deposits with copper endowment is 

small (2–3 percent) for tracts CS-1, CS-2, and CS-3, and is 

distinctly larger (29 percent) for tract CS-4.

Identified resources in known deposits within each tract 

also are listed in table 5, on the basis of data reported for individual deposits (table 2). These identified resources are based 

on total past production and published data for measured and 

indicated reserves and resources at the lowest cutoff grade 

reported. Tract CS-1, the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin, contains 90 

percent of the identified resources with its six known deposits. 

The Zhaman-Aibat deposit in tract CS-2, about 150 km southeast of the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin, is significant in that its 

discovery in the 1980s showed that deposits were not limited 

to the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin.

Resource estimates for undiscovered deposits are compared with identified resources by tract and in total in table 5 

and are illustrated in figure 10. Tract CS-1 is inferred to have 

more than 40 percent of the copper endowment of the ChuSarysu Basin, roughly two-thirds of which has been identified. 

Tract CS-2 is inferred to hold about 30 percent of the copper endowment, of which only one-tenth has been identified. 

Tracts CS-3 and CS-4 are estimated to contain more than 20 

percent and about 5 percent, respectively, of the total copper 

endowment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, none of which has been 

identified. For the entire Chu-Sarysu Basin, the total copper 

endowment is inferred to be about 53 Mt of Cu, of which a 

little over one-half has been identified.

Table 4. Estimates of number of undiscovered sandstone copper deposits, Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan.

[Nxx, estimated number of deposits at the xxth percentile confidence; Nund, expected number of undiscovered deposits; s, standard deviation; Cv%, coefficient

 of variance, in percent; Nknown, number of known deposits that have identified resources within the tract; Ntotal, total of expected number of deposits plus knowndeposits; tract 

area, area of permissive tract in square kilometers; deposit density, reported as the total number of deposits per 10,000 square kilometers; Nund, s, and Cv

% are calculated using a 

regression equation (Singer and Menzie, 2005)]

User_ID Tract name Coded_ID Consensus undiscovered deposit 

estimate

Summary statistics Tract area 

(km2

)

Deposit 

density N90 N50 N10 N05 N01 Nund s Cv

% Nknown Ntotal

CS-1 Dzhezkazgan 

sub-basin

142ssCu8001 3 5 8 8 8 5.1 2.0 39 6 11.1 753 147

CS-2 Tesbulak sub-basin 142ssCu8002 5 10 16 18 22 10.3 4.5 43 1 11.3 31,681 3.6

CS-3 Kokpansor sub-basin 142ssCu8003 3 7 15 18 24 8.4 5.8 69 0 8.4 28,227 3.0

CS-4 Muyunkum sub-basin 142ssCu8004 0 1 5 7 10 2.1 2.7 130 0 2.1 64,856 0.3

Total 25.9 7 125,517

cs_g10.ai

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

CS-1 CS-2 CS-3 CS-4

Copper, in million metric tons

Permissive tract

Mean undiscovered resources

Identified resources

EXPLANATION

Figure 10. Copper endowment (in millions of metric tons 

copper) within the Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan, by 

tract, separated into identified resources (based on total past 

production and published data for measured and indicated 

reserves and resources at the lowest cutoff grade reported) and 

mean undiscovered resources as estimated in this report.
References Cited 21

Table 5. Summary of mean expected amounts of undiscovered resources and of identified resources in each sandstone copper deposit 

assessment tract, Chu-Sarysu Basin, central Kazakhstan.

[Mean, arithmetic mean of Monte Carlo simulation results; Mt, million metric tons; t, metric tons; %, percent]

User_ID Tract name Coded_ID Mean expected amounts Identified resources Cu 

endowment

(% of total) Cu Ag Rock Cu Ag Rock

 (t) (t) (Mt) (t) (t) (Mt)

CS-1 Dzhezkazgan sub-basin 142ssCu8001 5,100,000 4,300 450 24,910,000 unknown 2,319 57

CS-2 Tesbulak sub-basin 142ssCu8002 9,900,000 8,500 870 2,720,000 308 161 24

CS-3 Kokpansor sub-basin 142ssCu8003 8,000,000 7,300 710 0 0 0 15

CS-4 Muyunkum sub-basin 142ssCu8004 2,100,000 1,800 190 0 0 0 4

Total 25,100,000 21,900 2,220 27,630,000 2,480

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Jeff Wynn (USGS) for graciously hosting the assessment meeting at the USGS Cascade 

Volcano Observatory in Vancouver, Wash. We would also like 

to thank Dmitriy Alexeiev (Russian Academy of Sciences, 

Moscow) for his presentation of a summary of the regional 

tectonic evolution to the assessment team. Jane Hammarstrom 

(USGS) provided much help, both scientific and logistical, 

through all stages of this process.

Heather Parks (USGS) assisted with graphics. Jane 

Hammarstrom, Greta Orris, Mark Cocker, and Greg Spanski 

(all USGS) served as the assessment oversight committee to 

review the preliminary results. Tom Moore and Rich Goldfarb 

(both USGS) provided helpful and timely technical reviews 

of the final report. Connie Dicken (USGS) provided a similarly helpful technical review of the GIS data accompanying 

the final report. Jim Bliss (USGS) provided help with assessment methodology. Kathleen Johnson and Tracey Suzuki are 

thanked for their careful editing of the text.

References Cited

Alexeiev, D.V., Cook, H.E., Buvtyshkin, V.M., and Golub, 

L.Y., 2009, Structural evolution of the Ural-Tian Shan 

junction—A view from Karatau ridge, South Kazakhstan: 

Comptes Rendus Geoscience, v. 341, p. 287–297.

Allen, M.B., Alsop, G.I., and Zhemchuzhnikov, V.G., 2001, 

Dome and basin refolding and transpressive inversion along 

the Karatau fault system, southern Kazakhstan: Geological 

Society of London Journal, v. 158, p. 83–95.

Bawiec, W.J., and Spanski, G.T., 2012, Quick-start guide for 

version 3.0 of EMINERS—Economic Mineral Resource 

Simulator: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2009–1057, 26 p., available only at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2009/1057. (This report supplements USGS OFR 

2004–1344.)

Beyseyev, O.B., 1967, Authigenic albitization of country rock 

as an important criterion of rhodusite mineralization in 

deposits of the Dzhezkazgan type: Dokaldy Acadamii Nauk 

SSSR, v. CLXXI, no. 1–6, p. 181–185.

Box, S.E., Syusyura, Boris, Seltmann, Reimar, Creaser, R.A., 

Dolgopolova, Alla, and Zientek, M.L., in press, Dzhezkazgan and associated sandstone copper deposits of the ChuSarysu Basin, Kazakhstan, in Hedenquist, Jeffrey, Harris, 

Michael, and Camus, Francisco, eds., Geology and genesis 

of major copper deposits and districts of the world—A 

tribute to Richard Sillitoe: Society of Economic Geologists 

Special Publication.

Briskey, J.A., Schulz, K.J., Mosesso, J.P., Horwitz, L.R., Cunningham, C.G., 2001, It’s time to know the planet’s mineral 

resources: Geotimes, v. 46, no. 3, p. 14–19.

Briskey, J.A., Schulz, K.J., Mosesso, J.P., Horwitz, L.R., Cunningham, C.G., 2007, Environmental planning issues and a 

conceptual global assessment of undiscovered nonfuel mineral 

resources: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1294, p. 19–28.

Bykadorov, V.A., Bush, V.A., Fedorenko, O.A., Filippova, 

I.B., Miletenko, N.V., Puchkov, V.N., Smirnov, A.V., Uzhkenov, B.S., and Volozh, Yu.A., 2003, Ordovician-Permian 

palaeogeography of central Eurasia—Development of 

Paleozoic petroleum-bearing basins: Journal of Petroleum 

Geology, v. 26, p. 325–350.

Chukrov, F.V., 1971, Isotopic composition of sulfur and genesis of copper ores of Dzhezkazgan and Udokan: International Geology Review, v. 13, no. 10, p. 1429–1434.

Cook, H.E., Zhemchuzhnikov, V.G., Zempolich, W.G., 

Buvtyshkin, V.M., Zhaimina, V.Ya., Kotova, E.A., Golub, 

L.Ya., Zorin, A.Ye., Lehmann, P.J., Alexeiev, D.V., 

Giovanneli, A., Viaggi, M., Fretwell, N., Lapointe, P., 

Corboy, J.J., Bowman, M., and DeCoo, J.C.M., 2002, 

Devonian and Carboniferous carbonate platform facies 

in the Bolshoi Karatau, southern Kazakhstan—Outcrop 
22 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

analogs for coeval carbonate oil and gas fields in the 

North Caspian basin, western Kazakhstan, in Zempolich, 

W.G., and Cook, H.E., eds., Paleozoic carbonates of the 

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)—Subsurface 

reservoirs and outcrop analogs: SEPM Special Publication 

74, p. 81–122. 

Cox, D.P., Lindsey, D.A., Singer, D.A., Moring, B.C., and 

Diggles, M.F., 2003 [revised 2007], Sediment-hosted copper 

deposits of the world—Deposit models and database: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2003–107 version 1.3, 

53 p., CD-ROM. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2003/of03-107/.)

Daukeev, S.Z., Ushkenov, B.S., Bespaev, K.A., Miroshnichenko, L.A., Mazurov, A.K., and Sayduakasov, M.A., 

eds., 2004, Atlas of mineral deposit models of the Republic 

of Kazakhstan: Almaty, Kazakhstan, Ministry of Energy 

and Mineral Resources, Republic of Kazakhstan. (English 

translation by C. Halls, R. Seltmann, and A. Dolgopolova, 

CERCAMS, Natural History Museum, London, United 

Kingdom), 141 p.

Diatchkov, S.A., 1994, Principles of classification of reserves 

and resources in the CIS countries: Mining Engineering, v. 

46, no. 3, p. 214–217.

Ditmar, V.I., and Tikhomirov, V.I., 1967, Permian halide 

formation in south Kazakhstan: Lithology and Mineral 

Resources, v. 6, p. 67–76. [In Russian.]

Duval, J.S., 2012, Version 3.0 of EMINERS—Economic Mineral Resource Simulator: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2004–1344, available only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2004/1344. (Version 3.0 of EMINERS updates version 

2.0, released in 2004 as USGS OFR 2004–1344. Version 2.0 

of EMINERS superseded USGS OFR 2002–0380.)

Gablina, I.F., 1981, New data on formation conditions of 

the Dzhezkazgan copper deposit: International Geology 

Review, v. 23, no. 11, p. 1303–1311.

Glybovskiy, V.O., and Syusyura, B.B., 1992, The origin of 

producing cupriferous sandstones of the Zhaman-Aibat field 

(central Kazakhstan): Lithology and Mineral Resources, v. 

27, no. 4, p. 322–331.

Harland, W.B., Armstrong, R.L., Cox, A.V., Craig. L.E., 

Smith, A.G., and Smith, D.G., 1990, A geologic time scale, 

1989: Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University 

Press, 263 p.

Hatert, Frederic, 2005, Transformation sequences of copper 

sulfides at Vielsalm, Stavelot Massif, Belgium: Canadian 

Mineralogist, v. 43, p. 623–635.

Hitzman, Murray, Kirkham, Rodney, Broughton, David, 

Thorson, Jon, and Selley, David, 2005, The sedimenthosted stratiform copper ore system, in Hedenquist, J.W., 

Thompson, J.F.H., Goldfarb, R.J., and Richards, J.P., eds., 

Economic Geology: One-hundredth anniversary volume, p. 

609–642.

Hitzman, M.W., Selley, David, and Bull, Stuart, 2010, Formation of sedimentary rock-hosted stratiform copper deposits 

through Earth history: Economic Geology, v. 105, no. 3, p. 

627–639.

Jakubiak, Z., and Smakowski, T., 1994, Classification of 

mineral reserves in former Comecon countries: Geological 

Society of London Special Publications, v. 79, p. 17–28.

Kirkham, R.V., 1989, Distribution, settings, and genesis of 

sediment-hosted stratiform copper deposits, in Boyle, R.W., 

Brown, A.C., Jefferson, C.W, Jowett, E.C., and Kirkham, 

R.V., eds., Sediment-hosted stratiform copper deposits: Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 36, p. 3–38.

Kirkham, R.V., and Broughton, David, 2005, Production and 

reserve data for selected sediment-hosted stratiform copper 

deposits, Supplement to Hitzman and others, 2005, The 

sediment-hosted stratiform copper ore system, in Hedenquist, J.W., Thompson, J.F.H., Goldfarb, R.J., and Richards, 

J.P., eds., Economic Geology: One-hundredth anniversary 

volume, p. 609–642.

Klishevich, V.L., Belgovsky, G.L., Vasiliev, D.G., Vytovich, 

I.I., Biske, Y.S., Kovaleva, N.P., Kraskov, L.N., Krylova, 

T.N., Leskov, S.A., Mitrofanova, K.V., Panchenko, E.P., 

Smolno, A.I., Timofeeva, E.A., Vasyuntsova, V.S., and 

Radyukevicha, N.M., 1990, [Geological map of the USSR, 

new series, sheet K-(42),(43) Tashkent, Map of pre-Quaternary rocks]: Leningrad, Ministry of Geology of the USSR, 

VSEGEI, scale 1:1,000,000. [In Russian.]

Narkelyun, L.F., and Fatikov, R.F., 1989, Sedimentary control 

of mineralization at the Dzhezkazgan copper deposit: International Geology Review, v. 19, p. 196–203.

Popov, L.E., Bassett, M.G., Zhemchuzhnikov, V.G., Holmer, L.E., and Klishevich, I.A., 2009, Gondwanan faunal 

signatures from early Palaeozoic terranes of Kazakhstan 

and Central Asia—Evidence and tectonic implications: 

Geological Society of London Special Publications, v. 325, 

p. 23–64.

Root, D.H., Menzie, W.D., and Scott, W.A., 1992, Computer 

Monte Carlo simulation in quantitative resource estimation: 

Natural Resources Research, v. 1, no. 2, p. 125–138.

Rose, A.W., 1976, The effect of cuprous chloride complexes in 

the origin of red-bed copper and related deposits: Economic 

Geology, v. 71, p. 1036–1048.

Schuenemeyer, J.H., Zientek, M.L., and Box, S.E., 2011, 

Global mineral resource assessment—Aggregation of 

estimated numbers of undiscovered mineral deposits—An 

R-script with an example from the Chu Sarysu Basin, 

Kazakhstan: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investiga-
References Cited 23

tions Report 2010–5090–B, 13 p., accessed July 13, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5090/b/.

Schulz, K.J., and Briskey, J.A., 2003, The Global Mineral 

Resource Assessment Project: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet FS–053–03, 4 p.

Singer, D.A., 1993, Basic concepts in three-part quantitative 

assessments of undiscovered mineral resources: Nonrenewable Resources, v. 2, no. 2, p. 69–81.

Singer, D.A., and Menzie, W.D., 2010, Quantitative mineral 

resource assessments—An integrated approach: New York, 

Oxford University Press, 232 p.

Sinitsyn, F.Y., 1991, Relationship of cyclicity of Lower Carboniferous gas-producing sediments to tectonic movements 

in the Chu-Sarysu sineclise: Journal of Petroleum Geology, 

v. 25, no. 3–4, p. 92–95.

Syusyura, Boris, Box, S.E., and Wallis, J.C., 2010, Spatial 

databases of geological, geophysical, and mineral resource 

data relevant to sandstone-hosted copper deposits in central 

Kazakhstan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2010–1124, 4 p. and databases, accessed July 13, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1124/. 

U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey, 1976, Principles of a resource/reserve classification for minerals: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 831, 5 p.

Warren, J.K., 2000, Evaporites, brines and base metals—Lowtemperature ore emplacement controlled by evaporite diagenesis: Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 47, p. 179–208.

Windley, B.F., Alexeiev, D.V, Xiao, W., Kröner, A., and 

Badarch, G., 2007, Tectonic models for accretion of the 

central Asian Orogenic Belt: Geological Society of London 

Journal, v. 164, p. 31–47.

Yagovkin, V.I., Hohlov, I.V., Shurygin, V.A., Petrova, V.I., Voznesensky, V.D., Filatov, G.N., Bodylevskaya, I.V., Gaek, O.M., 

Kochkin, N.V., Pupyshev, N.A., Inyahin, M.V., Golubyatnikov, 

D.V., Rachkovskaya, K.A., Babayants, S.P., Eydlin, R.A., 

Polevaya, L.D., and Korobkova, N.A., 1978, [Geological map 

of the USSR, new series, sheet L-(42),(43) Balkhash, Map of 

pre-Quaternary rocks]: Leningrad, Ministry of Geology of the 

USSR, VSEGEI, scale 1:1,000,000. [In Russian.]

Yakubchuk, Alexander, 2004, Architecture and mineral deposit 

settings of the Altaid orogenic collage—A revised model: 

Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v. 23, p. 761–779.

Zharkov, M.A., 1984, Paleozoic salt-bearing formations of the 

world: New York, Springer-Verlag, 427 p.
24 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Appendixes A–G
Appendix A—Assessment Team 25

Appendix A. Assessment Team

Stephen E. Box, Research Geologist, USGS, Spokane, Washington. Box has done field and laboratory research in mining 

districts in Alaska and the western United States and has been involved in mineral resource assessments there as well. He has 

participated in assessments for undiscovered sediment-hosted stratiform copper deposits in the Proterozoic Belt Basin of Montana, the Permian Kupferschiefer Basin of Poland and Germany, and the Early Proterozoic Udokan Basin in Russia.

Vladimir Chechetkin, Geologist, Russian Geological Society (RosGeo), Chita, Russia. Chechetkin directed exploration 

activities for sandstone-hosted copper deposits in the Kodar-Udokan region of Russia for many years.

Pamela M. Cossette, Geologist, USGS, Spokane, Wash. She received her degree in geology from Eastern Washington 

University. She is a GIS specialist.

Alla Dolgopolova, Researcher in Economic and Environmental Mineralogy, Mineralogy Department, Natural History 

Museum, London, United Kingdom. Dolgopolova works on mineral deposit research studies related to consultancy projects in 

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, and Russia. She participates in an industry-funded project titled “Metallogeny 

of the Altaids in central Asia” where her research focus is on isotope mapping as a tool in exploration targeting.

Timothy S. Hayes, Research Geologist, USGS, Tucson, Arizona. Hayes has researched (partly in private industry) red bedassociated stratabound copper deposits in the Belt Basin of Montana; in Permian rocks in Oklahoma; and in the Ablah Group, 

Saudi Arabia. He is principal author of the USGS descriptive model for red bed-associated stratabound copper deposits. He has 

participated in assessments for undiscovered deposits in the Kupferschiefer Basin of central Europe, the Udokan Basin in Russia, and the Central African Copper Belt. 

Murray W. Hitzman, Charles Fogarty Professor of Economic Geology, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado. 

Hitzman has written numerous papers on sedimentary rock-hosted stratiform copper deposits. He has been involved in research 

on this deposit type in the African Copper belt during the past decade and has worked with graduate students on similar deposits 

worldwide.

Reimar Seltmann, Director, Centre for Russian and Central EurAsian Mineral Studies (CERCAMS) at the Natural History 

Museum, London, United Kingdom. Seltmann is an economic geologist focused on mineral deposit case studies related mainly 

to ore-bearing granitoids and metallogeny of central Asia. He coordinates an industry-funded research network “Metallogeny of 

the Altaids: Terrane reconstructions leading to new target regions,” where he contributed research on ore deposits, including Oyu 

Tolgoi, Almalyk, Dzhezkazgan, and Udokan. He has produced a number of original research papers, monographs, metallogenic 

maps, and reference guidebooks on metal provinces of the former Soviet Union, Mongolia, and China.

Boris Syusyura, Geologist, Mining and Economic Consulting Ltd., Almaty, Kazakhstan. Syusyura has done extensive 

research on the sandstone-hosted deposits and host rock strata within the Chu-Sarysu Basin since the early 1980s.

Cliff D. Taylor, Research Geologist, USGS, Denver, Colo. Taylor is an economic geologist with expertise in volcanogenic 

massive sulfide deposits. He led the USGS mineral resource assessment of sediment-hosted copper in the Central African Copper Belt.

John C. Wallis, Geographic Information System (GIS) specialist, USGS, Spokane, Wash. He received a degree in geology 

from Eastern Washington University. 

Michael L. Zientek, Research Geologist, USGS, Spokane, Wash. Zientek is an economic geologist with expertise in magmatic ore deposits and mineral resource assessment. He is co-chief of the USGS Global Mineral Resource Assessment Project 

and is coordinating the assessment of sediment-hosted copper deposits in the Udokan region of Russia. 
26 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Appendix B. Sandstone Copper Assessment for Tract 142ssCu8001 

(CS-1), Central Kazakhstan

By Stephen E. Box1, Alla Dolgopolova2, Timothy S. Hayes1, Murray W. Hitzman3, Reimar Seltmann2, 

Boris Syusyura4

, Cliff D. Taylor1, and Michael L. Zientek1

Deposit Type Assessed

Deposit type: Sediment-hosted stratabound copper

Descriptive model: Sediment-hosted copper, Revett copper subtype (Cox and others, 2003)

Grade and tonnage model: Sediment-hosted stratabound copper, sandstone subtype (appendix F)

Table B1 summarizes selected assessment results.

Location

Central Kazakhstan, about 450 km southwest of the capital city of Astana (fig. B1).

Geologic Feature Assessed

Pennsylvanian strata within the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin of the Upper Devonian-Upper Permian Chu-Sarysu Basin, Kazakhstan. 

1

U.S. Geological Survey.

2

Centre for Russian and Central EurAsian Mineral Studies—Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom.

3

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.

4

Mining and Economic Consulting, Ltd., Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Table B1. Summary of selected resource assessment results for tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan.

[km, kilometers; km2, square kilometers; t, metric tons]

Date of assessment Assessment depth 

(km)

Tract area

(km2

)

Known copper 

resources 

(t)

Mean estimate of 

undiscovered copper 

resources (t)

Median estimate of 

undiscovered copper 

resources (t)

October 2009 2 753 24,910,000 5,100,000 1,700,000
Appendix B—Tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1) 27

Delineation of the Permissive Tract

Geologic Criteria

Tract CS-1 (fig. B1) is drawn to include the Dzhezkazgan 

deposit and all of the Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations 

in the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin, a structural down warp extending northward from the broader Chu-Sarysu Basin (fig. 1). 

The Dzhezkazgan sub-basin is localized along the north-south 

Dzhezkazgan Syncline (fig. 3A). This sub-basin is separated 

from greater Chu-Sarysu depression by the east-northeasttrending Kingir Anticline. The host units are shallower than 2 

km within this sub-basin (Syusyura and others, 2010). 

The outer margin of tract CS-1 is defined by the contact 

between the Mississippian (unit C1), which is outside the 

tract, and the Pennsylvanian Taskuduk Suite (unit C2ts) on 

map CS-NCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.jpg (Syusyura and others, 

2010). The tract extends northward from the larger ChuSarysu Basin and narrows across the Kingir Anticline at the 

junction of the sub-basin with the main basin. The southern 

boundary was placed along the southeastern flank of the 

Kingir Anticline, extending parallel from the southeasternmost east-northeast-trending faults on the map CS-DZ_geolmap.tif (Syusyura and others, 2010).

Known Deposits

Six sandstone copper deposits are known in tract CS-1, 

including the giant Dzhezkazgan deposit and the smaller but 

still significant deposits of the Zhilandy group: Itauz, West 

Saryoba, East Saryoba, Kipshakpay, and Karashoshak (fig. 

B1, table B2). The giant Dzhezkazgan sediment-hosted copper deposit is localized along the Kingir Anticline, where it 

is crossed by the Dzhezkazgan Syncline (fig. 3A). The five 

deposits of the Zhilandy group occur along an east-northeast 

trend on the northern flank of the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin, 

apparently along an unnamed east-northeast trending anticline. 

The three westernmost deposits (Itauz, West Saryoba, and East 

Saryoba) are elongate north-south along synclines that extend 

northward from the Dzhezkazgan Syncline and cross the eastnortheast trending Zhilandy Anticline. The two easternmost 

deposits (Kipshakpay and Karashoshak) are elongate to the 

east-northeast on the southeast flank of the same unnamed 

anticline that faces into the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin. 

The Zhilandy group deposits and the Dzhezkazgan 

deposit are localized within northern and southern anticlinal 

areas, respectively, where the oxidized, red-colored sandstonesiltstone-shale sequence of the Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk 

Formations has been altered by reduction to a section of graycolored sandstone beds interbedded with red-colored siltstoneshale. These alteration trends are interpreted to have resulted 

from entrapment of natural gas deposits within the permeable 

sandstone beds in the crestal portions of the east-northeast 

trending anticlines (Gablina, 1981). Interaction of these natural 

gas deposits with oxidized metal-bearing brines resulted in 

deposition of copper and other metals as solid sulfides in the 

zone of interaction. Mineral zonation of the southern part of 

the Dzhezkazgan deposit (Daukeev and others, 2004) indicates the mineralizing brines flowed from the south out of the 

larger and deeper Chu-Sarysu Basin into the Dzhezkazgan 

sub-basin. These brines entered the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin 

across the structural low area of the Kingir Anticline (Gablina, 

1997). The brines flowed northward within the Dzhezkazgan 

and Taskuduk Formations across the anticlinal low, interacting 

with the flat bottom of the overlying natural gas deposit before 

proceeding northward into the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin. Similarly, the Zhilandy group of deposits record the northward and 

upward movement of the dense brines within the Dzhezkazgan 

and Taskuduk Formations along south-plunging synclines 

crossing the east-northeast trending northern anticlinorium, 

which hosted the pre-existing natural gas deposit (as indicated 

by the trend of the reduced-iron alteration area). Ore deposition was strongly controlled by structural features: first, by the 

east-northeast trending anticlines that trapped the natural gas 

deposits, and second, by the north-south trending synclines 

that provided low spots across the anticlines which were 

utilized by the migrating dense metal-bearing brines (Box and 

others, in press).

Prospects and Mineral Occurrences

The moderately well-explored Zhartas (Sorkuduk) prospect occurs to the northeast of the Dzhezkazgan deposit on the 

northwestern flank of the Kingir Anticline, where it is crossed 

by a northwest-trending syncline. The mineralization at this 

prospect is similar in style to that at Dzhezkazgan, although 

of significantly smaller size and with a narrower mineralized 

stratigraphic interval. A southern extension of West Saryoba 

also has been drilled extensively and is considered to hold 

significant prognostic resources. Deeper extensions of Itauz 

and other prospects southward (Kokdombak) and northward 

(Donyzaus) along the steep west basin flank have high potential for representing an undiscovered deposit, as do several 

prospects (Pektas 1, Pektas 2) that occur along the gently 

dipping east side of the sub-basin. The Taskuduk prospect 

of deeper occurrences of the mineralization band around 

the north side of the Kingir Anticline between Zhartas and 

Dzhezkazgan (figs. 3A, 3B, B1) also are highly prospective. 

A mining industry group in Kazakhstan estimated prognostic 

resources (Diatchkov, 1994) of 1.05 Mt Cu in P1-P3 categories down to 1.5 km within the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin (MEC, 

written commun., 2009). 

Exploration History

The area is part of the concession owned by Kazakhmys, 

which operates the Dzhezkazgan Mine and manages exploration in the rest of the tract. The Dzhezkazgan deposit has been 

mined since ancient times, and the modern mine complex is 
!

67°20'E 67°40'E

48°N

KAZAKH

RUSSIA

UZBEKIS

60°E 

50°N40°N

Political boundaries from U.S. Department of State (2009).Asia North Albers Equal Area Conic Projection.Central meridian, 67.5° E., latitude of origin, 45° N.

EX

Othetract

Sedi

Assetract Sediprosptract

0 4 8 12 16 KILOMETERS

0 3 6 9 MILES

Apprfor westimtable assoshow

CS-1

CS-1

CS-3 CS-2

3a 3f

2g

East Saryoba

West Saryoba Kipshakpay

Unnamed 2

Karashoshak

Taldybulak

West Saryoba (south extension)

Donyzaus

Itauz

Pektas 2

Zhartas (Sorkuduk)

Dzhezkazgan sub-basin area

Kokdombak

Pektas 1

Dzhezkazgan

Unnamed 1

Taskuduk

cs_g_App_B1.ai

Figure B1. Location map for tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1) and its known deposits and prospects, central Kazakhstan. 
Appendix B—Tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1) 29

 

Name Latitude Longitude Tonnage

(Mt)

Cu Grade

(%)

Contain Cu 

(Mt)

Dzhezkazgan 47.882 67.432 2,000 1.1 22

Itauz 48.165 67.385 94.1 0.92 0.87

West Saryoba 48.156 67.444 86.2 0.89 0.77

East Saryoba 48.171 67.488 91.4 0.85 0.78

Kipshakpay 48.158 67.549 38.5 0.94 0.36

Karashoshak 48.188 67.610 8.9 1.46 0.13

Table B2. Known sandstone copper deposits in tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan.

 [Mt, million metric tons. Contained Cu is computed as tonnage (Mt) × Cu grade (%)/100]

 Name Latitude Longitude Comments

Dzhezkazgan sub-basin area 48.030 67.484 128 km2

 area estimated by Mining and 

Economic Consulting, Ltd., (written 

commun., 2009) to possess 1.05 Mt Cu 

in prognostic resource categories P1, P2, 

and P3.

Zhartas (Sorkuduk) 48.003 67.598 Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations

West Saryoba (south extension) 48.117 67.452 Taskuduk Formation

Taldybulak 48.235 67.806 Taskuduk Formation

Donyzaus 48.223 67.365 Taskuduk Formation

Kokdombak 48.079 67.385 Taskuduk Formation

Pektas l 48.042 67.594 Taskuduk Formation

Pektas 2 48.090 67.631 Reduced-facies Cu shale

Taskuduk 47.943 67.527 Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations

Unnamed 1 47.935 67.347 Taskuduk Formation

Unnamed 2 48.181 67.692 Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations

Table B3. Significant prospects, occurrences, and areas with prognostic resource estimates in tract 

142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan.

[For the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin prognostic-resource-estimate area, latitude and longitude are provided for the centroid of the 

area. km2, square kilometers; Mt, million metric tons]
30 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

more than 100 years old. Exploration has been intense in the 

immediate mine area and in areas adjacent to the deposits of 

the Zhilandy group along the northern margin of the sub-basin. 

More than 130 drill holes occur within the tract outside the 

Dzhezkazgan mine area (Syusyura and others, 2010). 

Sources of Information

Principal sources of information used by the assessment 

team for delineation of tract CS-1 are listed in table B4. 

Grade and Tonnage Model Selection

The lithology and grain size of the rocks, along with 

evidence consistent with the presence of liquid or gaseous 

hydrocarbons, indicate the tract should be assessed for sandstone copper deposits. Seventy sandstone copper deposits 

from around the world were selected to create the tonnage and 

grade model for resource estimation (appendix F). Student’s 

 Table B4. Principal sources of information used by the assessment team for delineation of tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan.

Theme Name Scale Reference

Geology CS-DZ_geolmap.tif 1:50,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Mineral occurrences CS-NCS_deps-occurrences.shp 1:50,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Geochemistry CS-DZ_minzonation.jpg 1:50,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Geophysics CS-NCS_gravity-residual.jpg; CS-NCS_mag-intensity.jpg 1:50,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Exploration Known drill hole locations (CS_boreholes-all.shp); Synopsis of prospective targets, Chu-Sarysu Basin1:50,000 Syusyura and others, 2010; 

Mining and Economic 

Consulting, Ltd., written commun., 2009

t-test indicates deposits in the Chu-Sarysu Basin cannot be 

distinguished statistically from other deposits that make up the 

grade and tonnage model.

Estimate of the Number of 

Undiscovered Deposits

Rationale for the Estimate

Tract CS-1 is the most prospective area in the Chu-Sarysu 

Basin, given the number of known deposits and prospects 

along the outcrop trend of the host units. Zhartas (Sorkuduk) 

and a southern extension of West Saryoba are moderately 

well-explored and are considered to represent two deposits 

at the 90th percentile of certainty. Deeper extensions of Itauz 

and other prospects southward (Kokdombak) and northward (Donyzaus) along the steep west basin flank have high 

potential for being deposits, as do several prospects (Pektas 1, 

Pektas 2) that occur along the gentle east side of the sub-basin. 

Other deeper occurrences around the north side of the Kingir 

Estimated number of

 undiscovered deposits

Estimator N90 N50 N10 N05 N01

Individual A 3 8 12 12 12

Individual B 2 3 4 4 4

Individual C 5 10 20 20 20

Individual D 3 5 7 7 7

Individual E 5 7 9 9 9

Individual F 4 6 10 10 10

Individual G 2 4 4 4 4

Individual H 1 3 4 4 4

Table B5. Deposit estimates by individual team 

members for tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central 

Kazakhstan.

[Nxx, estimated number of deposits associated with the 

xxth percentile]
Table B7. Results of Monte Carlo simulations of undiscovered resources for tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan.

[t, metric tons; Mt, million metric tons]

 Probability of at least the indicated amount Probability of

0.95 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.05 Mean Mean or 

greater None

Cu, 

in t 130,000 320,000 1,700,000 16,000,000 22,000,000 5,100,000 0.25 0.03

Ag, 

in t 0 0 910 12,000 19,000 4,300 0.23 0.26

Rock, 

in Mt 11 26 150 1,400 1,900 450 0.27 0.03

Appendix B—Tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1) 31

Anticline (Taskuduk) between Zhartas and Dzhezkazgan also 

are highly prospective. 

Probabilistic Assessment Simulation 

Results

Undiscovered resources for tract CS-1 were estimated by 

combining consensus estimates for numbers of undiscovered 

sandstone copper deposits (table B6) with the sandstone copper model (appendix F) using the Economic Mineral Resource 

Simulator (EMINERS) program (Root and others, 1992; Duval, 

2012; Bawiec and Spanski, 2012). Selected simulation results are 

reported in table B7. Results of the Monte Carlo simulation are 

presented as a cumulative frequency plot (fig. B2). The cumulative frequency plot shows the estimated resource amounts associated with cumulative probabilities of occurrence, as well as the 

mean, for each commodity and for total mineralized rock. 

The team’s estimate of undiscovered resources in the 

upper 2 km of the Dzhezkazgan sub-basin is somewhat 

higher (median and mean estimates are 1.7 and 5.1 Mt Cu, 

respectively) than MEC’s estimate of prognostic resources 

(1.05 Mt Cu) down to 1.5 km, and it is equal to about 7 percent and 20 percent, respectively, of the total resources of the 

6 known deposits within the tract (25 Mt Cu). The abundance 

of known ore deposits, all essentially linked to expressions 

of ore at or very near the surface, led the team to their higher 

estimate of undiscovered, hidden deposits in the subsurface.

Consensus undiscovered deposit estimate Summary statistics Area 

(km2

) 

Deposit 

density

N90 N50 N10 N05 N01 Nund s Cv

% Nknown Ntotal

3 5 8 8 8 5.1 2.0 39 6 11.1 753 147

Table B6. Undiscovered deposit estimates, deposit numbers, tract area, and deposit density for tract 142ssCu8001 

(CS-1), central Kazakhstan.

[Nxx, estimated number of deposits associated with the xxth percentile; Nund, expected number of undiscovered deposits; s, standard deviation; Cv

%, coefficient of variance; Nknown, number of known deposits in the tract that are included in the grade and tonnage model; Ntotal, 

expected number of undiscovered deposits plus known deposits; area, area of permissive tract; deposit density, number of deposits per 

10,000 km2; m, meters; km2, square kilometers. Nund, s, and Cv% are calculated using a regression equation (Singer and Menzie, 2005)]

Material
32 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Mean Cu Mean Ag

Mean Rock

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Probability

Material, in metric tons

Cu

Ag

Rock

Mean Cu

Mean Ag

Mean 

Rock

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1T 10T 100T 1M 10M 100M 1B 10B 100B 1Tr

Figure B2. Cumulative frequency plot showing the results of Monte Carlo computer simulation of 

undiscovered resources in tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1), central Kazakhstan.

References Cited

Bawiec, W.J., and Spanski, G.T., 2012, Quick-start guide for version 3.0 of EMINERS—Economic Mineral Resource Simulator: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1057, 26 

p., available only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1057. (This 

report supplements USGS OFR 2004–1344.)

Box, S.E., Syusyura, Boris, Seltmann, Reimar, Creaser, R.A., 

Dolgopolova, Alla, and Zientek, M.L., in press, Dzhezkazgan and associated sandstone copper deposits of the ChuSarysu Basin, Kazakhstan, in Hedenquist, Jeffrey, Harris, 

Michael, and Camus, Francisco, eds., Geology and genesis 

of major copper deposits and districts of the world—A 

tribute to Richard Sillitoe: Society of Economic Geologist 

Special Publication.

Cox, D.P., Lindsey, D.A., Singer, D.A., Moring, B.C., and 

Diggles, M.F., 2003 [revised 2007], Sediment-hosted copper deposits of the world—Deposit models and database: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2003–107, version 1.3, 53 p., CD-ROM. (Also available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-107/.)

Daukeev, S.Z., Ushkenov, B.S., Bespaev, K.A., Miroshnichenko, L.A., Mazurov, and A.K., Sayduakasov, M.A., 

eds., 2004, Atlas of mineral deposit models of the Republic 

of Kazakhstan: Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 

Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty, Kazakhstan (English 

translation by C. Halls, R. Seltmann, and A. Dolgopolova, 

CERCAMS, Natural History Museum, London, United 

Kingdom), 141 p.

Diatchkov, S.A., 1994, Principles of classification of reserves 

and resources in the CIS countries: Mining Engineering, v. 

46, no. 3, p. 214–217.

Duval, J.S., 2012, Version 3.0 of EMINERS—Economic Mineral Resource Simulator: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2004–1344, available only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2004/1344. (Version 3.0 of EMINERS updates version 

2.0, released in 2004 as USGS OFR 2004–1344. Version 2.0 

of EMINERS superseded USGS OFR 2002–0380.)

Gablina, I.F., 1981, New data on formation conditions of 

the Dzhezkazgan copper deposit: International Geology 

Review, v. 23, no. 11, p. 1303–1311.

Gablina, I.F., 1997, Formation conditions of large cupriferous 

sandstone and shale deposits: Geology of Ore Deposits, v. 

38, no. 4, p. 320–333.
Appendix B—Tract 142ssCu8001 (CS-1) 33

Kirkham, R.V., and Broughton, David, 2005, Production 

and reserve data for selected sediment-hosted stratiform 

copper deposits, Supplement to Hitzman and others, 2005, 

The sediment-hosted stratiform copper ore system, in

Hedenquist, J.W., Thompson, J.F.H., Goldfarb, R.J., and 

Richards, J.P., eds., Economic Geology: One-hundredth 

anniversary volume, p. 609–642.

Root, D.H., Menzie, W.D., and Scott, W.A., 1992, Computer 

Monte Carlo simulation in quantitative resource estimation: 

Natural Resources Research, v. 1, no. 2, p. 125–138.

Singer, D.A., and Menzie, W.D., 2005, Statistical guides to 

estimating the number of undiscovered mineral deposits—An example with porphyry copper deposits, in Cheng, 

Qiuming, and Bonham-Carter, Graeme, eds., Proceedings of 

IAMG—The annual conference of the International Association for Mathematical Geology: Toronto, Canada, York 

University, Geomatics Research Laboratory, p. 1028–1033.

Syusyura, Boris, Box, S.E., and Wallis, J.C., 2010, Spatial 

databases of geological, geophysical, and mineral resource 

data relevant to sandstone-hosted copper deposits in central 

Kazakhstan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2010–1124, 4 p. and databases, accessed July 13, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1124/. 

U.S. Department of State, 2009, Small-scale digital international 

land boundaries (SSIB)—Lines, edition 10, and polygons, 

beta edition 1, in Boundaries and Sovereignty Encyclopedia 

(B.A.S.E.): U.S. Department of State, Office of the Geographer and Global Issues.
34 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Appendix C. Sandstone Copper Assessment for Tract142ssCu8002 

(CS-2), Central Kazakhstan

By Stephen E. Box1, Alla Dolgopolova2, Timothy S. Hayes1, Murray W. Hitzman3, Reimar Seltmann2, 

Boris Syusyura4

, Cliff D. Taylor1, and Michael L. Zientek1

Deposit Type Assessed

Deposit type: Sediment-hosted stratabound copper

Descriptive model: Sediment-hosted copper, Revett copper subtype (Cox and others, 2003)

Grade and tonnage model: Sediment-hosted stratabound copper, sandstone subtype (appendix F)

Table C1 summarizes selected assessment results.

Location

Central Kazakhstan, about 500 km south-southwest of the capital city of Astana (fig. C1).

Geologic Feature Assessed

Pennsylvanian strata within the northeastern part (Tesbulak sub-basin) of the Upper Devonian-Upper Permian Chu-Sarysu 

Basin, central Kazakhstan.

Date of assessment Assessment depth

(km)

Tract area

(km2

)

Known copper 

resources

(t)

Mean estimate of 

undiscovered copper 

resources (t)

Median estimate of 

undiscovered copper 

resources (t)

October 2009 2 31,680 2,720,000 9,900,000 4,800,000

Table C1. Summary of selected resource assessment results for tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan.

[km, kilometers; km2, square kilometers; t, metric tons]

1

U.S. Geological Survey.

2

Centre for Russian and Central EurAsian Mineral Studies—Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom.

3

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.

4

Mining and Economic Consulting, Ltd., Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Appendix C—Tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2) 35

Delineation of the Permissive Tract

Geologic Criteria

Tract CS-2 (fig. C1) consists of the northeastern part 

of the Chu-Sarysu Basin (Tesbulak sub-basin), east of the 

Kokshetau Fault and north of the Chu uplift (fig. 1). The 

Kokshetau Fault is a north-northwest-trending fault that 

runs through the north-central part of the Chu-Sarysu Basin. 

South of 46.3o N the fault appears to be an east-dipping 

normal fault, separating Pennsylvanian strata more than 3 km 

deep on the east from the Tasty uplift, an antiformal feature 

over which those strata have been eroded on the west. North 

of 46.3 ̊ N, the base of Pennsylvanian strata occurs at greater 

depth on the west side of the fault, indicating west-side-down 

displacement. The Chu uplift is a broad, east-northeast trending anticlinorium between 45 ̊ N and 46 ̊ N. The Pennsylvanian strata have been eroded away over part of this uplift. 

In the Tesbulak sub-basin, the base of Pennsylvanian strata 

generally dips to the west-southwest toward the Kokshetau Fault, 

but is wrinkled by east-northeast trending, west-plunging folds 

(CS-NCS_depth-base-mCarbonif.mxd; Syusyura and others, 

2010). One of those anticlinal folds, the Zhaman-Aibat Anticline 

located just south of 47 ̊ N (fig. C2), is the host for the ZhamanAibat sandstone copper deposit (figs. C1 and C2, table C2) and 

the small reduced-facies Taskora deposit (figs. C1 and C2, table 

C2). Several parallel folds north and south of the Zhaman-Aibat 

Anticline have potential for undiscovered deposits. Because different levels of information exist for subareas within the tract, we 

divide the assessed tract into assessment subunits on figure C1 

and these are discussed in more detail below.

Assessment Subunit 2a (Zhaman-Aibat)

Assessment subunit 2a (figs. C1 and C2) encompasses 

the east-northeast-trending Zhaman-Aibat Anticline (fig. 

C2) in the region of the Zhaman-Aibat and Taskora deposits. 

The subunit extends along that structure from the eastern 

limit of the Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations with 

a down-dip width (6–12 km) similar to the extent of the 

reduced (gray-colored) red bed sandstones, as shown on 

the pre-Mesozoic geologic map of the northern Chu-Sarysu 

Basin (CS-NCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010). The western extent is taken to be the base of the 

steeply plunging section of the anticline, where the top of 

the ore horizon passes through 1.6 km below sea level, as 

shown on a structure contour map of the base of Permian salt 

(CS_elev-base-Perm-salt.mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010). 

The following description of the Zhaman-Aibat prognostic 

resource estimate area is from a mining industry group in 

Kazakhstan (MEC, written commun., 2009):

The Zhaman-Aibat area is located 140 km southeast 

of Zhezkazgan city and comprises the ZhamanAibat deposit of copper-bearing sandstones and 

Taskora deposit of copper-bearing shale rocks, 

which together form the Zhaman-Aibat ore field. 

The Zhaman-Aibat deposit is localized within an 

east-northeast trending anticline of the same name 

near the eastern edge of the northeastern part of 

the Chu-Sarysu depression. The gentler southern 

flank of this asymmetric anticlinal structure exposes 

Carboniferous and Permian carbonate-terrigenous 

rocks dipping smoothly to the south. The northern 

flank is less studied and mostly covered by Mesozoic and Cenozoic deposits. A seismic survey across 

the northern part of the structure showed it to be a 

steep flexure (most probably a fault), across which 

the strata are dropped 500–1,000 m vertically. Drilling results show that the inclined strata within this 

flexure above the fault reach depths of 400 m and 

more below the surface.

The Zhaman-Aibat structure is a west-southwestplunging anticline on the geological map and is 

shown to have structural closure on the structure 

contour map of the base of the Carboniferous ore 

horizon5

. It occurs near the eastern edge of the ChuSarysu depression with increased thickness of Carboniferous deposits. A seismic survey identified four 

anticlinal culminations, each with a positive gravity 

anomaly, along an anticlinal strike length of roughly 

40 km. The largest of these are the Azat and Taskora 

anticlinal culminations near the eastern and western 

extents of this structure, respectively.

Assessment Subunit 2b (central Sarysu uplift)

Assessment subunit 2b (fig. C1) includes the surface and 

subsurface extent of the Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations in a broadly uplifted area of the central Sarysu uplift (fig. 

1) in the northeastern part of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, extending 

down dip from the eastern limit of these formations south and 

west to where the base of those formations is about 1.8 km 

below the surface (based on CS-NCS_depth-base-mCarbonif.

mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010). 

Assessment Subunit 2c (Kulen)

Assessment subunit 2c (figs. C1 and C2) includes the 

Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations within a 6–12-km-wide 

swath along the Kulen Anticline (fig. C2), from their eastern 

outcrop edge down plunge to the west until the top of the Dzhezkazgan Formation, is about 2 km below the surface (based on 

the 1.6 km depth contour of CS-NCS_depth-base-mCarbonif.

mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010). The following description of 

the Kulen prognostic resource estimate area is from a mining 

industry group in Kazakhstan (MEC, written commun., 2009):

5

Shown in Syusyura and others (2010) as CS_elev-base-mCarbonif.mxd.
!

!

Taskora-deep

Tesbulak

Dautbay prospect

Drill hole SP-4

Zhaman-Aibat

Zhektytau area

Taskora area around Zhaman-Aibat

Kulen area

East-Karakoin area

Sarydaly area

Sarysu-Tobylga area

Ungurlisay area

North Tobylga area

Karagengir

Well U-29

Dautbay area

Drill hole SP-6

CS-1

CS-4CS-3

CS-2

CS-3

CS-2

CS-4

2c

4b

2a

2d

2e

4b

2g

3f

3f

3a

3c

3b

3e

2f

3d

2b

Zhezkazgan

66°E 69°E 72°E

48°N46°N

0 40 80 120 KILOMETERS

0 20 40 60 MILES

Political boundaries from U.S. Department of State (2009).Asia North Albers Equal Area Conic Projection.Central meridian, 69° E., latitude of origin, 45° N.

cs_g_App_C1.ai

EX

Other tractsSedimdepostracts 

Assestract 1Sedimprosptracts 

Asses

Approfor whestimatable assocshow

65°

50°N40°N

RUSSIA

UZBEKISTAN

K

Figure C1. Location map for tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2) and its known deposits and prospects, central Kazakhstan.
F

M

F

FM

F

M

M

M

F

F

M

M

M

M

M

F

F M F

F

MF

M F

M

F

M

F

M

F

F

M

M

M

F

F

F

F

M

M

F

M

M

69°E 70°E

47°N46°N

ZhamanAibat

ore body

Taskura

ore body

2f

2a

2d

2e

2c

RUSSIA

UZBEKISTAN

Kulen Anticline

Zhaman-Aibat Anticline

Zhatyktau Anticline

Dautbai Anticline

Symtas Syncline

Sharshyshanskaya Brachyanticline

60°E 

50°N40°N

Political boundaries from U.S. Department of State (2009). 0 20 40 KILOMETERSLambert Conformal Conic Projection.Central meridian, 69° E., latitude of origin, 46° N. 0 10 20 MILES

cs_g_App_C2.ai

10 30

AA

M 

2a

M

F

F

t

Figure C2. Locations of fold structures in tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan.
38 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

 Zhaktyktau Anticline (figs. C1 and C2). The following 

brief description of this prognostic resource estimate area was 

provided by a mining industry group in Kazakhstan (MEC, 

written commun., 2009):

East Karakoin prospective area is located 10 km 

southwest of the Zhaktyktau area and encompasses 

two parallel east-northeast-trending anticlines with 

positive gravity anomalies up to 1.5 mgal. 

Assessment Subunit 2f (Dautbay)

Assessment subunit 2f occurs over the Dautbay anticlinal 

structure along the eastern margin of the Chu-Sarysu Basin 

about 50 km south of subunit 2d (figs. C1 and C2). A brief 

review of prospecting in the Dautbay area is given below 

(MEC, written commun., 2009):

The Dautbay anticline7, located 70–90 km southsoutheast of the Zhaman-Aibat deposit, was 

explored based on a 1:50,000 geological survey..., 

 a seismic survey..., and limited drilling.

Assessment Subunit 2g

Assessment subunit 2g is the portion of tract CS-2 not 

encompassed within subunits 2a through 2f. 

Known Deposits

The only known deposit of the sandstone copper type 

within tract CS-2 is the Zhaman-Aibat deposit (figs. C1 and 

C2, table C2). A small reduced-facies, shale-hosted copper 

deposit (Taskora: fig. C2, table C2) within the Permian section 

was mined from 2007 to 2009 in an open pit located about 

10 km west of the western edge of the Zhaman-Aibat deposit 

along the crest of the Zhaman-Aibat Anticline (discussed more 

in following section). The following brief description of the 

Zhaman-Aibat deposit was provided by a mining industry 

group in Kazakhstan (MEC, written commun., 2009):

The Zhaman-Aibat sandstone copper deposit is 

hosted in terrigenous variegated rocks of the Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations. Normally, these 

rocks consist of red, oxidized strata that are dominated by sandstone of variable grain size. Gravels 

and conglomerates occur less frequently and silty 

sandstones and siltstones are seldom observed. The 

deposit occurs within a large lens within which 

numerous grey-colored strata are interlayered with 

the normal section red beds. In plan, this variegated 

lens is elongated along the axis of the Zhaman-Aibat 

anticline. Within the lens, grey-colored rocks in the 

Taskuduk and Dzhezkazgan Formations

7

Figure C2.

The east-northeast-trending Kulen anticline 8 km 

north of Zhaman-Aibat anticline was identified by 

seismic profiling5. The Kulen anticline is flanked 

by the Azat flexure zone on the north side of the 

Zhaman-Aibat anticline to the south. The Muzkazgan flexure zone and fault flank the Kulen anticline 

on the north. The Kulen plunges moderately to the 

south, as shown on the geologic and structure contour maps6

. In the east, the structure is enclosed by 

a down-fold with increased thickness of Carboniferous deposits. The anticline is about 26 km long, the 

closure is 1–1.5 km wide, and the uplift amplitude is 

more than 300 m in the east and 100 m in the west. 

The depth of the base of the mid-Carboniferous 

strata along the anticlinal crest is 1,450 m in the 

east, 1,850 m in the central part, and 2,150 m at the 

western closure. However a possible miscorrelation between the seismic lines and drill holes allows 

the possibility that the above depths could be less, 

namely 800, 1,200 and 1,450 m, respectively. As 

with Zhaman-Aibat anticline, the Carboniferous 

deposits thicken to the east along the Kulen anticline. The greatest increase in stratigraphic thickness 

is within [the] Taskuduk Formation, from 570 to 

1,030 m. The Kulen structure is marked by a positive residual-gravity anomaly of about 2 mgal.

Assessment Subunit 2d (Zhaktykhau)

Assessment subunit 2d (figs. C1 and C2) is drawn to 

include the Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations within an 

18-km-wide swath along the Zhatyktau Anticline (fig. C2) from 

their eastern outcrop edge down plunge to the west to where 

the base of the unit is about 1.8 km below sea level (using CSNCS_depth-base-mCarbonif.mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010). 

The following brief description of the Zhaktyktau prognostic 

resource estimate area was provided by a mining industry 

group in Kazakhstan. (MEC, written commun., 2009):

Zhaktyktau prospective area is situated 25 km southeast of the Zhaman-Aibat deposit coinciding with the 

SW trending anticline of the same name, faulted on 

its northwest side. A seismic reflection survey indicated the depth to the base of the Taskuduk Formation 

ranges from 1.4 up to 2.0 km within the site, and the 

structural amplitude is about 500 m.

Assessment Subunit 2e (East Karakoin)

Assessment subunit 2e is located southwest of assessment 

subunit 2d along a southwestward continuation of the

6

Shown in Syusyura and others (2010) as CS-NCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.jpg 

and CS_elev-base-mCarbonif-orig.jpg. 

5

Shown in Syusyura and others (2010) as CS-NCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.mxd.
Appendix C—Tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2) 39

 vary from 0 to more than 200 m in thickness. The 

thickest sections of gray-colored rocks are found 

in the eastern and the Taskora areas8. The eastern 

area with interlayered grey-colored strata covers the 

central and eastern parts of the anticline and follows 

the crest of the anticline, [with the total thickness of 

grey-colored Taskuduk and Dzhezkazgan Formation 

strata exceeding 200 m]. Ratio of total grey-colored 

rock thickness to the total thickness of the formations ranges from 1:9 at the periphery to 1:3 (with a 

local maximum of 1:1) in its central part. 

At Zhaman-Aibat, 28 cyclothems were identified9. 

Each consists of a lower layer of grey-colored sandstones (often with conglomerates and gravelite at the 

base) and upper layer of siltstones (sometimes with 

interlayered argillite). Grey-colored varieties regularly transform into red-colored ones along the strike 

and down-dip. These cyclothems have been grouped 

into 10 ore horizons, 3 in Taskuduk Formation and 7 

in the Dzhezkazgan Formation. 

In general, copper mineralization of various grades 

occurs throughout most of the section and is usually associated with grey-colored sandstones and 

conglomerates. Commercial mineralization was 

found in five ore horizons (Nos. 1–5) and is localized in six ore shoots (1-II, 2-IV, 3-II, 3-III, 4-I, and 

5-I; fig. C2). The main ore shoot, 4-I, contains about 

70 percent of the commercial ores, and is localized 

in a persistent interlayer of Raymondian gravelites 

and conglomerates and its associated grey-colored 

sandstones. Ores are mostly copper-bearing, less 

frequently lead-copper and rarely lead and lead-zinc 

ores are found. Mean copper grade of other commercial shoots are considerably lower than those of 

ore shoot 4-I. Lower grade copper mineralization 

was discovered on the 2nd (ore shoot 2-II), 3rd (3-I), 

4th (4-II), 5th (5-II), 9th (9-I) and 10th ore horizons. 

In the remaining sequences (shoots) of ore horizons, 

ore copper occurrence is represented by mineralization only at present time. Silver and rhenium are 

also associated with the copper mineralization at the 

Zhaman-Aibat deposit.

Commercial mineralization at the Zhaman-Aibat 

deposit is usually confined to the flanks of the Central and Eastern anticlinal culminations, surrounding 

them with several rings, 200–700 m wide in sections, 

with total Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formation 

thickness from 60 to 160 m. The majority of holes 

drilled in the crest of these structures, where total

8

Shown in CS-ZA_strat-columns.jpg; Syusyura and others, 2010.

9

Figure C3.

 thickness of grey-colored rocks is commonly the 

greatest and reaches 170–200 m and more, intersected no or only off-grade mineralization. 

Prospects, Mineral Occurrences, and Related 

Deposit Types

Assessment Subunit 2a (Zhaman-Aibat)

Prospects within assessment subunit 2a include copper 

mineralization intercepted in the Carboniferous Dzhezkazgan 

Formation at depth below the Taskora reduced-facies copper shale 

deposit in Permian strata, as well as undisclosed exploration targets adjacent to the Zhaman-Aibat deposit (discussed below). 

The following brief description of the Zhaman-Aibat 

prognostic resource estimate area was provided by a mining 

industry group in Kazakhstan (MEC, written commun., 2009): 

The mineralization at the Zhaman-Aibat deposit, at 

a depth from 460 down to 950 m (mostly 600–700 

m), is confined to the central part of the anticline 

between [the] Azat and Taskora culminations. 

Within [the] Taskora culmination, there is a small 

copper deposit (ore occurrence depth is up to 30 m, 

average thickness is 8.65 m, and Cu average grade 

is 0.76 percent) of the same name associated with 

grey-colored siltstones and marls of the lower part 

of the Permian Kingir suite. The Taskora deposit 

is considered to be shale-hosted, reduced-facies 

sediment-hosted copper-type mineralization.

A similar situation is typical of the Taskora anticlinal culmination, where only 5 deep holes have been 

drilled. Three holes encountered off-grade mineralization at the level of the 4th Zhaman-Aibat ore horizon, 

and drill hole U-149 situated on the southern flank 

of this structure intersected 1.7 m with Cu grade of 

2.89 percent10. This similarity to the geometry of 

the Zhaman-Aibat deposit suggests that ring shaped 

sandstone ore bodies of Dzhezkazgan type may also 

surround the Taskora culmination at depth regularity 

of location established for cupriferous sandstones of 

Dzhezkazgan type at the Zhaman-Aibat deposit but 

have not been sufficiently explored. It is also assumed 

that other ore ring zones may also be found in the 

vicinity of the Zhaman-Aibat deposit where not sufficiently explored by drilling.

Zhaman-Aibat total probable copper resources of P1 

+ P2 + P3 categories (down to a depth of 1 km) are 

estimated at 1,200,000 t Cu, including 700,000 t of 

P2 off-grade ore reserves registered with the state 

balance of RoK Reserves Committee (Minutes of the 

Meeting No. 58-00-U, dated September 18, 2000).

10Shown in CS_ZA_strat-columns.jpg; Syusyura and others, 2010.
40 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Zhaman-Aibat Taskora

Cu, Pb

Cu, Pb

Cu, Pb

Cu, Pb, Zn

Pb

Cu

Cu

Cu

Cu

Cu

Cu

Cu

IV

III

II

9-I

II

I

III

II

I

III

II

I

III

5-II

5-1

4-II

4-I

3-III

3-II

3-I

V

2-IV

III

II

I

1-II

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

140–360 and greater 180–380 and greater

>300

Taskuduk Dzhezkazgan Zhidelisai

Lower Mississippian Pennsylvanian

Kingir

Carboniferous Permian System

Series

Formation Thickness, 

in meters

Orebearing 

member Lithology

Ore-bearing

member

subunit

Mineralization Deposit

EXPLANATION

Marl

Limestone

Red-colored 

 siltstone-claystone

Gray-colored 

 sandstone

Conglomerate

Commercial ore

Non-commercial 

 ore

cs_g_App_C3.ai

Figure C3. Stratigraphic column in the vicinity of the Zhaman-Aibat and Taskora deposits, 

showing positions of ore horizon subunits, Chu-Sarysu Basin, Kazakhstan.
Appendix C—Tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2) 41

Table C2. Known sediment-hosted copper deposits in tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan. 

[Mt, million metric tons; t, metric ton. Contained Cu in metric tons is computed as tonnage (Mt×1,000,000) × Cu grade (%)/100; %, percent]

Name Latitude Longitude Subtype Tonnage

(Mt)

Grade 

Contained 

Cu

(t)

Reference

Cu 

(%) 

Ag 

(%)

Zhaman 

Aibat

46.850 68.941 Sandstone 161 1.69 0.00191 2.72 A. Kim, Kazakhmys, written 

commun., 2009

Taskora 46.802 68.734 Reduced 

facies 

4 0.75 n.d. 0.03 Kazakhmys Web 

site: http://www.

kazakhmys.

com/uploads/

kasplchalfyear2008presentationfinal

28aug08.pdf

Assessment Subunit 2b

Within the subunit 2b, four northeast-trending anticlinal 

features (Ungurlisay, Sarydaly, North Tobylga, and SarysuTobylga prognostic-resource-estimate areas in table C3 and on 

figure C1) are inferred by a mining industry group in Kazakhstan 

(MEC, written commun., 2009) to have prognostic Cu resources 

(Diatchkov, 1994) of 3,800,000 t Cu. The surface areas inferred 

to contain these prognostic resources range from 230 to 600 km2. 

Five wells over a 60 km linear distance have uneconomic shows 

of copper mineralization (up to 0.1 percent Cu over a few meters) 

in either the Carboniferous or earliest Permian strata (Syusyura 

and others, 2010). Only sporadic intervals of gray, reduced red 

beds were encountered in the Carboniferous ore horizon.

Assessment Subunit 2c (Kulen)

A brief description of prospects within the Kulen prognostic resource estimate area is given below (MEC, written 

commun., 2009):

As with [the] Zhaman-Aibat anticline, the Carboniferous deposits thicken to the east along the Kulen 

anticline. The greatest increase in stratigraphic 

thickness is within [the] Taskuduk Formation, from 

570 m to 1,030 m. The Kulen structure is marked by 

a positive residual gravity anomaly of about 2 mgal.

The Kulen anticline has potential for copper mineralization but exploration results are not conclusive. 

Thick coarse sandstones and conglomerates are found 

in drill holes 021, 022 and 015 situated in the eastern 

part of the anticline, however, grey-colored sandstones and siltstones within the Dzhezkazgan and 

Taskuduk Formations, as seen at Zhaman-Aibat, are 

not present11. The potential ore horizon in the deep 

western part of the anticline has not been completely 

penetrated by drill holes (07, 08, and 09). P3 category 

resources were estimated at 200,000 t Cu within this 

prospective area down to a depth of 1 km.

Assessment Subunit 2d (Zhaktykhau)

No copper mineralization was encountered within subunit 

2d in the five known drill holes, one of which is far off the 

anticlinal axis (Syusyura and others, 2010). However, one of the 

drill holes (for oil exploration) near the anticlinal axis encountered gray-green (reduced) strata in the Taskuduk and lower 

Dzhezkazgan Formations in random core sampling. A brief synopsis of exploration within the Zhaktyktau prognostic-resourceestimate area is given below (MEC, written commun., 2009):

In the northeastern part of the structure, three structural-prospecting holes U-51, 60 and 1-P Zhaktyktau 

(oil well) were drilled12. Drill holes U-51 and 60 did 

not identify any copper mineralization; however, 

drill hole U-60 is located well off the crest of the 

anticline. Sporadic core sampling in drill-hole 1-P 

recovered greenish-grey rocks, mainly in Taskuduk 

Formation and probably also in the lower part of 

Dzhezkazgan Formation P3 resources of 700,000 t 

Cu were estimated to occur within this prospective 

area down to a depth of 1 km.

Assessment Subunit 2e (East Karakoin)

No copper mineralization or iron reduction was encountered in four mineral exploration drill holes in the tract 

11Shown in CS-NCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010.

12Shown in CS-NCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010.
42 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

(Syusyura and others, 2010). None is referred to for the 

three oil exploration holes, although it is not clear that those 

holes were tested for copper mineralization. Exploration 

within this prognostic-resource-estimate area (East Karakoin) 

is reviewed briefly below (MEC, written commun., 2009):

During general prospecting for copper in the northeastern part of East Karakoin site (P. I. Skirda and 

others, 1984)13, structural-prospecting holes U-53, 55, 

57, 58 were drilled.14 The Taskuduk and Dzhezkazgan Formations in these holes are characterized by 

red color and coarse grain size, typical of the eastern 

edge of [the] Chu-Sarysu depression. P3 resources of 

1,000,000 t Cu were estimated to occur within this 

prospective area down to a depth of 1 km.

Assessment Subunit 2f (Dautbay)

A review of prospecting of the Dautbay prognostic-resourceestimate area is given below (MEC, written commun., 2009):

The Dautbay anticline, located 70-90 km southsoutheast of the Zhaman-Aibat deposit, was 

explored based on a 1:50,000 geological survey (G. 

V. Belov and others, 1978–80), a seismic survey (N. 

N. Smirnova and others., 1991), and limited drilling, 

which resulted in identification of ore occurrences 

of lead, zinc, silver, barium, strontium and anomalous concentrations of copper in lithogeochemical 

samples, trenches and drill holes. Ore occurrences 

of polymetals (lead, zinc and silver) and strontium 

outcrop at the northern end of the Dautbay anticline, 

confined to carbonate-terrigenous formations that 

underlie the mid Carboniferous red bed strata. Probable resources of the ore occurrences were estimated 

as follows: P2 category—polymetals in the amount 

of 2,300,000 t of metal at summed average Pb and 

Zn grade of 4.16 percent and average thickness of 

3.3 m; 1,500 t Ag at average grade of 27 g/t over a 

thickness of 9.8 m; P1 category—celestine (strontium sulfate) in the amount of 7,700,000 t at average 

grade of 21 percent and thickness of 9.0 m.

Based on results of 1:50,000 and 1:10,000 lithogeochemical surveys, secondary copper halos at Cu grades 

from 0.06 up to 0.25 percent were determined within 

the limits of ore occurrences as well as in the northwestern peripheral part of [the] Dautbay structure and at 

the northern termination of [the] Zholdybai anticline15

in grey-colored terrigenous rocks of Dzhezkazgan and 

Taskuduk Formations. Primary copper halos with concentrations of 0.005–0.03 percent (thickness is 4–8 

13No citation given; presumably a USSR government report.

14Shown in CS-NCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010.

15A branch of the Dautbay Anticline; figure C2.

m), 0.03–0.1 percent (3.5 m) and 0.008–0.25 percent 

(10 m) and others were found in some of shallow prospecting drill-holes. Copper mineralization is represented 

by chalcopyrite dissemination.

Within the described site, seismic survey by CDP 

(common depth point) method, electric survey 

by near-zone magnetic field method, gravity and 

magnetic survey on definite survey lines, as well as 

structural-prospecting drilling were performed to 

confirm the presence of copper occurrences and test 

down-dip extensions. Structural and prospecting drill 

holes U-62, 66 and SP-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 816 tested anticline 

and syncline structures identified from the seismic 

survey, which can be associated here with mineralization of polymetals and copper. Also it was established that the greatest thickness of grey-colored rock 

varieties are observed within [the] Dzhezkazgan and 

Taskuduk Formations on the north-western flanks of 

[the] Dautbay and Zholdybai anticlines. Total thickness of grey-colored rocks in drill-holes SP-4 and 

SP-6 ranges from 10.2 up to 52 m. In drill hole SP-4 

within the interval of 797.3–802.8 m, Cu grade makes 

up 0.04 percent, in drill-hole SP-6 within intervals 

of 514.4–517.4 m; 582.1–582.1 m; 637.2–640.2 m; 

718.9–722.6 m, Cu grade varies from 0.015 up to 

0.04 percent. Drill-holes U-62, (Symtas syncline17) 

and SP-7, and SP-8 (south extension of Dautbay anticline and Sharshyshanskaya brachyanticline18) did not 

show any positive results, and this southeastern part 

of Dautbay site was assessed negatively. 

Several favorable factors, such as positive structures 

limited by tectonic faults, positive local gravity 

anomalies and sometimes anomalies in the results of 

electric survey by near-zone magnetic field method, 

occurrences of grey-colored strata and increased 

grades of copper, polymetals and strontium within 

the Taskuduk and Dzhezkazgan Formations, resulted 

in an estimate of 500,000 t Cu resources in the P2 

category down to 1 km in this prospective area.

Assessment Subunit 2g

Assessment subunit 2g is the portion of tract CS-2 that is 

not included in subunits 2a through 2f. Four widely scattered 

sediment-hosted copper prospects and one associated lead-zinc 

prospect are reported from within subunit 2g. Two prospects 

(Karagengir and Akbulak) occur on the southeast flank of 

the Kingir Anticline, the structure which hosts the supergiant 

Dzhezkazgan deposit about 25 km to the west. 

16Shown in CS-NCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010.

17Figure C2.

18Figure C2.
Appendix C—Tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2) 43

Exploration History

Assessment subunit 2a is part of the concession owned 

by Kazakhmys, which operates the Zhaman-Aibat Mine and 

conducts exploration in the rest of tract CS-2. Assessment subunit 

2b also is part of the concession owned by Kazakhmys, which 

operates the Dzhezkazgan and Zhaman-Aibat Mines. Kazakhmys 

explores in this tract, with drilling activity in 2009 and more drilling planned in 2010 (Steve McRobbie, Kazakhmys, oral comm., 

2009). Exploration for natural gas also has occurred in this area. 

At least 25 wells are known within the tract. Five wells have 

uneconomic shows of copper mineralization (up to 0.1 percent Cu 

over a few meters) in either the Carboniferous or earliest Permian 

strata (Syusyura and others, 2010). 

At least nine drill holes are known within assessment 

subunit 2c, with the eastern ones completely penetrating the 

Dzhezkazgan-Taskuduk Formations and the western ones partly 

penetrating the horizon (Syusyura and others, 2010). Although 

the host horizon is thick and coarse, no copper mineralization 

or gray-altered sandstone horizons were encountered in the drill 

holes. The prospective anticlinal structure is well-defined from 

surface mapping on the east and from regional oil exploration 

seismic surveys where the units are in the subsurface.

At least five drill holes, most of which are oil-exploration 

holes, are scattered across assessment subunit 2d (Syusyura and 

others, 2010). Seismic surveys over the tract were adequate to 

define the prospective anticlinal structure. It is unknown how 

much of the drill cuttings or core samples mentioned above 

were analyzed for copper mineralization.

Seven drill holes (four for mineral exploration, three for oil 

exploration) are known in assessment subunit 2e (Syusyura and 

others, 2010). Seismic and gravity data are sufficient to define 

the structural features of the tract. 

Assessment subunit 2f was explored in the 1980s and early 

1990s (MEC, written commun., 2009). It is not clear whether 

any exploration has occurred since the early 1990s. 

Some parts of assessment subunit 2g have been explored 

by surface sampling, oil and gas drilling, or mineral-exploration 

drilling (Syusyura and others, 2010), but most of this large tract 

is untested. For the most part, this tract represents those parts 

of the northern Chu-Sarysu Basin that have not had additional 

exploration activities related to evaluation of sediment-hosted 

copper prospects. However, the area has been covered by 

regional exploration related to oil and gas in or below the host 

horizon for the sediment-hosted copper deposits and by exploration for uranium in overlying units.

Sources of Information

Principal sources of information used by the assessment 

team for delineation of tract CS-2 are listed in table C4. 

Grade and Tonnage Model Selection

The lithology and grain size of the rocks, along with 

evidence consistent with the presence of liquid or gaseous 

hydrocarbons, indicate that the tract should be assessed for 

sandstone copper deposits. Seventy sandstone copper deposits 

from around the world were selected to create the tonnage and 

grade model for resource estimation (appendix F). Student’s 

t-test indicates deposits in the Chu-Sarysu Basin cannot be 

distinguished statistically from other deposits that make up the 

grade and tonnage model.

Estimate of the Number of Undiscovered 

Deposits

Rationale for the Estimate

Estimates were made by the assessment group for each of 

the assessment subunits based on the data summarized above. 

The consensus estimate of numbers of undiscovered deposits 

for each of the assessment subunits is shown in table C5. Those 

consensus estimates were aggregated statistically using the 

correlation matrix specified in table C6, representing the level 

of correlation between assessment subunits (Schuenemeyer and 

others, 2011). The resultant aggregated estimate for the number 

of undiscovered deposits in the entire tract is given in table C7. 

Several factors led the assessment group to the overall high 

estimate of the number of undiscovered deposits in tract CS-2. 

The presence of the large Zhaman-Aibat deposit and the position of the lightly explored northern part of the tract between 

that deposit and the supergiant Dzhezkazgan deposit gave the 

group optimism that prerequisite conditions for the formation 

of sandstone copper deposits were operative in this area. The 

group favored a model of generation of the metal-transporting 

brines within the deeper portion of the northeastern Chu-Sarysu 

Basin associated with Devonian and (or) Permian evaporite sections, and hydraulic pumping of these brines into the shallower 

up-dip portions of the basin. Each of the northeast-trending 

anticlines plunging into the deep western part of this northeastern sub-basin has the potential of having trapped a natural gas 

deposit, which in turn could have caused precipitation of metals 

from the oxidized, metal-bearing brines during up-dip migration. Each assessment subunit was evaluated for evidence that 

such an ore-forming system might have operated. In the case of 

assessment subunit 2a, where the presence of the Zhaman-Aibat 

deposit indicates that such an ore-forming system did operate, 

the estimate is based on an evaluation of evidence that other 

ore-localization processes operated beyond the immediate vicinity of the Zhaman-Aibat deposit.

Probabilistic Assessment Simulation 

Results

Undiscovered resources for the tract were estimated by 

combining consensus estimates for numbers of undiscovered 

sandstone copper deposits (table C7) with the sandstone copper model (appendix F) using the Economic Mineral Resource 
44 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Name Latitude Longitude Comments

(grade and tonnage data,

 if available) 

Reference

Area around Zhaman-Aibat 46.850 68.941 P1 (0.7 Mt Cu) and P3 (0.5 Mt Cu) resources 

in a 224 km2 area down-dip and along strike 

from the Zhaman-Aibat deposit

MEC, written commun., 2009 

Taskora-deep 46.802 68.735 Drill hole intercept 1.7 m at 2.89% Cu MEC, written commun., 2009 

Ungurlisay area 47.750 68.236 257 km2 area with P3 resources (0.8 Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

Sarydaly area 47.572 68.530 230 km2 area with P3 resources (1.0 Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

North Tobylga area 47.423 68.858 322 km2 area with P3 resources (1.0 Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

Sarysu-Tobylga area 47.337 68.939 600 km2 area with P3 resources (1.0 Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

Kulen area 46.974 69.061 46 km2 area with P3 resources (0.2 Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

Zhektytau area 46.650 69.235 305 km2 area with P3 resources (0.7Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

East Karakoin area 46.392 68.961 415 km2 area with P3 resources (1.0 Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

Dautbay prospect 46.355 69.549 Cu prospect in Taskuduk Formation and PbZn prospect in underlying Serpukhovian 

carbonate sequence

MEC, written commun., 2009 

Drill hole SP-4 46.095 69.485 5.5 m intercept with 0.04% Cu Syusyura and others, 2010 

Drill hole SP-6 46.164 69.485 (4) 3–4 m intercepts with 0.015–0.04% Cu Syusyura and others, 2010

Dautbay area 46.105 69.588 420 km2 area with P3 resources (0.5 Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

Karakengir 47.991 67.745 Non-economic copper sandstone occurrences 

in Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations

Syusyura and others, 2010; CSNCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.mxd

Tesbulak 45.659 70.456 Non-economic copper sandstone occurrence 

in Taskuduk Formation

Syusyura and others, 2010

Well U-29 47.442 68.209 Non-economic copper occurrence in drill hole Syusyura and others, 2010

Table C3. Significant prospects, occurrences, and areas with prognostic resource estimates in tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), 

central Kazakhstan. 

[For areas with prognostic resource estimates, latitude and longitude are provided for the centroid of each area named. m, meter; Mt, million metric tons; 

MEC, Mining and Economic Consulting, Ltd.]

Theme Name or Title Scale Reference

Geology CS-ZA_geolmap.mxd 1:200,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Mineral occurrences CS-NCS_deps-occurrences.shp;

 CS-ZA_geolmap.mxd

1:50,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Geochemistry CS-ZA_strat-column-chem.jpg 1:50,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Geophysics CS-NCS_gravity-residual.jpg; 

CS-NCS_mag-intensity.jpg

1:50,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Exploration Known drill hole locations (CS_boreholes-all.shp); Synopsis of prospective targets, Chu-Sarysu Basin1:50,000 Syusyura and others, 2010; 

Mining and Economic 

Consulting, Ltd.

(written commun., 2009)

Table C4. Principal sources of information used by the assessment team for delineation of tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan.
Appendix C—Tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2) 45

Consensus estimated number of undiscovered deposits for each subunit

Assessment subunit N90 N50 N10 N05 N01

2a 3 4 5 5 5

2b 0 1 3 5 5

2c 0 1 2 2 3

2d 0 0 1 2 2

2e 0 1 1 2 5

2f 0 1 2 3 5

2g 0 2 2 5 5

Table C5. Undiscovered deposit estimates for individual assessment subunits, tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan. 

[Nxx, estimated number of deposits associated with the xxth percentile]

Table C6. Correlation matrix used to combine undiscovered deposit estimates statistically for assessment 

subunits in tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan. 

2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f 2g

2a 1

2b 0.5 1

2c 0.75 0.5 1

2d 0.6 0.2 0.6 1

2e 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.75 1

2f 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 1

2g 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1

Aggregated undiscovered deposit estimate Summary statistics Area, 

(km2

)

Deposit 

density

N90 N50 N10 N05 N01 Nund s Cv

% Nknown Ntotal

5 10 16 18 22 10.3 4.5 43 1 11 31,680 3.6

Table C7. Undiscovered deposit estimates, deposit numbers, tract area, and deposit density for tract 142ssCu8002 

(CS-2), central Kazakhstan.

[Nxx, estimated number of deposits associated with the xxth percentile; Nund, expected number of undiscovered deposits; s, standard deviation; Cv

%, coefficient of variance; Nknown, number of known deposits in the tract that are included in the grade and tonnage model; Ntotal, 

expected number of undiscovered deposits plus known deposits; area, area of permissive tract; deposit density, number of deposits per 

10,000 km2; m, meters; km2, square kilometers. Nund, s, and Cv% are calculated using a regression equation (Singer and Menzie, 2005) ]

Probability of at least the indicated amount Probability of

0.95 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.05 Mean Mean or 

greater None

Cu, in t 360,000 820,000 4,800,000 26,000,000 34,000,000 9,900,000 0.33 0.02

Ag, in t 0 0 3,300 22,000 36,000 8,500 0.28 0.11

Rock, in Mt 32 70 430 2,200 2,900 870 0.36 0.02

Table C8. Results of Monte Carlo simulations of undiscovered resources in tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), central Kazakhstan.

[t, metric tons; Mt, million metric tons]

Material
46 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Mean Cu

Mean Ag

Mean Rock

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Probability

Material, in metric tons

Cu

Ag

Rock

Mean Cu

Mean Ag

Mean 

Rock

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1T 10T 100T 1M 10M 100M 1B 10B 100B 1Tr

Simulator (EMINERS) program (Root and others, 1992; Duval, 

2012; Bawiec and Spanski, 2012). Selected simulation results are 

reported in table C8. Results of the Monte Carlo simulation are 

presented as a cumulative frequency plot (fig. C4). The cumulative frequency plot shows the estimated resource amounts associated with cumulative probabilities of occurrence, as well as the 

mean, for each commodity and for total mineralized rock. 

References Cited

Bawiec, W.J., and Spanski, G.T., 2012, Quick-start guide for 

version 3.0 of EMINERS—Economic Mineral Resource 

Simulator: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2009–1057, 26 p., available only at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2009/1057. (This report supplements USGS OFR 

2004–1344.)

Cox, D.P., Lindsey, D.A., Singer, D.A., Moring, B.C., and 

Diggles, M.F., 2003 [revised 2007], Sediment-hosted copper deposits of the world—Deposit models and database: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2003–107 version 1.3, 53 p., CD-ROM. (Also available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-107/.)

Diatchkov, S.A., 1994, Principles of classification of reserves 

and resources in the CIS countries: Mining Engineering, v. 

46, no. 3, p. 214–217.

Duval, J.S., 2012, Version 3.0 of EMINERS—Economic Mineral Resource Simulator: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2004–1344, available only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2004/1344. (Version 3.0 of EMINERS updates version 

2.0, released in 2004 as USGS OFR 2004–1344. Version 

2.0 of EMINERS superseded USGS OFR 2002–0380.)

Root, D.H., Menzie, W.D., and Scott, W.A., 1992, Computer 

Monte Carlo simulation in quantitative resource estimation: 

Natural Resources Research, v. 1, no. 2, p. 125–138.

Schuenemeyer, J.H., Zientek, M.L., and Box, S.E., 2011, 

Global Mineral Resource Assessment—Aggregation of 

estimated numbers of undiscovered mineral deposits—an 

R-script with an example from the Chu Sarysu Basin, 

Kazakhstan: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5090–B, 13 p, accessed July 13, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5090/b/.

Singer, D.A., and Menzie, W.D., 2005, Statistical guides to 

estimating the number of undiscovered mineral deposits: 

an example with porphyry copper deposits, in Cheng, 

Qiuming, and Bonham-Carter, Graeme, eds., Proceedings 

of IAMG—The annual conference of the International 

Association for Mathematical Geology: Toronto, Canada, 

York University, Geomatics Research Laboratory, 

p. 1028–1033.

Syusyura, Boris, Box, S.E., and Wallis, J.C., 2010, Spatial 

databases of geological, geophysical, and mineral resource 

data relevant to sandstone-hosted copper deposits in central 

Kazakhstan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2010–1124, 4 p. and databases, accessed January 7, 2011, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1124/. 

U.S. Department of State, 2009, Small-scale digital international land boundaries (SSIB)—Lines, edition 10, and 

polygons, beta edition 1, in Boundaries and Sovereignty 

Encyclopedia (B.A.S.E.): U.S. Department of State, Office 

of the Geographer and Global Issues.

Figure C4. Cumulative frequency plot 

showing the results of a Monte Carlo 

computer simulation of undiscovered 

resources in tract 142ssCu8002 (CS-2), 

Kazakhstan.
Appendix D—Tract 142ssCu8003 (CS-3) 47

Appendix D. Sandstone Copper Assessment for Tract 142ssCu8003 

(CS-3), Central Kazakhstan

By Stephen E. Box1, Alla Dolgopolova2, Timothy S. Hayes1, Murray W. Hitzman3, Reimar Seltmann2, 

Boris Syusyura4

, Cliff D. Taylor1, and Michael L. Zientek1

Deposit Type Assessed

Deposit type: Sediment-hosted stratabound copper

Descriptive model: Sediment-hosted copper, Revett copper subtype (Cox and others, 2003)

Grade and tonnage model: Sediment-hosted stratabound copper, sandstone subtype (see appendix F)

Table D1 summarizes selected assessment results.

Location

Central Kazakhstan, about 600 km south-southwest of the capital city of Astana (fig. D1).

Geologic Feature Assessed

Pennsylvanian strata in the northwestern part (Kokpansor sub-basin) of the Upper Devonian-Upper Permian Chu-Sarysu 

Basin, central Kazakhstan

Date of assessment Assessment depth 

(km)

Tract area 

(km2

)

Known 

copper resources 

(t)

Mean estimate of 

undiscovered 

copper resources

(t)

Median estimate of 

undiscovered 

copper resources

(t)

October 2009 2 28,226 0 8,000,000 3,200,000

Table D1. Summary of selected resource assessment results for tract 142ssCu8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan.

[km, kilometers; km2, square kilometers; t, metric tons]

1

U.S. Geological Survey.

2

Centre for Russian and Central EurAsian Mineral Studies—Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom.

3

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.

4

Mining and Economic Consulting, Ltd., Almaty, Kazakhstan.
48 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Delineation of the Permissive Tract

Geologic Criteria

Tract CS-3 (fig. D1) includes the surface and subsurface 

extent of the Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations in the 

northwestern part of the Chu-Sarysu Basin (Kokpansor subbasin), west of the major down-to-the-east Kokshetau Fault. 

The southern boundary of the Kokpansor sub-basin was taken 

as the north flank of the Buguldzhy Uplift (fig. 1), where 

the western continuation of the Arady Fault trends into the 

2-km-below-sea-level contour of the base of the Pennsylvanian strata (CS-NCS_depth-base-mCarbonif.mxd; Syusyura 

and others, 2010). Because different levels of information are 

available for subareas with the tract, we divide the assessed 

tract into assessment subunits on figure D1 and these are discussed in more detail below.

Assessment Subunit 3a (South Kumoly)

Assessment subunit 3a is located at the northern end 

of tract CS-3 (fig. D1), where the north-northwest trending 

Kumola Synclinorium indents the margin of the Chu-Sarysu 

Basin (fig. 1).

Assessment Subunit 3b (Kyzylkak)

Assessment subunit 3b is located south of assessment 

subunit 3a, along the western basin margin (fig. D1), where 

three anticlinal culminations expose the Pennsylvanian red bed 

strata up to 35 km east of the western basin margin (CS-WCSKY_geolmap.mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010).

Assessment Subunit 3c (Irkuduk)

Assessment subunit 3c is located close to the southern 

boundary of tract CS-3 along the western basin margin (fig. 

D1).

Assessment Subunit 3d

Assessment subunit 3d (fig. D1)includes the northern end 

of the north-northwest-plunging Tasty anticlinorium (fig. 1), 

the large central basin uplift.

Assessment Subunit 3e

Assessment subunit 3e includes the northward extension 

of the Tasty anticlinorium that was outlined in assessment 

subunit 3d (fig. D1).

Assessment Subunit 3f

Assessment subunit 3f includes all of the remaining area of 

tract CS-3 outside of the assessment subunits described above.

Known Deposits

Although no deposits are known in tract CS-3, deposits 

do occur to the northeast in tract CS-1 (Dzhezkazgan and 

associated deposits) and to the east in tract CS-2 (ZhamanAibat deposit).

Prospects, Mineral Occurrences, and Related 

Deposit Types

Assessment Subunit 3a (South Kumoly)

A number of copper prospects are known where the 

Pennsylvanian red bed horizon is exposed along the edge of the 

assessment subunit 3a (fig. D1, table D2). Soil sampling has 

revealed an almost continuous band of copper enrichment (Cu 

>0.01 percent) along the Taskuduk Formation exposed along the 

northern and eastern edge of the sub-basin (CS-KU_geolmap.

mxd; Syusyura and others, 2010). Iron reduction to produce 

gray sandstone intervals also occurs discontinuously along the 

eastern and northern edges of the sub-basin, mostly within the 

Taskuduk Formation. Tremolite or sodic amphibole (“rhodusite” 

or magnesioriebeckite) occurrences within Permian strata in the 

central part of the Kumola synclinorium near the Kumola north 

and south prospects are interpreted to indicate that significant volumes of sodium-bearing brines moved through these 

rocks. Prognostic resources of 0.3 Mt Cu along the low-grade 

copper-mineralized Taskuduk Formation along the northern and 

eastern basin margins, and 0.5 Mt Cu in the basin subsurface 

in the vicinity of the Kumola north and south prospects were 

estimated in the upper 1 km of assessment subunit 3a (MEC, 

written commun., 2009).

Assessment Subunit 3b (Kyzylkak)

Two drill holes in assessment subunit 3b intercepted 

subeconomic copper mineralization (fig. D1, table D2). A few 

discrete gray iron-reduced sandstone beds occur in the vicinity 

of the western drill hole (U-23), whereas the eastern hole (U-22) 

penetrated more than 500 m of section with gray iron-reduced 

sandstones. Soil sampling from 3 to 8 km south of the western 

drill hole, where the overlying Permian strata are exposed, 

showed areas of copper enrichment (copper “halos” >0.006 

percent; CS-WCS-KY_soilCu-anom.shp; Syusyura and others, 

2010). Prognostic resources of 1.0 Mt Cu were estimated within 

assessment subunit 3b down to a depth of 1 km (MEC, written 

commun., 2009).
!

!

48°N46°N

66°E 69°E

Kyzylorda

Zhezkazgan

Tasty

Aryss area

Zhedy

Shilisay west

Shilisay east

Kingir area

Talsay

Kyzylkak area

Glubokoe

Keldybek

Borsengir area

BesentAdilbeksay

Talsay area

Ortasynyrly

South Zhezdy

Kumola north

Pridorozhnoye

Drill hole U-23

Drill hole U-22

Kysylborbas area

Kumola south

Irkuduk drill hole 1

Irkuduk drill hole 2

Irkuduk drill hole 7

Oppak West

isay

CS-3

CS-4

CS-4

CS-2

CS-1

2g

2d 2a

2c

2e

2f

2b

3b

3f

3f

3c

4b

4b

3e

3d

3a

K

UZBEKISTAN

65°E 

50°N40°N

EXP

Other tractsAssestract 1Sedimprospetracts 

Asses

Sedimassoc

Approxfor whestimatable Dassocishown 

cs_g_App_D1.ai

0 40 80 120 KILOMETERS

0 20 40 60 MILES

Political boundaries from U.S. Department of State (2009).Asia North Albers Equal Area Conic Projection. Central meridian, 67.5° E., latitude of origin, 45° N.

Figure D1. Location map for tract CS-3 and its known prospects in central Kazakhstan.
50 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Name Latitude Longitude Comments

(grade and tonnage data, if available) Reference

Talsay 47.945 66.892 Non-economic copper sandstone surface prospect 

in Taskuduk Formation

Syusyura and others, 2010

Keldybek 47.971 67.099 Non-economic copper sandstone surface prospect 

in Taskuduk Formation

Syusyura and others, 2010

Adilbeksay 47.972 67.191 Non-economic copper sandstone surface prospect 

in Taskuduk Formation

Syusyura and others, 2010

Besentisay 47.948 67.216 Non-economic copper sandstone surface prospect 

in Taskuduk Formation

Syusyura and others, 2010

Shilisay east 47.877 67.204 Non-economic copper sandstone surface prospect 

in Taskuduk Formation

Syusyura and others, 2010

Shilisay west 47.863 67.159 Non-economic copper sandstone sub-surface occurrences in Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations

Syusyura and others, 2010

Kumola north 47.945 67.031 Reduced-facies Cu shale surface prospect in Permian strata overlying ore target horizon

Syusyura and others, 2010

Kumola south 47.753 67.052 Reduced-facies Cu shale surface prospect in Permian strata overlying ore target horizon

Syusyura and others, 2010

Zhezdy 47.78 67.283 Non-economic copper sandstone surface prospect 

in Taskuduk Formation

Syusyura and others, 2010

South Zhezdy 47.497 67.606 Non-economic reduced-facies Cu shale occurrence 

in the Permian Kingir Formation 

Syusyura and others, 2010; CS-NCS_

pre-Mz-geolmap.mxd

Kingir area 47.538 67.605 2,000 km2

 area with P3 resources (0.8 Mt Cu)

Mining and Economic Consulting, 

Ltd. (MEC), written commun., 

2009 

Kysylborbas area 47.779 67.077 76 km2 area with P3 resources (0.5 Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

Talsay area 47.898 67.061 51 km2 area with P3 resources (0.3 Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

Drill hole U-22 47.220 67.097 Unknown length of 0.1% Cu intercept Syusyura and others, 2010

Drill hole U-23 47.184 66.987 15 m of 0.2% Cu intercept Syusyura and others, 2010

Kyzlkak area 47.269 67.174 1158 km2 area with P3 resources (1.0 Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

Glubokoe 45.667 67.133 Reduced-facies Cu shale occurrence Syusyura and others, 2010

Aryss area 45.696 67.169 Broad area (3–4 times the area of 3c) noted as 

containing 1.0 Mt Cu in P2 resources 

Republic of Kazakhstan, 2008

Irkuduk drill hole 7 45.661 67.088 Vein-type copper along fault has narrow interval of 

3% Cu

Syusyura and others, 2010

Irkuduk drill hole 2 45.676 67.177 Subeconomic Cu mineralization in Fe-reduced 

sandstone beds

Syusyura and others, 2010

Irkuduk drill hole 1 45.508 67.163 Four levels of subeconomic Cu mineralization in 10 

m thick zones

Syusyura and others, 2010

Oppak West 45.850 67.847 Producing natural gas field in Upper Devonian and 

Mississippian carbonates

Syusyura and others, 2010

Pridorozhnoye 45.473 68.147 Producing natural gas field in Upper Devonian 

sandstone and Pennsylvanian limestone

Syusyura and others, 2010

Borsengir area 46.755 68.017 247 km2 area with P3 resources (0.5 Mt Cu) MEC, written commun., 2009 

Ortasynyrly 45.527 68.773 Non-economic limestone-hosted Pb-Zn mineralization in drill intercept

Syusyura and others, 2010

Tasty 45.498 68.770 Non-economic copper sandstone subsurface occurrences in Dzhezkazgan and Taskuduk Formations

Syusyura and others, 2010

Table D2. Significant prospects, occurrences, and areas with prognostic resource estimates in tract 142ssCU8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan. 

[For areas with prognostic resource estimates, latitude and longitude are provided for the centroid of each area named. m, meter; Mt; million metric tons; km2, 

square kilometers; MEC, Mining and Economic Consulting, Ltd.]
Appendix D—Tract 142ssCu8003 (CS-3) 51

Assessment Subunit 3c (Irkuduk)

Three of seven drill holes in or near assessment subunit 

3c yielded subeconomic indications of copper mineralization 

(fig. D1, table D2). Drill hole 7 has vein-type copper mineralization along a fault with up to 3 percent copper in narrow intervals. Drill hole 1, located south of the assessment 

subunit, cut four levels of subeconomic copper mineralization each up to 10 m thick in gray, iron-reduced sandstone 

horizons. Drill hole 2 also had iron-reduced sandstone and 

subeconomic copper mineralization, but in lesser amounts 

than drill hole 1. A reduced-facies copper-shale prospect 

(Glubokoe; fig. D1, table D2) occurs within the tract in 

Permian strata between drill holes 2 and 7, defining an apparent east-northeast mineralization trend.

Assessment Subunit 3d

This subunit has no known prospects, but two prospects occur just to the south of this subunit within the larger 

assessment subunit 3f. Those two nearby prospects (Ortasynyrly and Tasty) indicate that metal-bearing fluids have 

migrated through this area. However, extensive followup 

exploration in the immediate vicinity of those occurrences 

did not find evidence of economic mineralization. The presence of two producing natural gas fields (Oppak West and 

Pridorozhnoye) within this subunit, with gas production from 

Mississippian limestones below the Pennsylvanian red bed 

sequence being assessed, is taken as evidence for possible 

natural gas entrapments within the red bed sequence, which 

in turn might have caused ore precipitation that has not yet 

been identified. 

Assessment Subunit 3e

No prospects or mineral occurrences are known in 

assessment subunit 3e. However, its position along the 

central basin anticlinorium, its position along the deeply penetrating Kokshetau Fault on its eastern flank, and its location 

50–60 km west and along trend of the productive ZhamanAibat deposit are inferred to be favorable factors for the 

occurrence of undiscovered mineralization. These favorable 

characteristics led to estimation of prognostic P3 resources 

of 0.5 Mt Cu within the northern 20 percent of the tract down 

to 1 km (MEC, written commun., 2009). 

Assessment Subunit 3f

This assessment subunit includes the Tasty prospect, a 

sandstone copper occurrence within the Dzhezkazgan Formation on the flank of the Tasty anticlinorium in the center 

of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, and the Ortasynyrly prospect, a 

lead-zinc occurrence nearby within Mississippian limestones 

along the tract boundary. 

Exploration History

Assessment Subunit 3a (South Kumoly)

More than 50 drill holes occur within assessment subunit 

3a (Syusyura and others, 2010), clustered along the edge 

of the sub-basin and in a couple of smaller areas within the 

deeper basin. Seismic profiling for oil exploration was used to 

define the structure of the sub-basin. The area lies immediately 

west of the supergiant Dzhezkazgan deposit, where modern 

mining has occurred for more than a century. The sub-basin 

lies within the current mining concession of Kazakhmys PLC, 

which operates the Dzhezkazgan and Zhaman-Aibat deposits. 

Surface exposures have been thoroughly explored, but large 

areas in the subsurface are untested.

Assessment Subunit 3b (Kyzylkak)

Assessment subunit 3b has been explored with a seismic 

survey spaced on 4–5 km intervals and with 1:50,000 gravity and 

magnetic surveys. Shallow prospect drilling was undertaken on a 

4- by1-km grid, and 12 drill holes were completed in the 1960s and 

mid-1990s. The western part of the tract was covered by a 1:50,000 

scale lithogeochemical soil survey. The area is noted as containing potential resources on the Republic of Kazakhstan Ministry 

of Energy and Mineral Resources map of mining concessions and 

potential mineral-resource areas (Republic of Kazakhstan, 2008).

Assessment Subunit 3c (Irkuduk)

Assessment subunit 3c has seismic data that covers only 

about 40 percent of the tract (south and east), so the structure 

of the northern and western parts should be considered uncertain. Five drill holes are known in the tract, three of which are 

known to contain copper occurrences. Gravity and magnetic 

maps cover the area. The area is noted as containing potential 

resources on the Republic of Kazakhstan Ministry of Energy 

and Mineral Resources map of mining concessions and potential mineral-resource areas (Republic of Kazakhstan, 2008).

Assessment Subunit 3d

Twenty wells are known from assessment subunit 3d, 

mostly gas exploration holes (two gas fields occur within the 

tract and are listed in table D2). Considerable drilling occurred 

around the two drill holes that intercepted base-metal mineralization, but no more mineralization was encountered and that 

area is now considered to be of low potential. The northern 

extension of the Tasty uplift has not been tested adequately.

Assessment Subunit 3e

Eight oil and gas exploration drill holes are known from 

assessment subunit 3e. Adequate seismic, gravity and magnetic surveying over the tract allows for good understanding 

of the structure of the tract. It is uncertain if any sampling for 

copper has occurred in any of these drill holes.
52 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Assessment Subunit 3f

Some parts of assessment subunit 3f have been explored 

by surface sampling, oil and gas drilling, or mineral-exploration drilling (Syusyura and others, 2010), but most of this 

large tract essentially is untested. For the most part, this tract 

represents those areas of the northern Chu-Sarysu Basin that 

have not had exploration activities specific to evaluation of 

sediment-hosted copper prospects. The area has been covered 

by regional exploration related to oil and gas in or below the 

host horizon for the sediment-hosted copper deposits and by 

exploration for uranium in overlying units.

Sources of Information

Principal sources of information used by the assessment 

team for delineation of CS-3 are listed in table D3. 

Grade and Tonnage Model Selection

The lithology and grain size of the rocks, along with 

evidence consistent with the presence of liquid or gaseous 

hydrocarbons, indicate that the tract should be assessed for 

sandstone copper deposits. Seventy sandstone copper deposits 

from around the world were selected to create the tonnage and 

grade model for resource estimation (appendix F). Student’s 

t-test indicates deposits in the Chu-Sarysu Basin cannot be 

distinguished statistically from other deposits that make up the 

grade and tonnage model.

Estimate of the Number of Undiscovered 

Deposits

Rationale for the Estimate

Estimates were made by the assessment team for each of 

the assessment subunits based on the data summarized above. 

The consensus estimate of numbers of undiscovered deposits 

for each of the assessment subunits is given in table D4. Those 

consensus estimates were aggregated statistically using the 

correlation matrix specified in table D5, representing the level 

of correlation between assessment subunits (Schuenemeyer 

and others, 2011). The aggregated estimate for the number of 

undiscovered deposits in the entire tract is given in table D6.

Although tracts CS-2 and CS-3 are similar in size and in 

geologic characteristics, there are a few indications that led the 

assessors to be less optimistic about the estimated number of 

undiscovered deposits in tract CS-3 than in tract CS-2. First, 

there are no known deposits within tract CS-3 (although the 

supergiant Dzhezkazgan deposit borders the northeastern corner of this tract). Second, the structure of the northwestern part 

of the Chu-Sarysu Basin (CS-3) is more complex than that in 

the northeastern part (CS-2), and there is more uncertainty in 

predicting how that might have influenced the migration and 

upwelling of any mineralizing brines. Third, Devonian lavas, 

a potential source of copper to the mineralizing brines, are 

known to occur under the northeastern part of the basin, but 

are absent or thin under the northwestern part of the basin. 

These factors led to the somewhat lower deposit estimates and 

to a higher uncertainty level for the northwestern sub-basin 

(tract CS-3), reflected in its lower estimated-deposit density 

and its higher coefficient of variance than those of tract CS-2.

Probabilistic Assessment Simulation 

Results

Undiscovered resources for the tract were estimated by 

combining consensus estimates for numbers of undiscovered 

sandstone copper deposits (table D6) with the sandstone copper model (appendix F) using the Economic Mineral Resource 

Simulator (EMINERS) program (Root and others, 1992; Duval, 

2012; Bawiec and Spanski, 2012). Selected simulation results are 

reported in table D7. Results of the Monte Carlo simulation are 

presented as a cumulative frequency plots (fig. D2). The cumulative frequency plots show the estimated resource amounts associated with cumulative probabilities of occurrence, as well as the 

mean, for each commodity and for total mineralized rock. 

Table D3. Principal sources of information used by the assessment team for delineation of tract 142ssCU8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan.

Theme Name or Title Scale Reference

Geology CS-NCS_pre-Mz-geolmap.jpg; CS-NCS_depth-base-mCarbonif.mxd 1:500,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Mineral occurrences CS-NCS_deps-occurrences.shp 1:500,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Geochemistry CS-KU_Cu-geochem-halos.shp; CS-WCS-KY_soilCu-anom.shp; CSIR_mineral-leaching.shp 1:50,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Geophysics CS_gravity.jpg; CS_seisprofile-borehmap.jpg; CS-NCS_mag-intensity.jpg 1:500,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Exploration CS-NCS_ne-strat-columns.jpg; CS-NCS_boreholes.shp; Synopsis of prospective sediment-hosted copper targets, Chu-Sarysu Basin 1:500,000

Syusyura and others, 2010; 

Mining and Economic 

Consulting, Ltd., written 

commun., 2009 
Appendix D—Tract 142ssCu8003 (CS-3) 53

Estimated number of undiscovered deposits

Assessment subunit N90 N50 N10 N05 N01

3a 0 1 1 1 2

3b 0 1 2 3 4

3c 0 2 4 6 6

3d 0 0 3 4 6

3e 0 1 3 5 10

3f 0 2 2 5 5

Table D5. Correlation matrix used to combine undiscovered deposit estimates statistically for assessment subunits 

in tract 142ssCu8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan. 

3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f

3a (Kumoly) 1

3b (Dyusembay-Kyzylkak) 0.2 1

3c (Irkuduk) 0.2 0.2 1

3d (Tasty south) 0.2 0.4 0.5 1

3e (Tasty north) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 1

3f (Chu-Sarysu north, beyond) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1

Aggregated undiscovered deposit estimate Summary statistics Area 

(km2

)

Deposit density 

N90 N50 N10 N05 N01 Nund s Cv

% Nknown Ntotal

3 7 15 18 24 8.4 5.8 69 0 8.4 28,226 3.0

Table D7. Results of Monte Carlo simulations of undiscovered resources in tract 142ssCu8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan.

[t, metric tons; Mt, million metric tons]

 Probability of at least the indicated amount Probability of

0.95 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.05 Mean Mean or 

greater None

Cu (t) 150,000 400,000 3,200,000 23,000,000 31,000,000 8,000,000 0.30 0.03

Ag (t) 0 0 2,100 20,000 33,000 7,300 0.26 0.18

Rock (Mt) 12 33 280 2,000 2,600 710 0.33 0.03

Table D4. Undiscovered deposit estimates for individual assessment subunits, tract 142ssCu8003 (CS-3), central Kazakhstan.

[Nxx, estimated number of deposits associated with the xxth percentile]

Table D6. Undiscovered deposit estimates, deposit numbers, tract area, and deposit density for tract 142ssCu8003 (CS-3), central 

Kazakhstan.

[Nxx, estimated number of deposits associated with the xxth percentile; Nund, expected number of undiscovered deposits; s, standard deviation; Cv%, coefficient of variance; Nknown, number of known deposits in the tract that are included in the grade and tonnage model; Ntotal, expected number of undiscovered 

deposits plus known deposits; area, area of permissive tract; deposit density, number of deposits per 10,000 km2; m, meters; km2, square kilometers. Nund, 

s, and Cv% are calculated using a regression equation (Singer and Menzie, 2005)]

Material
54 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

References Cited

Bawiec, W.J., and Spanski, G.T., 2012, Quick-start guide for version 3.0 of EMINERS—Economic Mineral Resource Simulator: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1057, 26 

p., available only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1057. (This 

report supplements USGS OFR 2004–1344.)

Cox, D.P., Lindsey, D.A., Singer, D.A., Moring, B.C., and 

Diggles, M.F., 2003 [revised 2007], Sediment-hosted copper 

deposits of the world—Deposit models and database: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2003–107 version 1.3, 

53 p., CD-ROM. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2003/of03-107/.)

Duval, J.S., 2012, Version 3.0 of EMINERS—Economic Mineral Resource Simulator: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2004–1344, available only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2004/1344. (Version 3.0 of EMINERS updates version 

2.0, released in 2004 as USGS OFR 2004–1344. Version 2.0 

of EMINERS superseded USGS OFR 2002–0380.)

Republic of Kazakhstan, 2008, Map of licensed objects and 

areas disposal ore minerals: Almaty, Kazakhstan, Information and Analysis Center of Geology and Mineral 

Resources, scale 1:2,500,000.

Root, D.H., Menzie, W.D., and Scott, W.A., 1992, Computer 

Monte Carlo simulation in quantitative resource estimation: 

Natural Resources Research, v. 1, no. 2, p. 125–138.

Schuenemeyer, J.H., Zientek, M.L., and Box, S.E., 2011, 

Global Mineral Resource Assessment—Aggregation of 

estimated numbers of undiscovered mineral deposits—an 

R-script with an example from the Chu Sarysu Basin, 

Kazakhstan: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5090–B, 13 p, accessed July 13, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5090/b/.

Singer, D.A., and Menzie, W.D., 2005, Statistical guides to 

estimating the number of undiscovered mineral deposits—An example with porphyry copper deposits, in Cheng, 

Qiuming, and Bonham-Carter, Graeme, eds., Proceedings of 

IAMG—The annual conference of the International Association for Mathematical Geology: Toronto, Canada, York 

University, Geomatics Research Laboratory, p. 1028–1033.

Syusyura, Boris, Box, S.E., and Wallis, J.C., 2010, Spatial 

databases of geological, geophysical, and mineral resource 

data relevant to sandstone-hosted copper deposits in central 

Kazakhstan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2010–1124, 4 p. and databases, accessed January 7, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1124/. 

U.S. Department of State, 2009, Small-scale digital international land boundaries (SSIB)—Lines, edition 10, and 

polygons, beta edition 1, in Boundaries and Sovereignty 

Encyclopedia (B.A.S.E.): U.S. Department of State, Office 

of the Geographer and Global Issues.

Mean Cu

Mean Ag

Mean Rock

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Probability

Material, in metric tons

Cu

Ag

Rock

Mean Cu

Mean Ag

Mean 

Rock

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1T 10T 100T 1M 10M 100M 1B 10B 100B 1Tr

Figure D2. Cumulative frequency 

plot showing the results of a Monte 

Carlo computer simulation of 

undiscovered resources in tract 

142ssCu8003 (CS-3), Kazakhstan.
Appendix E—Tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4) 55

Appendix E. Sandstone Copper Assessment for Tract 142ssCu8004 

(CS-4), central Kazakhstan

By Stephen E. Box1, Alla Dolgopolova2, Timothy S. Hayes1, Murray W. Hitzman3, Reimar Seltmann2, Boris 

Syusyura4

, Cliff D. Taylor1, and Michael L. Zientek1

Deposit Type Assessed

Deposit type: Sediment-hosted stratabound copper.

Descriptive model: Sediment-hosted copper, Revett copper subtype (Cox and others, 2003).

Grade and tonnage model: Sediment-hosted stratabound copper, sandstone subtype (see appendix F). 

Table E1 summarizes selected assessment results.

Location

Central Kazakhstan, about 800 km south of the capital city of Astana.

Geologic Feature Assessed

Pennsylvanian strata within the southern part (Muyunkum sub-basin) of the Upper Devonian-Upper Permian Chu-Sarysu 

Basin, central Kazakhstan.

Date of assessment Assessment depth

(km)

Tract area 

(km2

)

Known 

copper resources

 (t)

Mean estimate of 

undiscovered 

copper resources

 (t)

Median estimate of 

undiscovered 

copper resources

(t)

October 2009 2 64,855 0 2,100,000 210,000

Table E1. Summary of selected resource assessment results for tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan.

[km, kilometers; km2, square kilometers; t, metric tons]

1

U.S. Geological Survey.

2

Centre for Russian and Central EurAsian Mineral Studies—Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom.

3

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.

4

Mining and Economic Consulting, Ltd., Almaty, Kazakhstan.
56 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Delineation of the Permissive Tract

Geologic Criteria

Tract CS-4 includes the full extent of the Dzhezkazgan 

and Taskuduk Formations shallower than 2 km (based on 

elevation of base of Permian salt shallower than 1.6 km; 

Syusyura and others, 2010) within the southern half of the 

Chu-Sarysu Basin. Because different levels of information are available for subareas with the tract, we divide the 

assessed tract into assessment subunits on figure E1. Assessment subunit 4a delineates an area along an east-northeast 

trending anticline; assessment subunit 4b constitutes the 

remainder of the tract.

Known Deposits

There are no known deposits in tract CS-4. 

Prospects, Mineral Occurrences, and Related 

Deposit Types

Assessment Subunit 4a

Four drill holes define a 10-km-long trend of uneconomic copper mineralization in the Taskuduk Formation on 

the flank of an east-northeast trending anticline (fig. E1, table 

E2). Copper grades in the mineralized intervals are less than 

0.1 percent over a few meters, except for one intercept of 3 

m of 0.2 percent copper. The mineralized and iron-reduced 

interval is only partially penetrated in three of the holes, 

where it is up to 260 m thick. The Maldybay gas field, with 

gas hosted in the Taskuduk Formation, occupies the axis of 

the next parallel anticline to the south, within about 10 km of 

the weak copper mineralized trend. 

Assessment Subunit 4b

Assessment subunit 4b is the portion of the tract CS-4 

that does not include subunit 4a. Several natural gas fields 

(Barkhannoye, Amangeldy, Ayrakty, Kumyrly, Usharal Kemprtobe, and Usharal North) occur in the central part of this 

assessment subunit (some in production, some being developed for future production) and are hosted in part by sandstones of the Taskuduk Formation. These fields are localized 

in anticlinal culminations along a 100-km east-northeast 

trend extending from the southwestern end of assessment 

subunit 4a. 

Exploration history

The northeastern quarter of tract CS-4 has been 

explored extensively for oil and natural gas, based on a 

basin-wide map of seismic profiles and associated stratigraphic test wells (CS_seisprofile-borehmap.mxd; Syusyura 

and others, 2010). Within that northeastern quarter, assessment subunit 4a is moderately well explored, with 16 known 

oil and gas drill holes and 7 mineral exploration drill holes. 

A seismic profile grid covers most of assessment subunit 

4a. Two producing gas fields occur within the assessment 

subunit and are hosted in sandstone or carbonate lithologies 

within the lower part of the ore target horizon near and parallel to the subunit’s southeastern margin. 

Seismic profiling and drilling are spaced widely over the 

rest of the tract, so most of assessment subunit 4b essentially 

is untested. Most of the exploration activities appear to be 

related either to oil and gas evaluation at or below the host 

horizon for the sediment-hosted copper deposits, or to exploration for uranium in overlying units. It is unknown whether any 

exploration has focused on the discovery of sediment-hosted 

copper deposits within the Pennsylvanian red bed units that 

localize the sediment-hosted copper deposits elsewhere in the 

Chu-Sarysu Basin.

Sources of Information

Principal sources of information used by the assessment 

team for delineation of tract CS-4 are listed in table E3. 

Grade and Tonnage Model Selection

The lithology and grain size of the rocks, along with 

evidence consistence with the presence of liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons, indicate the tract should be assessed for 

sandstone copper deposits. Seventy sandstone copper deposits 

from around the world were selected to create the tonnage and 

grade model for resource estimation (appendix F). Student’s 

t-test indicates deposits in the Chu-Sarysu Basin cannot be 

distinguished statistically from other deposits that make up the 

grade and tonnage model.

Estimate of the Number of Undiscovered 

Deposits

Rationale for the Estimate

Estimates were made by the assessment team for both 

assessment subunits based on the data summarized above. The 

consensus estimate of numbers of undiscovered deposits for each 
!

!

46°N44°N

69°E 72°E

4b

4a

3f

3c 3d

2g

2g

2f

CS-3

CS-4

CS-2

CS-4

KAZAKHSTAN

KYRGYZSTAN

Dzhambul

Shymkent

Karatuz

Karakol well C10

Unnamed 2

Unnamed 1

MalyKaratau

Karakol well C9 Karakol well C6

Karakol well C5

KA

UZBEKISTAN

50°N45°N40°N

65°E 

EXP

Other stracts

Assess

Sedimeprospectracts sAssesstract 14

Approxfor whiestimatwith oth

0 40 80 120 KILOMETERS

0 20 40 60 MILES

Political boundaries from U.S. Department of State (2009).Asia North Albers Equal Area Conic Projection. Central meridian, 70.5° E., latitude of origin, 45° N.

cs_g_App_E1.ai

Figure E1. Location map for tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4) and its known prospects in central Kazakhstan. 
58 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Name Latitude Longitude Comments

(grade and tonnage data, if available) 

Karakol well C5 44.614 71.694 ~40 m interval of gray-altered Taskuduk Formation

Karakol well C6 44.654 71.755 3 m of 0.2% Cu, 6 m of 0.08% Cu, and 2 m of 0.06% Cu in >260 m interval of 

gray-altered Taskuduk Formation

Karakol well C9 44.653 71.732 3 m of 0.04% Cu in >130 m interval of gray-altered Taskuduk Formation

Karakol well C10 44.666 71.814 >135 m interval of gray-altered Taskuduk Formation

Karatuz 44.999 71.305 Non-economic copper sandstone occurrence in Taskuduk Formation

MalyKaratau 43.537 70.283 Non-economic copper occurrence in Pennsylvanian sandstone

Unnamed 1 43.330 70.610 Non-economic copper occurrence in Carboniferous strata of uncertain type

Unnamed 2 42.791 73.275 Non-economic copper occurrence in Carboniferous strata of uncertain type

Table E2. Significant prospects and occurrences in tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan. 

[m, meter; %, percent; all data from Syusyura and others, 2010]

Table E3. Principal sources of information used by the assessment team for delineation of tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), 

central Kazakhstan.

[NA, not available]

Theme Name Scale Citation

Geology CS_elev-base-mCarbonif.mxd 1:500,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Mineral occurrences CS-NCS_deps-occurrences.shp 1:500,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Geochemistry NA NA NA

Geophysics CS_gravity.mxd; ussr_mag_2500m.grd; 1:500,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

Exploration CS_seisprofile-borehmap.mxd 1:500,000 Syusyura and others, 2010

of the assessment subunits is given in table E4. Those consensus 

estimates were aggregated statistically using the correlation matrix 

specified in table E5, representing the level of correlation between 

assessment subunits (Schuenemeyer and others, 2011). The resultant consensus aggregated estimate for the number of undiscovered deposits in the entire tract is given in table E6.

Several factors led the assessment team to estimate a 

much lower number of undiscovered deposits for the southern part of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, as compared with the other 

tracts in the basin. This is based primarily on the lack of 

known sandstone copper deposits in that part of the basin and 

the few known prospects. Factors that are viewed as favorable 

to the presence of undiscovered deposits in the southern part 

of the Chu-Sarysu Basin are: (1) the similarity in the ore horizon lithology, stratigraphy, and structural geology to that in the 

northern assessment subunits; (2) the presence of evaporitic 

salt depocenters in both the Devonian and the Permian sections; and (3) the abundance of natural gas fields in anticlinal 

traps within the Pennsylvanian red bed sequence. Because of 

the above factors, the assessment team estimated a deposit 

density in the southern part of the basin that is an order of 

magnitude less than was estimated for either the northeastern 

or northwestern parts of the basin. The coefficient of variation 

for tract CS-4 is twice as high as that of tract CS-3 and four 

times as high as that of tract CS-2.

Probabilistic Assessment Simulation 

Results

Undiscovered resources for tract CS-4 were estimated by 

combining consensus estimates for numbers of undiscovered 

sandstone copper deposits (table E6) with the sandstone copper model (appendix F) using the Economic Mineral Resource 

Simulator (EMINERS) program (Root and others, 1992; 

Duval, 2012; Bawiec and Spanski, 2012). Selected simulation results are reported in table E7. Results of the Monte 

Carlo simulation are presented as a cumulative frequency plot 

(fig. E2). The cumulative frequency plot shows the estimated 

resource amounts associated with cumulative probabilities of 

occurrence, as well as the mean, for each commodity and for 

total mineralized rock. 
Appendix E—Tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4) 59

Table E4. Undiscovered deposit estimates for individual assessment subunits, tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan.

[Nxx, estimated number of deposits associated with the xxth percentile]

Table E6. Undiscovered deposit estimates, deposit numbers, tract area, and deposit density for tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), 

central Kazakhstan.

[Nxx, estimated number of deposits associated with the xxth percentile; Nund, expected number of undiscovered deposits; s, standard deviation; 

Cv%, coefficient of variance; Nknown, number of known deposits in the tract that are included in the grade and tonnage model; Ntotal, expected 

number of undiscovered deposits plus known deposits; area, area of permissive tract; deposit density, number of deposits per 10,000 km2; m, 

meters; km2, square kilometers. Nund, s, and Cv% are calculated using a regression equation (Singer and Menzie, 2005)]

Estimated number of undiscovered deposits

Assessment subunit N90 N50 N10 N05 N01

4a 0 0 1 4 6

4b 0 1 3 6 6

4a 4b

4a 1

4b 0.2 1

Table E 5. Correlation matrix used to combine undiscovered deposit estimates statistically for assessment 

subunits in tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan. 

Aggregated undiscovered deposit estimate Summary statistics Area

 (km2

)

Deposit 

density 

N90 N50 N10 N05 N01 Nund s Cv

% Nknown Ntotal

0 1 5 7 10 2.1 2.7 130 0 2.1 64,855 0.3

Table E7. Results of Monte Carlo simulations of undiscovered resources in tract 142ssCu8004 (CS-4), central Kazakhstan.

[t, metric tons; Mt, million metric tons]

 Probability of at least the indicated amount Probability of

 

0.95 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.05 Mean Mean or 

greater None

Cu (t) 0 0 210,000 5,500,000 13,000,000 2,100,000 0.18 0.29

Ag (t) 0 0 0 3,800 9,800 1,800 0.15 0.63

Rock (Mt) 0 0 18 600 1,300 190 0.18 0.29

Material
60 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Figure E2. Cumulative 

frequency plot showing the 

results of a Monte Carlo 

computer simulation of 

undiscovered resources in 

tract 142ssCU8004 (CS-4), 

central Kazakhstan. 

References Cited

Bawiec, W.J., and Spanski, G.T., 2012, Quick-start guide for 

version 3.0 of EMINERS—Economic Mineral Resource 

Simulator: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2009–1057, 26 p., available only at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2009/1057. (This report supplements USGS OFR 

2004–1344.)

Cox, D.P., Lindsey, D.A., Singer, D.A., Moring, B.C., and 

Diggles, M.F., 2003 [revised 2007], Sediment-hosted copper 

deposits of the world—Deposit models and database: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2003–107 version 1.3, 

53 p., CD-ROM. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2003/of03-107/.)

Duval, J.S., 2012, Version 3.0 of EMINERS—Economic Mineral Resource Simulator: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2004–1344, available only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2004/1344. (Version 3.0 of EMINERS updates version 

2.0, released in 2004 as USGS OFR 2004–1344. Version 2.0 

of EMINERS superseded USGS OFR 2002–0380.)

Root, D.H., Menzie, W.D., and Scott, W.A., 1992, Computer 

Monte Carlo simulation in quantitative resource estimation: 

Natural Resources Research, v. 1, no. 2, p. 125–138.

Schuenemeyer, J.H., Zientek, M.L., and Box, S.E., 2011, 

Global Mineral Resource Assessment—Aggregation of 

estimated numbers of undiscovered mineral deposits—an 

R-script with an example from the Chu Sarysu Basin, 

Kazakhstan: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5090–B, 13 p, accessed July 13, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5090/b/.

Singer, D.A., and Menzie, W.D., 2005, Statistical guides to 

estimating the number of undiscovered mineral deposits—An example with porphyry copper deposits, in Cheng, 

Qiuming, and Bonham-Carter, Graeme, eds., Proceedings of 

IAMG—The annual conference of the International Association for Mathematical Geology: Toronto, Canada, York 

University, Geomatics Research Laboratory, p. 1028–1033.

Syusyura, Boris, Box, S.E., and Wallis, J.C., 2010, Spatial 

databases of geological, geophysical, and mineral resource 

data relevant to sandstone-hosted copper deposits in central 

Kazakhstan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2010–1124, 4 p. and databases, accessed January 7, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1124/. 

U.S. Department of State, 2009, Small-scale digital international land boundaries (SSIB)—Lines, edition 10, and 

polygons, beta edition 1, in Boundaries and Sovereignty 

Encyclopedia (B.A.S.E.): U.S. Department of State, Office 

of the Geographer and Global Issues.

Mean Cu

Mean Ag

Mean Rock

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Probability

Material, in metric tons

Cu

Ag

Rock

Mean Cu

Mean Ag

Mean 

Rock

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1T 10T 100T 1M 10M 100M 1B 10B 100B 1Tr
Appendix F—Deposit Data 61

Appendix F. Deposit Data Used to Develop a Grade and Tonnage 

Model for Sandstone Copper Deposits

Deposit name Site Country Ore 

(metric tons)

Copper grade 

(percent)

Silver grade

 (grams per metric ton)

Bwana Mkubwa Zambia 8,600,000 3.34 n.d.

Cashin United States 7,141,000 0.53 n.d.

Cattle Grid Australia 7,200,000 1.90 8.0

Centennial United States 24,415,944 0.59 n.d.

Chejiang China 3,022,321 1.12 n.d.

Chibuluma South Zambia 7,365,766 3.70 n.d.

Chibuluma-Chibuluma West* Zambia 19,922,000 3.69 n.d.

Chifupu Zambia 1,936,000 3.05 n.d.

Christiadore Namibia 1,200,000 2.30 n.d.

Copper Gulch United States 13,608,000 0.53 51.4

Dacun China 12,777,778 1.80 n.d.

Datongchang China 14,810,833 1.20 n.d.

Dzhezkazgan Kazakhstan 2,000,000,000 1.10 n.d.

East Sary Oba Kazakhstan 91,400,000 0.85 n.d.

Fitula Zambia 4,500,000 5.00 n.d.

Geyiza China 3,120,000 1.00 n.d.

GTO United States 4,463,000 0.84 n.d.

Haojiahe China 14,101,852 1.08 n.d.

Horizon Basin United States 10,069,920 0.60 61.7

Itauz Kazakhstan 94,140,000 0.92 n.d.

Itawa Zambia 40,000,000 0.76 n.d.

JF United States 13,600,000 0.40 44.6

Jiuquwan China 10,076,923 1.17 n.d.

Juramento Argentina 44,700,000 0.80 21.8

Karshoshak Kazakhstan 8,900,000 1.46 n.d.

Kasaria-Luansobe Zambia 21,500,000 2.31 n.d.

Kinsenda DRC 35,000,000 5.50 n.d.

Kipshakpai Kazakhstan 38,500,000 0.94 n.d.

Laoqingshan China 1,377,049 1.22 n.d.

Liuju China 30,860,000 1.32 n.d.

Lubembe DRC 47,500,000 2.20 n.d.

Malachite Pan Namibia 3,000,000 2.10 n.d.

Mangula Zimbabwe 62,000,000 1.20 12.0

Mimbula * Zambia 46,850,000 1.20 n.d.

Missoula National United States 4,500,000 0.50 34.0

Table F1. Table of deposits (n = 70), and their tonnages and metal grades, used to develop a grade and tonnage model for 

sandstone copper deposits.

[*, site includes multiple deposits that were aggregated using a 500-m spatial separation rule; DRC, Democratic Republic of the Congo; n.d., no data]
62 Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan

Mokambo North Zambia 3,854,000 1.70 n.d.

Mokambo 

Project—

Mokambo South

* Zambia 20,900,000 1.64 n.d.

Moudin China 14,414,063 1.28 n.d.

Mufulira Zambia 332,586,652 2.66 n.d.

Mutundu North Zambia 4,300,000 1.44 n.d.

Mwambashi B Zambia 14,210,000 1.78 n.d.

Mwerkera Zambia 7,100,000 1.53 n.d.

Ndola East Zambia 40,000,000 0.76 n.d.

Niagara United States 17,000,000 0.47 16.0

Norah Zimbabwe 10,000,000 1.20 n.d.

Nsato Zambia 8,400,000 1.61 n.d.

Oamites Namibia 6,100,000 1.33 12.3

Okasewa Namibia 6,000,000 1.80 n.d.

Pitanda South Zambia 7,060,000 1.58 n.d.

Qingshuihe China 969,136 1.62 n.d.

Repparfjord Norway 10,000,000 0.72 70.0

Rock Creek/

Montanore

United States 299,000,000 0.81 71.0

Rock Peak United States 9,888,480 0.65 92.6

Sauzal Bonito Argentina 2,000,000 0.50 n.d.

Sebembere Zambia 5,700,000 1.70 n.d.

Sentinel United States 4,465,000 0.40 n.d.

Shackleton Zimbabwe 3,400,000 1.20 n.d.

Shimenkan China 1,000,000 1.09 n.d.

Silverside Zimbabwe 900,000 1.80 n.d.

Spar Lake United States 80,600,000 0.63 46.0

Tordillos Argentina 9,350,000 0.42 n.d.

Tschudi Namibia 57,000,000 0.72 11.0

Udokan Russia 1,300,000,000 1.45 13.0

Unkur Russia 90,900,000 0.75 70.8

Vermilion River United States 13,600,000 0.50 30.8

Wadi Abu 

Khushaybah

Jordan 8,000,000 0.65 n.d.

West Sary Oba Kazakhstan 86,200,000 0.89 n.d.

Witvlei Pos Namibia 2,800,000 1.50 n.d.

Zhaman-Aibat Kazakhstan 193,000,000 1.40 16.0

ZhangjiachunshengjipingChina 1,836,735 0.98 n.d.

Table F1. Table of deposits (n = 70), and their tonnages and metal grades, used to develop a grade and tonnage model for 

sandstone copper deposits.—Continued

[*, site includes multiple deposits that were aggregated using a 500-m spatial separation rule; DRC, Democratic Republic of the Congo; n.d., no data]

Deposit name Site Country Ore 

(metric tons)

Copper grade 

(percent)

Silver grade

 (grams per metric ton)
Appendix G—Description of GIS Files 63

Appendix G. Description of GIS Files

A single file geodatabase and a representative ESRI map document (.mxd) are included with this report. The file geodatabase comprises one feature dataset within which there are three feature classes. These files and associated support documents 

may be downloaded from the USGS Web site as zipped file SIR2010-5090-E_gis.zip.

The feature classes are as follows:

CS_Assessed_Tracts describes the permissive tracts with respect to their shared spatial relationships and to both the subunits and all deposit and prospect point locations. Attributes include the tract identifiers, tract name, a brief description of the 

basis for tract delineation, and assessment results. Attributes are defined in the metadata that accompanies the feature class and 

data package.

CS_Assessed_Tracts_Subunits describes assessment subunits. Assessment subunits are areas within assessed tracts that 

have been the target of some exploration activities and are, therefore, more prospective. Attributes are defined in the metadata 

that accompanies the feature class and data package.

CS_Deposits_Prospects_AreasPrognosticResourceEstimate holds point locations for known deposits (identified 

resources that have well-defined tonnage and copper grade), prospects and areas with prognostic resource estimates. The deposits and prospects are listed in appendix F of this report. Attributes include the assigned tract, alternate site names, information 

about grades and tonnages, age, mineralogy, site status, comments fields, data sources and references. Attributes are defined in 

the metadata that accompanies the feature class and data package.

These data are included in an ESRI map document (ESRI ArcMAP 10.0, ArcGIS Desktop 10 Service pack 4): GIS_

SIR2010-5090-E.mxd. 
This page intentionally left blank.
Menlo Park Publishing Service Center, California

Manuscript approved for publication June 19, 2012

Edited by Tracey Suzuki

Layout and design by Judy Weathers
Box and others—Sandstone Copper Assessment of the Chu-Sarysu Basin, Central Kazakhstan—Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5090–E