Skip to content
LITHOEN

Deposit

Noril’sk–Talnakh

Also known as Norilsk, Noril’sk, Talnakh

Magmatic nickel-copper-PGE sulfide deposits in subvolcanic mafic intrusions of the Siberian Platform, related to the Siberian Traps flood basalts. One of two districts the USGS magmatic sulfide model identifies as dominating world nickel sulfide resources.

Classification

recognition basis
publishedDepositModel
realm
asia

What this record is, and who says so

Recognised on the basis of

Published deposit model

A deposit model publication that describes this body as a worked example of the class it defines.

A deposit is an occurrence of sufficient size and grade that it might, under the most favourable circumstances, be considered to have economic potential. Lithoen records that a named authority made that judgement. It is not a statement that anything here is recoverable, and it is not a resource or a reserve.

How it is interpreted

A deposit is not a mineral system. A source interprets it as an example of one, and interpretations change while the rock does not.

  • Interpreted as an example of Magmatic nickel-copper-PGE sulfide system

    By — USGS SIR 2010–5070–I, which presents Noril’sk–Talnakh in its table of example deposits of the class.

    The interpretation belongs to the source named in the model qualifier, not to the deposit. Another author may classify this body differently, and the record holds the interpretation rather than replacing the object with it.

Commodities documented here

  • Copper (commodity)documented association

    The source documents the commodity in this deposit and states no economic role. Lithoen records the association and infers nothing about how it would be worked.

  • Nickel (commodity)documented association

    The source documents the commodity in this deposit and states no economic role. Lithoen records the association and infers nothing about how it would be worked.

  • Platinum-group elements (commodity)co product

    The source states this role.

Reported figures, and what each one is

A sample assay, a deposit average, a compiler total and a reported reserve are different quantities. Each figure below carries which one it is; none of them is a current resource or reserve.

1,309.3 Mt

Geological estimate

A size estimate made on geological grounds without a formal reporting framework. Often historical, and never to be presented as a resource.

The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Noril’sk–Talnakh a size of 1309.3 million metric tons. The table heads this column "Size (Mt)" without defining it further, and each row cites its own reference — so Lithoen records it as a geological size estimate compiled from the literature, not as a resource, a reserve or production.

3.57 wt%m Copper

Deposit average

An average grade attributed to a whole deposit by a compiler, over a tonnage defined by that compiler at a stated cut-off. Not a measurement of anything: a summary of an estimate.

The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Noril’sk–Talnakh a copper grade of 3.57 weight percent, over the same size.

1.77 wt%m Nickel

Deposit average

An average grade attributed to a whole deposit by a compiler, over a tonnage defined by that compiler at a stated cut-off. Not a measurement of anything: a summary of an estimate.

The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Noril’sk–Talnakh a nickel grade of 1.77 weight percent, over the size the same table records. It is a deposit-wide figure compiled from the literature, not an assay and not a reported resource grade.

Where it is

Lithoen holds no coordinate for Noril’sk–Talnakh. The USGS magmatic sulfide model locates it by naming the Siberian Platform of Russia in its example table and by a global figure at continental scale, and neither of the two deposit databases Lithoen accepted covers magmatic nickel deposits. No position is taken from a gazetteer and none is read off a figure.

How this record is known

1
Directly recorded
Observed or measured, reported by the party that made the observation.
6
Settled consensus
Cited as the accepted position of the discipline.
1
Open questions
Sourced statements that the answer is not currently known.

8 of 8 claims on this page cite at least one registered source. Counts describe how each statement is known, not how likely it is to be true.

What Lithoen records

Each claim states how it is known and cites its evidence.

Established3.57 wt%m Copper

Reported for this deposit

The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Noril’sk–Talnakh a copper grade of 3.57 weight percent, over the same size.

  • scope: depositAverage
  • definition basis: USGS SIR 2010–5070–I table 2–1, referenced per row.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: Schulz 2014 Primary authority

Measured251 ± 0.3 Ma before present

Measured at this deposit

The USGS magmatic sulfide model dates Noril’sk–Talnakh at 251 ± 0.3 million years. The table gives one age per deposit, sourced to its own geochronological reference, and the report does not state which material was dated or which event the age records — so this is the age of the mineralising system as that compilation gives it, and not separately an intrusion age, an alteration age or a metamorphic overprint.

  • method: Geochronology as compiled in USGS SIR 2010–5070–I table 2–1, each row referenced to its own study.
  • precision note: The table states an uncertainty of ±0.3 Ma. What was dated is not stated.
  • assertion basis: SUBJECT_MEASURED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: Schulz 2014 Primary authority

Established1.77 wt%m Nickel

Reported for this deposit

The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Noril’sk–Talnakh a nickel grade of 1.77 weight percent, over the size the same table records. It is a deposit-wide figure compiled from the literature, not an assay and not a reported resource grade.

  • scope: depositAverage
  • definition basis: USGS SIR 2010–5070–I table 2–1, referenced per row.
  • precision note: The model separately states that deposits of this class typically run 0.5 to 3 percent nickel, which is the range this figure should be read against.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: Schulz 2014 Primary authority

EstablishedRecognised as an example deposit by USGS SIR 2010–5070–I, table 2–1 (Siberian Platform, Russia, discovered about 1926 and 1960).

How a source classifies it

Noril’sk–Talnakh is recorded as a deposit because the USGS occurrence model for magmatic sulfide-rich nickel-copper-PGE deposits presents it in its table of example deposits of that class, with its location, discovery year, age, size, grades and its own references. Recognition rests on a Tier A deposit model, not on a database entry.

  • definition basis: Inclusion in the model’s worked-example table, which the report describes as selected representatives of the class.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_CLASSIFICATION

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: Schulz 2014 Primary authority

Open question

Derived by Lithoen

Lithoen holds no coordinate for Noril’sk–Talnakh. The USGS magmatic sulfide model locates it by naming the Siberian Platform of Russia in its example table and by a global figure at continental scale, and neither of the two deposit databases Lithoen accepted covers magmatic nickel deposits. No position is taken from a gazetteer and none is read off a figure.

  • precision note: The geological setting is recorded through relations, which is where the geography of this record actually lives.
  • assertion basis: LITHOEN_DERIVED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: Schulz 2014 Primary authority

Established1,309.3 Mt

Reported for this deposit

The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Noril’sk–Talnakh a size of 1309.3 million metric tons. The table heads this column "Size (Mt)" without defining it further, and each row cites its own reference — so Lithoen records it as a geological size estimate compiled from the literature, not as a resource, a reserve or production.

  • tonnage category: geologicalEstimate
  • definition basis: USGS SIR 2010–5070–I table 2–1, column "Size (Mt)", which the report does not define beyond its heading.
  • precision note: Because the column is undefined, this figure must not be compared with the compiler totals from the porphyry and sediment-hosted databases, which have an explicit and different definition.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: Schulz 2014 Primary authority

EstablishedOne of the two districts that dominate world nickel sulfide resources; 23.1 Mt contained nickel.

How a source classifies it

The USGS magmatic sulfide model identifies two districts, each with at least 10 million tonnes of contained nickel, as dominating world nickel sulfide resources and production: Sudbury in Ontario, where the deposits lie at the lower margins of a meteorite-impact-generated igneous complex and contain 19.8 Mt Ni, and Noril’sk–Talnakh in Siberia, where they are in subvolcanic mafic intrusions related to flood basalts and contain 23.1 Mt Ni.

  • precision note: A contained-metal figure quoted from the source, which computed it. Lithoen does not multiply a grade by a tonnage to obtain contained metal, and holds this only because the source published it.
  • effective date: 2007-01-01
  • source record: Eckstrand and Hulbert (2007), as cited by the USGS model.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_CLASSIFICATION

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: Schulz 2014 Primary authority

EstablishedSudbury is excluded from this model’s class, on stated grounds of a different origin.

How a source classifies it

Sudbury is the other giant of the class by contained metal, and the USGS occurrence model explicitly does not treat it: it states that the report does not focus on the Sudbury deposits or on komatiite-related deposits, although both have been extensively studied and share many similarities with the dike-sill-hosted deposits it does cover. Sudbury sits at the margins of a meteorite-impact-generated complex, which is a different origin from the mantle-derived conduit systems the model describes.

  • precision note: Lithoen therefore holds no Sudbury record. Adding one under this model’s class would import a classification the model refuses, and no other source for it has been retrieved.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_CLASSIFICATION

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: Schulz 2014 Primary authority

In the knowledge graph

Record last updated 2026-09-07. Corrections follow the published corrections policy; superseded claims are retained, never silently edited.