Skip to content
LITHOEN

Deposit

Pechenga

Also known as Petsamo

Magmatic nickel-copper sulfide deposits in the Baltic Shield of the Kola Peninsula, Russia, discovered in 1912 and dated at 1,977 ± 55 million years.

Classification

recognition basis
publishedDepositModel
realm
europe

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, table 2–1.

    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.

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.

339 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 Pechenga a size of 339.0 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.

0.018–0.08 wt%m Cobalt

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 Geological Survey of Finland gives average cobalt grades across the Pechenga deposits as 0.018 to 0.08 weight percent. The range runs across separate deposits: it is not a variation measured within one ore body, and no single deposit is said to span it.

0.26–1.4 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 Geological Survey of Finland gives average copper grades across the Pechenga deposits as 0.26 to 1.4 weight percent. The range runs across separate deposits: it is not a variation measured within one ore body, and no single deposit is said to span it.

0.4 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 Pechenga a copper grade of 0.4 weight percent, over the same size.

1.18 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 Pechenga a nickel grade of 1.18 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.

0.1–3.4 g/t Gold

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 Geological Survey of Finland gives average gold grades across the Pechenga deposits as 0.1 to 3.4 grams per tonne. The range runs across separate deposits: it is not a variation measured within one ore body, and no single deposit is said to span it.

0.51–2.6 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 Geological Survey of Finland gives average nickel grades across the Pechenga deposits as 0.51 to 2.6 weight percent. The range runs across separate deposits: it is not a variation measured within one ore body, and no single deposit is said to span it.

Where it is

Lithoen holds no coordinate for Pechenga. The USGS magmatic sulfide model locates it by naming the Baltic Shield of the Kola Peninsula, 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.
14
Settled consensus
Cited as the accepted position of the discipline.
1
Open questions
Sourced statements that the answer is not currently known.

16 of 16 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.

Established0.018–0.08 wt%m Cobalt

Reported for this deposit

The Geological Survey of Finland gives average cobalt grades across the Pechenga deposits as 0.018 to 0.08 weight percent. The range runs across separate deposits: it is not a variation measured within one ore body, and no single deposit is said to span it.

  • scope: depositAverage
  • definition basis: The volume prints these as "average metal grades in the Pechenga deposits" and gives no analytical method and no per-deposit attribution for the range itself. Each endpoint is one deposit’s average; the interval between them is not a measurement of anything.
  • non uniqueness: Lithoen holds no independent cobalt figure for Pechenga. The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives this deposit nickel and copper grades and no cobalt grade, so this range stands on one source and is not corroborated by anything in the corpus.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

Established0.26–1.4 wt%m Copper

Reported for this deposit

The Geological Survey of Finland gives average copper grades across the Pechenga deposits as 0.26 to 1.4 weight percent. The range runs across separate deposits: it is not a variation measured within one ore body, and no single deposit is said to span it.

  • scope: depositAverage
  • definition basis: The volume prints these as "average metal grades in the Pechenga deposits" and gives no analytical method and no per-deposit attribution for the range itself. Each endpoint is one deposit’s average; the interval between them is not a measurement of anything.
  • non uniqueness: The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Pechenga single figures of 1.18 weight percent nickel and 0.4 weight percent copper. Both fall inside these ranges, which is consistency in kind between two independent compilations and not a shared measurement.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

Established12 sulphidic Cu-Ni deposits in the North Pechenga subarea; 6 under mining, 1 abandoned

Reported for this deposit

The Geological Survey of Finland reports twelve deposits of sulphidic copper-nickel ore in the North Pechenga subarea, of which six were under mining and one abandoned at the time of writing, on the authority of Gorbunov and others (1999). Lithoen’s Pechenga record is an aggregate: it stands for a group of deposits and not for a single ore body.

  • scope: The count is for the North Pechenga subarea (R002.1) alone. The Pechenga area as a whole contains three further subareas, which this count does not include.
  • temporal basis: "Presently under mining" is as of the volume, published 2012, on information attributed to Gorbunov and others (1999). Lithoen has not checked which mines operate now.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

Established0.4 wt%m Copper

Reported for this deposit

The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Pechenga a copper grade of 0.4 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

Measured1,977 ± 55 Ma before present

Measured at this deposit

The USGS magmatic sulfide model dates Pechenga at 1977 ± 55 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 ±55 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

Established1.18 wt%m Nickel

Reported for this deposit

The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Pechenga a nickel grade of 1.18 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 (Baltic Shield, Kola Peninsula, Russia, discovered 1912).

How a source classifies it

Pechenga 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 Pechenga. The USGS magmatic sulfide model locates it by naming the Baltic Shield of the Kola Peninsula, 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

Established339 Mt

Reported for this deposit

The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Pechenga a size of 339.0 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

Established0.1–3.4 g/t Gold

Reported for this deposit

The Geological Survey of Finland gives average gold grades across the Pechenga deposits as 0.1 to 3.4 grams per tonne. The range runs across separate deposits: it is not a variation measured within one ore body, and no single deposit is said to span it.

  • scope: depositAverage
  • definition basis: The volume prints these as "average metal grades in the Pechenga deposits" and gives no analytical method and no per-deposit attribution for the range itself. Each endpoint is one deposit’s average; the interval between them is not a measurement of anything.
  • non uniqueness: Lithoen holds no independent gold figure for Pechenga. The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives this deposit nickel and copper grades and no gold grade, so this range stands on one source and is not corroborated by anything in the corpus.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

Established1,970 Ma before present

Reported for this deposit

The gabbro-wehrlite intrusions that host the copper-nickel mineralisation at North Pechenga are given as 1970 million years old. The volume states the age without an uncertainty. It sits within the 1,977 ± 55 million years the USGS magmatic sulfide model gives for Pechenga, from a different compilation.

  • method: Not stated. The volume gives the age as a round figure with no analytical method, no dated mineral and no uncertainty, and cites no geochronological study for it. Lithoen supplies none of these.
  • precision note: This dates the host intrusions, not the mineralisation. The volume separately gives 2505 and 2496 Ma for the layered massifs of the Titovo belt, which are different bodies.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED
  • precision note: Recorded as SOURCE_REPORTED rather than SUBJECT_MEASURED. An age is normally a measurement, but this one is a round figure with no uncertainty, no dated mineral, no analytical method and no geochronological study cited. The volume prints it; it does not present it as a determination, and Lithoen cannot say that anybody measured it.

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

Established0.51–2.6 wt%m Nickel

Reported for this deposit

The Geological Survey of Finland gives average nickel grades across the Pechenga deposits as 0.51 to 2.6 weight percent. The range runs across separate deposits: it is not a variation measured within one ore body, and no single deposit is said to span it.

  • scope: depositAverage
  • definition basis: The volume prints these as "average metal grades in the Pechenga deposits" and gives no analytical method and no per-deposit attribution for the range itself. Each endpoint is one deposit’s average; the interval between them is not a measurement of anything.
  • non uniqueness: The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Pechenga single figures of 1.18 weight percent nickel and 0.4 weight percent copper. Both fall inside these ranges, which is consistency in kind between two independent compilations and not a shared measurement.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

EstablishedOre bodies: 600–1500 m along strike, 500–2100 m down dip, 5–20 to 70–200 m thick; host intrusions 200–5000 m long, few m to 700 m thick

Reported for this deposit

The ore bodies of the North Pechenga subarea extend 600 to 1,500 metres along strike and 500 to 2,100 metres down dip, with thicknesses given as from 5–20 to 70–200 metres. The intrusions that host them are lens-shaped, concordant with their country rocks, 200 to 5,000 metres long and a few metres to 700 metres thick.

  • precision note: The thickness is printed as "from 5–20 to 70–200 m", two ranges rather than one. It is carried as printed because collapsing it to 5–200 m would assert a continuity of thickness across that interval that the volume does not state.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

Establishedpyrrhotite; pentlandite; chalcopyrite; pyrite

Reported for this deposit

The Geological Survey of Finland reports 4 distinct minerals as the main ore minerals of the North Pechenga deposits: pyrrhotite, pentlandite, chalcopyrite, pyrite. The volume names these as the main ore minerals and does not present them as a complete mineralogy.

  • precision note: "Main ore minerals" is the volume’s phrase. Presence of others is neither stated nor excluded, and no abundance or paragenesis is given.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_REPORTED

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

Establishedimpregnated ore in peridotite of near-bottom intrusion parts; massive and breccia vein ore in deformed zones at the massif lower contacts

Observed at this deposit

Sulphides at North Pechenga occur as impregnations, massive ore and breccia veins. The volume reports that impregnated ore sits in peridotite in the near-bottom parts of gabbro-norite intrusions, while massive and breccia vein ore is confined to deformed zones between the lower contacts of the massifs and the underlying volcano-sedimentary rocks. The two ore types are therefore reported in different structural positions, not merely near one another.

  • assertion basis: SUBJECT_OBSERVED
  • precision note: Reported as observed at these deposits by the volume, which attributes the subarea description to Gorbunov and others (1999). It is not inherited from a deposit model.

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 Primary authority

EstablishedUSGS "Pechenga" 339 Mt as one deposit; GTK 1,366.75 Mt across 11 tabulated deposits in one subarea

How a source classifies it

The two compilations Lithoen holds for Pechenga do not describe the same body of ore. The USGS magmatic sulfide model gives Pechenga a single size of 339 million tonnes. The Geological Survey of Finland tabulates eleven separate deposits in the North Pechenga subarea alone, totalling 1,366.75 million tonnes, of which Zhdanovskoe by itself is 1,024.44 million tonnes. Neither figure is corrected against the other, because a difference of this size is a difference in what the name is taken to cover, not a disagreement about a measurement.

  • assumption: The 1,366.75 Mt total is Lithoen’s sum of the eleven tonnages the table prints for the North Pechenga subarea. The volume does not print a total, and the sum is arithmetic on stated values, not an estimate.
  • precision note: The table states it lists the deposits and showings included in the FODD database, so it is not necessarily a complete inventory of the subarea either.
  • assertion basis: SOURCE_CLASSIFICATION

Evidence support: Supported by the cited evidence one source

Evidence: (ed.) 2012 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.