ON THE ANORTHOCLASE IN THE MATRIX OF THE

“YAKUTSKAYA” KIMBERLITE PIPE, RUSSIA.

Igor Kryvoshlyk, GEOL I.N.K., Toronto, Canada.

To the brightest memory

of the best petrographer
in the world,
my dearest teacher
Professor Lavrenko E.I.

Mineral composition of the matrix of autolithic kimberlites, as a rule, is quite

limited. Calcite and serpophite with some admixture of phlogopite are the
main rock-forming minerals there. The find of the potassium feldspar in the
drill core sample from the drill hole # 10 on the pipe Yakutskaya (Daldyn-
Alakit region, Yakutia, Russia) at the depth of 564 m can aid to extend this
list.

Kimberlite pipe Yakutskaya is built by microglobular autolithic kimberlite

(kimberlite “tuff”) with a high concentration (75-80%) of autolithic material.
A matrix that cements this material consists of relatively coarse-grained (0.1-
0.3 mm) calcite with 20-25% admixture of serpophite. Amount of serpophite
with depth increases quickly down the drill hole, and at the depth of 260 m
matrix has monomineralic serpophitic composition. About at the same time,
small (few cm) globules of alvikites with a variable (0-20%) admixture of
serpophite have appeared.

There is a block of massive kimberlite at the depth about 400 m. Beneath the
block the matrix of autolithic kimberlite reveals again a weak abundance with
calcite. This time calcite has a much coarser grains (0.3-0.6 mm).

Down the drill hole this situation repeats, and at the depth 670 m the matrix
again has a monotonous serpophitic appearance.

Thus the kind of “two-storied” build of the Yakutskaya pipe has appeared. A
block of massive kimberlite serves as a boundary between these two units of a

1
pipe. There are obvious traces of the vertical differentiation within the pipe.
Within the upper unit this differentiation is especially clear for the carbonatitic
fraction of the original kimberlite magma (matrix). This kind of differentiation
is most likely has a gravitational origin. A relatively heavier silicate portion of
the carbonatitic liquid sank while the lighter calcite portion rose to the surface.

At the level of 564 m a concentration of calcite in the matrix of the

Yakutskaya pipe composes 20-25%. Kimberlite at this depth is strongly
abundant with phlogopite (40-75%), and sometimes – with feldspar (0-40%).
Feldspar is represented by absolutely fresh, large (0.2-0.7 mm) xenomorphic
grains, which locally can gradually transforms into thin tabular crystals. Its
lower index of refraction matches the group 2 by Lodochnikov, birefringence
does not exceed 0.008 – 0.010. In the conoscope it was found that this
feldspar is a biaxial positive. Later this was confirmed on the Fedorov’s stage.
The optical angle 2V, measured by both exits of the optic axis is 58-60 degree.
The thinnest microcline gridiron twinning was observed on the section, which
is perpendicular to Np (probably in the plane of the 1st pinakoid) at the
magnification about 300.

Generally, the rock forming minerals of kimberlites are represented by long

list of sub-alkaline and alkaline minerals. For example, 5034 kimberlite,
NWT, Canada, contains Mg-olivine, phlogopite, carbonate, serpentine,
monticellite, melilite, augite, aegirine-augite, aegirine, diopside, richterite,
glaucophane, riebeckite, prehnite, wollastonite, tourmaline, alkaline feldspar,
and also, pectolite, opal, chalcedony, gmelinite, epidote, iddingsite-
bowlingite, hydrogarnet, talc, fuchsite and kaolinite (1).

Thus, it is clear that kimberlite cannot be represented by just one

petrographycal species. Kimberlite is rather a diamondiferous variety of group
of hypabyssal alkaline-sub-alkaline rocks and carbonatites. Another words,
“kimberlite” should be used as a name of bedrock diamond ore.

Kimberlite petrography is among the most confusive petrographic topics.

Having no clear vision on the classification rank of each kind of rock, it is
easy to confuse similar rocks like kimberlites – orangeites – lamproites (5).
Concept of “kimberlite” should include concepts of “orangeites”, “lamproites”
and some other rocks as kimberlite varieties. All of them belong to group of
lamprophyres – melanocratic hypabyssal rocks with lamprophyric texture
(Lectures of Petrography by Prof. Lavrenro E. I. et al, Lviv University,
Ukraine, 1970-1995), and all of them refer to the product of silicate

2
immiscible melt. Second immiscible melt was carbonatite (6). Thus it seems
logical to suggest that the abovementioned set of minerals found in the 5034
kimberlite (1) might be a result of high-moderate temperature metasomatism
between both melts which, perhaps, created combination of fenitization and
calc-scarn generation (kind of metasomatism of the magmatic stage by
D.S.Korzhinskii (7).

It is clear that the first and last word in identification of the rock must belong
to professionally made petrography. Petrographycal errors should not be a
basis for deep scientific discussions and conclusions (3). The rock sample
which was provided (Fig. 1) does not display the absolutely necessary for
lamproites lamprophyric texture. This fact itself alone proves that this rock is
NOT a lamproite. Lamproite is a hypabyssal rock from the lamprophyre
branch of Diaschistic row. On the photo I can see abyssal rock which must be
called “syenite”.

However, what level of science we can expect talking about a very

complicated kimberlite petrography if in elementary petrography not every
petrologist is able to distinguish, for example, eclogite from garnet
clinopyroxenite? Or – regular granite from simple gneiss?

Second. The mineral which is called “sanidine” should be re-checked.

Sanidine is a phenocryst of effusive rocks.

Third. Mineral which is called “olivine” does not display its necessary
features. It rather is a secondary clynozoisite. The most common source of
clynozoisite is plagioclase feldspar. Also on the microphotograph there is a
significant amount of carbonate (C) which can have the same source.

3
 C

Fig. 1. “Central dome holocrystalline lamproite (sample 10881-ILM-Cancarix) showing

subhedral olivine (Ol), phlogopite (Ph) and amphibole (A) embedded in poiquilític sanidine
(S). (NP). Field of view 2.5 cm.” Copy from (3).

In some cases bedrock kimberlite can be represented by two petrographycally

different rocks like monticellite lamprophyre and phlogopite lamprophyre as it
is in the body of the Snap Lake sill (2).

As a matter of fact, this Snap Lake phlogopite lamprophyre (orangeite again?)

is surprisingly similar to kimberlite (Fig. 2) from dykes associated with the
Finsch pipe, South Africa (4).

4
 Phlogopite Olivine

Fig. 2. Lamprophyric kimberlite from the dyke associated with the Finsch pipe, South
Africa (4).

Finally speaking about kimberlite rock classification, it would be important to

say that there is no clear difference highlighted between the rocks with
“globular segregation textures” and “diatreme facies” rocks in the Atlas (5). It
does not provide convincing proof as it should. Moreover the Atlas attempts
to help by its beautiful photographs, which however can create confusions
when referring to texturally identical rocks. Different facies like crater facies
were mistaken for diatreme ones.

Also, the rocks from Monticellitovaya dyke were never identified as

kimberlites.

The old fundamental question: kimberlite or lamprophyre? [8] has a very

simple answer: kimberlite is a rock from the lamprophyre group.

5
So, what is the Yakutskaya pipe? Kimberlite? Lamproite? Picrite? All of
above?

REFERENCES:

1. Kryvoshlyk, I., 2006. The preliminary internal geology of the 5034

North Lobe kimberlite, Gahcho Kué, NWT, Canada, unpublished
internal De Beers report. Interim Report No. DBC KPU 2006-010-I
2. Kryvoshlyk, I. 2008. Unpublished internal De Beers report for the
Snap Lake diamond mine.
3. Seghedi, I., Szakács, A., Pacheco, A.H., Matesanz, J-L.B. (2007).
Miocene lamproite volcanoes in south-eastern Spain—an association
of phreatomagmatic and magmatic products. Journal of Volcanology
and Geothermal Research 159 210–224.
4. Noxolo Zwane (2001). Petrography and Geochemistry of kimberlite
dykes associated with the Finsch Pipe. web.uct.ac.za
5. Mitchell, R.H. 1997. Kimberlites, orangeites, lamproites, melilitites,
and minettes: a petrographic atlas. Almaz Press Ink.
6. Theory of liquid immiscibility of kimberlite magma. 1995.
http://earthref.org/cgi-bin/ado.cgi?n=545&dbms=ERDA
7. Korzhinskii D.S. 1953. Outline of metasomatic processes. In: Main
problems on the science of magmatogenic ore deposits. Acad. Sci.
Publishing, Moscow. pp. 334-456, (In Russian).
8. Mitchell, R.H. 1983. The Ile Bizard intrusion, Montreal, Quebec-
kimberlite or lamprophyre?:' Discussion. Can. J. Earth Sci. 20, 1493-
1496.

Phone: 416-248-8514; E-mail: ikryvoa481@rogers.com