PROCEEDINGS
OF THE TOMSK POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE,
ORDER OF THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION AND ORDER OF THE RED BANNER OF LABOR,
NAMED AFTER S. M. KIROV

Vol. 254 1975

SOME REMARKS ON THE TECTONICS OF THE ANZHERKA DEPOSIT IN THE KUZBASS

O. K. Skripko

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Department of Petrography)

The distinctive character of the Anzherka coal deposit, set apart from the basin, is determined by two main factors.

1. By the tectonic regime of the downwarped basement of the Caledonides of the Kuznetsk Alatau, where, as is now known, the Anzherka deposit was not the northernmost point of Permo-Carboniferous coal accumulation in the Kuzbass, but apparently represented one of the depressions where, as in the Tashmin trough, coal-bearing sediments were preserved from erosion.

2. By its position, the closest in comparison with other areas of the Kuzbass, relative to the marginal depressional structure of the Tomsk–Kolyvan folded region.

It is generally accepted that this is the area of junction between the Tomsk–Kolyvan folded zone and the Kuznetsk Alatau, although in reality their structures are not closed: at this point the boundaries of the basin remain open toward the West Siberian Plate. Such a location of the area requires that the formation of its tectonic structure be considered in the closest connection with the geological history not only of the basin, but also of the folded structures surrounding it.

Below is a review of views on the structural-facies features of adjacent areas. This has become possible thanks to materials obtained in recent years, and is necessary for further deciphering the conditions of coal accumulation in this part of the basin.

As a regional negative structure, the Kuznetsk Basin is interpreted differently by most researchers [1, 23, 26, 27]. This depends on different assessments of the relationships of the trough with the surrounding structures and on the specific development of its individual areas, which have either a “platform” or a “geosynclinal” character.

The nonuniformity of oscillatory movements in different areas of the basin was first shown by V. A. Khakhlov [22] on the basis of a study of the stratigraphy of the coal-bearing deposits, and at present it is not disputed. Within the Kuzbass he distinguished several depression zones characterized by a separate tectonic history.

The geological position of the Anzherka district is shown in the accompanying sketch map (Fig. 1). The coal-bearing sediments here form a series of synclinal folds controlled by rocks of the Middle Paleozoic. To the south they are separated from the rest of the basin by the Nevka anticline, whose core is composed of Devonian and Lower Carboniferous rocks. Northward the coal-bearing sediments of the Anzherka deposit wedge out: between the villages of Voznesenka and Kaila begins a field of development of Meso-Cenozoic rocks with an undulating occurrence of the Caledonian basement. On the east the deposit borders on a Middle Paleozoic rock complex, which in its general plan is not maintained along the entire eastern side of the basin [15]. More definite and varied data on rearrangements of the tectonic plan of the depression have been obtained from the study of Middle Paleozoic sediments. These rocks are directly related to the coal-bearing ones, constituting their basement. Therefore observation of the tectonic regime of this part of the basin is more conveniently begun with consideration of these deposits in the Barzas district situated to the south and in areas located north of the Anzherka syncline (the village of Zharkovskoye—the village of Podlomskoye). In the Barzas district the Devonian deposits belong to two different-facies belts [19, 20, 21, 3], distinctly traceable along the entire northeastern side. One of these belts is associated with the Caledonian rock complex of the Kuznetsk Alatau; it is composed essentially of continental sediments and lies to the east, widening somewhat near the settlement of Nevsky, where it borders on a varied complex of marine facies of the western belt [7, 9, 13]. Both types of sections have substantial differences in the composition and degree of alteration of the rocks composing them and differ sharply in thicknesses, which in some cases is regarded as a consequence of division of the basin by sub-

Fig. 1. Schematic structural map of the northeastern part of the Kuznetsk trough. (Based on materials of T. N. Belskaya, N. V. Grigoriev, Z. A. Myshko, L. I. Ivanura, A. Z. Yuzhnikova. The numerals denote: 1 — Anzherka syncline, 2 — Andreevka syncline, 3 — Nizovka synclinorium, 4 — Nevka dome, 5 — Yaya block (projection), 6 — Kaitag syncline, 7 — Tashma trough, 8 — Zolotokitat graben, 9 — Yaya-Ishim projection, 10 — Ulanovka depression, 11 — Novorozhdestvenka projection, 12 — Georgievka uplift.)

water barrier [4]. According to V. A. Kuznetsov (1954), the reason for this is deep-seated faults, along which movements of separate tectonic blocks take place; these faults determine the limits of distribution of sedimentary and effusive formations. Much earlier, A. V. Tyzhnov had proposed the “indistinctness of the boundary of the western and eastern zones, which is determined by the step-like subsidence of the basement” [20, p. 4].

The distribution, on the northeastern margin of the basin, of a number of positive structures, both small and large [5, 14], makes it difficult here to construct an exact structural-facies plan for the development of these deposits, despite the results of drilling. These structures, beginning with the Krapivino dome in the direction of the Nevsky dome, the Yaya horst, and the Omutninsky swell, have different durations of development and determine the facies heterogeneity of contemporaneous sediments. Some of these structures, including even the most insignificant ones, were expressed in the relief as early as the Early Devonian [19, 21]. The intricate outlines of the shoreline caused the indistinctness of the western boundary of distribution of the “eastern facies zone.” The width of development of this zone in the area of the Anzherka deposit is unclear.

The deposits of the lower half of the Devonian, beginning in the eastern type of section with the Krasnogorsk sequence, are expressed near the settlement of Dmitrievsky and are genetically connected with the epoch of the continental break and red-bed weathering after the Silurian. The sequence is variable in thickness. It can only be inferred along the Kelbes River and along the Turat River (Anzherka district).

The question of the distribution of the facies of the Barzas district across the latitude from the village of Yaya-Petropavlovka to the village of Tukai is complicated by the rapid subsidence of the basement in this area in a northerly direction. The existence of such facies in areas adjoining the Anzherka district from the north is known from the exposed sediments of the effusive-tuffaceous ($D_{1-2}$) sequence in the Omutninsky salient [5], 900 m thick. The well-expressed sequence in this area undergoes a general subsidence to the north and south (geophysical data). The similarity of the facies of the Early Devonian Omutninsky sequence to contemporaneous deposits of the Barzas district is not contradicted by the decrease in thickness and increase in coarse-clastic material in a northerly direction noted by S. V. Muromtsev [13]: in northern areas more intense erosion in the Early Devonian is probable. The presence of rocks of this age in the area of the Anzherka deposit may be inferred from occasional rare finds of tuffs in boreholes located near the Anzherka deposit (for example, tuff in borehole 2553). The overlying Barzas sequence ($D_2$) is represented mainly by continental deposits with sapromixite coal seams and, in the area from the settlement of Yermaki to the settlement of Turat, occurs at different levels [9, 13, 19].

In the Anzherka district, the presence of sediments of the Barzas suite is possible on the basis of geological-survey materials [224], which assign to it rock outcrops found along the Turat River, on lithological grounds.

Although the presence of analogues of the Barzas suite north of the Anzherka district has not yet been fully proved, finds of coal blocks similar to the Barzas ones in the area of the village of Podlesovka are of interest. Still farther north, 7–8 km south of Tashma, A. S. Kirillov [10] noted the presence of argillites with flora. A. N. Krishtofovich, who identified from there Hostimella hostimensis P. et B. (Hostinella according to Banks, 1967), gave a broad stratigraphic range up to and including the Givetian. These finds indicate, if not analogous, then at least...

at least similar conditions of sediment accumulation in the indicated area with the Barzas region.

The very weak roundness of the rocks and their poor sorting testify to a considerable dissection of the relief in this part of the Alatau in the Early Devonian epoch and to short-distance transport of the material.

The study of sedimentation conditions in the Eifelian—beginning of the Frasnian stage along the northeastern margin of the basin is based on the study of these deposits directly in the Anzherka region (the Lebedyanskii quarry, outcrops along the Mazalovskii Kitat, Alchedat, and Yaya rivers, and several deep boreholes) by a number of paleozoologists, and in conjunction with a detailed analysis of the facies and habitat conditions of the fauna.

The basement of the marine Eifelian deposits in the Anzherka region has not been established. However, V. A. Ivaniya [6] is inclined to correlate the sequence of rocks exposed above the village of Lebedyanskii with the Mamontovo beds on the basis of the mixed Eifelian–Eifelian fauna of brachiopods. The probability of the presence here of a more ancient horizon can be explained by the fragmentation of the hanging wall and denudation of its surface, as a result of which these sediments were brought to the level of the later deposits. A separate isolated occurrence of rocks of the Safonovo (Kitat) horizon near the village of Shcherbinovka may likewise be explained by fragmentation of the thrust (Fig. 2, block diagram).

For the second half of the Eifelian, according to the data of T. N. Bel’skaya and E. A. Ivanova, a complex of conditions is observed, from the zone of coastal shallow water to relatively deep-water conditions. At the same time it is noted that, of all the studied Devonian sections of Tuva, the Minusinsk basin, and Kuzbass, the sediments of the “shallow-water slope zone are most fully represented in the sections of the Anzherka region, just as relatively deep-water sediments are known only in the Kuznetsk open sea” [8, pp. 106, 125]. This circumstance, together with the constantly changing width of the indicated zones, testifies to unceasing tectonic movements of the bottom of this body of water, having alternating signs with a predominance of subsidence. The amplitude of these movements was evidently small, for in an earlier work [7] E. A. Ivanova emphasizes the similarity of the hydrological conditions, the character of the grounds, and the features of the fauna habitat with those of the platform seas of the Russian and Siberian platforms, but notes here increased thicknesses (several tens of meters). This fact may be compared with the rates in the Mesozoic troughs of the Northeast [2], where the activation of separate parts of the platform is connected with the development of adjacent geosynclines.

No less diversity in the tectonic regime for the northeastern districts of the Kuznetsk trough has been established in the Upper Devonian, the sediments of which are distinguished by polyfacies character. Among the distinguished central, transitional, and marginal types of sections, the deposits of the Upper Devonian of the Barzas and Anzherka regions belong to the marginal and transitional types. The boundary of distribution of these deposits passes approximately midway between the Tom’ River and Barzas. Toward Anzhero-Sudzhensk this boundary deviates somewhat to the west, passing parallel to the general strike of the rocks. The complex of Upper Devonian rocks of the eastern belt is also represented by shallow-water facies accumulated with numerous interruptions.

Beginning from the village of Ermaki to sections of deposits in the area of the village of Yaya-Petropavlovskoe and several boreholes of the Anzherka deposit, the various horizons of the Upper Devonian are characterized by small thicknesses, not exceeding two hundred meters. The latter circumstance determined the conditional nature of assigning the Upper Devonian sediments to the trans-

Labels in the figure:

• Beds of the Safon horizons
• Beds of the Vassino horizons
• Beds of the Izylin horizons
• Member 5 of the Bey horizons
• Member 4 of the Bey horizons
• Member 4 of the Safon horizons
• Members 1–3 of the Safon horizons
• Member 1 of the Safon horizons
• Zone of crushing, in contact with coal-bearing deposits
• Quarry
• Borehole 3125
• Borehole 3119
• Member 5, B.h.
• Members 1–2, B.h.
• Member 4, B.h.
• Member (?) 5, B.h.
• Member 3 (?), B.h.
• Members 5–6 of the Safon horizons
• Members 1–6 of the Bey horizons
• Members 2–6 of the Safon horizons
• 2 km

Legend:

• Vassino horizons — D₃
• Izylin horizons — D₃
• Members of the Bey horizons — D₂
• Members of the Safon horizons — D₂
• Izylin horizons — D₃
• Members of the Sibirian–Lebedyan horizons — D₂
• Members of the Kitayata horizons — D₂

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the schematic arrangement of Devonian sediments in the thrust part of the Anzherka deposit (based on materials of V. A. Ivanina, E. A. Ivanova, and A. Z. Yuzvitskii)

…tional zone [3], very similar to marginal ones. This also follows from the character of the marine basin with extensive shoals. In the area of the Anzherka deposit, precisely these facies interweave with the facies of red beds, making it possible to regard this area as lying at the boundary with the shelf, i.e., “on the platform.” The strongly smoothed relief of this part of the Caledonides, with its gentle dip angle, explains the penetration of the Frasnian transgression as far as the Zolotoi Kitata River [3].

New materials on the subdivision of Devonian sediments in the area of the northeastern margin of the basin confirm the “geoanticlinal…

the platform character of the development of the northern part of the Kuznetsk Alatau in Variscan time” [11].

Comparing the materials of various researchers, it should probably be assumed that peneplain conditions, characteristic of the relief of the Kuznetsk Alatau in the Upper Devonian [8], were distributed mainly in the northern areas. The low-hill relief indicated by T. N. Bel’skaya for the time of deposition of the lower red-colored unit in the eastern belt [3] apparently extended to the southern areas, beginning approximately from the latitude of the village of Orlinka. The thicknesses indicated for the Devonian sediments of the eastern belt adjoining the Anzherka district—Podlomsk-Osinovka, where the Caledonian basement lay close to the surface—seem somewhat exaggerated. Even with the peculiar facies conditions of this area, the thicknesses of the sediments, especially of the second half of the Devonian, should not here exceed the first hundreds of meters.

Data on the deposits of the Lower marine Carboniferous in the Anzherka district are extremely insufficient. The great attention paid in recent years to the study of these deposits, again, for the most part did not extend north of the Barzas district. Judging from the descriptions of T. I. Butov and P. G. Gryazev, supplemented by material from mine workings driven in connection with exploration for construction materials, the Lower marine Carboniferous of the northeastern part of the trough is predominantly sandy-clayey. The few features that distinguish rocks of this age in the Barzas district from the rocks of the Mozzhukha stratotype increase northward. The maximum Tournaisian transgression did little to alter the differences in the character of the basin along the northeastern margin from the main trough of the depression. Frequent interbeds of conglomerates, encountered in the northeastern type of sections, prove vigorous leveling and shifts of the erosion base, thanks to which in the Visean epoch we had here an exceptionally leveled surface (the predominance of aleurolites over sandstones) [2—24]. The thickness of these sediments, more than 1000 m, proposed by P. G. Gryazev, has now been reduced to 600 m, which, in our view, is not a limit. In general, the thicknesses of Middle–Upper Paleozoic deposits confined to a rigid basement and established during mapping and on the basis of shallow exploratory work are doubtful. Their kilometer-scale values are often attributable to the complex tectonics of this region. Warnings of this can be found in dozens of works setting forth mapping data. Moreover, with the development of work on a high technical basis, kilometer-scale thicknesses began to fall continuously owing to the revealed superpositions of the same beds. Finally, experience from the well-studied basins of Europe shows that thicknesses of sedimentary formations of many hundreds of meters are far from reality.

The character and distribution of Lower marine Carboniferous sediments north of the Anzherka deposit are unclear. Small outcrops of these rocks along the Mazalovsky Kitat River below the village of Shcherbinovka have not been tied to definite stratigraphic levels. The disappearance from the sections of the northern areas of the Anzherka deposit of sediments of Visean age and of the Ostrog Formation may indicate a reduction in the area of these deposits along the segment from the village of Podlomsk to the town of Anzhero-Sudzhensk as a result of erosion. This may serve as an example of V. I. Yavorsky’s opinion regarding the reduction of the areas of subsidence of marginal parts of the basin with the beginning of the Carboniferous [26].

The commonality, briefly set forth here, of the Middle Paleozoic sections confined to the submerged basement of the Kuznetsk Alatau, which in Variscan time played the role of a platform, is relative. Changes

in sections of Middle Paleozoic sediments along the northeastern margin of the trough, expressed in a rapid change of facies, the disappearance from sections of large rock units, and the similarity of distant sections despite differences between adjacent ones, probably cannot be explained solely by paleogeography, but are a function of a deeper cause—the existence of faults in the ancient basement. These faults, whose sublatitudinal trend was proposed by N. V. Grigor'ev for the area of the village of Podlomsk, are not excluded for areas situated farther south. Their presence may explain the subsidence of the basement in the area of the Anzherka deposit. This does not contradict the character of the structures of the Kuznetsk Alatau, manifested in differentiated movements of individual isometric massifs [12, 13]. The suggestion advanced is not a discovery, but emphasizes the importance of the influence of faults in the rigid structure of the Caledonian basement, which apparently is very considerable. The thrusting of the Cambrian–Silurian rock complex along the Yaya–Petropavlovsk arc, to the interpretation of which S. S. Rumyantsev repeatedly returned [16, 17], is evidently a reflection of this. However, such cases are rather rare, and disturbance of at least the Upper Paleozoic complex by action from the Alatau side is not characteristic.

In recent years, geophysical methods have confirmed, in the area adjoining the Anzherka deposit, the presence of several large structures, apparently partly inherited from the Caledonian basement and subsequently renewed [14]. The indicated structures, apparently, are also a reflection of vertical movements of individual basement blocks.

Turning to the structural-facies features of the productive sequences of the Anzherka deposit, we note that the deposition of coal-bearing sediments took place on a flat, downthrown block of the Caledonian basement, situated near the depression zone of the geosyncline and gently inclined toward it. The relatively good persistence of the seams of the working group over the area of the district, and their small thickness, testify to weak epeirogenic oscillations during the epoch of coal formation. According to N. M. Strakhov’s classification [18], the coal-forming landscape of the Anzherka deposit may be assigned to the type of coal accumulation on tectonically passive areas. The influence of the geosyncline on the regime of coal accumulation in this part of the basin was apparently slight.

Analysis of the distribution of fossil flora over the area of the district, together with observations on the lithological character of the deposits, leads to the conclusion that the upper part of the section of coal-bearing sediments—the Alchedat sequence—is genetically and, in terms of age, connected with the underlying sediments and formed under similar conditions. There is no basis for considering the tectonic regime of the period of the Alchedat beds as in any way special, sharply different from the “platform” conditions of formation of the central sequence, the seams of which are fairly persistent and less disturbed.

The stepwise character of the distribution of fossil flora through the section of the Chelin and central sequences, within the Alchedat sequence, becomes disordered, which is the reason for the very approximate correlation and identification of the Alchedat beds, which have been subjected to the most varied disturbances. The uniform floristic composition of the Alchedat sequence, and the recurrence of the same flora complexes at different horizons, compel one to doubt the independence of some units in this part of the sections (for example, the unit of the Alchedat beds in borehole 3102 at a depth of 400–440 m, Fig. 3).

Column

Coal seams according to the correlation of the Anzherka GRP
(in parentheses—variant I; disturbances were checked according to two variants)

Stratigraphic confinement of the complexes in the normal section of the Anzherka district

Species more often encountered in the lower parts of the Alchedat sequence.

Complex characteristic of the upper horizons of the Alchedat sequence.

Complex characteristic of the interval from seam Eleven to seam Alchedat III.

Seams indicated in the section:

• Alchedat (IX) VI
• Alchedat (X) III
• Alchedat (V) II
• Alchedat?
• Alchedat (I) V
• Eleven
• Alchedat III
• Alchedat I–II
• Eleven

Legend:

• Coal
• Sandstone
• Siltstone
• Carbonaceous argillite
• Thrust limestone

Scale 1:4000

Fig. 3. Distribution of fossil flora in the interval of the Alchedat seams.
Borehole 3102 of exploration line “21st quarter”

The sequence unrecognizably disturbed, which unites the group of Alchedat seams, was not subjected to tectonic analysis, unless one counts the incidental correlation carried out during drilling operations in the central sequence. If the latter was in a more favorable position—the correlation could be checked by the mining of working seams—then the development of the seams of the “Alchedat sequence” is associated with risk. Thus, among the causes explaining the inconsistency of the Alchedat seams, their tectonic disturbance must be regarded as the principal one, and only then, to a lesser degree, facies changes.

From individual deepened boreholes it is impossible to form a clear idea of the character of the disturbances in the very lowest, Chelin, seq-

more. As observations show, disturbances within the upper horizons of the Chelin Formation (Chelin seams I–IV), strictly excluding the zone of direct contact with the overthrust, are expressed in interbed displacements and are not of great significance. As for the “Western Crosscut” of the mine field 9–15, where all three formations took upon themselves the main impact of lateral pressure from the overthrust [25], here we have varied forms of disturbances, including the most intense ones, of the flexure type.

Thus, the relationships of the nearby Tom–Kolyvan folded zone with the northeastern margin of the Kuznetsk trough were expressed in the following manner:

Deposits of the Middle–Upper Paleozoic rock complex formed on a rigid block basement and were controlled by the regime of the northeastern part of the Kuznetsk Alatau.

The north-northwestern action, with large displacement amplitudes, took place after the deposition of the coal-bearing sediments; it was superimposed and was most strongly expressed in dislocations of the upper part of the section, excluding the zone of direct contact, where the Middle Paleozoic rock complex also underwent crushing. A similar type of action may be presumed along the contact of the Tom overthrust in the northern direction.

The data presented above show that the tectonics of the Anzherka deposit is more intense than previous investigators believed [1]. Therefore it will be more correct to regard the area of the deposit as belonging, according to the classification of A. A. Belitskii and E. M. Pakha, to the “subzone of intense linear folding and ruptures,” and not to the “subzone of relatively gentle folds.” In terms of the amplitudes of the disturbances, the Anzherka area is not inferior to the western part of the Kemerovo deposit, whose structures are considered the most intense in Kuzbass [1, p. 465]. This agrees well with the general regional background, and in particular with the fact that, in the area of the Anzherka deposit, the Tom overthrust projects with its leading edge.

REFERENCES

1. Belitskii A. A., Pakha E. M. Regularities of the tectonic structure of the Kuznetsk Basin.—In: The Fundamental Ideas of M. A. Usov in Geology, Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR, 1960.

2. Birkis A. P., Kuklin A. P. On the question of the rate of sediment accumulation in geosynclinal and platform regions in the Northeast.—Materials on the Geology and Mineral Resources of Northeastern USSR, No. 19, 1966.

3. Belskaya T. N. The Late Devonian sea of the Kuznetsk depression, its developmental history, population, and sediments.—Trudy PINa, vol. LXXXII, 1960.

4. Butov P. I. Tectonics of the Kuznetsk Basin.—Geology of the USSR, vol. XVI, 1940.

5. Grigor’ev N. V., Sazonov P. T. Geology and mineral resources of the Tom–Yaya interfluve (Final report of the Grigor’ev and Podlomskaya parties for 1960–1964). Archives of TPI.

6. Ivaniya V. A. Stratigraphy of the Middle Devonian of Northern Kuzbass.—Materials on the Geology of Western Siberia, issue 63, Tomsk State University Press, pp. 154–159, 1962.

7. Ivanova E. A. Ecology and development of Silurian and Devonian brachiopods of the Kuznetsk, Minusinsk, and Tuva basins.—Trudy PINa, vol. XXXVIII, 1962.

8. Ivanova E. A., Belskaya T. N., Chudinova I. I. Habitat conditions of the marine fauna of the Silurian and Devonian of the Kuznetsk, Minusinsk, and Tuva basins.—Trudy PINa, vol. CII, 1964.

9. Kartseva G. N., Tsyrlina V. B. Stratigraphy of the Devonian deposits of the Kuznetsk Basin.—Geological Collection, No. 2. Trudy VNIGRI, new series, issue 95, 1956.

1. Kirillov A. S. New data on the continuation of the Kuzbass to the north.—“Vestnik ZSGU,” No. 6, 1947.

2. Matveevskaya A. L., Ivanova E. F. Geological structure of part of the West Siberian Lowland in connection with questions of oil and gas potential. 1960.

3. Mossakovskii A. A. On the tectonics of the Kuznetsk Alatau.—Izv. AN SSSR, Geological Series, No. 2, 1961.

4. Muromtsev V. S. The Kuznetsk Depression.—Essays on the Geology of the USSR (Based on materials from reference drilling), vol. 1. Transactions of VSEGEI, new series, issue 96, 1956.

5. Myshko Z. A., Ivanchura L. I. Geophysical investigations of the northern part of the Anzhero-Sudzhensk district of the Kuzbass and adjacent territories.—“Izv. TPI,” vol. 165, 1969.

6. Rostovtsev N. N. The West Siberian Lowland.—Essays on the Geology of the USSR (Based on materials from reference drilling), vol. 1. Transactions of VNIGRI, issue 96, 1956.

7. Rumyantsev S. S. Tectonic disturbances observed on the northwestern margin of the Kuznetsk coal basin, and their explanation.—“Gornyi zhurnal,” No. 10–11, 1928.

8. Rumyantsev S. S. Siberian sapropelites (oil from coal). Vostugol, Novosibirsk, 1931.

9. Strakhov N. M. Fundamentals of the Theory of Lithogenesis, vol. II. Regularities in the composition and distribution of humic deposits. Publishing House P. M., 1962, AN GIN.

10. Tyzhnov A. V. Geological sketch of the Barzas district of the Kuzbass.—Materials on the Geology of Western Siberia, No. 3, 1938.

11. Tyzhnov A. V. Geological structure of the northern part of the Kuznetsk Basin and the problem of its oil potential.—“Vestnik ZSGU,” No. 4, 1941.

12. Tyzhnov A. V. 1. Prospects for the oil potential of the Kuznetsk Basin. 2. Prospects for the oil potential of the Kolyvan-Tomsk folded zone.—In: Prospects for the Oil Potential of Western Siberia. Gosgeolizdat, 1948.

13. Khakhlov V. A. The problem of the geotectonic life of the Kuzbass on the basis of stratigraphic analysis.—“Uchenye zap. TGU,” No. 9, 1948.

14. Shatskii N. S. The Greater Donbass and the Wichita system. Comparative tectonics of ancient platforms.—Izv. AN SSSR, Geological Series, No. 6, 1946.

15. Yuzvitskii A. S. Geological structure of the northern part of the Kuznetsk Basin. Dissertation. 1969.

16. Yuzvitskii A. Z. The Tomsk overthrust in the Kuzbass. Sov. Geology, No. 6, 1966.

17. Yavorskii V. I. Conditions of formation of coal-bearing deposits of the Kuznetsk Basin and their tectonics.—Transactions of VSEGEI, vol. 19, new series. Gostoptekhizdat, Moscow, 1957.

18. Yavorskii V. I. and Butov P. I. The Kuznetsk coal basin.—Transactions of the Geological Committee, new series, issue 177, 1927.