排序方式: 共有44条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
41.
《China Geology》2020,3(3):473-489
Fluorite is one of the important mineral raw materials in the industry. In China, it is mainly distributed in the provinces and regions such as Hunan, Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Inner Mongolia, Fujian, and Henan provinces, boasting huge reserves and large numbers of deposits. However, most of the fluorite deposits are on a small or medium scale. The main fluorite deposits in China were studied in this paper. Their geological features and metallogenic regularity were summarized and compared. Meanwhile, based on their main genetic factors including metallogenic fluid sources and main metallogenic geological processes, they were divided into two groups, namely meso-epithermal deposits and magmatic-hydrothermal deposits. Furthermore, based on the prospecting achievements and research progress obtained in fluorite deposits in recent years, prospecting potential predictions were made for the metallogenic prospect areas and major prospecting areas of fluorite in China. This aims to provide a theoretical basis and direction for future fluorite prospecting in China. 相似文献
42.
43.
A three-point Sm–Nd isotope isochron on fluorite from the very large Montroc fluorite vein deposit (southern Massif Central, France) defines an age of 111±13 Ma. Initial Nd of –8.6 and initial 87Sr/86Sr of ~0.71245 suggest an upper crustal source of the hydrothermal system, in agreement with earlier work on fluid inclusions which indicated a basinal brine origin. The mid-Cretaceous age of ~111 Ma suggests the Albian/Aptian transition as the most likely period for large-scale fluid circulation during a regional extensional tectonic event, related to the opening of the North Atlantic ocean.Editorial handling: B. Lehmann 相似文献
44.
Michael?BauEmail author Rolf?L.?Romer Volker?Lüders Peter?Dulski 《Mineralium Deposita》2003,38(8):992-1008
Fluorite from Mississippi Valley Type (MVT) deposits in the South Pennine Orefield, England, displays significantly different distributions of rare earths and yttrium (REY) compared to fluorite from similar MVT deposits in the North Pennine Orefield. Samples from the South Pennine Orefield display negative Ce and positive Gd and Y anomalies but lack any Eu anomaly, indicating that the REY were mobilized from relatively pure marine sedimentary carbonates. In marked contrast, fluorite from the North Pennine Orefield lacks any Ce and Gd anomalies but shows a pronounced positive Eu anomaly, suggesting that the REY were provided by different source rock(s), that the mineralizing hydrothermal fluid had experienced higher temperatures prior to fluorite precipitation, and that it was derived from deeper crustal levels in the north compared to the south. The isotopic composition of Sr in Blue John fluorite from the South Pennine Orefield suggests that Sr was mobilized from Lower Carboniferous (Tournaisian) limestones, whereas Pb isotopes suggest that in contrast to REY and Sr, Pb was derived from aluminosilicate rocks. Neither Nd nor Sr or Pb isotopes can be used to radiometrically date the formation of Blue John fluorite. All isotope systems studied indicate that the limestone host rock of this fluorite mineralization did not contribute to the trace element budget of the hydrothermal fluid. Our results show that different solutes in a natural water (hydrothermal fluid, groundwater, etc.) may be derived from different sources, and that the study of a small set of elements or isotope ratios may not provide full insight into the genesis or history of a mineralization or a hydrothermal fluid. Our data provide evidence for the uncoupling of Sr, Nd and Pb during fluid-rock interaction and fluid migration, and show that the use of plots such as 87Sr/86Sr vs. Nd. to learn about mixing relationships (as is commonly done in igneous geochemistry) is unreliable when applied to natural waters and their precipitates.Editorial handling: B. Lehmann 相似文献