Rare earth element geochemistry and fluid characteristics of scheelite in the Hutti gold deposit, Hutti-Maski schist belt, Raichur district, Karnataka, India

The ore‐forming fluids characteristics of quartz‐vein type scheelite deposits in eastern Yanbian, NE China: Evidence from in situ LA‐ICP‐MS rare earth elements of Yangjingou and Sidaogou deposits

“…Sidaogou scheelite deposit also present a positive correlation between Nb and ΣREE+Y-Eu (Figure 6), indicating that Mechanism 2 is the main substitution mechanism. In addition, MREEs (especially Dy) and HREEs are more enriched than LREEs, which are similar to the Type I in Hutti gold deposit (Nevin and Pandalai, 2020), suggesting that the substitution of Sidaogou scheelite deposit is not controlled by Mechanism 3 (Ghaderi et al, 1999). In summary, the scheelite REE patterns of in the quartz-vein type scheelite deposits in eastern Yanbian are inconsistent.…”

“…Yangjingou scheelite deposit has low concentration of Na + (salinity of fluid inclusions is 3 to 9.6 wt% NaCl equivalent (Ren et al ., 2010a; Wang et al ., 2018) and Nb (1.10–2.53 ppm), which suggests Mechanism 1 and 2 is unlikely to comprise the primary substitution mechanism. As shown in Figure 5a, Yangjingou scheelite are LREE‐enriched and have flat REE patterns with a little right‐dipped, which are similar to the Type I scheelite in Zhuxi deposit (Yuan et al ., 2019) and the Type II scheelite for the Hutti gold deposit in India (Nevin and Pandalai, 2020) (Table 5), reflecting the replacement of REE through the substitution Mechanism 3.…”

U–Th–PbTotal monazite geochronology of the felsic volcanic rocks from the Hutti greenstone belt: Evidence of magmatic and hydrothermal events

“…The belt is dominated by bimodal volcanics comprising different pillowed mafic flows, intermediate felsic volcanics, and interlayered metamorphosed volcaniclastic that are later affected by minor faults and shears (Manikyamba et al, 2009;Rogers et al, 2007). Similar felsic rocks are present at several locations in the HMGB and are identified as adakite (Manikyamba et al, 2009;Nevin, 2012).…”

“…Various earlier workers (Anand et al, 2014;Hazarika et al, 2015;Nevin, 2012;Rogers et al, 2013;Safonov et al, 1980;Schmidt, 2003;Schmidt et al, 2004) have reported different dates ($2.41-2.14 Ga) from various altered rocks/minerals (using different dating techniques) within and around the Hutti belt, representing the age of hydrothermal activitie/s that has affected the belt (summarized in . These hydrothermal ages ($2.41-2.14 Ga) are invariably younger than the magmatic ages ($2.54-2.22 Ga), as above-discussed; excepting the age of the Yelagatti granitoid: 2221 ± 99 Ma reported from the area.…”

“…Dating magmatism, metamorphism, and hydrothermal mineralization events in the region have been crucial in deciphering the geological history. Previous researchers have used various combinations of techniques to date these events, including U–Pb dating of zircon and monazite, Ar–Ar dating of mica, and Re–Os dating of sulfides, wherein the geochronological data demonstrated an age range from 2.73 to 2.22 Ga (Anand et al, 2014; Anand & Balakrishnan, 2010; Badhe et al, 2019; Chardon et al, 2002; Hazarika et al, 2015; Jayananda et al, 1995, 2012, 2013; Krogstad et al, 1989; Nevin, 2012; Peucat et al, 2013; Walker et al, 1989) vis‐à‐vis magmatism, metamorphism, and hydrothermal mineralization.…”