矿床地球化学国家重点实验室知识库

The Huangshaping polymetallic deposit is located in southeastern Hunan Province, China. It is a world-class W–Mo–Pb–Zn–Cu skarn deposit in the Nanling Range Metallogenic Belt, with estimated reserves of 74.31 Mt of W–Mo ore at 0.28% WO₃and 0.07% Mo, 22.43 Mt of Pb–Zn ore at 3.6% Pb and 8.00% Zn, and 20.35 Mt of Cu ore at 1.12% Cu. The ore district is predominantly underlained by carbonate formations of the Lower Carboniferous period, with stocks of quartz porphyry, granite porphyry, and granophyre. Skarns occurred in contact zones between stocks and their carbonate wall rocks, which are spatially associated with the above-mentioned three types of ores (i.e., W–Mo, Pb–Zn, and Cu ores).

Three types of fluid inclusions have been identified in the ores of the Huangshaping deposit: aqueous liquid–vapor inclusions (Type I), daughter-mineral-bearing aqueous inclusions (Type II), and H₂O–CO₂ inclusions (Type III). Systematic microthermometrical, laser Raman spectroscopic, and salinity analyses indicate that high-temperature and high-salinity immiscible magmatic fluid is responsible for the W–Mo mineralization, whereas low-temperature and low-salinity magmatic-meteoric mixed fluid is responsible for the subsequent Pb–Zn mineralization. Another magmatic fluid derived from deep-rooted magma is responsible for Cu mineralization.

Chondrite-normalized rare earth element patterns and trace element features of calcites from W–Mo, Pb–Zn, and Cu ores are different from one another. Calcite from Cu ores is rich in heavy rare earth elements (187.4–190.5 ppm), Na (0.17%–0.19%), Bi (1.96–64.60 ppm), Y (113–135 ppm), and As (9.1–29.7 ppm), whereas calcite from W–Mo and Pb–Zn ores is rich in Mn (> 10.000 ppm) and Sr (178–248 ppm) with higher Sr/Y ratios (53.94–72.94). δ¹⁸O values also differ between W–Mo/Pb–Zn ores (δ¹⁸O = 8.10‰–8.41‰) and Cu ores (δ¹⁸O = 4.34‰–4.96‰), indicating that two sources of fluids were, respectively, involved in the W–Mo, Pb–Zn, and Cu mineralization.

Sulfur isotopes from sulfides also reveal that the large variation (4‰–19‰) within the Huangshaping deposit is likely due to a magmatic sulfur source with a contribution of reduced sulfate sulfur host in the Carboniferouslimestone/dolomite and more magmatic sulfur involved in the Cu mineralization than that in W–Mo and Pb–Zn mineralization. The lead isotopic data for sulfide (galena: ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb = 18.48–19.19, ²⁰⁷/²⁰⁴Pb = 15.45–15.91, ²⁰⁸/²⁰⁴Pb = 38.95–39.78; sphalerite: ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb = 18.54–19.03, ²⁰⁷/²⁰⁴Pb = 15.60–16.28, ²⁰⁸/²⁰⁴Pb = 38.62–40.27; molybdenite: ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb = 18.45–19.21, ²⁰⁷/²⁰⁴Pb = 15.53–15.95, ²⁰⁸/²⁰⁴Pb = 38.77–39.58 chalcopyrite: ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb = 18.67–19.38, ²⁰⁷/²⁰⁴Pb = 15.76–19.90, and ²⁰⁸/²⁰⁴Pb = 39.13–39.56) and oxide (scheelite: ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb = 18.57–19.46, ²⁰⁷/²⁰⁴Pb = 15.71–15.77, ²⁰⁸/²⁰⁴Pb = 38.95–39.13) are different from those of the wall rock limestone (²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb = 18.34–18.60, ²⁰⁷/²⁰⁴Pb = 15.49–15.69, ²⁰⁸/²⁰⁴Pb = 38.57–38.88) and porphyries (²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb = 17.88–18.66, ²⁰⁷/²⁰⁴Pb = 15.59–15.69, ²⁰⁸/²⁰⁴Pb = 38.22–38.83), suggesting Pb²⁰⁶-, U²³⁸-, and Th ²³²-rich material are involved in the mineralization. The Sm–Nd isotopes of scheelite (ε_Nd(t) = − 6.1 to − 2.9), garnet (ε_Nd(t) = − 6.8 to − 6.1), and calcite (ε_Nd(t) = − 6.3) from W–Mo ores as well as calcite (ε_Nd(t) = − 5.4 to − 5.3) and scheelite (ε_Nd(t) = − 2.9) from the Cu ores demonstrate suggest more mantle-derived materials involved in the Cu mineralization.

In the present study we conclude that two sources of ore-forming fluids were involved in production of the Huangshaping W–Mo–Pb–Zn–Cu deposit. One is associated with the granite porphyry magmas responsible for the W–Mo and then Pb–Zn mineralization during which its fluid evolved from magmatic immiscible to a magmatic–meteoritic mixing, and the other is derived from deep-rooted magma, which is related to Cu-related mineralization.