Next Article in Journal
Accurate Feature Extraction from Historical Geologic Maps Using Open-Set Segmentation and Detection
Previous Article in Journal
Kavokta Deposit, Middle Vitim Mountain Country, Russia: Composition and Genesis of Dolomite Type Nephrite
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Geosciences
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/geosciences14110304
geosciences-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review on Uranium Mineralization Related to Na-Metasomatism: Indian and International Examples

by
Priyanka Mishra
,
Manju Sati
and
Rajagopal Krishnamurthi
*
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Geosciences 2024, 14(11), 304; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14110304
Submission received: 25 July 2024 / Revised: 15 August 2024 / Accepted: 26 August 2024 / Published: 12 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Geochemistry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Uranium mineralization related to Na-metasomatism is known as Na-metasomatite or albitite-type. They represent the fourth-largest uranium resource globally and constitute fifty thousand tons of U resources. The present work gives details about well-known Na-metasomatic uranium occurrences worldwide in terms of structures, metasomatic stages, geochemical characteristics, fluid inclusions, and compositions of stable isotopes. The host rocks are granite, granitoid, and metamorphosed volcano-sedimentary rocks, and these rocks experienced two/three deformational stages. U mineralization is mainly confined to faults and characterized by granitic intrusive, cataclasis, mylonitization, and albitization. The albitized rocks exhibit two to three metasomatic and late hydrothermal stages. The first stage is marked by the replacement of pre-existing host minerals during a ductile shear regime. The second stage is related to U mineralization contemporaneous with the brittle deformation. The albitized rocks exhibit depletion in Si, K, Ba, and heavy rare-earth elements relative to the host rocks and enrichments in Na, Ca, U, Zr, P, V, Sr, and light rare-earth elements. U-enrichment is positively correlated with Na, Mo, Cu, and high-field strength elements. The pressure–temperature (P-T) conditions of U mineralization are considered to be epithermal and mesothermal. Fluid inclusion studies indicate that the mineralizing fluids were rich in Na+, Mg2+, Cl−, CO2, H2O, F−, and PO43− and meteoric–magmatic derived. The geological processes responsible for the genesis of Na-metasomatic U deposits of the North Delhi Fold Belt (India) are comparable with some international examples, i.e., Australia, Ukraine, Cameroon, Brazil, Guyana, China, and the USA.

1. Introduction

Uranium (U) is present as a trace element in the rocks of the Earth’s crust, with an average concentration of ~1.4 ppm, ~2.7 ppm in the upper crust, and ~0.015 ppm in the mantle [1,2]. U can exist in different oxidation states, such as III, IV, V, and VI, but the most common forms found in nature are IV and VI. U minerals containing U(VI) are more abundant than U(IV) due to higher solubility of U(VI) in aqueous solutions than U(IV) [3]. The U(IV)-bearing minerals are primary oxides or silicates (uraninite, coffinite, brannerite) [4]. In contrast, U(VI) minerals consist of hydrated uranyl phosphates, silicates, carbonates, and molybdates, formed due to the replacement of primary U(IV) minerals, and they occur in the alteration zones of primary U ore deposits [5,6]. The U enrichment in favorable geological environments has been attributed to various geological/geochemical processes that operated during the evolution of the Earth. Economic U deposits from long periods of geological time due to orogenic, igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary, and hydrothermal processes [7,8,9,10]. The initial enriched U horizons were successively remobilized and concentrated to higher magnitudes above normal background values, thus forming U-ore deposits [11,12,13]. U deposits formed during the time span extending from Neoarchean to Quaternary ages only after a great oxygenation event (~2.4 Ga) [1].
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) have jointly reported the global U resources, ~6,078,500 tons of U in 2022 [14]. U occurs in rocks as its own minerals, as a substitution in accessory mineral phases, and as adsorption in clay minerals [15]. In oxidized hydrothermal fluids, U is exceedingly mobile as a hexavalent uranyl ion (UO22+), and they might form over 40 types of complexes with ligands (hydroxyl, carbonate, sulfate, chloride, phosphate, fluoride, and silicate anions) [16]. U can also form over 250 primary and secondary minerals, including uraninite, coffinite, brannerite, davidite, carnotite, autunite, etc. [7]. Dahlkamp [17,18] proposed 19 types of U deposits and further modified them into 16 types. The IAEA proposed a detailed classification of 15 main types and 36 sub-types (Table 1) [19]. Five main types of U deposits contribute around 73% of the world’s uranium reserves: (i) sandstone-type (Kazakhstan), (ii) polymetallic breccia complex (Australia), (iii) Proterozoic unconformity type (Canada, Australia), (iv) metasomatite deposits (Ukraine), and (v) intrusive-related deposits (Namibia) (Figure 1). At the present time, Kazakhstan accounts for 43% of global uranium production, and Canada and Australia are contributing 13% and 12%, respectively [20]. However, in terms of resources, Australia has the largest (25%), followed by Kazakhstan (15%) and Canada (9%; Figure 2) [20].
Metasomatite-type uranium deposits are one of the 15 types of U deposits (Table 1). They are characterized by large to medium tonnage and are mostly low-grade ores, collectively making up the world’s fourth-largest known uranium (fifty thousand tons) resources [14,21]. The average grade of Na-metasomatic deposits (0.1%) is higher than the polymetallic iron oxide breccia complex and intrusive type, and the average tonnage (9297.1 tU) is more than the sandstone type [14]. The metasomatite-type U deposits have been further classified into (i) sodium (Na), (ii) potassium (K), and (iii) skarn (Table 1). Na-metasomatic U deposits constitute about 60% of the total metasomatic uranium resources [19]. These deposits are closely associated with intense Na-metasomatism and are controlled by lithospheric faults that give rise to large volumes of albitized rocks [22]. Most of the Na-metasomatic deposits are located in the Precambrian cratons and were affected by prolonged episodes of tectono–magmatic activity [21]. The Na-metasomatic uranium occurrences are distributed globally, including Ukraine, Brazil (Lagoa Real and Espinharas), Australia (Mount Isa), Canada (Labrador), Guyana (Kurupung), Cameroon (Poli), China (Longshoushan), Africa (Chad), USA (Coles Hill), Egypt (Wadi Belih), and India (Rajasthan; Figure 3) [23]. U mineralization in such deposits is closely related to the Na-metasomatism alteration zones, indicating a possible genetic link between metasomatism and U mineralization [10,24]. The deposits consist of albite-dominated (up to 90 vol%) alteration mineral assemblage that is associated with chloritization, calcitization, sulfidation, and actinolitization. They are mainly characterized by extensive porous albitite bodies along regional-scale shear zones [9,10]. The formation of uranium ore minerals (uraninite-coffinite) and associated gangue are considered to be coeval during Na-K and Na-Ca-Mg metasomatism [10,25,26].
Geosciences 14 00304 g002
Figure 2. Major U deposits of the world with resources (base map modified after Wilde 2020 [22] and locations/reserves of uranium are taken from OECD/IAEA, 2023 [14]).
Figure 2. Major U deposits of the world with resources (base map modified after Wilde 2020 [22] and locations/reserves of uranium are taken from OECD/IAEA, 2023 [14]).
Geosciences 14 00304 g002
Geosciences 14 00304 g003
Figure 3. Global distribution of Na-metasomatic U deposits/occurrences [10,24,26,27,28,29,30].
Figure 3. Global distribution of Na-metasomatic U deposits/occurrences [10,24,26,27,28,29,30].
Geosciences 14 00304 g003
The Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMDER) in India has identified over 0.3 million tonnes of uranium (U3O8) within the country [31]. Several types of U occurrences are reported in various parts of India, such as (i) unconformity type (Lambapur), (ii) strata-bound type (Tummalapalle), (iii) Metamorphite type (Singhbhum shear zone-Jaduguda, Narwapahar and Gogi), (iv) sandstone type (Mahadek basin-Domiasiat, Wahkyn), and (v) Na-metasomatic type (North Delhi Fold Belt) (Figure 4a) [32]. The Meso–Proterozoic metasedimentary rocks in the northeastern sector of the North Delhi Fold Belt (NDFB) of Rajasthan are well-known for the Na-metasomatic U deposits (Figure 4a). This “albitite line” of the NDFB extends ~320 km, consists of albitized metasedimentary rocks, and shows numerous surface anomalies of uranium–thorium (Figure 4b) [33]. Presently, the area is being explored intensely, and a reserve of ~11,479 tons of U3O8 with a grade of ~0.07% has been established (Figure 4b; [31]).
Wilde 2013 and 2020 [22,34] reviewed the Na-metasomatic U deposits occurring in Ukraine, Brazil, Australia, and Canada. There has been extensive research on this type of deposit, and new scientific data have been added to the published literature. Hence, we made an attempt to compile geological aspects of well-known/economic Na-metasomatic U occurrences, including Longshoushan (China), Aricheng (Guyana), Valhalla (Australia), Novokostantynivka, Kirovograd and Kryvy Rig (Ukraine), Lagoa Real and Espinharas (Brazil), Chad (Africa), Labrador (Canada), Coles Hill, Virginia (USA) and North Delhi Fold Belt (Rajasthan, India). We compare the geological characteristics of these globally recognized U occurrences in terms of metasomatic alteration stages, structural features, the geochemical signature of metasomatized rocks, fluid inclusions, and stable isotope compositions. A generalized genetic model has also been proposed in this article based on our studies of Indian deposits and the published literature related to worldwide Na metasomatic U deposits. Hence, the outcome of this paper will be useful for exploration agencies in targeting Na-metasomatic U deposits globally.

2. Na-Metasomatic U Deposits

This type of deposit is also known as Na-metasomatite and albitite type due to their association with alterations known as albitization [22]. U-bearing minerals within such deposits are found in the form of lenses, veins/disseminations and are closely associated with albitized rocks resulting from Na-metasomatic alterations. Na-metasomatism is a geological phenomenon that involves the replacement of potassium and calcium by sodium in minerals during fluid–rock interaction [10,27,28,35]. Fluid–rock interaction is the most important process that leads to albitization, calcitization, actinolitization, chloritization, dequartzification, and fluoritization during U mineralization [36,37]. The common host rocks reported in these deposits are granite, tonalite, and metamorphosed volcano-sedimentary (up to greenschist to granulite facies). The extensive development of albite is due to the replacement of Ca by Na in parent plagioclase during fluid–rock interaction. The Ca released during albitization forms calcite along the veinlets/cavities and marks the process of calcitization. The formation of actinolite and chlorite is mainly due to the liberation of Fe by metasomatic fluids during the alteration of mafic minerals (amphibole, biotite) [10,24,38,39]. Dequartzification has been reported in albitized zones of a few areas that produced open spaces and porosity by strongly alkaline and high-temperature fluids in the granitic rocks [10,24,39].
Fluids responsible for U formation in these deposits are believed to be of diverse origin, including magmatic water as suggested in the Valhalla deposit [26], surficial/formation, or a combination of metamorphic–surficial/formation water in the Ukrainian deposit [10]. Other potential sources include fluids released from sedimentary sequences due to regional thrusting events in the Lagoa Real deposit [40]. The ore-forming fluids were meteoric water-dominated, which circulated at a depth (~8 km) and scavenged uranium from the host rocks, as documented in the Longshoushan U deposits [30]. The host rocks of these U deposits are commonly intruded by granite, and orogenic activity facilitated the formation of crustal-scale shear zones (ductile and brittle deformations) and created the pathways for the movement of mineralizing fluids (metamorphic, meteoric, and magmatic).
These deposits are characterized by certain common features such as metasomatic alteration assemblages, meteoric/metamorphic/magmatic-derived ore fluids, and shear zone-controlled mineralization [10,34,41]. The Na-metasomatic type of U occurrences is found in Novokostantynivka, Kirovograd, Kryvy Rig (Ukraine), Lagoa Real and Espinharas (Brazil), Mount Isa and Valhalla (Australia), Labrador (Canada), Kurupung (Guyana), Poli (Cameroon), Longshoushan (China), Chad (Africa), Coles Hill (USA), Wadi Belih (Egypt), and Rajasthan (India; Figure 3). In India, several Na-metasomatic U occurrences have been identified along the “albitite line” of the NDFB [42]. Rohil and Jahaz are the two prominent deposits in this terrain (Figure 4b) [43]. These mineralized areas are mostly soil-covered, and few rock outcrops are found along the quartzite hills (Figure 5a) [44]. Quartzites, quartz-biotite schists, graphite-schists, and amphibolites are the major metamorphic rocks and have been correlated to the Ajabgarh Group of the Khetri Belt in the NDFB (Figure 5b) [45]. The host rocks are found to be albitized and brecciated at varying degrees (Figure 5b). The shear zones with extensive brecciation and alterations were investigated by AMDER, India, based on sub-surface drill holes (Figure 5c). The host rocks are weakly to moderately and highly altered (albitized; Figure 6a,b). Weakly to moderately altered rocks have mostly retained parent metamorphic minerals, color, and texture (Figure 6a,b). The albitized rocks are red to grey, extensively altered, and rarely retain portions of parent minerals/schistosity, as observed in the megascopic samples (Figure 6c,d). Generally, two to three metasomatic alteration stages are found in this type of U deposits [38]. The uranium, sulfide, and oxide mineralization is broadly confined to the sheared and albitized rocks in the NDFB [29].

3. Common Characteristics of Na-Metasomatic U Mineralization

Na-metasomatic U deposits are mainly shear-hosted, and the host rocks have experienced extensive hydrothermal alterations [10,18,24]. Table 2 provides information on the host rocks, tonnage, age of host rocks, and uranium ore, as well as U grade for globally renowned Na-metasomatic U deposits. U bearing minerals within these deposits are found in lenses, veins/disseminations, and closely associated with albitized rocks resulting from Na-metasomatic alterations [7,10]. Most of these deposits formed during the Proterozoic Eon (2.05 Ga), whereas few developed during the Paleozoic Era (450 Ma), such as the Longshoushan (China) and Coles Hill (USA) [30,46]. The age of host rocks and U mineralization are chronologically given in Figure 7. Ukrainian U deposits contain the highest resources [10,22], followed by Brazil [40,47], USA [46], Canada [22], Australia [26], Cameroon [39], Guyana [14], India [48], China [30], and Africa [24]. The grade of these U deposits varies from 0.06 to 0.5% of U3O8.
Table 2. The type and age of host rocks, tonnage, and the age/grade of Na-metasomatic U occurrences.
Table 2. The type and age of host rocks, tonnage, and the age/grade of Na-metasomatic U occurrences.
Deposit NameHost Rocks Tonnage
(t U3O8)		Age of Host RocksAge of U MineralizationGrade (%) Reference
Longshoushan (China)Granitoid, granite, and metamorphic 1000~485 Ma435.9 ± 3.3 Ma0.03–0.1[30]
Aricheng (Guyana)Granodiorite19,000–50,0002.07–2.10 Ga~1995 ± 15 Ma0.5[27,28]
Valhalla (Australia)Metasediment and mafic volcanic 38,5931.78 Ga~1.5 Ga0.07[26]
Novokostantynivka, Kirovograd,
Kryvy Rig
(Ukraine)		Granitoid, metasediment, and migmatite~327,6702.0–2.05 Ga1.8–1.7 Ga0.14[10]
Poli (Cameroon) Granitoids 25,000550–530 Ma437 Ma0.1[39]
Lagoa Real,
Espinharas
(Brazil)		Granite-gneiss 100,0001.4–1.5 Ga and 500 Ma956 ± 59 Ma0.3[28]
Chad (Africa)Granites, diorite, tonalite, and granodiorite3190737–638 Ma599 ± 4 Ma 0.02[24]
Labrador
(Canada)		Metasediment/metavolcanic46,810 ~2.01 Ga1.8–1.6 Ga0.08[49,50]
Coles Hill, Virginia (USA)Tonalite to granite and amphibolite 59,742480–450 Ma250 and 200 Ma0.06[46]
NDFB
(Rajasthan, India)		Quartzite, quartz biotite schist, and amphibolite~11,4791.72 Ga830 Ma0.07[45,48,51]

3.1. Structures

U mineralization is often found adjacent to deep-penetrating faults extending over 100 km at the surface, marked by granite/pegmatite intrusion, cataclasis, and mylonitization [10]. The host rocks of these deposits experienced two to three stages of deformation, namely ductile, ductile–brittle, and brittle, as observed in Ukraine, Chad (Africa), Valhalla (Australia), Poli (Cameroon), Longshoushan (China), and NDFB (India) [10,24,26,29,30,39,48]. Ductile deformation is represented by mineral lineation, micro folds, lens-shaped feldspar, mylonitic bands, undulose extinction, deformation bands, chessboard texture, and serrated grain boundaries of quartz/feldspar (Figure 8a,b). Brittle deformation zones are represented by breccias and fractures extending up to hundreds of meters.
Extensive high-temperature (≥500 °C; ~12 km) sodic alterations (with albite, riebeckite, and aegirine mineral phases) are common in ductile shear zones and can be correlated to the first metasomatic stage [52]. The temperature of hydrothermal fluids increases during infiltration along deep-seated shear zones. Hence, the high temperature and high saline fluid were responsible for the dequartzification in the early metasomatic alteration stage [10,24,52]. U-bearing minerals are less abundant at high-temperature alteration zones, which form during ductile deformation. However, U mineralization mostly developed in low-temperature (≤280 °C) conditions during brittle deformations and is associated with fractures and brecciated zones (~1–5 km) [10,24,26,30]. These deformed zones allowed late-stage hydrothermal fluids to flow, causing a second stage of metasomatic changes resulting in the formation of U-bearing minerals. Uranium is found to be concentrated where ductile deformation is overprinted by late brittle deformation [10,24,39].
The mineral U–ferropseudobrookite (Fe[Ti,U4+]2O5) found in the Ukranian deposits formed in the early metasomatic stage due to the replacement of pre-existing mineral ferropseudobrookite (FeTi2O5), and minerals such as uraninite and brannerite were coeval in the later metasomatic stages during brittle deformation [10]. In the case of Chad deposits, uraninite and brannerite formed initially during the ductile–brittle shear regime but later altered to uranophane during brittle deformation [24]. These facts indicate that mineral associations found in ore zones vary significantly and appear to be controlled by the structural regime [10,24,39]. The literature reviews related to Na-metasomatic U occurrences strongly indicate that the U-bearing and sulfide–oxide ore minerals occur in vugs, veinlets, stockworks, and lenses, which are developed during brittle deformation (Figure 8c–e) [9,10,30,41].

3.2. Mineralogy and Alteration Products

The host rocks of Na-metasomatic U deposits (granite) are composed of oligoclase, biotite, microcline, quartz, epidote, hastingsite, zircon, apatite, monazite, ilmenite, and magnetite (Table 3) [10,24,39,46]. In contrast, the metasedimentary host rocks consist of quartz, annite, almandine, muscovite, anorthite, ferro–hornblende/magnesio–hornblende, bytownite, staurolite, corundum, and ilmenite [29,38,48]. Most of these deposits exhibit two/three prominent metasomatic and late hydrothermal alteration stages (Table 3). The first stage is predominantly marked by the replacement of pre-existing parent minerals by late-formed (metasomatic) minerals in the rocks. The presence of albite-1, amphibole-1, chlorite-1, calcite-1, biotite-1, titanite-1, and sericite in the metasomatized rocks indicates a first stage of metasomatism (termed as Na-K/Na-1/Na-metasomatite and early). The second stage (known as Na-Ca-Mg/main ore/Na-2/U mineralization) is related to the main mineralization stage and characterized by the development of mineral phases such as albite-2, riebeckite, amphibole-2 (actinolite), chlorite-2, calcite-2, titanite-2, apatite, and uranium–sulfide–oxide ore minerals (Figure 8c–f) [10,24,39]. Few workers have documented K-metasomatism after the main (second) stage of mineralization [10,38]. Albitized granite is usually associated with dequartzification caused by the strongly alkaline and high-temperature hydrothermal fluids, although Rout et al. [38] reported more silicification rather than dequartzification in albitized metasediments of the NDFB (India) [10,24,38,39].
The most common metasomatic minerals (albite, chlorite, calcite, actinolite, apatite) are found in all Na-metasomatic U deposits (Table 3). Uraninite, brannerite, and davidite are frequently accompanied by secondary U mineral species (coffinite, U-Zr-Si phases, U-Ti phases) and are closely associated with pyrite, galena, pyrrhotite, molybdenite, rutile, titanite, and zircon. U mineralization is mainly confined to the intensely altered zones that are associated with albite-, chlorite-, riebeckite-, apatite-, rutile-, and titanite-bearing rocks. It is interesting to note that the first metasomatic stage developed during a ductile shear regime (≥500 °C), whereas the second metasomatic stage and later are related to fracturing and brecciation at a lower temperature (~280 °C) during brittle deformation as reported in Ukrainian, Chad (Africa), Longshoushan (China), and NDFB (India) deposits [10,29,48,53].

3.3. Geochemistry of Metasomatized Rocks

Hydrothermal alteration leads to the enrichment or depletion of major elements in rocks associated with U mineralization. Trace elements are less mobile during the alteration process and may be used as indicators of the changes that happened [54]. Under hydrothermal conditions, Mg, Ca, Na, K, and certain large ion lithophile elements (LILEs) like Sr, Ba, and Rb exhibit mobility [55]. However, some rare-earth elements (REEs), high-field strength elements (HFSEs; Hf, Zr, Ti, Nb, and Ta), and transition elements (Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni) exhibit a tendency towards immobility, even during intense hydrothermal alteration [56]. Although many rocks altered by Na-metasomatism have more U than their protoliths, only a few areas with this type of alteration actually have U deposits.
The trends of enrichment, less mobile, and depletion of major, trace, and rare-earth elements are given in Figure 9 and Figure 10. A summary of the geochemical characteristics of altered rocks of different Na-metasomatic U deposits is presented in Table 4. Vanadium enrichment and Zr mobility are found to be common in Na-metasomatic hosted U deposits [10,26,28,48,51,57]. These altered rocks also exhibit depletions in Si, K, Ba, and Rb relative to the host rocks and enrichments in Na, Ca, U, Zr, P, V, Y, and Sr. Interestingly, the mobility of REEs has been reported for these U deposits [10] that led to the enrichment of LREEs as compared to HREEs. It has also been observed that the U enrichment is positively correlated with Na, Mo, Cu, Sr, and HFSEs (Zr, Nb, Hf, LREEs, Th, U, Ta) in these deposits (Table 4).
Table 4. A summary of geochemical characteristics of different Na-metasomatic U occurrences.
Table 4. A summary of geochemical characteristics of different Na-metasomatic U occurrences.
Deposit NameGeochemical AnalysesReference
DepletionLess Mobile Enrichment
Longshoushan (China)Si, K, Rb, Ba, TaMn, Ti, Ga, Zr, Hf, Al, NbNa, Ca Mg P, LOI, Fe, Gd,
Yb, Mo, Pb, Th, U, Y, Sr,
LREE		[30]
Aricheng (Guyana)K, Ti, Rb, Ba, SrFe, Mg, NbNa, Al, P, Ca, U, Hf, Zr,
Mn, Cu, Pb, Y, V, Th, Mo		[27,28]
Valhalla (Australia)K, Si, Rb, Ba, Fe, ZrAl, Ti, NbNa, U, V, P, Sr, Y, Ca, Mg, Mo, Hf, Pb, Th, LOI[26]
Novokostantynivka, Kirovograd and Kryvy
Rig (Ukraine)		Si, Zr, Fe, K, Ba, SrAl, Ti, Nb, TaNa, U, Hf, P, U, V, Mg, Ca, Rb, Mo, Y, Th[10]
Poli (Cameroon)K, Rb, Nb, Ba, Si V, TaTi, Al, Mg, Pb, Zn, Ga, Hf,
Sr, Fe, Al, P, Zr, U, Na, Ga, LREE, Ca, Zr, Th, LOI 		[58]
Lagoa Real,
Espinharas (Brazil)		Si, K, Rb, Ba, Ca, MoAl, Ga, Ti, P, PbNa, Fe, Sr, Pb, V, U, Zr, Hf, Nb, Ta, Mg, LOI, Y, Th,
LREE 		[57]
Coles Hill, Virginia
(USA)		K, Rb, Ba, Mg, Fe, Al,
Ca		AbsentNa, P, Si, Sr, Zr, Ti, U, Th,
Ti, S		[46]
NDFB
(Rajasthan, India)		Si, K, Sr, Hf, BaAl, Pb, Fe, Zr, GaNa, LREE, Y, Mo, Th, Rb,
V, Cr, Ni, U		[45,48,51]

3.4. Inferences from Fluid Inclusions

Fluid inclusion studies have revealed a range of homogenization temperatures (TH), salinity, and estimated pressure of different U deposits (Table 5). Fluid inclusions in quartz, calcite, albite, and apatite minerals associated with albitized rocks from these deposits were studied. Emphasis was given to fluid inclusions trapped in calcite-2 grains as they are closely associated with uraninite in the albitized rocks [10,30]. The transparent minerals in the mineralized zones of these deposits have aqueous inclusions, exhibit a range of temperature of homogenization (70–350 °C), salinity (~1 to 20.8 wt% NaCl eq.), and trapping pressure of ~0.5 to 2.5 kbar [10,27,30,46].
The presence of abundant carbonate minerals (calcite) during metasomatism and mineralization indicates significant CO2 activity, but fluid inclusion petrography does not support CO2-bearing phases in calcite associated with U precipitation from Lagoa Real, Longshoushan, and Ukraine [10,22,30]. The reported pressure and temperature conditions of mineralization vary from ~0.5 to 2.5 kbar and 70 to 350 °C, respectively, using fluid inclusion microthermometry. These P-T conditions correspond to the epithermal–mesothermal range of U mineralization. It has been inferred that Na+, Fe2+, Mg2+, Cl−, CO2, H2O, F−-, B−-, and PO43−-rich hydrothermal fluids were involved during metasomatism and ore-forming processes.

3.5. Stable Isotopic Studies

The stable isotopic studies are useful for understanding the nature of the fluids responsible for Na-metasomatic U deposits, as depicted in Table 6. Many workers suggested that hydrothermal fluids originating from metamorphism, specifically water produced during dehydration reactions, were involved in the genesis of U deposits [22]. Carbon isotopic studies of Longshoushan (China) indicated that the source of fluid responsible for U mineralization was meteoric-derived [30]. Alexandre [28] reported that the source of ore-forming fluid in Aricheng (Guyana) deposits is magmatic-derived using oxygen isotopic studies of zircon grains associated with U mineralization. Cuney et al. [10] reported the hydrogen isotopic compositions of fluid inclusions extracted from albite associated with the U mineralization and inferred the role of meteoric/formation-dominated source of ore-forming fluids. Their work on carbon isotopic studies of calcite-2 indicated two sources of carbon: (i) marine-derived and (ii) organic. Oxygen isotopic studies of U silicate and gangue minerals in the case of Coles Hill (USA) U deposit point towards more meteoric/connate waters than magmatic/metamorphic fluids. Hence, it is approximated that the meteoric/formation water must have played a significant role in the genesis of many metasomatic U deposits.

4. Discussion

4.1. Albitization and U Mineralization

The Na-metasomatic U deposits are associated with albitized rocks and are controlled by regional structural deformations that are marked by mylonitization, cataclasis, and brecciation. Albitization increases the permeability/porosity during alteration and development of cavities [10,59]. The widespread occurrence of albitization indicates the reactivation of faults/lineaments that act as pathways for the migration of voluminous amounts of albitizing fluids [10,24,60]. Regional albitization was common during ductile deformation (450–500 °C) and the introduction of U near the brittle–ductile transition (≤250 °C) [10,24]. The structural features of Ukraine, Chad (Africa), Lagoa Real (Brazil), NDFB (India), and other U deposits show that the brittle shear regime was responsible for the localization of uranium. However, the location of U deposits is more precisely controlled by the intersection of two or more tectonic structures, such as mylonitic, brecciated, and fractured zones [10,24]. Hence, these structures acted as physical traps to facilitate the deposition of U minerals during fluid–rock interaction. The mineral phases developed during alteration (albite, calcite, chlorite, actinolite, magnetite, hematite, hydrothermal zircon, apatite) show a remarkable similarity in most of these U deposits. Moreover, the formation of albite and carbonate minerals, particularly during the second metasomatic stage (Na-Ca-Mg), is a striking feature of Na-metasomatic U deposits. It has been reported that the Na-metasomatic stage preceded the main mineralization stage in many Na-metasomatic U deposits (Table 3) [38,45,48].

4.2. Metasomatism and Mineralizing Fluids

Most of the Na-metasomatic U deposits hosted by granitic/felsic volcanic and metasedimentary rocks are enriched in high U, Th, and K [10,28,30,44]. Geochemical analyses indicate a major loss in SiO2 and near complete removal of K2O/CaO from host rocks during metasomatism. A good correlation has been found between U and HFSEs (REE, Nb, Hf, Ta) in the metasomatized rocks. The depletion of Si, K, Ba, and Rb in the host rocks and the addition of Na in the albitized rocks reflect dequartzification followed by Na-metasomatism in Ukraine, Chad (Africa), and Longshoushan (China) U deposits. During the first two stages of the metasomatic alteration, the enrichment of Na, Ca, Mg, Fe, Sr, and LOI, together with U, Mo, Pb, Zn, Co, Ni, Zr, and Hf, accounted for the formation of andradite, chlorite, calcite, biotite, actinolite, uraninite, galena, and hydrothermal zircon in the albitized rocks. These major additions and depletion of elements are mainly observed in the intensely altered (albitized) rocks. The albitized rocks, resulting from the replacement of CaO by Na2O, exhibit notable Ca depletion due to the mobilization of Ca from the host rock and the formation of secondary calcite within the albitized rocks. On the other hand, Cu, Fe, and Mo enrichment in albitized rocks is responsible for the formation of sulfide minerals such as pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, and molybdenite. The development of these sulfide minerals confirms the significant concentration of metals (Cu, Fe, Mo, and U) in the sulfur-rich mineralizing fluids.
The abundance of aqueous fluid inclusion and the absence of carbonic phases in calcite-2 suggest that the hydrothermal fluids were mainly water-bearing and devoid of non-aqueous components (CO2-CH4-N2) [30]. The fluid inclusion and isotopic studies point towards low-moderate saline (~5 wt% NaCl eq.), and a meteoric/formation water-dominated hydrothermal fluid was responsible for the genesis of these Na-metasomatic U deposits. This type of U deposit must have formed under different temperatures, pressure, and depth. The reported P-T conditions of U mineralization vary from <1 to 2.5 kbar and 70 to 350 °C, respectively [10,26,30]. These P-T conditions correspond to the epithermal-mesothermal range of U mineralization. The microthermometry and isotopic studies corroborate the involvement of Na+, Fe2+, Mg2+, Cl−, CO2, H2O F−, B−, and PO43− rich hydrothermal fluids during metasomatism and ore-forming processes [26,30,46]. Based on the above facts, it appears that the mineralizing fluids were similar in most of the Na-metasomatic U deposits.

4.3. Dissolution, Transportation, and Deposition of Uranium

U dissolves in the oxidizing fluid as a U6+ ion, and these fluids scavenge U from the host rocks [18,59,61]. The solubility of U (~1000 ppm) in the hydrothermal fluids is more likely in the form of aqueous chloride-fluoride complexes within the temperature range of 25 °C to 300 °C [59,62,63]. The U complexes are controlled by the activity of ligands like F−, Cl−, CO32+, PO42−, and SO42−. U can form complexes with hydroxide even at a higher temperature (>300 °C) over a wide pH range, although phosphate and fluoride complexes predominate at s~200 °C in near-neutral pH solutions. The predominance of U carbonate complexes is less significant above 150 °C, whereas U forms weak complexes with chloride and sulfate ligands [64]. Shear zones act as significant pathways for fluid movement during ductile to brittle shear regimes [65,66]. The circulation of heated hydrothermal fluids with dissolved metal complexes continuously interacts with wall rocks, causing widespread metasomatic alteration. These fluids interact with the rocks, scavenge uranium, and lead to the enrichment of mineralizing fluid. This U-rich fluid can mix with magmatic and meteoric-derived fluids. U precipitation from aqueous fluids is governed by changes in redox state, temperature, pH, and ligand composition/concentration [67]. Hexavalent U6+-bearing uranyl complexes dominate in oxidizing fluids, requiring reductants for the deposition of tetravalent (U4+) U-bearing minerals (uraninite) [68]. There are reports that fluid–rock interaction and mixing of fluids led to the formation of Na-metasomatic U deposits and associated ore minerals (pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, molybdenite) [10,41].

4.4. Genetic Model

A generalized genetic model for Na-metasomatic U deposits has been proposed here based on a review of their geological setting, geochemical characteristics, fluid inclusions, and isotope composition (Figure 11). It provides a genetic link between deformation, magmatism, fluid circulation, metasomatism, and U mineralization, focusing on the sources of U, Na, and hydrothermal fluids involved in the evolution of U deposits [10,24,46]. These U deposits are hosted within granite and metamorphosed volcano-sedimentary rocks (Figure 11). Granite and felsic volcanic host rocks are rich in uranium, thorium, and potassium in Novoukrainska and Kirovograd (Ukraine), Valhalla (Australia), Michelin (Brazil), Coles Hill (USA), and Longshoushan (China) U deposits. Furthermore, it has been proposed that uranium was part of the hydrothermal fluid (meteoric/metamorphic/magmatic etc.) in the deposits associated with metasediments in the case of Kryvy Rig (Ukraine), Aricheng (Guyana), and the NDFB (India; Figure 11) [10,28,30]. The hydrothermal fluids released during metamorphic devolatilization have greater potential to leach uranium from the source rocks and can be transported through regional faults [10,30,34]. The deeper circulation of connate or meteoric water through deep basement rocks and enrichment of uranium in these fluids has also been reported for Ukrainian and Longshoushan U deposits [10,30]. The probable source of Na and U in most of the Na-metasomatic U deposits is attributed to convective fluids associated with post-collisional magmatic events. The hydrothermal fluids were also surface-derived, leached uranium from host rocks, and then moved into the deep crust along major faults (Figure 11). Oxygen isotopic studies support a significant magmatic or syn-metamorphic fluid, meteoric or connate water, or mixtures of these water components involved in the mineralizing fluid [8,10,22,30].
The emplacement of granitic bodies along major crustal-scale faults is common in these types of U deposits. The repeated cycles of fluid activity along the deformed zones, circulation of heated alkaline fluids along the fault zones with dissolved uranium complexes, and continuous interaction of fluids with wall rocks caused the widespread metasomatic alteration (Figure 11) [67]. It is commonly reported that the development of the first (Na-Ca) metasomatic stage coeval with ductile deformation (≥500 °C) and is followed by the second (Na-Ca-Mg) stage during brittle shear regime (≤280 °C). The Na was introduced in the early stages, while Ca, Mg, and U were added in the later stages, and depletion of Si, K, Ba, and Rb in the host rocks occurred during fluid–rock interactions (Figure 11). Hence, processes such as fluid–rock interaction, mixing of fluids, and changes in Eh-pH conditions facilitated the reduction in U6+ to U4+ and destabilized uranium complexes to precipitate as mineral phases in intensely altered zones (Figure 11) [10,30,41,59].

4.5. Comparison of Indian and Other Na-Metasomatic U Deposits

The age of host rocks of the NDFB is similar to Aricheng (Guyana), Valhalla (Australia), Kirovograd, Kryvy Rig (Ukraine), Poli (Cameroon), and Lagoa Real (Brazil) but different from Longshoushan (China) and Coles Hill (USA). The mineralogy of host rocks of Valhalla (Australia), Labrador (Canada), and Ukraine are comparable to the NDFB (India). The U deposits of the NDFB are also structurally controlled and ductile–brittle sheared [29,38,48] and are comparable with other worldwide deposits [10,24,30,37,39,49]. The mineral assemblage and stages of metasomatism–mineralization of the NDFB (India) deposits are found to be similar to Ukraine, Valhalla, Lagoa Real, Poli, Kurupung, and Longshoushan (Table 3). The depletion of Si and K and enrichment of Na2O, K2O, LREEs, Zr, Mo, Rb, V, Cr, Ni, and U of the NDFB (India) deposits are comparable with other Na-metasomatic U deposits (Table 4). It has been observed that the ages reported for Longshoushan (China) and Coles Hill (USA) are different, but the geological processes responsible for uranium formation remain consistent with the NDFB deposits of India.

5. Conclusions

This article is an outcome of a review of the world’s significant and economically viable Na-metasomatic U occurrences, with reference to their structures, host rock mineralogy, metasomatic alteration stages, geochemical characteristics of metasomatized rocks, evidence from fluid inclusions, and composition of the stable isotope. The following are the salient conclusions:
  • These deposits are characterized by medium tonnage, low-grade ores, different host rocks (granite/tonalite/metavolcanic sediments), and ages ranging from 2.05 Ga to 450 Ma.
  • These deposits experienced two or more episodes of deformation and exhibit two/three prominent metasomatic- and late hydrothermal stages. The second metasomatic stage was responsible for the U mineralization in intensely altered zones.
  • The metasomatized rocks exhibit depletion in Si, K, Ba, and Rb and enrichment in Na, Ca, U, Zr, P, V, Y, and Sr. U enrichment is positively correlated with Na, Mo, Cu, Y, Sc, and Sr.
  • The hydrothermal fluid involved in these types of U deposits is rich in Na+, Fe2+, Mg2+, Cl−, CO2, H2O, F−, B−, and PO43−. These deposits show variations in pressure–temperature around 0.50 to 2.5 and 70–350 °C, respectively.
  • U-precipitation in aqueous fluids is due to changes in physicochemical conditions during fluid–rock interaction and mixing of fluids.
  • The deformation features, alteration assemblages, nature of the ore-forming fluid, and geochemical characteristics of the NDFB are similar to other Na-metasomatic U deposits (Guyana, Australia, Ukraine, Cameroon, Brazil, China, and the USA).

Author Contributions

P.M.: Methodology, Conceptualization, Visualization, Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis, and Writing—original draft. M.S.: Conceptualization and Writing—review and editing. R.K.: Project Administration, Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, and Writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Financial support was provided by the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (BRNS) of the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Mumbai funded this project (No.36(5)/14/31/2017-BRNS/36205) to R. Krishnamurthi. PM acknowledges the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India) for financial support through a Research Fellowship.

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the supporting findings of the work are available within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research, India, for allowing us to work on the samples collected as a part of the project (Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences, India) sanctioned to R. Krishnamurthi. PM acknowledges the Department of Earth Sciences, IIT Roorkee, for providing the infrastructure to conduct the present work. We acknowledge Sreejita Chatterjee for her help during fieldwork.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bruneton, P.; Cuney, M. Geology of Uranium Deposits. In Uranium for Nuclear Power; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; ISBN 9780081003077. [Google Scholar]
  2. Taylor, S.R.; McLennan, S.M. The Continental Crust: Its Composition and Evolution; Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UK, 1985; ISBN 0-632-01148-3. [Google Scholar]
  3. Smedley, P.L.; Kinniburgh, D.G. Uranium in natural waters and the environment: Distribution, speciation and impact. Appl. Geochemistry 2023, 148, 105534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bowell, R.J.; Grogan, J.; Hutton-Ashkenny, M.; Brough, C.; Penman, K.; Sapsford, D.J. Geometallurgy of uranium deposits. Miner. Eng. 2011, 24, 1305–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pérez, I.; Casas, I.; Martín, M.; Bruno, J. The thermodynamics and kinetics of uranophane dissolution in bicarbonate test solutions. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2000, 64, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Porcelli, D.; Swarzenski, P.W. The behavior of U- and Th-series nuclides in groundwater. Uranium-Ser. Geochem. 2003, 52, 317–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dahlkamp, F.J. Part I: Typology of Uranium Deposits. In Uranium Deposits of the World; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; ISBN 3540785574. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cuney, M.; Kyser, K. Recent and Not-So-Recent Developments in Uranium Deposits and Implications for Exploration; Mineralogical Association of Canada: Québec, QC, Canada, 2008; Volume 39, p. 259. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuney, M. The extreme diversity of uranium deposits. Miner. Depos. 2009, 44, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cuney, M.; Emetz, A.; Mercadier, J.; Mykchaylov, V.; Shunko, V.; Yuslenko, A. Uranium deposits associated with Na-metasomatism from central Ukraine: A review of some of the major deposits and genetic constraints. Ore Geol. Rev. 2012, 44, 82–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pownceby, M.I.; Johnson, C. Geometallurgy of Australian uranium deposits. Ore Geol. Rev. 2014, 56, 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Frondel, J.W.; Fleischer, M. A Contribution to the Geology of Uranium Glossary of Uranium- and Thorium-Bearing Minerals, 3rd ed.; US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1967.
  13. Finch, R.; Murakami, T. Systematics and paragenesis of uranium minerals. In Uranium: Mineralogy, Geochemistry, and the Environment; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 91–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. OECD/IAEA. Uranium 2022: Resources, Production and Demand; Nuclear Energy Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency, OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2023; pp. 12–13. [Google Scholar]
  15. Burns, P.C. 2. The Crystal Chemistry of Uranium. In Mineralogy, Geochemistry, and the Environment; Burns, P.C., Finch, R.J., Eds.; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; Boston, MA, USA, 1999; pp. 23–90. ISBN 9781501509193. [Google Scholar]
  16. Zhang, M.; Zhong, R.; Yu, C.; Cui, H. The Immobility of Uranium (U) in Metamorphic Fluids Explained by the Predominance of Aqueous U(IV). Minerals 2023, 13, 427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dahlkamp, F.J. Classification of uranium deposits. Miner. Depos. 1978, 13, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dahlkamp, F.J. Principal aspects of the genesis of uranium deposits. In Uranium Ore Deposits; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1993; pp. 41–56. ISBN 978-3-540-53264-4. [Google Scholar]
  19. IAEA. World of Uranium Deposit; International Atomic Energy Agency: Vienna, Austria, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  20. World Nuclear Association. The Nuclear Fuel Report: Expanded Summary; World Nuclear Association: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  21. IAEA. Descriptive Uranium Deposit and Mineral System Models; IAEA Publishing Section: Vienna, Austria, 2020; 313p. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wilde, A. Shear-hosted uranium deposits: A review. Minerals 2020, 10, 954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dahlkamp, F.J. Uranium Deposits of the World: USA and Latin America; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; ISBN 3540785558. [Google Scholar]
  24. Vanderhaeghe, O.; André-Mayer, A.-S.; Diondoh, M.; Aurélien, E.; Maryse, O.; Moussa, I.; Michel, C.; Marc, P.; Marieke, V.L. Uranium mineralization associated with late magmatic ductile to brittle deformation and Na–Ca metasomatism of the Pan-African A-type Zabili syntectonic pluton (Mayo-Kebbi massif, SW Chad). Miner. Depos. 2020, 56, 1297–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Porto da Silveira, C.L.; Schorscher, H.D.; Miekeley, N. The geochemistry of albitization and related uranium mineralization, Espinharas, Paraiba (PB), Brazil. J. Geochem. Explor. 1991, 40, 329–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Polito, P.A.; Kyser, T.K.; Stanley, C. The Proterozoic, albitite-hosted, Valhalla uranium deposit, Queensland, Australia: A description of the alteration assemblage associated with uranium mineralisation in diamond drill hole V39. Miner. Depos. 2009, 44, 11–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cinelu, S.; Cuney, M. Sodic metasomatism and U Zr mineralization: A model based on the Kurupung batholith (Guyana). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta Suppl. 2006, 70, A103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alexandre, P. Mineralogy and geochemistry of the sodium metasomatism-related uranium occurrence of Aricheng South, Guyana. Miner. Depos. 2010, 45, 351–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mishra, P.; Krishnamurthi, R.; Bisht, B.S.; Sinha, D.K. Mineralogical Studies of Metasomatized Host Rocks of Jahaz Uranium Prospect, North Delhi Fold Belt, Rajasthan. J. Geol. Soc. India 2022, 98, 1068–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhong, J.; Wang, S.-Y.; Gu, D.-Z.; Cai, Y.-Q.; Fan, H.-H.; Shi, C.-H.; Hu, C.-N. Geology and fluid geochemistry of the Na-metasomatism U deposits in the Longshoushan uranium metallogenic belt, NW China: Constraints on the ore-forming process. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 116, 103214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dhana Raju, R. Indian Uranium Deposits; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2019; ISBN 9781527540460. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sarangi, A.K. Uranium Resources and Production: Global Availability and Indian Scenario. J. Geol. Soc. India 2022, 98, 877–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Khandelwal, M.K.; Jain, R.C.; Dash, S.K.; Padhi, A.K.; Nanda, L.K. Geological characteristics and ore body modeling of Rohil uranium deposit, District Sikar, Rajasthan. Mem. Geol. Soc. Ind 2010, 76, 75–85. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilde, A. Towards a Model for Albitite-Type Uranium. Minerals 2013, 3, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Veríssimo, C.U.V.; Santos, R.V.; Parente, C.V.; De Oliveira, C.G.; Cavalcanti, J.A.D.; Neto, J.d.A.N. The Itataia phosphate-uranium deposit (Ceará, Brazil) new petrographic, geochemistry and isotope studies. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2016, 70, 115–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Abd El-Naby, H.H.; Dawood, Y.H. Natural attenuation of uranium and formation of autunite at the expense of apatite within an oxidizing environment, south Eastern Desert of Egypt. Appl. Geochem. 2008, 23, 3741–3755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Andreeva, O.V.; Golovin, V.A.; Petrov, V.A. Wall-rock argillic alteration and uranium mineralization of the northwestern Strel’tsovka caldera. Geol. Ore Depos. 2010, 52, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rout, D.; Krishnamurthi, R.; Sinha, D.K. Mineralogy and paragenesis of the Meso-Proterozoic Rohil uranium deposit, North Delhi Fold Belt, Rajasthan, India. Ore Geol. Rev. 2022, 151, 105204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kouske, A.P.; Gerard, M.; Etame, J.; Kanouo, N.S.; Tchouatcha, M.S.; Ghogomu, T.R.; Cuney, M.; Cheo, S.E.; Ngako, V. Paragenesis, mineral chemical and microtextural studies of uranium bearing minerals in the brecciated albitites U-ores from the Kitongo shear zone, Poli region, northern Cameroon. Int. J. Earth Sci. 2022, 111, 1413–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lobato, L.M.; Pimentel, M.M.; Cruz, S.C.P.; Machado, N.; Noce, C.M.; Alkmim, F.F. U-Pb geochronology of the Lagoa Real uranium district, Brazil: Implications for the age of the uranium mineralization. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2015, 58, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cui, J.-Q.; Yang, S.-Y.; Jiang, S.-Y.; Wang, H.; Zhang, R.-X.; Tang, X.-S.; Yan, Y.-J. The role of uranyl complex decomposition and redox conditions in the precipitation of hydrothermal uranium deposits: Insights from chlorite mineralogy and geochemistry in the Shazhou uranium deposit, Xiangshan, SE China. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 2023, 136, 388–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yadav, O.P.; Saxena, S.K.; Pande, A.K.; Gupta, K.R. Sodic metasomatism-a feature of tectonomagmatic activation in Khetri sub-basin, Rajasthan, India. Geol. Surv. India Spec. Publ. 2004, 72, 301–312. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jain, R.B.; Yadav, O.P.; Rahman, M.; Fahmi, S.; Sharma, D.K.; Singh, G.; Thippeswamy, S. Petrography and geochemistry of the radioactive albitites and their genesis: Maonda area, north Rajasthan. J. Geol. Soc. India 1999, 53, 407–415. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yadav, O.P.; Nanda, L.K.; Jagadeesan, P.; Panigrahi, B. Concealed uranium mineralization in Hurra ki Dhani-Maota-Jahaz sector, North Delhi Fold Belt, Rajasthan, India-An exploration Strategy. Expl. Res. Atom. Min. 2010, 20, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jain, A.K.; Padhi, A.K.; Kumar, K.; Saxena, A.; Kothari, P.K.; Giridhar, G.V.; Purohit, R.K.; Nanda, L.K.; Rai, A.K. Geology, petrology and trace element geochemistry of uranium mineralisation of Jahaj area, Khetri sub-basin, Delhi Supergroup, Jhunjhun District, Rajasthan, India. Expl. Res. Atom. Min. 2016, 26, 91–103. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hall, S.M.; Beard, J.S.; Potter, C.J.; Bodnar, R.J.; Neymark, L.A.; Paces, J.B.; Johnson, C.A.; Breit, G.N.; Zielinksi, R.A.; Aylor, G.J. The Coles Hill Uranium Deposit, Virginia, USA: Geology, Geochemistry, Geochronology, and Genetic Model. Econ. Geol. 2022, 117, 273–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Turpin, L.; Maruejol, P.; Cuney, M. U-Pb, Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd chronology of granitic basement, hydrothermal albitites and uranium mineralization (Lagoa Real, South-Bahia, Brazil). Contrib. Miner. Pet. 1988, 98, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Padhi, A.K.; Mukherjee, M.K.; Tripathi, B.K.; Pande, D.; Bisht, B.S. Polymetallic Uranium Mineralisation in Rohil, Rajasthan, Western India: Insights from Mode of Occurrences, Structural Controls, Alteration Geochemistry and Exploration. Minerals 2023, 13, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sparkes, G.W.; Dunning, G.R.; Langille, A. The Michelin Deposit: An Example of Albitite-Hosted Uranium Mineralization within the Central Mineral Belt of Labrador. Gov. Nfld. Labrador Dep. Nat. Resour. Geol. Surv. Can. 2017, 17-1, 219–238. [Google Scholar]
  50. Duffett, C.L.; Potter, E.G.; Petts, D.C.; Acosta-Gongóra, P.; Cousens, B.L.; Sparkes, G.W. The evolution of metasomatic uranium ore systems in the Kitts-Post Hill belt of the Central Mineral Belt, Labrador, Canada. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 126, 103720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Roy, M.; Sunilkumar, T.S.; Kumar, S.; Bhairam, C.L.; Parihar, P.S. Ore mineralogy and mineral-chemistry of uranium mineralisation, and geochemistry of metasomatised calc-silicate rocks at Raghunathpura, Mahendragarh district, Haryana. J. Geol. Soc. India 2016, 87, 691–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lobato, L.M.; Fyfe, W.S. Metamorphism, metasomatism, and mineralization at Lagoa real, Bahia, Brazil. Econ. Geol. 1990, 85, 968–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stipp, M.; Stünitz, H.; Heilbronner, R.; Schmid, S.M. The eastern Tonale fault zone: A “natural laboratory” for crystal plastic deformation of quartz over a temperature range from 250 to 700 °C. J. Struct. Geol. 2002, 24, 1861–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. MacLean, W.H.; Barrett, T.J. Lithogeochemical techniques using immobile elements. J. Geochem. Explor. 1993, 48, 109–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Grant, J.A. Isocon analysis: A brief review of the method and applications. Phys. Chem. Earth 2005, 30, 997–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. MacLean, W.H.; Kranidiotis, P. Alteration: Phelps Dodge Massive Sulfide Deposit, Matagami, Quebec. Econ. Geol. 1987, 82, 1898–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Marques, C.; Cabral, A.R.; Rios, F.J. Whole-rock chemistry of the Gameleira I uranium deposit, Lagoa Real, Brazil. Geochemistry 2021, 81, 125677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kouske, A.P.; Suh, C.E.; Ghogomu, R.T.; Ngako, V. Na-Metasomatism and Uranium Mineralization during a Two-Stage Albitization at Kitongo, Northern Cameroon: Structural and Geochemical Evidence. Int. J. Geosci. 2012, 03, 258–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bastrakov, E.N.; Jaireth, S.; Mernagh, T.P. Solubility of Uranium in Hydrothermal Fluids at 25° to 300 °C: Implications for the Formation of Uranium Deposits; Geoscience Australia Record 2010/29; Geoscience Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2010; ISBN 9781921781278.
  60. Kaur, P.; Chaudhri, N.; Hofmann, A.W.; Raczek, I.; Okrusch, M.; Skora, S.; Baumgartner, L.P. Two-Stage, Extreme Albitization of A-type Granites from Rajasthan, NW India. J. Petrol. 2012, 53, 919–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Skirrow, R.G.; Jaireth, S.; Huston, D.L.; Bastrakov, E.N.; Schofield, A.; Van Der Wielen, S.E.; Barnicoat, A.C. Uranium Mineral Systems: Processes, Exploration Criteria and a New Deposit Framework. Geosci. Aust. Rec. 2009, 20, 44. [Google Scholar]
  62. Peiffert, C.; Nguyen-Trung, C.; Cuney, M. Uranium in granitic magmas: Part 2. Experimental determination of uranium solubility and fluid-melt partition coefficients in the uranium oxide-haplogranite-H2O-NaX (X = Cl, F) system at 770 °C, 2 kbar. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1996, 60, 1515–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zharikov, V.A.; Ivanov, I.P.; Omel’yanenko, B.I.; Red’kin, A.F.; Yudintsev, S.V. Experimental study of the solubility of uraninite in granitic melts and fluid solutions at high pressures and temperatures. Int. Geol. Rev. 1987, 29, 997–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Romberger, S.B. Transport and deposition of uranium in hydrothermal systems at temperatures up to 300 °C: Geological implications. In Uranium Geochemistry, Mineralogy, Geology, Exploration and Resources; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1984; pp. 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cox, S.F. Antitaxial crack-seal vein microstructures and their relationship to displacement paths. J. Struct. Geol. 1987, 9, 779–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Oliver, N.H.S. Linking of regional and local hydrothermal systems in the mid-crust by shearing and faulting. Tectonophysics 2001, 335, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xing, Y.; Mei, Y.; Etschmann, B.; Liu, W.; Brugger, J. Uranium Transport in F-Cl-Bearing Fluids and Hydrothermal Upgrading of U-Cu Ores in IOCG Deposits. Geofluids 2018, 2018, 6835346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhang, L.; Chen, Z.; Wang, F.; White, N.C.; Zhou, T. Release of uranium from uraninite in granites through alteration: Implications for the source of granite-related uranium ores. Econ. Geol. 2021, 116, 1115–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Geosciences 14 00304 g001
Figure 1. U resources of 15 types of U deposits as of 1 January 2021 (pie diagram generated from data given by OECD/IAEA, 2023 [14]).
Figure 1. U resources of 15 types of U deposits as of 1 January 2021 (pie diagram generated from data given by OECD/IAEA, 2023 [14]).
Geosciences 14 00304 g001
Geosciences 14 00304 g004
Figure 4. (a) U occurrences are shown in the outline map of India. The red circles represent the locations in various parts of India; (b) a geologic map of the “albitite line” showing selected U occurrences in parts of the Indian states Rajasthan and Haryana (modified after Mishra et al., 2022 [29]). The black dots represent the location of Na-metasomatic U deposits.
Figure 4. (a) U occurrences are shown in the outline map of India. The red circles represent the locations in various parts of India; (b) a geologic map of the “albitite line” showing selected U occurrences in parts of the Indian states Rajasthan and Haryana (modified after Mishra et al., 2022 [29]). The black dots represent the location of Na-metasomatic U deposits.
Geosciences 14 00304 g004
Geosciences 14 00304 g005
Figure 5. Field exposures of (a) quartzite hill of Jahaz U deposit. (b) Albitized and unalbitized amphibolite. (c) Geological sketch map of a cross-section showing the subsurface relationship between albitized rock and U mineralization of the Jahaz U deposit (modified after Jain et al., 2016 [45]). BH—borehole; GQBS—Garnetiferous quartz biotite schist.
Figure 5. Field exposures of (a) quartzite hill of Jahaz U deposit. (b) Albitized and unalbitized amphibolite. (c) Geological sketch map of a cross-section showing the subsurface relationship between albitized rock and U mineralization of the Jahaz U deposit (modified after Jain et al., 2016 [45]). BH—borehole; GQBS—Garnetiferous quartz biotite schist.
Geosciences 14 00304 g005
Geosciences 14 00304 g006
Figure 6. Megascopic samples of Jahaz U deposit (NDFB, India): (a) quartz biotite schist; (b) amphibolite; (c) albitized quartz biotite and remnant host rock; (d) albitized amphibolite and remnant host rock.
Figure 6. Megascopic samples of Jahaz U deposit (NDFB, India): (a) quartz biotite schist; (b) amphibolite; (c) albitized quartz biotite and remnant host rock; (d) albitized amphibolite and remnant host rock.
Geosciences 14 00304 g006
Geosciences 14 00304 g007
Figure 7. Histogram depicting the age of host rocks and U mineralization of renowned Na-metasomatic U occurrences (the source of data for histogram construction is given in Table 2).
Figure 7. Histogram depicting the age of host rocks and U mineralization of renowned Na-metasomatic U occurrences (the source of data for histogram construction is given in Table 2).
Geosciences 14 00304 g007
Geosciences 14 00304 g008
Figure 8. Photomicrographs of Jahaz U deposit (NDFB, India). (a) Mylonitized band observed in amphibolite. (b) Deformation bands in quartz. (c) Pyrrhotite in veins, along with quartz and calcite, under reflected light. (d) Pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, rutile, and titanite occur together in the albitized rock under reflected light. (e) The occurrence of pyrrhotite along the veinlets under reflected light. The green dashed lines indicate the veinlets. (f) Ilmenite altered into titanite in albitized rock (back-scattered electron image). Abbreviations: Ab—Albite, Ccp—Chalcopyrite, Chl—Chlorite, Ilm—Ilmenite, Po—Pyrrhotite, Py—Pyrite, Rt—Rutile and Ttn—titanite.
Figure 8. Photomicrographs of Jahaz U deposit (NDFB, India). (a) Mylonitized band observed in amphibolite. (b) Deformation bands in quartz. (c) Pyrrhotite in veins, along with quartz and calcite, under reflected light. (d) Pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, rutile, and titanite occur together in the albitized rock under reflected light. (e) The occurrence of pyrrhotite along the veinlets under reflected light. The green dashed lines indicate the veinlets. (f) Ilmenite altered into titanite in albitized rock (back-scattered electron image). Abbreviations: Ab—Albite, Ccp—Chalcopyrite, Chl—Chlorite, Ilm—Ilmenite, Po—Pyrrhotite, Py—Pyrite, Rt—Rutile and Ttn—titanite.
Geosciences 14 00304 g008
Geosciences 14 00304 g009
Figure 9. A schematic representation of the enrichment, less mobile, and depletion of major elements of well-known Na-metasomatic U occurrences. The enrichment is indicated by 50, depletion by −50, and less mobile by 10 on the x-axis. Each U deposit is represented by a different color.
Figure 9. A schematic representation of the enrichment, less mobile, and depletion of major elements of well-known Na-metasomatic U occurrences. The enrichment is indicated by 50, depletion by −50, and less mobile by 10 on the x-axis. Each U deposit is represented by a different color.
Geosciences 14 00304 g009
Geosciences 14 00304 g010
Figure 10. A schematic representation of the enrichment, less mobile, and depletions of trace elements and REE of renowned Na-metasomatic U occurrences. The enrichment is shown by 50, depletion by −50, and less mobile by 10 on the x-axis. Each U deposit is represented by different colors.
Figure 10. A schematic representation of the enrichment, less mobile, and depletions of trace elements and REE of renowned Na-metasomatic U occurrences. The enrichment is shown by 50, depletion by −50, and less mobile by 10 on the x-axis. Each U deposit is represented by different colors.
Geosciences 14 00304 g010
Geosciences 14 00304 g011
Figure 11. Generalized genetic model of Na-metasomatic uranium deposits (modified after Dahlkamp 2009 and Cuney et al., 2012 [7,10]).
Figure 11. Generalized genetic model of Na-metasomatic uranium deposits (modified after Dahlkamp 2009 and Cuney et al., 2012 [7,10]).
Geosciences 14 00304 g011
Table 1. IAEA classification scheme of U deposits [14].
Table 1. IAEA classification scheme of U deposits [14].
S.No.Type of DepositType Area Age of U-Ore (Ma)Deposit Subtype
1.Intrusive Rossing, (Namibia)~5001.1. Anatectic
1.2. Plutonic
2.Granite-relatedXiazhuang (China)~1300 2.1. Endogranitic
2.2. Perigranitic
3.Polymetallic breccia complex Olympic Dam (Australia)~1400–1300Not applicable
4.Volcanic-related Streltsovskoye (Russia)~125 to ~704.1. Structure-bound
4.2. Stratabound
4.3. Volcano-sedimentary
5.Metasomatite Kirovograd (Ukraine)~1800–1400 5.1. Na-metasomatite
5.2. K-metasomatite
5.3. Skarn
6.Metamorphite Forstau (Austria)
Jaduguda (India)		1600 6.1. Stratabound
6.2. Structure-bound
6.3. Marble-hosted
7.Proterozoic unconformityMcArthur River (Canada)
Lambapur and Chitrial (India)		13007.1. Unconformity-contact
7.2. Basement-hosted
7.3. Stratiform fracture
8. Collapse breccia pipeArizona (USA)260–200Not applicable
9.SandstoneColorado (USA)
Domisiat (India)		1329.1. Basal channel
9.2. Tabular
9.3. Roll-front
9.4. Tectonic-lithologic
9.5. Mafic dykes/sills
10.Quartz-pebble conglomerateElliot Lake (Canada) Witwatersrand (South Africa)~200010.1. U dominant
10.2. Au-dominant
11.SurficialHeinrich (Namibia)
Yeelerie (Australia)		<65 11.1. Peat bog
11.2. Fluvial valley
11.3. Lacustrine-playa
11.4. Pedogenic
12.Lignite-coalNorth Dakota (USA)17–11 12.1. Stratitorm
12.2. Fracture-controlled
13.Carbonate Tummalapalle (India)
Todilto District (USA)		1900–2000 13.1. Stratabond
13.2. Cataclastic
13.3. Palaeokarst
14.PhosphateMangyshlak (Kazakhstan)~59014.1 Organic phosphorite
14.2. Minerochemical phosphorite
14.3. Continental phosphate
15.Black shaleHaggan (Sweden)52515.1. Stratiform
15.2. Stockwork
Table 3. A summary of the mineralogical studies of Na-metasomatic U occurrences.
Table 3. A summary of the mineralogical studies of Na-metasomatic U occurrences.
Deposit NameMineralogy of Parent RocksMineralogy of Altered RocksMajor Ore MineralizationMetasomatic-Hydrothermal StagesReference
Longshoushan (China)K-feldspar, Pl, Bt, and Qz Ab, Chl, Ant, Cal, Ap, and QzPy, Ur, Hem, Mol, Ccp, REE mineral, and secondary uraniumNa, main U mineralization, post, and supergene mineralization[30]
Aricheng (Guyana)Qz, K-feldspar, Pl, Bt, Ms, and TtnAb, Ttn, Chl, Bt,
Ap, Cal, and Wo		Mag, Rt, Cof, Ur, Hem, Gn, Bn, and LmNa, chlorite, main ore, post-ore, oxidation[28]
Mount Isa, Valhalla (Australia)Ep, Act, Ab, Cal, Ttn, Chl, and Mag Chl, Cal, Ab, Do, Chl, Ap, and AntHem, Ur, Py, Ccp, and GnEarly, main, and late[26]
Novokostantynivka, Kirovograd,
Kryvy Rig
(Ukraine)		Alm, Zrn, Ap, Mnz, Olg, Bt, Mc, Qz, Mag, and Ilm Ab, Chl, Cal, Rbk, Aeg, Adr, and PhlRt, Py, Ttn, Hem, Cof, Ur, and BrNa, Ca-Mg, K, and late chlorite epidote[10]
Poli
(Cameroon)		Qz, K-feldspar, Pl, Amp, Bt, Mnz, Ttn,
Zrn, and Mag		Ab, Rbk, Aeg, Cal, and EpMag, Hem, Ur, Cof, U-Zr-Si phase, and U-Ti phaseNa-1, and Na-2[39]
Lagoa Real, Espinharas
(Brazil)		Mc, Pl, Qz, Amp, Ttn, Aln, and ApAb, Cal, Rbk, Chl, Ap, Xmt, and ChlPy, Hem, and CofEarly, and late[25,40,52]
Chad (Africa)Qz, Pl, Or, Bt, Hst,
Mag, Zrn, and Mnz		Ab, Ep, Cal, Ser,
Chl, Ap, and Rbk		Ur, Rt, Ttn, and BnNa, and Na-Ca[24]
Labrador (Canada)Amp, Pyx, and AdrAb, Amp, Pyx, Bt, Chl, and CalCcp, Py, Mol, Rt, Ur, Cof, REE, Mag, and HemAbsent[49,50]
Coles Hill, Virginia (USA)Pl, Mag, Ilm, Aln, Ccp, Zrn, Ms, Mnz, Qz, and
Ap		Ab, Chl, Rbk, Ser, Cal, Ap, Qz, and
clay 		Ilm, Py, Hem, Sp, Ur, and BnNa, U mineralization, and late-stage [46]
NDFB
(Rajasthan, India)		Qz, Ann, Ms, Hbl, An, Byt, Alm, St, Crn, and IlmAb, chl, Bt, Frgp,
Cal, Act, Ser, Ap, and Qz		Py, Ccp, Py, Ur, Rt,
Ttn, Mol, and Sp		Early Na, Na-Ca-Mg, and K[29,33,38]
Abbreviations: Ab—Albite, Act—Actinolite, Adr—Andradite, Aeg—aegirine, Alm—Almandine, Aln—Allanite, Amp—Amphibole, An—Anorthite, Ann—Annite, Ant—Anatase, Ap—Apatite, Bt—Biotite, Bn—Brannerite, Byt—Bytownite, Cal—Calcite, Chl—Chlorite, Cof—Coffinite, Crn—Corundum, Dol—Dolomite, Ep—Epidote, Frgp—Ferroparagasite, Gn—Galena, Hbl—Hornblende, Hem—Hematite, Hst—Hastingsite, Ilm—Ilmenite, Lm—Limonite, Mag—Magnetite, Mc—Microcline, Mnz—Monazite, Mol—Molybdenite, Ms—Muscovite, Olg—Oligoclase, O—Orthoclase, Phl—Phlogopite, Pl—plagioclase, Py—Pyrite, Pyx—Pyroxene, Rbk—Riebeckite, Ser—Sericite, Ttn—Sphene, St—Staurolite, Ttn—Titanite, Ur—Uraninite, Qz—Quartz, Wo—Wollastonite, Xmt—Xenotime, and Zrn—Zircon.
Table 5. P-T conditions, salinity, and composition of fluid inclusions of Na-metasomatic U occurrences.
Table 5. P-T conditions, salinity, and composition of fluid inclusions of Na-metasomatic U occurrences.
Deposit NameHost MineralHomogenization T (°C) Salinity
(wt% NaCl eqv.)		Trapping Pressure
(kbar)		Type and Composition of FluidReference
Longshoushan (China)Calcite70–288 0.7–11.51.6–2.5Aqueous;
Na+, Fe2+, Mg2+, Cl−, H2O		[30]
Aricheng (Guyana)Albite, carbonate50 to 350 Low salineAbsentAbsent[27]
Novokostantynivka (Ukraine)Calcite131 to 19814.3–20.8~0.50Aqueous;
NaCl, H2O		[10]
Coles Hill, Virginia (USA)Quartz, calcite, albite, apatite~200 AbsentAbsentAqueous; NaCl, H2O, P[46]
Table 6. A summary of isotopic compositions of different Na-metasomatic U occurrences.
Table 6. A summary of isotopic compositions of different Na-metasomatic U occurrences.
CountryDeposit NameStudied Mineralδ18O (SMOW)
‰		δD (SMOW)
‰		δ18O
(SMOW) ‰		δ13C (PDB)
‰		Source of FluidReference
O-H Isotopic ValuesC-O Isotopic Values
ChinaLongshoushanCalcite (Main ore)AbsentAbsent5.6 to 13.3−6.3 to −1.5Meteoric[30]
GuyanaArichengCalcite (Pre-ore)8.4 to 11.3AbsentAbsentAbsentMagmatic[28]
Chlorite (Pre-ore)5.3 to 5.8−40 to −46AbsentAbsent
Zircon (Main ore)AbsentAbsentAbsentAbsent
AustraliaValhallaCalcite (Main ore)8 to 9Absent10.6 to 12.8−2.8 to −0.7Magmatic[26]
UkraineNovokostantynivka Vatutinske
Michurinske
Severynka
Zhovta Richka		Albite (fluid inclusion)−3.1 to 0.7−180 to −38AbsentAbsentMeteoric/
formation		[10]
Calcite-2 (Main ore)AbsentAbsent8.1 to 26.0−13.5 to −0.4Marine and organic
USAColes Hill, VirginiaWhole-rock sample9.4 to 12.7AbsentAbsentAbsentMeteoric/
connate		[46]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mishra, P.; Sati, M.; Krishnamurthi, R. A Review on Uranium Mineralization Related to Na-Metasomatism: Indian and International Examples. Geosciences 2024, 14, 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14110304

AMA Style

Mishra P, Sati M, Krishnamurthi R. A Review on Uranium Mineralization Related to Na-Metasomatism: Indian and International Examples. Geosciences. 2024; 14(11):304. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14110304

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mishra, Priyanka, Manju Sati, and Rajagopal Krishnamurthi. 2024. "A Review on Uranium Mineralization Related to Na-Metasomatism: Indian and International Examples" Geosciences 14, no. 11: 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14110304

APA Style

Mishra, P., Sati, M., & Krishnamurthi, R. (2024). A Review on Uranium Mineralization Related to Na-Metasomatism: Indian and International Examples. Geosciences, 14(11), 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14110304

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop