[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: AMPHIBIOUS MOSASAURS?
> Shale (mudstone or any other variant) is nothing more than an
> agglomeration of clay-sized particles of clay minerals (phyllosilicates).
> True, black shales are generally bear a certain percentage of organic
> residue. But only a very small amount (less than 1%) is required to turn
> shale black (see any petrology textbook authored by Harvey Blatt). A
> scheme of the Pierre Shale might look some like - 97% clay minerals, 1%
> silicate minerals, 1% calcareous nannofossils, and 1% organic hydrocarbon.
> Truly "organic-rich" shales are sometimes referred to as oil-shale,
> and contain perhaps 3-4% hydrocarbon.
> There is absolutely no evidence of which I am aware to support the
> notion of a kelp choked seaway.
> This is a reply I received from a friend deeply involved in seaway
>I hope it's informative. Dan Varner.
I've read that some black shales (eg Kimmeridge Clay Formation) are so
organic rich (up to 20%TOC in some places) due to terrigenic inputs and not
due to any kelp/seaweed. I believe this conclusion was reached by
correlating abundance of terrigenic palynomorphs with TOC.
In the case of the KCF I have only come across one (from the late 19th
century) reference to a plant fossil and that was an algae called _Caulerpa