4.6 Article

Amorphous carbonaceous material in Paleoproterozoic pillow lavas (Onega Basin, NW Russia): Origin, source and migration

期刊

LITHOS
卷 460-461, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lithos.2023.107373

关键词

Paleoproterozoic; Onega Basin; Pillow lava; Carbonaceous matter; Carbon isotopic composition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of amorphous carbonaceous material in mafic igneous rocks in the Onega Basin provides insights into the relationship between igneous and hydrocarbon systems in the Earth's interior. Through field and petrological studies, Raman spectroscopy, and carbon isotope analysis, it was determined that the carbonaceous material was likely of biogenic origin and may have originated from Paleoproterozoic oilfields.
The amorphous carbonaceous material (CM) in mafic igneous rocks is important for deciphering the relationships between igneous and hydrocarbon systems in Earth interior. Deciphering of CM in Precambrian rocks it is a challenge because of reworking by later superimposed events but could give insights into evolution of these systems in time. We report the results of combined field and petrological studies, Raman spectroscopy and carbon isotope analysis of well-preserved ca. 2.0 Ga pillow lavas in the Onega Basin, Karelian craton, Eastern Fennoscandian Shield. In these rocks CM is present in both pillow and inter-pillow areas as poorly ordered carbon. In the MORB-like basalts of the Zaonega Formation, CM occurs in post-magmatic veinlets formed via migration of hydrothermal fluids. In the OIB-type basalts of the Suissary Formation, CM is found in amygdales, inclusions in feldspar, and in devitrified volcanic glass indicating a CM deposition via a rapid cooling of C-rich magma. Despite morphological diversity carbon isotopic composition indicates a biogenic origin of CM in both the MORB- and OIB-like basalts. The most likely source was the Paleoproterozoic oilfield in the Zaonega Formation, commonly referred to as the Shunga event.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据