Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Professor David ManningORCiD, Dr Geoffrey AbbottORCiD
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
D. G. Quirk writes: Ewbank et al. 1995 have shown that the presence of small amounts of hydrocarbons in north Derbyshire does not explain the genesis of the South Pennine Orefield. Previous workers in this and other Mississippi Valley-type orefields have often made the mistake of regarding the transport and deposition of lead-zinc-barite-fluorite ores within carbonate rocks as similar to the migration and trapping of hydrocarbons (e.g. Macqueen & Thompson 1978). However, hydrocarbons and orefluids are fundamentally different in (i) their physical properties (most notably density); and (ii) their mode of concentration (hydrocarbons are trapped whereas orebodies are deposited by through-flowing orefluid). It is therefore not surprising that there is little evidence either geochemically (e.g. Ewbank et al. 1995) or in the field (e.g. Quirk 1987a) to suggest that mineralization and hydrocarbon migration in the South Pennine Orefield are related, although orefluid and oil probably originated from the same source rock. However, Ewbank et al. 1995 state that there is no evidence of petroleum migration into the South Pennine Orefield after mineralization. Nevertheless, they fail to explain why nearly all of the bitumen found associated with ore deposits in this area occurs on the surface of the latest minerals and clearly post-date them (Quirk 1987a).
Author(s): Ewbank G, Manning DAC, Abbott GD
Publication type: Editorial
Publication status: Published
Journal: Journal of The Geological Society
Year: 1996
Volume: 153
Issue: 4
Pages: 654-656
Print publication date: 01/07/1996
ISSN (print): 0016-7649
ISSN (electronic):
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.153.4.0653
DOI: 10.1144/gsjgs.153.4.0653
