The importance of an integrated approach to provenance studies

A case study from the Paleocene of the Faroe-Shetland Basin, NE Atlantic

Andrew Morton, David Ellis, Mark Fanning, David Jolley, Andrew Whitham

Research output: Contribution to journalBook/Film/Article review

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Four different sand types (termed FSP1, FSP2, FSP3, and FSP4) have been recognized in the Paleocene succession of the Faroe-Shetland Basin, NE Atlantic, on the basis of conventional heavy mineral analysis, major element geochemistry of garnet, trace element geochemistry of rutile, U-Pb dating of detrital zircon, and palynofloral analysis. Sand types FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4 were all sourced from the eastern marginof the basin, whereas FSP3 was supplied from the west. No single technique discriminatesall four sand types. Conventional heavy mineral analysis discriminates FSP3 from the other three sand types but does not discriminate FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4. Garnet geochemistry distinguishes FSP1, FSP2 and FSP4, but FSP3 garnet populations overlap those of FSP1 and FSP2. Rutile geochemistry distinguishes FSP2 from FSP1 and FSP4 but cannot be easily applied to FSP3 owing to the scarcity of rutile in this sand type. Zircon age spectra in FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4 are similar to one another, but FSP4 can be recognized on the basis of a higher proportion of Archean zircons. Some of the individual techniques have certain limitations: e.g., one of the key conventional heavy mineral parameters is the presence of clinopyroxene, but this is not always reliable owing to the instability of this mineral during burial diagenesis. Likewise, garnet
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalGSA Special Papers
Volume487
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

integrated approach
Paleocene
provenance
garnet
heavy mineral
rutile
geochemistry
sand
basin
zircon
burial diagenesis
clinopyroxene
Archean
trace element
mineral
analysis

Cite this

The importance of an integrated approach to provenance studies : A case study from the Paleocene of the Faroe-Shetland Basin, NE Atlantic. / Morton, Andrew; Ellis, David; Fanning, Mark; Jolley, David; Whitham, Andrew.

In: GSA Special Papers, Vol. 487, 2012, p. 1-12.

Research output: Contribution to journalBook/Film/Article review

@article{040cdfb4266c41a3b4a5b44357eeb3b6,
title = "The importance of an integrated approach to provenance studies: A case study from the Paleocene of the Faroe-Shetland Basin, NE Atlantic",
abstract = "Four different sand types (termed FSP1, FSP2, FSP3, and FSP4) have been recognized in the Paleocene succession of the Faroe-Shetland Basin, NE Atlantic, on the basis of conventional heavy mineral analysis, major element geochemistry of garnet, trace element geochemistry of rutile, U-Pb dating of detrital zircon, and palynofloral analysis. Sand types FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4 were all sourced from the eastern marginof the basin, whereas FSP3 was supplied from the west. No single technique discriminatesall four sand types. Conventional heavy mineral analysis discriminates FSP3 from the other three sand types but does not discriminate FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4. Garnet geochemistry distinguishes FSP1, FSP2 and FSP4, but FSP3 garnet populations overlap those of FSP1 and FSP2. Rutile geochemistry distinguishes FSP2 from FSP1 and FSP4 but cannot be easily applied to FSP3 owing to the scarcity of rutile in this sand type. Zircon age spectra in FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4 are similar to one another, but FSP4 can be recognized on the basis of a higher proportion of Archean zircons. Some of the individual techniques have certain limitations: e.g., one of the key conventional heavy mineral parameters is the presence of clinopyroxene, but this is not always reliable owing to the instability of this mineral during burial diagenesis. Likewise, garnet",
author = "Andrew Morton and David Ellis and Mark Fanning and David Jolley and Andrew Whitham",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1130/2012.2487(01)",
language = "English",
volume = "487",
pages = "1--12",
journal = "GSA Special Papers",
issn = "0072-1077",
publisher = "Geological Society of America",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The importance of an integrated approach to provenance studies

T2 - A case study from the Paleocene of the Faroe-Shetland Basin, NE Atlantic

AU - Morton, Andrew

AU - Ellis, David

AU - Fanning, Mark

AU - Jolley, David

AU - Whitham, Andrew

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Four different sand types (termed FSP1, FSP2, FSP3, and FSP4) have been recognized in the Paleocene succession of the Faroe-Shetland Basin, NE Atlantic, on the basis of conventional heavy mineral analysis, major element geochemistry of garnet, trace element geochemistry of rutile, U-Pb dating of detrital zircon, and palynofloral analysis. Sand types FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4 were all sourced from the eastern marginof the basin, whereas FSP3 was supplied from the west. No single technique discriminatesall four sand types. Conventional heavy mineral analysis discriminates FSP3 from the other three sand types but does not discriminate FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4. Garnet geochemistry distinguishes FSP1, FSP2 and FSP4, but FSP3 garnet populations overlap those of FSP1 and FSP2. Rutile geochemistry distinguishes FSP2 from FSP1 and FSP4 but cannot be easily applied to FSP3 owing to the scarcity of rutile in this sand type. Zircon age spectra in FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4 are similar to one another, but FSP4 can be recognized on the basis of a higher proportion of Archean zircons. Some of the individual techniques have certain limitations: e.g., one of the key conventional heavy mineral parameters is the presence of clinopyroxene, but this is not always reliable owing to the instability of this mineral during burial diagenesis. Likewise, garnet

AB - Four different sand types (termed FSP1, FSP2, FSP3, and FSP4) have been recognized in the Paleocene succession of the Faroe-Shetland Basin, NE Atlantic, on the basis of conventional heavy mineral analysis, major element geochemistry of garnet, trace element geochemistry of rutile, U-Pb dating of detrital zircon, and palynofloral analysis. Sand types FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4 were all sourced from the eastern marginof the basin, whereas FSP3 was supplied from the west. No single technique discriminatesall four sand types. Conventional heavy mineral analysis discriminates FSP3 from the other three sand types but does not discriminate FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4. Garnet geochemistry distinguishes FSP1, FSP2 and FSP4, but FSP3 garnet populations overlap those of FSP1 and FSP2. Rutile geochemistry distinguishes FSP2 from FSP1 and FSP4 but cannot be easily applied to FSP3 owing to the scarcity of rutile in this sand type. Zircon age spectra in FSP1, FSP2, and FSP4 are similar to one another, but FSP4 can be recognized on the basis of a higher proportion of Archean zircons. Some of the individual techniques have certain limitations: e.g., one of the key conventional heavy mineral parameters is the presence of clinopyroxene, but this is not always reliable owing to the instability of this mineral during burial diagenesis. Likewise, garnet

U2 - 10.1130/2012.2487(01)

DO - 10.1130/2012.2487(01)

M3 - Book/Film/Article review

VL - 487

SP - 1

EP - 12

JO - GSA Special Papers

JF - GSA Special Papers

SN - 0072-1077

ER -