Abstract
Christansen et al. (2020) have raised concerns over the validity of the data and interpretation in our study of the exhumed hydrocarbon traps of East Greenland. Furthermore, they have put forward a model which they suggest that better suits their data. However, this markedly contradicts the data we presented.
The concerns raised by Christansen et al. (2020) centre around a number of key points:
Acknowlegement of the history of previous debate around these structures
It is suggested that pyrobitumen is only minor in occurrence and much of this material is, in fact, iron oxides
The distribution of pyrobitumen that we document is disputed in favour of irregular distribution as would fit their model
The requirement for a detailed diagenetic study
The maturity of potential source rocks.
A model is then presented which is suggested to best suit the available data. Each of these points is discussed, in turn, in this reply.
The concerns raised by Christansen et al. (2020) centre around a number of key points:
Acknowlegement of the history of previous debate around these structures
It is suggested that pyrobitumen is only minor in occurrence and much of this material is, in fact, iron oxides
The distribution of pyrobitumen that we document is disputed in favour of irregular distribution as would fit their model
The requirement for a detailed diagenetic study
The maturity of potential source rocks.
A model is then presented which is suggested to best suit the available data. Each of these points is discussed, in turn, in this reply.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1249-1251 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Journal | Basin Research |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 28 Jun 2020 |