Parting Question for Michael Roberts

Hi Michael,

You say my logic doesn't make sense. Let me offer a couple of
observations for you to explain in a way that does make sense.

"...the 'blue band'...parting of blue gray clay...generally ranges from 1
to 3 inches in thickness and lies a little below the middle of the coal.
In most parts of Illinois there is an additional parting averaging 1/2
inch thick 6 to 10 inches below the blue band, and at many places a
minute dark shale of clay parting averaging 1/8 inch is 1-1/2 to 2 feet
below the top of the coal. These partings are traceable through a belt
ranging from 550 miles in linear distance northwest-southeast from north
central Iowa to western Kentucky and 430 miles northeast-southwest from
central western Indiana to eastern Kansas. A principal problem to
explain in any case is how the forest vegetation of a swamp could be so
completely levelled as to permit accumulation of a continuous layer of
clay averaging an inch or so in thickness."

From: Wanless, H.R., 1952. Studies of field relationships of coal beds.
In: Second Conference on the Origin and Constitution of Coal, 164-167,
172-173.

Or here's another:

"One of the more enigmatic features revealed by the intraseam tonsteins
[volcanic-ash deposits] is an almost complete absence of tree
preservation, either a tree trunks extending from the coal ply [bench or
bed] below or as Vertebraria (root structures) extending from the coal
ply above.... The observations of this group, representing over 400
man-years, confirmed the almost complete absence of tree preservation in
intraseam tonsteins within local seams."

"The established notion of a forest setting is therefore not supported by
observation, and contrasts with both a lack of tree preservation in
intraseam tonsteins and only sparse tree preservation in interseam tuffs.
 It should however, be recognised that this is a negative argument, and
that a lack of preserved trees is not direct evidence for a lack of
trees." (p 190-191)

"It can also be argued that only those ash falls deposited when the peat
surface was flooded and devoid of trees have been preserved, and that
other ash falls have been washed away or incorporated into the active
peat surface. Such a proposition is indeed consistent with the lack of
preserved trees, but does not adequate explain the lack of tree root
systems that should be found extending into the tonsteins from the coal
plies above." (p 192)

"Incorporating thickness variations of up to 11 cm in the tonsteins
modelled indicates that topography on the peat surface varied by less
than 22-44 cm.... Such an absence of topographic relief is not only
difficult to envisage in a forest setting, but i also inconsistent with
other irregular peat surfaces such as raised bogs." (p 202) (Creech,
Michael, 2002. Tuffaceous deposition in the Newcastle Coal Measures:
challenging existing concepts of peat formation in the Sydney Basin, New
South Wales, Australia. International Journal of Coal Geology 5, 185-214)

There are two problems here: 1) to level the swamp before deposition of
each parting, and 2) to establish a new swamp on top of each parting
without disturbing the partings with roots from the swamp trees above.
What is your explanation, Michael? Remember, no fair invoking a flood;
that wouldn't make sense.

Bill

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Wed Dec 3 22:11:54 2003