Re: Roots in coal?

----- Original Message -----
From: <bpayne15@juno.com>
To: <ksharman@pris.bc.ca>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Roots in coal?

> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:13:59 -0700 "Kevin and Birgit Sharman"
> <ksharman@pris.bc.ca> writes:
>
> > (referring to image analysis of a block sample of the seam) "A
> > branched gymospermous root structure is present in Fig. 11, and has
> been
> > pyrolysed to fusinite." From the caption to the figure: "Enlargement of
> area
> > shown in a) showing transeverse section of root structure. Small cell
> size and
> > lack of definition in annual growth pattern indicative of root origin".
>
>
> It sounds like this root is a rare occurrence. If this were from a
> swamp, shouldn't there be roots throughout the coal?

There are visible roots like the above, and there can be roots whose
original structure is not visible. If this sounds like a copout, see Stach
(1982) (a great reference; summarizes hundreds of papers; this probably
isn't the last time you'll see a quote from it, plus we had it in the
company library!) "If a vitrinite layer shows no structure, either in
incident or transmitted light, this is due in most cases not to the absence
of cellular structure, but to the fact that the cell structure is masked as
a result of the infilling with colloidal humic gel precipitated from humic
solutions"

 Also, if this coal
> were "metamorphosed" as you indicated previously during gelification, how
> is it that this root is still defined in the inertinite groundmass?

The inertinite maceral group preserves cell structure more than the
vitrinite group.

>
>
> We need to see roots everywhere, like in modern swamps. Not just the
> occasional isolated root.

As is so often in geology, things are not clearcut. If there were
abundant roots, it would support my view. If there were no roots found, it
would support your view. The fact there are some roots puts us right in the
middle, doesn't it?
>
> >
> > What floating mat model are you favoring - a "grounded mat" model or
> > a "shedding mat" model? This has bearing on your explanation of the
> > roots.
>
> The "shedding mat" model seems to best fit the data of which I'm aware
> with reference to the Carboniferous coals in the eastern US. This model
> would explain rootlets preserved with but disconnected from the axial
> roots (an apparently common occurrence), acid water beneath the floating
> mat causing flocculating of clays from turbid water to form the
> underclays beneath many (but not all) coals, the horizontal layering of
> bark to form banding, and splits of coal off the bottom (leaders) and off
> the top (riders) of the main seam.
>
> What problems do you see with this model?

If you are proposing the shedding mat model for these Cretaceous coals
(that's what I asked) we are back to trying to stand roots on end vertically
and encase them in the sandstone floor of the seam, including the branching
shrub root, which Glenn pointed out wouldn't work.

There would not be a zone of acid water preserved beneath a floating mat
once it floated in a turbulent ocean. Leaching of sphagnum moss in
horticultural applications rapidly depletes the acidity. Floating around on
the ocean would do it also. Even flocculated clays need calm water to
settle out, which is not common in a marine setting.
>
> > Are you proposing a marine setting for these coals?
>
> In some cases, yes, based upon the association of marine fossils,
> carbonates and high sulfur (which I assume from my reading is from marine
> influence). In other cases the coal may have settled in predominately
> fresh water. This flood model would require that all of the waters were
> not uniformily mixed.

I also infer that the mats of vegetation were not
> mixed, but isolated stands of vegetation maintained their unique mix of
> plants after the flood took them into suspension.

How can these be laterally and vertically segregated in specific areas after
deposition? In other words, why do Carboniferous coals with their
characteristic vegetation accumulate in the areas they do, and Jurassic and
Cretaceous coals with a different unique vegetation accumulate in other
areas, when you are proposing that they were all floating around together?
While we're at it, why are coals associated with characteristic rocks,
principally non-marine sediments, and not deep water ocean sediments,
pyroclastic volcanics, evaporites, chalks, etc? In a flood scenario, these
rocks were all being deposited in that year, and in your model, shedding
mats should have dropped veg material on them and made coal. We don't find
coal in these rock types, do we? To me, this is a falsification of the
Biblical flood floating mat model. Your thoughts on this crucial point?

(from your previous post)
at some point the flood ended and real swamps did in fact collect peat which
is preserved today. We have "brown coal" or lignite deposits in south
Alabama, which incidentally look nothing like banded coal. I've had a
geologist tell me he can see how to get from peat to lignite, but not
from lignite to banded coal.

Are you suggesting that lignite deposits we see today were formed after "at
some point (when) the flood ended"? This would include growth and
accumulation of peat, burial with overlying sediments to the depths needed
to coalify the peat, structural deformation in some cases, and erosion of
the overlying sediment in areas where the lignite outcrops today? If you
are talking about the time after the Biblical Flood, this is only a few
thousand years. There are lignite seams hundreds of meters thick in the
geologic record. I sent a reference to Glenn Morton on the Hat Creek
deposit in BC (he has it on his coal page), which has 550 meters of lignite
to sub-bituminous coal in a 1500 meter section. To suggest that all this
happened in a few thousand years with "normal" post-flood rates of processes
is, to put it politely, untenable. Remember, there were people around who
would have been able to observe during this time period.

>
> I appreciate your taking the time, Kevin, to read back into the archives
> for this. I also appreciate your non-combative spirit.

As I have seen on other forums, people who are rude to one another don't
make any progress.

 In general, the
> above looks okay. I know that there can be gradational contacts between
> coal and underclay, and this would fit either model. Occasionally we do
> see standing stumps on top of coal and I've seen one beneath a coal seam,
> but these seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
>
> One thing I would add is partings within coals which seem invaribly to
> have few or no plant macerals. I was going to ask you if you have
> partings in your Canadian coals, and if so, do they preserve the stems of
> the trees that were growing in the swamp when the parting was deposited,
> and do they show roots from the trees that would have grown on top of the
> parting when the swamp was re-established? You said everything got
> metamorphosed in the coal seams, but I assume the structures would be
> preserved in the partings as they are in the sandstone beneath the coal
> in your photos. Can you describe the partings?
>
> Aonther criterion is fecal pellets which are abundant in in situ peat
> deposits but rare in transported peat mats. It's my impression that
> fecal pellets are not common in coals.
>
> How do your Canadian coals compare to the criteria?

I'm out of time for now. More on sulphur and partings in a future post.

>
> 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 Sat Dec 20 01:38:14 2003