1999
DOI: 10.4138/2028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The La Coulée Formation, a new post-Acadian continental clastic unit bearing groundwater calcretes, Gaspé Peninsula, Quebec

Abstract: A 1 km2 erosional remnant of the La Coulee Formation, a previously unrecognized stratigraphic unit, has been studied in the Percd area of the Gaspe Peninsula. It unconformably overlies folded Cambrian to Devonian rocks and is unconformably overlain by the mid-Carboniferous Bonaventure Formation. The erosional remnant includes the lowest 60 m of this newly identified formation of unknown thickness. Original sedimentary facies are limited to 50 m of breccia debris flows passing stratigraphically upward into 10 m… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…() proposed to formally correlate the Hopewell Cape Formation with the Bonaventure Formation of Logan (), which has precedence, but this stratigraphic simplification has not been adopted by other workers in the Cumberland Basin (e.g., St. Peter & Johnson, ). Because Logan mapped as Bonaventure Formation many units that were subsequently removed from it (e.g., the Middle Devonian Malbaie Formation of McGerrigle, ; the Upper Devonian to lower Mississippian St‐Jules Formation of Jutras & Prichonnet, ; the middle Viséan La Coulée Formation of Jutras et al ., ; the Serpukhovian Pointe Sawyer and Chemin‐des‐Pêcheurs formations of Jutras et al ., ), and because his reference section at Bonaventure Island (eastern Quebec) is incomplete and was never formally measured, we herein propose to abandon this unit and correlate it with the better constrained Hopewell Cape Formation of St. Peter & Johnson ().…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…() proposed to formally correlate the Hopewell Cape Formation with the Bonaventure Formation of Logan (), which has precedence, but this stratigraphic simplification has not been adopted by other workers in the Cumberland Basin (e.g., St. Peter & Johnson, ). Because Logan mapped as Bonaventure Formation many units that were subsequently removed from it (e.g., the Middle Devonian Malbaie Formation of McGerrigle, ; the Upper Devonian to lower Mississippian St‐Jules Formation of Jutras & Prichonnet, ; the middle Viséan La Coulée Formation of Jutras et al ., ; the Serpukhovian Pointe Sawyer and Chemin‐des‐Pêcheurs formations of Jutras et al ., ), and because his reference section at Bonaventure Island (eastern Quebec) is incomplete and was never formally measured, we herein propose to abandon this unit and correlate it with the better constrained Hopewell Cape Formation of St. Peter & Johnson ().…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since our paleocurrent data differ so much from those of previous authors (Hamblin 2001;Allen et al 2013), and since data from the latter authors also differ substantially from each other, an assessment of data reliability is here called for. In our experience of collecting broadly distributed paleocurrent measurements from braided fluvial systems (Jutras et al 1999(Jutras et al , 2001(Jutras et al , 2007(Jutras et al , 2015Jutras and Prichonnet, 2002, we now consider data collected from channel-fills (clast imbrications, ripple marks, planar-cross bedding and parting lineations) as highly unreliable, because deposition of the latter can be from weak secondary currents that were strongly influenced by the geometry of the channels, whereas scours are the products of stronger currents that reflect better the direction of the source area. Two-thirds of the paleocurrent measurements in Hamblin (2001) are from ripple mark orientations, which we consider as unreliable.…”
Section: Provenancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…* The carbon isotope ratios of the carbonate matrix are not diluted enough compared to those of non-dissociated carbonate (Figure 6c and samples C7a-c on Figure 10) to support the hypothesis of mineral replacement by infiltrating hydrothermal waters that show significantly lighter isotopic ratios (samples C1-2 on Figure 10). For instance, sub-surface mineral replacement by meteoric groundwaters leaves carbon isotope ratios in the resulting calcrete that contrast sharply with those of their host rock remnants (Jutras et al 1999).…”
Section: Formation Of Ferrocarbonatites and Associated 'Fenitization'mentioning
confidence: 99%