Really Strange Geological Structure (Landform) in Siberia, Russia
In "[Rockhounds] Really Strange Geological
Structure (Landform) in Siberia, Russia" at
http://lists.drizzle.com/pipermail/rockhounds_lists.drizzle.com/2014-February/002474.html
wagoner asked:
"I pose one question out of curiosity (and probably
ignorance) - why is there only one of these
structures that has been found there in Russia?"
That is a very important and significant question.
if this feature was either a pingo or cyrotovolcano,
I would expect that there should be more of them
in the region. The uniqueness of this feature is a
problem as well for the impact origin hypothesis.
Given the number of known impact structures on
Earth and Mars, there should be other known
features like this among recognized impact structures.
Why there are not more features like the Potam
Cone either within the region or elsewhere is an
important point that needs to be explained in any
hypothesis that a person proposes for the origin of
this landform.
wagoner asked:
"It seems odd to me that there would only
be one, if indeed there is only one. Harry W."
I agree with you that the unique nature of this
landform is extremely odd. There is a geologic
structure in Louisiana, the Zenoria / Little Creek
structure, that is also unique and currently
unexplained.
Echols, J. B., and R. P. McCulloh, 2000, Little
Creek Structure, T9N-R2E, La Salle Parish,
Louisiana. Search and Discovery Article #50001
American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/echols/index.htm
Echols, J. B., and R. P. McCulloh, 1998, Little
Creek Structure, T9N-R2E, La Salle Parish,
Louisiana. Basin Research Institute Bulletin.
vol. 8, pp. 30-39. (November 1998)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/207276900/Little-Creek-Structure-La-Salle-Parish-Louisiana
The unique nature of the Little Creek structure
and the Patom Cone might indicate that an unique
combination of processes came together to create
them. That means trying to explain either of these
features by a single, common-place process might
be not useful in trying to explain their origin.
In "[Rockhounds] Russian Oddity" at
http://lists.drizzle.com/pipermail/rockhounds_lists.drizzle.com/2014-February/002475.html
Fisher noted
"I commented only on the two photos at the end
of that article. I said that they looked like either
pillow lava or concretions in mudstone to me.
That's what I saw, your results may differ."
These pictures are fascinating and likely significant
clues to the origin of the Patom Cone. In my opinion,
they are neither pillow lava nor concretions. Instead,
they look like intensively deformed mudstone. It would
be helpful, if there were captions that described what
the field geologists identified these structures as and
where exactly they were found.
Yours,
Paul H.
