Origin and Types of Silica in The Lower Eocene Carbonates of The Rus Formation, Qatar, Middle-East

Origin and types of silica in the Lower
Eocene Carbonates of the Rus Formation,

Qatar, Middle-East
February 2017
By
Jacques LeBlanc
Geologist
Silica from the Lower Eocene Carbonates of the Rus Formation, Qatar
CONTENT
Chp Title Page
Content 2
Acknowledgments 3
Disclaimer 3
1 Abstract 4
2 Introduction 4
A General facts about Silica 4
B Tectonic history of Qatar 6
C Origins of Silica in Carbonate Rocks 9
3 The main silica concentrating mechanisms in carbonates 10
A Origins of SiO2 in Qatar carbonates 10
B Burial modification of silica: The diagenetic path from opal-A to quartz 13
Field recognition of the three main styles of chert nodules created by
C 13
organisms
4 Geology of the Lower Eocene Rus Formation 14
A Type Locality 14
B Qatar Reference Sections 14
C Age 15
D Top (MD) 15
E Thickness 15
F Lithologic description 17
G Faults & Fractures 22
5 Areas investigated for silica concentration in the Rus Formation 24
General Notes 24
A Area North of Dukhan Town 27
1 Geological History 27
2 Field Work 30
3 Description of all GPS points 33
Description of the Silicified/chert Vertical Pipes and their surrounding
4 47
area
Interpretation on the origin of the silicified/chert vertical pipes and
5 52
surrounding silica
A What they cannot be 52
B So, what are they? 54
The mechanism involved at creating the mud volcanoes / springs /
6 58
gryphons
7 The mechanism involved at creating the silica in water springs 61
8 Reconstruction of events 63
9 Similar localities 64
A Greece 64
B California 65
C Pakistan 66
D Bahrain 66
E Saudi Arabia 66
F Gulf of Cadiz (between Spain & Morocco) 66
G Bulgaria 68
By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome -2

H Azerbaijan 68
B The Simsima Area 69
2 Description of all GPS Points 70
3 Description and formation mechanism of the silica nodules 74
C The Thakira Area 78
D The Shahaniya Area 81
E The Umm Bab Area 84
3 Important point 86
F The Jaleha Area 87
3 Calcite vs silica ratio 89
6 Conclusions 92
7 References 93
8 Additional Reading 100
9 Additional Reading on Paramoudra 104
10 Archeological Literature 104
11 Definitions 106
ACKNOWLEGMENTS
I am indebted to my friends and colleagues below for their thorough review of this document; the
considerable time and attention devoted to reading and evaluating it, and the insightful
communications, guidance, and helpful suggestions. Dr. Jeremy Jameson, former employee of
ExxonMobil, and a geologist with a long history of publication and study of the surface geology of
Qatar, and Dr. Sean Andre Guidry, QP.
In addition, I thank Mr. James Kuzych, who introduced me in 2009 to the Dukhan silica pipes area,
and to Mr. Aubrey Whymark for sharing and discussing his pictures and locations of silica material
from the Rus Formation. The links to Mr. Whymarks pictures are provided in the relevant pages of
this document. Finally, the discussion on calcite/silica in the Jaleha chapter would not have been
possible without the important input and knowledge of Mr. Rowan Stanley, geologist and
colleague.
DISCLAIMER
The author wishes to inform the reader that unfortunately he did not have access to a geological
laboratory to ascertain some of the conclusions reached; especially for those dealing with the
Dukhan chapter. Therefore, while he believes his field observations are based on sound
geological principles, he is aware that conducting laboratory analyses on some samples would be
the only way to confirm or disprove his conclusions and theories.

1) Abstract:
Silica (SiO2) occurs as amorphous to crystalline forms in the carbonates of the Rus Formation of
Qatar. Within six areas in Qatar where the Rus Formation is exposed, I review the mechanisms
involved and conditions needed for the deposition of silica and the formation of its various types
(geodes, nodules, pipes, etc..). Two areas stand out as the most interesting: Simsima area for the
quality and quantity of geodes, and Dukhan for a peculiar and unique chert occurrence related to
the tectonic setting of the anticline of the Dukhan oil field. The origin of this chert occurrence is
linked to the silicified remains of the main tubular conduits of paleo-freshwater springs charged
with a high content of sulphide (and possibly oil).
2) Introduction
A) General facts about Silica
Silica (SiO2) is the second-most-abundant mineral in Earths continental crust, after feldspar
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldspar) . The chief forms of silica are quartz, chert, hydrous
opal, cryptocrystalline chalcedony, and crystalline quartz. There are many varieties of silica in
many colors. Crystalline SiO2 occurs as quartz, tridymite, amethyst, rose-quartz;
cryptocrystalline SiO2 occurs as chert, flint, jasper, catseye, aventurine, carnelian, chrysoprase,
agate, onyx, sardonyx, sinter, geyserite, evaporite, diatomite ; and many types of opal, all
included under the three forms mentioned. Most cryptocrystalline varieties include one or more
water molecules (H2O)
Silica rock is a general term used to define any rock composed mainly of SiO2. In the strict
sense, silicification of carbonate rocks is a diagenetic, replacement and displacive process.
When silicification is volumetrically significant, it generates silica rocks (cherts and opaline
rocks) that stand out in carbonate outcrops as nodules, beds or lenticular beds, and other
irregular accumulations. Silicification frequently represents a volume-by-volume replacement of
calcite and/or dolomite, which allows the textural and structural characteristics of the carbonate
rocks involved to be preserved. The silica required for this process may be obtained locally from
siliceous components included within the carbonate rock (mainly siliceous microfossils, but also
siliciclastic grains, clays, volcanic ash), or it may be transported from remote sites, generally by
phreatic or hydrothermal water (Bustillo, 2010)
Silica occurs in two forms, distinguished by their crystallinity. Quartz is the name given to
megacrystalline varieties of SiO2 that has an attached water molecule and show hexagonal
crystal habit. Chert is used to define a silica rock made primarily of cryptocrystalline Si02 plus
small amounts of opaline minerals, whereas the term opal is used to indicate both a mineral
and rock (Warren, July 31st 2016).
Cherts are sedimentary rocks formed either by direct precipitation from hydrothermal fluids or
seawater (known as C-cherts) or by silicification of precursor material (S-cherts). That is, C-
cherts are the result of orthochemical precipitation from seawater (or any Si-rich fluid) and S-
cherts are the result of the replacement of a precursor lithology (Warren, July 31st 2016).
Authigenic silica (S-cherts) can form by: (1) Diagenetic recrystallization of an amorphous silica
precursor; (2) Direct precipitation from aqueous solutions; and (3) Direct replacement of pre-
existing volcanogenic, carbonate or evaporite host. Several possible chemical explanations have
been suggested to drive the replacement. These include silica precipitation induced by a local
decrease in pH that is caused by either biological production of CO2, oxidation of sulphide into
sulphate, and mixing of marine and meteoric waters (Warren, July 31st 2016).

Determining the origin of silica minerals in carbonates requires in-depth macroscopic and
microscopic studies. Macroscopic analyses are useful for establishing an initial distinction
between chert enclosed in carbonated or evaporite rocks. Samples enclosed in calcareous
lithologies can show, as diagnostic features, the presence of laminated structures, Liesengang
rings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liesegang_rings_(geology)), abundant microfossils and
frequent ferric oxides inclusions. Rocks with gypsiferous relicts, chicken-wire anhydrite pattern,
and oxide inclusions are related to evaporite lithologies. Microscopic analyses, such as
mineralogy, texture and impurity content, using thin sections observations, show that chert
enclosed in carbonate rocks can preserve relicts of carbonate textures and microfossils, and
microquartz and length-fast chalcedony (chalcedonite) predominate (Fig. Def-1). Chert nodules
located in evaporite sediments have, as microscopic features, fibrous silica, mainly length-slow
chalcedony (Fig. Def-1) (quartzine and lutecite), and frequently contain gypsum pseudomorphs,
while carbonates are absent (Soto et al, 2014).1
Studying the silica occurrence of the surface portion of the Rus Formation can probably be used
as a model to understand the impact of silica according to types and occurrences in the deeper
formations present in the stratigraphy of Qatar. For instance, Eccleston et al. (1981) describe a
chert horizon in the subsurface Paleocene aquifer of the Umm er Radhuma (UER)2 Formation,
just below the Rus Formation (Fig. 2-1). It is also known that chert and other silica have been
encountered in varying amounts in the main oil producing reservoirs of Qatar at depth of more
than 2 kilometres. Their presence, however, does not seem to impact negatively the porosity of
these reservoirs (Guidry, Pers. Comm.)
Fig. 2-1: The UER chert horizon

(Eccleston et al. (1981)). Depth in
metre to the UER
Although the UER underlying

central Qatar is generally a uniform
dolomite sequence, siliceous zones
do occur in the form of chert and
silicified limestone or dolomite.
Several shallow drilling projects
show the presence of such a zone
some 15-20 m below the top of the
formation (equivalent to the base of
the Rus Formation) in north eastern
Qatar bounded by an arc.
1
Other than a simple analyses of the Dukhan samples (see a subsequent footnote), no microscopic analyses were
performed during the course of this study.
2
The UER is an important aquifer in Qatar

B) Tectonic history of Qatar

By the Late Proterozoic, about 600 Million years ago, N-S basement block uplifts with
intervening grabens had already developed as microcontinents amalgamated to form the Saudi
Arabian plate (Fig. 2-2, Fig. 2-3 & Fig. 2-4). These include the major features of the Qatar Arch
and the En Nala anticlinal Axis (which formed the Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia). It is thought
that evaporites, dolomites and shales of the Upper Proterozoic Hormuz Series were deposited in
embayments along the troughs between these uplifted N-S basement blocks. In the Gulf of
Salwa area (west of the Dukhan anticline), and onshore to at least 23N latitude, it can be shown
that Hormuz Series evaporites extend between the eastern edge of the En Nala anticlinal Axis
and the western side of the Qatar Arch, just east of Dukhan Anticline (Fig. 2-5). The Hormuz
Series consists largely of bedded halite and these salt beds are cut by many basement faults,
triggering salt diapirism as the major structure-forming mechanism. (Rickard et al, 2012).
During the Mesozoic, and especially in the Triassic and Late Cretaceous, and even probably
during the Permian, the N-S uplifts and basins of the Arabian Trend were intermittently
reactivated. There is even evidence that tectonism along the Arabian Trend extended to at least
Mid-Cenozoic times. The prominence of the Hofuf Formation, and its topographic expression
over the Dukhan anticline (and others in Saudi Arabia), indicates that intermittent reactivation
of these N-S trends probably continued until the end of the Pliocene. (Rickard et al, 2012). The
general tectonic history during the Cenozoic is provided in Fig. 2.7.
Fig. 2-2: Uplifted Basement Block Fig. 2-3: Regional cross-section across Dukhan field, 3:1
updoming Dukhan (and others) scale. Dashed red line indicates elevation of present-day
Anticline; Schematic Cross-Sectional regional dip surface. (Norlund et al., 2009). Brown =
Representation (Edgell, 1992) Neogene. Yellow = Paleogene, Dark Pink = Mesozoic,
Teal = late Paleozoic, Dark Blue = early to middle
Paleozoic, Pink = Salt, Medium Blue = Eocambrian
collapse basin fill, Red = Pan African Basement.

Fig. 2-4: Schematic regional tectonic map of the Fig. 2-5: Local tectonic feature map showing the
Zagros Belt and foreland, showing surface rock relationship of the Dukhan structure (green and
units and large-scale structural features. TST = blue polygons) to the deep basement structures.
total sediment thickness. Qatar Arch region Pink shading = approximate depositional edge of
highlighted. (Norlund et al., 2009) Hormuz Salt, tan shading = present day land,
stipple = interpreted thick orogenic collapse
deposits, green lines = inferred extensional
collapse boundary faults forming grabens. Black
lines indicate the axis of the Qatar Arch.
(Norlund et al. 2009)
The Arabian Plate (Fig. 2-6) is the twelfth largest and one of the youngest of the Earth's
lithospheric plates, having originated about 25 Million years ago when rifting to form the Gulf
of Aden and Red Sea split off a fragment of the African continent. Its crust comprises
Precambrian crystalline basement, well exposed in the west and locally exposed in the east, a
Phanerozoic sedimentary succession that is up to 10 km thick, and fields of Cenozoic basalt
(harrat) unconformable on the crystalline basement and Phanerozoic sedimentary rocks in the
western and northwestern parts of the Plate. The Arabian Shield is mostly Neoproterozoic but
locally contains tectonically intercalated Archean and Paleoproterozoic rocks. Crystalline
basement in the east of the Plate is also Neoproterozoic, but appears to have a geologic history
different to that of the Shield. (Stern et al., 2010)
The Qatar Arch is interpreted to be a primary feature of the Arabian Plate, possibly formed as
part of an orogenic collapse system at the end of the Neoproterozoic Pan-African Orogeny. The
Arch appears to be a positive feature by the time the Infracambrian Hormuz Salt was deposited,
and has remained so since. (Fig. 2-4) (Norlund et al., 2009). The same authors concluded based
on gravity modelling that the ancestral Dukhan lineament formed as a detachment of the
grabben into a salt basin to the west. Other authors have concluded it is a salt-cored, anticline.

Fig 2-6: Simplified map of the Arabian Plate, with plate boundaries, approximate plate
convergence vectors, and principal geologic features. (Stern et al, 2010)

Fig. 2.7: General tectonic history during the Cenozoic. Modified from Weijermars (1999) to reflect
the information in Fig. 2.6
C) Origins of Silica in Carbonate Rocks

In continuation, we will first review the most important known processes that have been put
forward for the formation and occurrences of silica in carbonate sediments and relate these
theories to the Rus Formation of Qatar; secondly, summarize the geology of the Rus Formation;
and thirdly, highlight the main points of our investigation within the selected six areas of study
and discuss in general terms few others. The most appropriate conclusions will then be drawn.
Please refer to Section 11 (Definition) for any terms not previously defined.

3) The main silica concentrating mechanisms in carbonates

3A Origins of SiO2 in Qatar carbonates
The occurrence of SiO2 in sedimentary rocks can have several origins; the most obvious ones being
from nearby volcanic rocks, biogenic sources and from clastic formations below or above the
limestone/dolomite horizon. However, where does the silica come from in the absence of volcanic
or clastic formations as in Qatar? The only clastic sediments in the country, other than mixed
systems in sabkha, are concentrated in the Mio-Pliocene Hofuf formation and amounts only to less
than 8% of the total surface area of the Sheikdom. As outlined in a previous study by the present
author (LeBlanc, 2009), silica does not occur in the Miocene Dam Formation just underlying the
Hofuf, so why is it so prevalent in the older Lower Eocene Rus Formation (and Middle-Eocene
Dammam Formation). Judging by Fig. 4.3, the exposed Rus Formation could contain as much as
4% of SiO2 at the Qatar Reference Section (detailed below). This is a percentage agreeable by the
present author, however one must keep in mind that some areas, such as the Dukhan area discussed
below, display the mineral in greater amount while others (Jaleha and Umm Bab areas) have a lot
less.
To form chert and geodes requires an unusually abundant supply, diagenetic redistribution of
freshly precipitated silica, or later replacement. Most precipitated silica is disseminated widely
through sediments. The precipitation of such silica from over-saturated solutions may be brought
about in many ways: by evaporation, by cooling, by neutralization of strongly alkaline solutions, by
reaction with cations, by adsorption, and by the life processes of organisms (Krauskopf, 1959 and
Guidry et al, 2002). I will now try to explain the most common ways to form quartz accumulation in
carbonates:
A. Eolian dust can be an important source of silica in marine and terrestrial environments in the
warm and arid climates. Quartz is a constituent of eolian dust, which has small grain size (less
than 60 micron). The dust grains have relatively high solubility, as compared to coarse grains
due to high surface area (Al-Barzinjy, 2008). It is therefore possible that dust from terrestrial
areas now located in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and/or Iran would have helped feeding the sediments of
the Rus formation in silica. Present day dust in Qatar is 14% SiO2.
B. When fresh water enters the sea, it would be expected that the high concentration of soluble
silica in fresh water could be reduced by dilution with seawater having a low concentration of
soluble silica. However, the soluble silica concentration is reduced by some process other than
dilution (Bien, 1959). Two such processes can occur biological uptake or inorganic
precipitation:
a. Inorganic precipitation: When chert is the product of the inorganic precipitation of silica
from sea water. As explained by this theory, silica is transported in solutions (evaporates
colloid) to the sea by rivers (the concentration of soluble silica in river-water is generally
ten to fifteen times that of surface-water in the open ocean). In sea water, the colloidal silica
is flocculated by the strong electrolites and precipitated. Most of the silica would, therefore,
be deposited near the mouths of rivers where deposition of terrigenous material would mask
it, but a small amount would be carried out to sea. The small amount of silica which was not
deposited near the delta would be precipitated later on the sea floor forming elliptical or
spherical masses of silica gel (silica oozes) on the sea floor. (Pittman, 1959)
b. Biologic/Biogenic origin: Siliceous skeletal remains constitute up to approximately 40
percent of some Recent pelagic sediments. The main factors controlling the contribution
made by siliceous organisms to marine sediments are apparently A) the rate of production of
siliceous organisms in the overlying waters, B) the degree of dilution of siliceous remains by
terrigenous, volcanic and calcareous organic contributions to the sediment and C) the extent
By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 10

of solution of the siliceous skeletons, most of which apparently occurs shortly after
deposition. Depth of water is apparently not an important direct factor, except insofar as it
affects the amount of calcareous contributions to the sediments. The evidence indicates that
the production of siliceous organisms is high in the regions of the equatorial current systems
and around the edges of the central water masses of the oceans, especially in areas of
upwelling, and is much lower in those parts of the oceans in which the near-surface waters
are more stably stratified. (Riedel, 1959).
C. Making reference to the previous paragraph, the four main silica-secreting organisms are
diatoms, radiolarian, sponges and silicoflagellates. The burial of these organisms siliceous
skeletons (opaline silica) constitutes the main silica sink in modern oceans and much of this
buried biogenic silica will eventually be redistributed intraformationally during diagenesis to
form chert or any of its variants (Maliva et al. (1989a)). These siliceous microfossils opaline
silica are seldom found near pure quartz sandstones
a. Diatoms (Fig. 3-1) One of the most abundant biota containing siliceous skeletal material
in the marine environment. These minute plants (unicellular algae) which supply siliceous
frustules consisting of two valves to pelagic sediments are restricted to the upper 100-200
meters of ocean waters: the amount of light penetrating to greater depths is insufficient for
their photosynthetic processes. Typically, one valve of the frustules overlaps the other like
the lid of a pillbox. Frustules are either elliptical or circular in outline and composed of
opaline silica, which is a very unstable form of silica that readily dissolves or becomes
altered to a more stable mineral such as chert (microcrystalline quartz). (Riedel, 1959).
Diatoms live in marine and fresh water (lakes pennate diatoms)), even in moist soil. They
are most abundant and best preserved in cool-water settings where the solubility of silica is
low, the solubility of calcium carbonate is high, and there is little terrigenous influx: e.g.,
sub-Artic and sub-Antarctic seafloors, cool and/or alkaline lakes, and the abyssal depths of
tropical oceans. Few open pelagic diatomaceous cherts are known from pre-Eocene
sequences, in contrast to their abundance in Eocene and younger rocks. It seems that
diatoms took quantitative dominance over the oceanic silica realm only in the Eocene, after
a long period of radiation that began during the middle Cretaceous Period. (Maliva et al.
(1989a)).
b. Radiolaria (Fig. 3-2) are animal-like protists who, like diatoms, secrete siliceous skeletons.
Unlike diatoms, though, radiolarians are exclusively marine and planktonic, and their shells
tend to be better preserved. Their shells are most common in deeper marine waters, well
away from the continental shelves. Like diatoms, their siliceous skeletons is best preserved
in cool temperatures, high Ph, and absence of diluting sediments. Radiolarians originated
in Cambrian time and they still live today. They are biostratigraphically useful in Paleozoic
strata, even more so in Mesozoic and Cenozoic strata in which they are better preserved.
Most species are found living only at depths of 0-400 metres and in greater numbers in
warmer than in colder waters (Riedel, 1959).
c. Sponges (Fig. 3-3) have been quantitatively unimportant throughout the Cenozoic. They
first appeared in the Lower Cambrian. Generally speaking, they constitute only a very
small part of the total biogenous silica except in some areas of relatively shallow water
(Riedel, 1959). However, their contribution to biogenic silica is difficult to determine
because sponge silica is extremely unstable. Some individuals of the genus Hyalostelia
have been found to be fixing silica at one end and dissolving at the other. During shallow
burial it is expected these forms of silica would remobilize without leaving a trace. For
these reasons, siliceous sponges should not be ruled out as the source of silica in an Eocene
formation such as the Rus. (Jameson, 2017)

d. Silicoflagellates (Fig. 3-4) occur in all oceans, and inhabit only the upper few hundred
meters of water. They are more numerous in colder than in warmer waters, though they are
widespread in all latitudes. In one stage of their life cycle, they produce a siliceous skeleton,
composed of a network of bars and spikes arranged to form an internal basket. These form a
small component of marine sediments, and are known as microfossils from as far back as the
early Cretaceous (Riedel, 1959). They form their skeletal material out of amorphous silica
(commonly called biogenic silica), but their delicate skeletons are rarely preserved to a
significant extent in the sedimentary record.
Fig. 3-1: Diatoms. The siliceous frustules in this figure typically are 100200 m in length. (Web
References: DeMaster)
Fig. 3-2: Radiolaria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolaria
Fig. 3-3: Sponges Fig. 3-4: Silicoflagellates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictyochales

3B Burial modification of silica: The diagenetic path from opal-A to quartz (Taylor, post
2007)
The studies on the diagenetic path from opal-A to quartz
mainly focus on the influences of burial depth (pressure
and temperature) and purity of biosilica on the process of
phase change. These factors greatly control grain density,
porosity, and permeability. A simple description of the
diagenesis of biogenic silica is opal-A opal-CT
quartz. All forms of silica increase in solubility with
increased temperature; the effect is dramatic, as rates of
transformation increase exponentially. Temperature is not
the only control, however. Another control on solubility is
pressure, but minor compared to temperature. Finally,
silica solubility also increases proportionally to pH. Opal-
A, which is highly unstable, will begin to dissolve and
undergo diagenetic transformation in a neutral solution of
pH 7. Aside from temperature, the greatest control on the
diagenetic timing is the content of non-biosiliceous Fig. 3-5: Silica phase change diagram.
material within the rock (Fig. 3-5). In biosiliceous rocks Both temperature and detrital content
that are very pure, (~ <20%) transformation to chert can have significant control as to the
occur at very low temperatures even in the first few timing of phase change. At ~20% or
meters after burial. Increased detrital content causes a less detritus, it enters a chert phase
slight delay in the transformation from opal-A to opal-CT. (Taylor, post 2007)
3C Field recognition of the three main styles of chert nodules (Fig. 3-6)
Magadi-style nodules show characteristic reticulate shrinkage features on nodules and likely form
via silicification of a sodium silicate precursor (It was first studied in the very saline [sulphate
depleted] alkaline waters and elevated pH of Lake Magadi in the African Rift Valley). Cauliflower
cherts indicate silicification and replacement of a former anhydrite nodule (sulphate evaporite-
enriched), which formed via coalescence of smaller anhydrite nodules. Smooth-walled cherts are
typical marine diagenetic features in biogenic ocean sediments. Warren (July 2nd 2016). The most
famous examples of smooth walled cherts are replacements of sponges in the Cretaceous chalks of
Dorset, England (Jameson, 2017)
Magadi-style chert Cauliflower chert Smooth-wall chert

Fig. 3-6: The surface textures of the three main styles of chert nodules Warren (July 2nd 2016).

4) Geology of the Lower Eocene Rus Formation

A) Type locality: The Rus Formation was first named from the rocks of the Umm er Ruus
(Lat. 261930N, Long. 501000E), which outcrops on the Dammam Dome in Saudi Arabia.
Bramkamp (1946, cited in Powers et al. 1966) first applied the name Rus Formation as a direct
replacement for the term Chalky Zone which had been informally used for Lower Eocene beds
above the Umm er Radhuma (UER) and below the Dammam Formation. Thralls & Hasson (1956)
wrote the first formal publication which used the term Rus Formation. The same nomenclature
was adopted for Qatar by Sugden (1956)3 and for Bahrain by Willis (1967). Steineke et al. (1958)
gave detailed information on the type sequence and Sander (1962) published more details on the
stratigraphic and paleontologic data.
Description of the Rus Formation at the Type Locality (Type Section):
Thickness: 183.7 ft (56 m)
Lithology: The lithology and thickness of the Rus Formation are variable, with most of the
variation occurring in the middle unit of the three units described as follows (thicknesses are those
of the type section).
1 White, soft, chalky porous limestone, with one or more calcarenite beds at the top; 11.8 ft (3.6 m)
Light-colored marls with local irregular masses of crystalline gypsum and occasional thin harder
limestone beds; geodal quartz at several levels. In other areas this unit is highly variable, including
2 as common equivalents (a) white, compact, finely crystallized anhydrite with interbedded green
shales and minor amounts of dolomitic limestone, or (b) gray marls with coarsely crystalline calcite
and interbedded shale and limestone; 104.3 ft (31.8 m)
Gray to buff compact crystalline limestone commonly partly dolomitized, with minor amounts of
3 soft limestone made porous by the leaching of small organic remains. Quartz geodes occur rarely
in the lower part, and are typical of the uppermost part; 68.9 ft (21 m)
Limits: The base is at the contact of dolomite containing Lockhartia tipper Davies of the upper
Umm er Radhuma, with overlying light-colored dolomitic limestone commonly with
leached indeterminate molds of small molluscs of the basal Rus.
The top is at the contact of light-colored calcarenite layers of the upper Rus, with
overlying thin-bedded impure limestone and shale of the basal Dammam formation.
B) Qatar Reference Sections: Cavelier et al. (1970a & 1970b) measured and established a
reference section for the exposed Rus Formation (about 26m thick) in the cliffs at Lat.
251715.79N, Long. 504812.60E. Sugden et al. (1975) also reconfirm it in the official
stratigraphic lexicon of Qatar (Fig. 4-1, Fig. 4-2).
Fig. 4-1: Type section locality suggested by Cavelier (Sugden et al.1975)
3
Sugden used it in his 1956 The first Dukhan Type Section and is illustrated in A Historical A Historical
Account of the Stratigraphy of Qatar, Middle-East (1816-2015) by LeBlanc (2015b)

The Rus deposits, in the Qatar Reference section area, are variably dolomitized limestones, soft,
generally whitish, with minute argillaceous intercalations and green to brown dolomitic marl.
Some harder greyish limestone beds, generally dolomitic, intercalate and are the only fossiliferous
beds in the section. Some siliceous occurrences (chert & quartz crystal geodes) can be observed
towards the base of the section (Fig. 4-2) that evoke the existence of former levels of gypsum
lenses and/or indicate mineralization through the presence of nearby faults.
The same Qatar Reference Section was measured again by Abu Zeid et al. (1984) in an attempt to
measure the mineral content of each horizons. The results, shown in Fig. 4-3, identify exactly the
units displaying authigenic quartz and chalcedony, among other minerals.
Silica
Fig. 4-2: Qatar Reference Section: Lat. 251715.79N, Long. 504812.60E (Cavelier, 1970a
& 1970b)] displays the exposed section of the Rus Fm. Members nomenclature provided by
AlSaad (2003) (see fig. 4.4)
C) Age: Lower Eocene (Cavelier, in Sugden et al. 1975)
D) Top (MD): From 0 m in the south by Sawda Nathil and north of Dukhan town to about 25 m
above sea level also north of Dukhan town.
E) Thickness: 85.30 ft (26 m) of limestone is exposed at the Qatar Reference section.
The total thickness of the Rus (at surface and in the sub-surface) varies greatly within the country.
The minimal known thickness is 91.9 ft (28 m) at Latariyah, NW of Doha, in anticlinal position. In
the sector affected by the Simsima Dome (NE Qatar), it varies from 98.4 to 147.6 ft (30 to 45 m). In

synclinal position, the Rus is thicker [275.6 ft (84 m) in Doha and reaches 419.9 ft (128 m) at
Traina farm in southern Qatar]. In the offshore it displays a thickness of 367.5 ft (112 m) in Idd-el-
Shargi. (Cavelier [in Sugden et al] 1975 and Al-Saad, 2003)
Fig. 4-3: Qatar Reference Section: Lat. 251715.79N, Long. 504812.60E (Abu Zeid et
al., 1984)] displays the exposed section of the Rus Formation and outlines the mineral content
of each horizons.

F) Lithologic Description (W. Sudgen, A. J. Standring, C. Cavelier, 1975)

In Qatar, the Rus outcrops over the Dukhan anticline, in north-central Qatar and in the South by
the border with Saudi Arabia (Fig. 4-5). Boukhary & Al Sharhan (1998) divided the exposed Rus
Formation in Qatar into 2 Members (Doha and Sulaimi) and named the unexposed portion of the
Rus as Abu Samra based on observations from boreholes of northern Qatar. Al Saad (2003)
renamed Boukhary et al.s subsurface Abu Samra member as Traina Member from well DW4
near the village of Traina in Southern Qatar. He also renamed their Doha and Sulaimi members to
only Al Khor (Fig. 4.4)
*=
1) Originally included at the base of the Middle Eocene Dammam Formation by Cavelier.;
2) The name changed from 1970 to 1975 because the name of Fhaihil Velates limestones member was homonym of the Fahahil
Formation, Upper Jurassic, defined by Sugden in 1959 (see LeBlanc (2015b);
3) There is enough evidences today to include it under the Rus Formation (as shown above from 1984 to 2003). This publication
will therefore follow Al Saads 2003 members nomenclature for the Rus Formation
**= The surface sections are located in Dukhan Oil Field (western Qatar), Umm Sala Ali (central Qatar), Al-Khor and Al-
Zakheira (north-east Qatar). The subsurface samples are obtained from Traina farm (southern Qatar) and Ras Laffan area (NE).
Fig. 4-4: Members of the Rus Formation over time.

Fig. 4-5: Occurrences of the Rus Formation at the surface of Qatar in relation to the main
structural features of the country (Qatar Arch, Simsima Dome and Dukhan Anticline). It also
shows the location of the Dahl al Misfir cave in relation to the crest of the Qatar Arch.
The contact between the underlying Umm er Radhuma (UER) sequence and the Rus Formation in
many areas is abrupt. In Qatar it is characterised by the disappearance of a marine fauna and
generally by a facies change. However, as described below, facies similarity and post-depositional
dissolution processes pose certain difficulties in establishing the formational contact locally.
Sander (1962) reports Saudi Arabian fossil evidence from the basal Rus Formation beds which
indicate a shallow marine depositional environment. Hewaidy et al. (1993) reports on foraminifera
in the formation in Qatar. The abrupt facies change into the Rus Formation over much of the area
suggests a possible sedimentary hiatus after the deposition of the Umm er Radhuma. Evidence from
Saudi Arabia indicates that the hiatus was associated with uplift and land emergence in some
positive structurally controlled areas.
With the continuation of sedimentation, the Rus Formation appears to have been deposited in a
shallower sea than the Umm er Radhuma. The distribution of facies in the Rus Formation and the
thickness variation of the unit, however, show that the depositional environment was variable over

Qatar and it is believed that sedimentation was controlled by gentle structural movements.
Eccleston (1981) states deposition took place in warm, shallow, sometimes turbid waters, which
resulted in predominantly thinner purer chalk and limestone (with only subsidiary evaporites) in
areas of positive structural influence, whilst relatively thicker, turbid and evaporitic sedimentation
occurred in the structurally negative areas. However, some doubts persist with regards to this
statement. Restriction and high rates are usually associated with shallow, barred lagoons. Areas
lacking evaporites are more likely to have been more open and deeper. May be the lack of
evaporites along the crest is diagenetic (Jameson, 2017).
The marked increase in the thickness of the Rus Formation deposits from the structurally high to the
structurally low areas suggests that compensatory epirogenetic subsidence was occurring at the time
of deposition. The regional distribution of the different depositional environments is shown in Fig.
4-6. The structural influences are believed to have persisted from the beginning of the Cenozoic and
possibly earlier (Eccleston, 1981).
Fig. 4-6: Rus Formation: Sedimentary Environment. (Eccleston, 1981)
The variable mode of deposition of the Rus Formation has led to two major facies being present in
Qatar; these are a gypsiferous, argillaceous, facies termed the Sulphate Facies and a calcareous
facies or Carbonate Facies. The evaporitic areas are, by definition restricted from marine
circulation, thus the reason they have sulphates. They are more likely shallow. The carbonates are
open marine, possibly shoals, beaches. Although the distinction clearly exists on a sedimentary
basis, post-depositional gypsum dissolution has complicated the recognition and separation between

the facies in boundary areas. Fig. 4-7, Fig. 4-8 and Fig. 4-9 illustrate the distribution of the two
facies and also indicate the southward shift to the present-day contact between the predominantly
carbonate Rus of the north and the sulphate Rus of the remainder of Qatar due to dissolution of the
anhydrite within the formation.
Fig. 4-7: Surface & Sub-surface depositional facies of the Rus Formation in Qatar (Eccleston, et
al., (1981) modified by Elobaid: In Tollenaere (2015).

Fig. 4-8: North-South cross-section of Qatar showing the various lithologies and thicknesses of the
Rus Formation (Al-Hajari, 1992). Note: Accurate locations of the wells used for this cross-section
are unknown.
Fig. 4-9: Two East-West cross-sections in the North & South of Qatar showing the structure,
lithologies and thicknesses of the Cenozoic formations, including the Rus. (Al-Hajari, 1992). Note:
Accurate locations of the wells used for these cross-sections are unknown.

G) Faults & Fractures

Faults in the Rus Formation will be discussed in each individual areas described in the next chapter
(if observed), however, an important point to remember is that faults are very much present
everywhere in the Formation whether at the surface or in the subsurface but more specifically over
the Qatar arch and Dukhan anticline. For instance, Abu-Zeid (1991) studied several wells in
northern Qatar which penetrated the Rus Formation in the subsurface and observed two normal
longitudinal and transverse faults; the transverse fault having a northward down-throw of about 25
to 30 ft (7 to 9 m). The two faults were also cutting through the younger Umm Bab Member of the
Dammam Formation (Fig. 4-10)
Fig. 4-10: East-West (left) and North-South (right) lithostratigraphic correlation of the Paleogene
rock units in the northern region of Qatar showing occurrences of faults cutting through the Rus
Fm. (Abu-Zeid (1991))

Fractures are also very common and remain the best indicator of the stress experienced by the rocks
that make up Qatar today whether on an anticline (Fig. 4-11) or Arch (Fig. 4-12, Fig. 4-13) position.
Fig. 4-11: Fracture in the Rus Formation located over the Dukhan anticline and filled in with
quartz (Lat. 252937.94N, Long. 504614.99E) (picture by Kok, 2012)
Fig. 4-12: Few of the many fractures (shown with arrows) observed in the Rus Formation at
the bottom of the Dahl al Misfir Cave (Fig. 4-5), at locality Lat. 251030.56N, Long.
511242.23E (LeBlanc, 2015a). See Fig 4-13 below for a more general view. People on the
picture are: Christian Strohmenger (left) and John M. Rivers (right), both geologists.

Fig. 4-13: Rus (and Dammam) Formation in the Dahl al Misfir cave (Fig. 4-5). Red arrow in
the Rus points to the wall of the Rus Formation seen in Fig. 4-12. The Dammam Formation
displays its main members (Midra (and Saila) Shales, Dukhan Alveolina Limestone and Umm
Bab Dolomite and Limestone); only the Bir Zekreet Shale and the Abarug dolomitic
Limestone and Marl Members of the Dammam Formation are absent at this underground
locality.
5) Areas investigated for silica concentration in the Rus Formation

General Notes
Diagnostic fossils are not known to occur in the Rus Formation. Silica minerals (quartz geodes,
chalcedony, flint, etc.) on the other hand seem to be quite widespread especially towards the base of
the exposed section (Fig. 4-2). The white soft limestones include some quartz occurrences
(cobbles, secondary quartz of saccharoidal sugar type) which are likely replacements of evaporites.
When the base of the section is at ground level, such as to the northwest of Dukhan town, the
ground is littered with a lag deposit of chert (Table 5-DK1, location 04_P05) and/or small to
medium size rounded geodes displaying amorphous quartz or chalcedony. The Dukhan area has the
most widespread availability of chert material and poor quality geodes while the highest quality of
crystallized geodes were found in the Simsima area, northwest of Al-Khor.
Several areas were investigated; two in-depth (Dukhan, Simsima), and some others to lesser degrees
(Thakira, Jaleha, UmmBab, Shahaniya). A few trips were also made to the Rus Formation outcrops
of Jaow As Salama and Sawdaa Natheel, however because of the proximity to the border with Saudi
Arabia, these two areas could not be fully investigated. They will therefore not be discussed herein
other than referring the reader to Al-Hajari (1990)s figure below (Fig. 5-G1), which clearly show
the potential to find good quality chert and quartz nodules, and as well to Scott-Jackson et al.
(2015), for an archeologists perspective on the Rus formation by the Qatar/Saudi Arabia border
area. The location of all the above areas is illustrated in Fig. 5-G2.

Fig. 5-G1: Composite section of Jaow As Salama (I) & Sawdaa Natheel (II). Al-Hajari, 1990.

Fig. 5-G2: The six areas of the Rus Formation investigated for this study. Dukhan (A),
Simsima (B), Thakira (C), Shahaniya (D), UmmBab (E) and Jaleha (F). The two areas of Jaow
As Salama (G) and Sawdaa Natheel (H) were not investigated due their proximity to the
border with Saudi Arabia.

A) Area North of Dukhan Town

1 Geological History
This area is very prolific in flint4 material. It is therefore not surprising that numerous Neolithic
sites were found here by past expeditions (Fig. 5-Dk-01). Among others, Abdul Nayeem (1998)
states that in 1960, a large flint chipping site was discovered 5 km south of Dukhan, around 150m
from the shore. It covered 1 hectare and contained an assortment of implements such as arrowheads,
blades, scrapers and hand axes. In Ras Uwainat Ali, 10 kms north of Dukhan, camping grounds and
flint tools were discovered. The archaeological sites of Ras Abrouq, Zekreet and Al Daasa are also
in the vicinity of Dukhan.
Fig. 5-Dk-01: Neolithic sites (~6,000 years) in relation to the Rus

Formation of the Dukhan anticline and surrounding area. Macumber (2009)
In 1948, surface mapping of the Dukhan structural area was performed. Max Chatton (Chatton,
1948), Divisional Palaeontologist (Dukhan 1940s & 50s), undertook the mapping of the northern
part of the anticline during the months of February to April 1948 from Ras Dukhan (tip of the
Dukhan peninsula) to an East-West line at about the level of well DK-0002 (Fahahil Main) just
north of Umm Bab.
Chatton selected as reference bed5 for the structural map the 60 cm thick limestone bed with
abundant Alveolina elliptica (today called Dukhan Alveolina Limestone Member of the Dammam
Formation above the Rus) since it was identified to separate the full section in 2 parts and was the
4
I use the term flint here instead of chert due to the archeological nature of the topic discussed in the paragraph.
5
In those days the surface formations of Qatar had not been given their present names. Only the Abarug beds on the
Ras Abaruk peninsula had been previously named by E.W. Shaw and P.T. Cox during their 1933 geological
reconnaissance and also used subsequently by Williamson & Pomeyrol in their 1938 geological report (Leblanc, 2015)

only easily recognizable bed in the field. The mapping of the northern portion of the Dukhan
peninsula by Chatton revealed a thickness of the Rus Formation of about 25m (Fig. 5-Dk-03)
visible on the surface and a few faults of which the maximum visible vertical throw is about 17m
(Fig. 5-Dk-02). More faulting was also outlined in the southern portion of Chattons survey (not
discussed here).
Fig. 5-Dk-02: The maximum visible vertical throw of 17m surveyed by Chatton at locality Lat
252831.42N, Long 504648.21E. Area of important faults on Fig. 5-Dk-07.
It is strange that Chattons report does not make any special mention of silica/chert in his area of
study. The silicified vertical pipes that are discussed below must have been plenty and very obvious
in the coulees/run off of the area northwest of Dukhan. Chatton does, however, mention something
that will later on influence the conclusion I reached for this chapter. Discussing the fault system that
he had recently mapped, he states The bed distortion, and the little water spring of Mauddud
[NW of Dukhan] on the sea-shore are certainly a part of this fault system which seems also to be
the cause of the numerous changes of strike along the coast.
Fig. 5-Dk-03: Marks used for the mapping survey between the North End of the Dukhan oilfield and
Fahahil Main with their vertical distance to Alveolina bed, by Max Chatton, Divisional Palaeontologist.
1:300. Dated: September 25th 1948. The outcropping portion of the Rus formation is shown (~25m).

It is only in Caveliers reports (1970a and 1970b) that it is first stated West of Dukhan, towards the
visible base of the Rus, is seen a soft, whitish level of Limestone, with numerous quartz geodes.
Al-Saad (2003), on the other hand, comments that nodules of chert are common in the upper part of
the formation.
In 2003, Dill et al. investigated silicification occurrences in
relation to faulting in the northern portion of the Dukhan
oilfield (north of Dukhan town). Fig. 5-Dk-04 shows the
results of their investigation (faults and contours on top of the
Rus Formation). The blue squares indicate areas of
silicification while their sizes represent the intensity (amount
of silicification).
Additional areas of silicification were found over the same
sector by the present author and are discussed herein in more
details.
In 2014 Leblanc (unpublished) located a normal fault near the
tee-off to hole No. 4 at the Dukhan golf club (Fig. 5-Dk-05,
Fig. 5-Dk-06). However, because of the higher elevation of
this fault compared to my main area of study (see below) no
silica were found along the fault plane; therefore no fluid
migrated up. As per the conclusion of this chapter, I assume
the fault is of Miocene age.
When seen on a freshly cut surface faults can be spectacular,
however they are usually difficult to follow over long
distances due to the sand which covers the field and also
Fig. 5-Dk-04: By Dill et al because of the plasticity of the chalky formations which are
(2003) deformed and moulded by the faults. In the Dukhan area,
however, every coulees/creeks/run-off can be expected to hide
a fault (Fig. 5-Dk-07).
Fig. 5-Dk-05: Normal fault seen in the Rus Formation at locality Lat. 252618.95N, Long.
50473.05E (LeBlanc, 2014)

Fig. 5-Dk-06: Interpretation of the Normal fault seen in Fig. 5-Dk-05. Interpretation by Romeo
Solis Estrada, modified by Jacques LeBlanc.
2 Field Work
Five walking traverses (Fig. 5-Dk-07, Fig. 5-Dk-08, Fig. 5-Dk-09, Fig. 5-Dk-10, Fig. 5-Dk-11, Fig.
5-Dk-12), totalling more than 12kms, were investigated for the present study over the Dukhan area.
Silica occurrences and other geological features were accurately located with a GPS and described
in the few figures that follow. The Area of important faults shown in Fig. 5-Dk-07 (and Fig. 5-
Dk-02) was outlined by Chatton in his 1948 report; other areas with surface fault expressions must
exist in this sector and should deserve better attention to understand the visible structural history of
the field/anticline. From East to West, I also cover all the 26 metres of the Al-Khor Member of the
Rus formation. Silica is found in few levels but the main concentration (the vertical pipes) is at the
very bottom, almost at sea level. To my knowledge, I am the first to describe and study them.
Fig. 5-Dk-07: The five walking traverses (in color) investigated in the area northwest of Dukhan
town. The coulees/creeks/run-off (in black) may be following the surface expression of existing
faults.

Fig. 5-Dk-08: Traverse 1 together with the localities sampled and photographed

Fig. 5-Dk-12: Traverse 5 together with the localities sampled and photographed. It is on this
Traverse that the greater amount of silicified vertical pipes were encountered (discussed below)

3 Description of all GPS points
Table 5-Dk1: Description of all waypoints investigated along the traverses. Note 1: Altitude values are only an
approximation. Note 2: Some of the waypoints mentioned may already have been buried/destroyed by the
normal activities of the Dukhan oilfield.
WayPoint
Alt.
Name Lat Long Description
(m)
(DK-TR-)
Top of the Rus Formation (almost on top of the hill). The overlying
formation (Dammam) is barely recognizable due to the amount of
boulders which have fallen down slope and the overall wind-blown
01_P01 25.47663 50.77824 37.6
cover. The Dammams approximate contact with the Rus can be
assumed by the appearance of cubic pyrite crystals which are distinctive
of its Midra shale Member (no shark teeth could be seen)
01_P02 25.47632 50.77829 27.3 Fairly large amount of saccharoidal quartz on a ledge of the hill
01_P03 25.47615 50.77803 18.4 Loose chert fragments
Large amount of chert fragments. Note: Between P03 and P04 the
01_P04 25.47564 50.77623 13.8 formation is covered by sediments however, the sediments are peppered
with saccharoidal quartz and chert fragments
Large amount of chert fragments. Between P05 and P06 the sand cover is
01_P05 25.47561 50.77568 13.8 peppered with lots of chert fragments, saccharoidal quartz and badly
formed nodular & chalcedony quartz
Between P05 and P06 the sand cover is peppered with lots of chert
01_P06 25.47534 50.77482 9.5 fragments, saccharoidal quartz and badly formed nodular & chalcedony
quartz
Section of a nodular quartz in

01_P07 25.47525 50.77461 7.8
limestone.
Small nodular quartz in

01_P08 25.47517 50.77462 8.5 limestone; possibly a small water
spring vent.
01_P09 25.47487 50.77345 10.5 More quartz

01_P10 25.47512 50.77299 7.6 Silicified vertical pipes; Circular mudstone features
01_P11 25.47398 50.77166 6.8 Loose chert area (lag deposit)
01_P13 25.47206 50.76876 7.8 Graded/removed limestone boulders with quartz still in place.
02_P-01 25.46889 50.76445 7.6 Loose chert area (lag deposit)

Loose chert in the sand forming

02_P02 25.4686 50.76515 7.6
part of a lag deposit
Chert nodules in limestone.

02_P03 25.4678 50.76573 6.8
Area with lots of loose chert
02_P04 25.46759 50.76611 5.7 Nodular quartz in limestone.
02_P05 25.46728 50.76721 9.7 Loose chert (lag deposit)

02_P06 25.46459 50.77844 12.9 Few loose quartz
02_P07 25.46275 50.78275 18.6 Area with lots of loose quartz
Small rounded quartz cobbles in

limestone with some loose ones.
One looks like the mold of a

gastropod which has been
replaced by silica (below)
02_P08 25.46261 50.78312 17.9
Top of Rus Formation; contact with Midra shale of the Dammam

02_P09 25.46038 50.78879 38.8
formation
03_P01 25.45971 50.78392 22.7 Quartz nodules

03_P02 25.4575 50.77385 29.7 Chert, quartz

03_P03 25.45488 50.76527 23.2 Lots of quartz with some badly formed geodes
Remains of former chalcedonic

03_P04 25.45444 50.76528 21.3 quartz nodules or former water
escape features
Silicified vertical pipes with circular mudstone features around them.

03_P05 25.4545 50.76508 21.5
The quartz is chalcedonic.
03_P06 25.45365 50.76182 19.4 Loose large chert nodules in soft sediments (broken vertical pipe)
Freshly cut Rus cliff displaying

03_P08 25.46018 50.78847 24.7
the layers and fractures
Burrow in a red limestone

03_P09 25.45435 50.76593 9.51
zigzagging downward.
Circular features. The chert

core is not often present.
03_P10 25.45386 50.76539 2.7
Quartz crystals lay on the
ground in all the general area

Circular features. Few vertical

03_P11 25.45363 50.76523 0.23 chert cores protruding out of
the ground
Circular features; some with

chert cores and others with
03_P12 25.45449 50.76509 2.28
coarse grains of quartz in their
centre
Circular features deprived of

chert cores. Coarse grains of
03_P13 25.45447 50.76514 1.3
quartz lay on the ground in
the overall general area.
Circular features deprived of

chert cores. Coarse grains of
03_P14 25.45529 50.76516 4.41 quartz lay on the ground in
the overall general area.
Nearby is a red limestone

04_P01b 25.44891 50.75821 18.9 Broken chert of silicified vertical pipes at the base. Still in place
Loose large cauliflower quartz

nodules. The internal part of
04_P02 25.44703 50.75796 17.9 some displays a majority of
opaque crystal (few clear ones).
The quartz is chalcedonic.
04_P03 25.4461 50.75897 17.2 Loose quartz nodules

04_P04 25.44623 50.76169 19.6 Small quartz cobbles everywhere
Loose chert and nodular quartz

forming part of a lag deposit in
between the various coulees.
04_P05 25.44613 50.76179 19.6 Where the base of the exposed
section of the Rus Formation
outcrops, the ground is littered
with chert material and geodes
04_P06 25.44595 50.76183 19.6 Vertical loose chert nodules everywhere

Silicified vertical pipe with
circular mudstone features
around it
04_P07 25.44577 50.76192
04_P08 25.44574 50.76189 18.1 Nodular quartz

Broken off silicified (chert)

vertical pipe enclosed in a large
crystallized quartz matrix,
probably a remnant of the
silicified sea-floor. Silicified
vertical pipes with circular
mudstone features around them.
Note 1: The pictures were taken
in the general area; not at the
exact coordinates of this point.
Note 2: All in-place silicified
04_P09 25.44579 50.76205 17.2 vertical pipes were left
untouched. Some loose nodules
were collected by the author
04_P10 25.44612 50.76361 20.8 Nodular quartz

04_P11 25.44597 50.76397 22 Loose chert, sinter material, quartz, and silicified vertical pipes
04_P12 25.44536 50.76724 18.1 Chert and nodular quartz
04_P13 25.4458 50.76877 22.2 Chert and nodular quartz
Slim and elongated loose chert pipe together with a more bulky specimen
04_P14 25.4457 50.76193 8.86
with no cortex.
04_P15 25.445 50.76173 11.29 Broken off chert vertical pipe surrounded by circular mudstone feature.
Coulee displaying several circular mudstone features; some empty and
04_P16 25.4457 50.76207 5.61
others with silicified vertical pipe.
05_P01 25.45427 50.76413 18.4 Quartz in-place and loose. Apparent chalcedony
Gryphon-style features with non-

silicified pipes. Nearby starts the
area with silicified vertical pipes
05_P06 25.44915 50.76409 23.2 and circular mudstone features.
Badly crystallized geodes and
loose quartz can also be found in
the surrounding sediments
Start of area with silicified vertical pipes and circular mudstone features
05_P07 25.44877 50.76398 26.3 on outcrop, together with badly crystallized geodes, and quartz in
surrounding sediments

05_P08 25.44829 50.76346 25.1

Lots of loose quartz
05_P09 25.44803 50.7634 26.8
Lots of loose quartz and in place quartz on outcrop
05_P10 25.44638 50.7635 27.3
Loose quartz and loose & broken silicified vertical pipes
05_P11 25.44587 50.7634 24.2
Loose quartz and loose & broken silicified vertical pipes
05_P12 25.44345 50.76323 24.6
Large loose silicified vertical pipes
One silicified vertical pipe which has been broken at the base. The
05_P13 25.44295 50.76328 23.4
circular feature is visible around it
05_P14 25.44203 50.76303 22.5 Large quartz nodules
Silicified vertical pipes exposed

in a coulee. For some, only the
circular mudstone feature is seen
(silicified vertical pipe has
broken loose). In one instance,
05_P14a 25.44199 50.76213
the vertical chert core is
observed. Above the coulee is
found the chert lag deposit /
former sinter / Smooth-walled
cherts.
05_P15 25.44111 50.76303 19.4 Large quartz nodules
Large quartz nodule in limestone

05_P15a 25.44184 50.76162 (above) and once cleaned
(below)

Silicified vertical pipes: One

05_P15b 25.44181 50.76171 large vertical tubular chert
nodule
05_P16 25.44059 50.76296 19.1 Quartz & chert

05_P17 25.4402 50.76296 20.3 Quartz & chert
Spherical (1.5 cm in diameter)

amalgamation of quartz crystals
(sub-botryoidal). When broken
in two, the spheres show the
quartz radiating from the centre
giving off a rosette look.
Some of the spheres are loose,
others are all agglomerated
together. Most of them at that
05_P18 25.44102 50.76442 17.7 location are opaque rather than
translucent. While no analyses
were performed to determine the
correct mineralogy of these
spheres, it is suspected that the
opacity is due to inclusion of
anhydrite in the quartz crystals.
http://www.faden.it/pagine_htm/
024pagina_rocce_evaporitiche.ht
m
05_P19 25.4425 50.76421 24.2 Chert & quartz

05_P20 25.44313 50.76426 20.6 Chert & quartz
05_P21 25.44558 50.7645 18.9 Loose quartz
05_P22 25.44604 50.76443 20.8 Loose quartz
Vertical chert pipe in its original position. The base is surrounded by
05_P23 25.4490 50.76177 5.95
quartz crystals. Circular mudstone feature is hidden by sand cover.
Surface littered with broken off chert lag deposit / broken sinter /
05_P24 25.4490 50.76188 10.04
Smooth-walled cherts
Two circular mudstone features intersecting each others. Vertical chert
05_P25 25.4489 50.76185 19.56
pipes in both of them.
05_P26 25.4490 50.76172 7.08 Very thick vertical chert pipe with circular mudstone feature.
Circular mudstone feature with vertical chert pipe. Base of pipe also
05_P27 25.4489 50.76172 6.91
displays chunks of quartz crystals.
05_P28 25.4495 50.76168 8.62 Loose chert material with large quartz nodules.
05_P29 25.4493 50.76403 12.32 Conical water spring vents (gryphons).

Conical water spring vents

05_P30 25.4500 50.76358 15.20
(gryphons). Bottle is 18cm tall
Duricrust of limestone and

05_P31 25.4508 50.76484 4.89 evaporitic minerals. Bottle is
18cm tall.
Empty circular mudstone feature. Also, a loose Smooth-walled chert

05_P32 25.4510 50.76519 3.27
specimen taken from the lag deposit.
Loose chert samples with odd

shapes found loose in a coulee.
These are the only ones found
with some sort of internal
structure resembling water jets
being expelled at high velocity.
05_P33 25.4505 50.76593 3.42

Gryphons with obvious tubular

05_P34 25.4485 50.76400
openings/conduits
Several micrite circle rings with cores of chert & coarse grains of
05_P35 25.43802 50.76320 4.1
quartz exposed in a clean coulee
Micrite circular ring with chert

05_P36 25.43683 50.76445 4.4
vertical core in-place
Micrite circular ring with

05_P37 25.43669 50.76445 7.0 vertical chert core. Lots of quartz
grains material surrounding it.

Micrite circular ring with

vertical chert core together with
05_P38 25.43644 50.76452 4.5
a well preserved geode found
nearby.
Section of a vertical pipe poorly

05_P39 25.43553 50.76467 4.0
chertified
Area with lots of large nodules;

some with crystals, chalcedony
and bothryoidal centres (right
05_P40 25.43466 50.76546 5.0
and below). Once broken, a
nodule sample also revealed
flint meal

Hollow silicified pipe (no chert)

05_P41 25.43436 50.76374 4.7 with only quartz crystals
buildup.
Large circular feature on the side

05_P42 25.45108 50.76526 4.71 of a creek. Creek also contains
several of them with chert cores
Large gryphon (with others in

05_P43 25.44995 50.76376 14.96
the area)

Several gryphons visible on a

05_P44 25.44934 50.76393 14.85
limestone surface
Several gryphons visible on a

05_P45 25.44874 50.76405 12.99
limestone surface
Section/portion of a gryphon
05_P46 25.44868 50.76468 11.41
seen on a small cliff
Several circular features on a

05_P47 25.45323 50.76681 12.55
limestone ledge.

Very well preserved circular

features; most of them with
05_P48 25.43802 50.76308 7.38
either a chert core or coarse
grains of quartz in their centre
Very well preserved circular

features; most of them with
05_P49 25.43804 50.76316 14.04
either a chert core or coarse
grains of quartz in their centre
05_P50 25.43216 50.76165 1.44 Red chert sinter
Small fluid escape vents on a

05_P51 25.42882 50.76376 6.93
small outcrop

Small fluid escape vents on a

05_P52 25.42881 50.76364 5.65
large outcrop
In addition to the above localities, I also invite you to view the pictures of Mr. Aubrey Whymark who visited
this area (no specific coordinates nor comments were recorded). His pictures are at
https://goo.gl/photos/FtC5p6NdVgHDnanc8
4 - Description of the Silicified/chert Vertical Pipes and their surrounding area

During my investigation6 into the nature and origin of the silicified/chert Vertical Pipes found in
the Dukhan area, I have come across several terms that could describe them in some fashion. These
are: silicified concretions, Iron nodules, chert concretions/nodules, trace fossil paramoudra,
microbialite bioherms, silicified microbial mats, carbonate pinnacles, brine pools and methane
hydrates. However, none of the technical descriptions were found to accurately describe the field
occurrences of the Dukhan specimens. A more concise description follows:
Most prominent are circular or ring-like structures. The inner axial portion of the ring is bent
upward around a near vertical core structure that is also silicified. These structures reach a
maximum diameter of 45 cm. Their form and size is consistent with a fluid escape structure.
They apparently formed by breaching the sediments of a shallow paleo-sea. Similar non-
silicified features were briefly described by Le Roux et al., 2008 in a Pliocene deposit of Chile.
The circular features surrounding all silica pipes are brown to grey mudstones (Fig. 5-Dk-13,
right), often peppered with inclusions of small oxidized iron minerals (Fig. 5-Dk-13, left). Only
one ring has always been observed. Specimens with multiple rings do not exist.
6
No other work is known worldwide on the topic of similar silicified vertical pipes, however in preparation for
the present publication, I asked the opinion of the scientific community on
https://www.researchgate.net/home and https://www.academia.edu/ regarding their possible origin.

Fig. 5-Dk-13: Internal composition of a ring (left) surrounding a damaged silicified vertical
pipe (right). (picture 04_P07 in table 5-DK1)
The greatest extent above ground of the vertical pipe in the centre of a ring measures 30 cm
(including those that have broken off and now found lying loose on the ground).
All of the pipes in-place are vertical. No horizontal or angular pipes/conduits have ever been
observed. Most burrow systems are vertical but the structures are unlike any previous
publications of burrows.
The siliceous body is generally smooth, opaque, dark black to dark brown, and sometime white
due to chalcedonic alteration (Fig. 5-Dk-14, left and Fig. 5-Dk-15).
Fig. 5-Dk-14: Freshly broken off vertical pipes displaying black chert with conchoidal fracture
in their core (left) and the brownish/whitish opaline silica cortex (right)
Fig. 5-Dk-15: Natural section cutting

perpendicularly through a weathered
silicified vertical pipe. The normally dark
core is here weathered to a white
chalcedonic silica. The outer portion of the
pipe (the fine-grained crystalline opaline
silica cortex) is the thin brownish layer
caught between the chert and the matrix
composed of coarse grains of quartz.

The external/outer part of the siliceous body (vertical pipe) weathers to a rough brownish to
orangey crust (Fig. 5-Dk-14, right), sometimes grey, called the cortex. This cortex is most
likely composed of fine-grained opaline silica (no petrographic analysis such as thin sections
were conducted). The colour of the cortex characterizes its origin as evaporitic (Soto et al,
2014). Its thickness is variable, but normally 1 to 2 mm. Some observed cortex still display the
remnant of the coarse grain matrix that used to enclose them (Fig. 5-Dk-16)
Fig. 5-Dk-16: The

surface of one
vertical pipes
cortex displaying
the remnant of the
coarse grain matrix
that used to enclose
it. It would be
interesting to micro-
analyse such sample
to determine the
type of organism
that silicified the
pipe and the
environment in
which they formed.
No sedimentary structures (except picture 05_P33), gypsum relicts or chicken-wire anhydrite

formations were recognized.
When found loose and complete the vertical pipe has a flat base and a rounded top. The base
displays the black flint internal portion while the other more rounded end (the top) displays the
brownish/whitish opaline silica cortex (Figs. 5-Dk-14 and 5-DK-17).
The vertical chert pipes are elongated conduits (Fig. 5-Dk-14, right) of various sizes and shapes
obviously created from a replacement process. They are categorized as nodular chert (see
nodule vs concretion in definition).
The chert conduit and opaline silica cortex is often enclosed in a matrix composed of quartz
crystals (Fig. 5-Dk-15). When the quartz matrix breaks loose from the pipe/conduit it is often
encountered as geodes of different, but mostly low, qualities with a distinct wide opening which
easily betrays their origin (Fig. 5-Dk-17)

Fig. 5-Dk-17: Vertical chert pipes all or partially enclosed in a coarse crystalline matrix of quartz
crystals oriented radially around the pipe (left). When the quartz matrix breaks loose from the
flint it is often found as geode of poor quality but with a distinct wide opening which betrays its
origin (right)
The ground is often littered with pieces of various sizes and shapes of loose chert over large
areas (Table 5-DK1, picture 04_P05). Today, these are called lag deposits but when they were
being formed they were most probably encountered as freshly deposited and uniform silica
sinters similar to those seen in Figs. 5-Dk-18 and 5-Dk-19.
Fig. 5-Dk-18: Silicified sinter material from Dukhan (left) and an example of a modern-day
silica sinter/ Smooth-walled cherts (right) from http://www.wyojones.com/how__geysers_form.htm

Fig. 5-Dk-19: Sinter/Smooth-walled

material (right) as found on the
ground NW of Dukhan town.
Mudstone gryphon structures resembling small mud volcanoes are also found in the area. The
tip of many of them displays the remains of an original tube (Fig. 5-Dk-20), normally just 1 or 2
cm in diameter, while for others, the opening is much wider (Fig. 5-Dk-21). These tubes,
however, do not show the presence of chert material. See an example of a modern day gryphon
in (Fig. 5-Dk-22)
Fig. 5-Dk-21 (locality Fig. 5-Dk-22: Example, not

Fig. 5-Dk-20 (locality 05_P34): 05_P30). Example of from Qatar, of a present-day
Example of gryphons from the gryphons from the Rus gryphon, from
Rus Formation of Qatar. Formation of Qatar. Bottle is https://gsc350.wikispaces.com/
18cm tall mudvolcanoLusi )
The gryphons and the circular features are not found in one specific layer but rather follow the
eroded slopes. As a general rule, the mudstone gryphons structures are found in lower, wind
protected, areas while the circular features occur in the more exposed areas. When the terrain is
eroded or formed some slopes, the gryphons/circular features just follow the topography. On the
other hand, coarse grains of quartz assemblages seem to occur in both protected and exposed
areas (Fig. 5-Dk-29).
There is an amazing concentration of these gryphons along bedding planes (Photos 5_P44 to
5_P52); one every 25 cm. Some bedding planes have them distributed evenly over 10s of square
meters, others are aligned along lineaments or fractures. This is an additional proof that water
could not have come only from a dewatering process, unless the column being dewatered is
extremely thick, which is very unlikely here. In such process, a 1m thick bed doesnt have that
much water. At deposition it could only have 50% pore volume of water, of which only 10-15%
would be lost during thixotropy.

5 Interpretation on the origin of the silicified/chert vertical pipes and surrounding silica
Before reaching my final conclusion on the origin of these silicified/chert vertical pipe structures, I
feel it is important to first explain why some other options were not retained for these silica
deposits.
A What they cannot be

They cannot be concretions (Fig. 5-Dk-23).
The structure, shape and organization of the ring structures is inconsistent with a purely, abiotic
segregration of silica forming a concretion. A concretion grows from a nucleus and tends to be
spherical or elliptical in shape (not pipe-like). Cross-sections of concretions typically display
multiple rings/halos. It would also have made more sense to encounter horizontal concretions
(in the bedding plane direction) rather than just vertical.
They cannot be silicified Bioherms/Stromatolites/microbial mats (Fig. 5-Dk-24)

Microbial structures are present in the lag deposit; however, these microbial structures, and those
described in the literature, differ in several key respects from the pipe structures described here. Two
types of comparisons are made. First, it is with the arid climate stromatolites (Fig. 5-Dk-24): The outer
parts of the bioherms (the rings) would have silicified first and would also have been preserved
completely three-dimensionally; not just the core. Also, as mentioned earlier, there is always
only one ring or halo around them (Fig. 5-Dk-13, picture 04_P07); a bioherm origin would at
least offer the possibility of encountering specimens displaying more than one ring/halo together
with their complex scale lamination.
Fig. 5-Dk-23: Unlikely silicification of a Fig. 5-Dk-24: Sketch of a living microbialite

concretion. (left) with its improbable equivalent after
undergoing mineral/silica replacement and
erosion of its non-silicified outer layers (right).
This does not explain why only one ring is
present around all of the Dukhan specimens.
Secondly, it is with the microbial communities occurring in hot springs: With regards to the
surface manifestation of sinter formation (both carbonate- and silica-based), a link between
microbes was first documented in Yellowstone National Park at the end of the 19th century.
Since then, many studies of microbial silicification in active hot springs have shown that
silicification rates are rapid, but that the silicification process is controlled by purely abiotic

driving forces [i.e. boiling, cooling, evaporation, waves and splash] (Guidry et al., 2002).
Benning et al. (2005) have demonstrated that the accumulation of amorphous silica on the
surface of cyanobacteria is controlled solely by silica nanoparticle aggregation, and that the
contribution of the microbial sheaths or cell walls in this aggregation process is considered
significant. In active geothermal hot springs, cyanobacteria play no active role in the initial
silica polymerization. Nevertheless, many field and experimental microscopic observations
showed clear evidence of a link between silica sinter structures/textures and micro-organisms
via the deposition of silica nanospheres onto the microbial surfaces (Fig. 5-Dk-25). In the
streams, pools and sinters forming in modern geothermal systems, a vast array of mesophilic
organisms (that grows best in moderate temperature, neither too hot nor too cold, typically
between 20 and 45 C, with the optimal temperature being 37 C.) and thermophilic organisms
(that thrives at relatively high temperatures, between 41 and 122 C) thrive at high temperatures
and varied pH, as well as high toxic-metal concentrations that are usually detrimental to
microbial growth.
Fig. 5-Dk-25: Schematic illustrating extracellular silicification of an unsheathed

cyanobacterium. Silica colloids accumulate on the outer surface of the sheath, due to the
impermeability of the sheath to large particles. In addition, it is shown how silica inhibits
damaging UV light from reaching the cell, whilst the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR)
can pass through the silica layer with less attenuation. (Benning et al., 2005)
They cannot be paramoudras. The paramoudras of Europe (see Definitions) are very large
in size while the Qatar specimens are much smaller. Paramoudras created from a bacterial origin
will be observed in various positions (vertical, horizontal or diagonal) and will not involve the
formation of gryphons/mud volcanoes. The only similarity of the specimens with paramoudras
are the original tube seen at their tips and that no apparent layering can be observed in the dark
silicified centre.
A dewatering process / escape features after burial?: I suppose it is always possible but in
my opinion very unlikely. Dewatering would occur only during a fairly narrow time period and

would have happened while the sediments of the Rus were still not lithified. In the pages that
follow we will provide enough arguments to prove that the event that created these pipes and
circular features happened long time after the sediments transformed into rock (in the Miocene
in fact).
B So, what are they?

Knauth (1979) confirmed that many nodular cherts in limestone have formed in the ground water of
mixed meteoric-marine coastal systems where dissolution of biogenic opal and mixing of marine
and fresh waters can produce waters highly supersaturated with respect to quartz and undersaturated
with respect to calcite and aragonite. Therefore, in line with Knauth (1979), the silicified/chert
vertical pipes, the mudstone circular features, and most of the coarse grains of quartz encountered in
the Dukhan area are envisaged to be the result of Miocene (not Eocene) paleo-freshwater springs
(or carbonate mud volcanoes) charged with a high content of sulphide (probably hydrogen
sulphide/methane [H2S], however petroleum itself cannot be excluded). The silicified/chert vertical
pipes would represent the silicified water/methane-derived carbonate conduits while the circular
and gryphon features surrounding them represent the sub-marine expression of fluid escape (see
modern examples in Fig. 5-Dk-28). Similarly, the lag deposits (formerly the sinter) are the remains
of the encasing dolomite (a limestone/calcium by-product produced by microbes that feed off
methane) which has been replaced by chert derived from dissolution of either radiolarian,
diatoms or siliceous sponges through injection of the sulphide-rich gas/water in the horizontal
bedding plane that surrounded each pipes (see Fig. 5-Dk-38).
In short, the field investigation leads us to conclude that the silicified/chert vertical pipe structures
observed in the Dukhan area are products of fresh water springs (I suggest the water came from the
UER) charged with sediments and sulphide-rich gas (which would involve bubbles and vapor [Le
Roux, 2016]7 ) traveling along the pipes; the gas would have escaped from the deeper and forming
Cretaceous minor reservoirs through fractures and faults (Figs. 5-Dk-26, 5-Dk-27). This shallow
marine environment (Fig. 5-Dk-26), would have naturally attracted several types of organisms,
including microbial stromatolites together with silica forming organisms such as radiolarian
diatoms and siliceous sponges. After their death, the slow dissolution of their siliceous/Opal-A
frustules would have recrystallized as amorphous chert in and around the mud volcanoes/springs
vents thus forming the sinter and the silicified tubes.
7
Specimens of the silicified Dukhan mud volcanoes/springs were sent late to Dr. Le Roux of the Geology Department at the University of Chile in
Santiago in order for one of his student to conduct a complete set of analysis. Unfortunately they were not able to make much headway before my set
deadline, except for some quartz fluid inclusion studies that indicated the presence of a lot of vapor. When the more extensive study of these samples
is completed, I will include an addendum to the document.

Fig. 5-Dk-26: The chemistry of micro & macro seepages. Modified from Fontana et al (2013)
Fig. 5-Dk-27: The five

types of hydrocarbon
seeps in relation to
stratigraphic and
structural settings. In
practice, because they are
more stratigraphically
controlled, Types 1 and 2
are specific for oil seeps
(and solid hydrocarbons,
tar, bitumen, and asphalt)
with relatively shallow (or
even outcropping) sources
or reservoirs. Types 3, 4,
and 5 (with Type 5
considered to be a sub-
category of Type 3) imply
a leading role for tectonic
discontinuities, faults, and
fracture networks
(tectonically
controlled), and are
typical of gas seepage.
Etiope (2015)
Today, there is no known water spring in the area, however I believe that it was not always the case.
Langham (1940) writes about the origin of the name of the Cretaceous Mauddud Formation:
The Cretaceous Mauddud Limestone is present at Bahrein and Burgan (Kuwait) where it carries
the main oil zones of those fields but is not known with certainty at outcrops and has not been

formally named and described. The Dukhan No.1 section has, therefore, been selected as the type
and the formation has been named from the Mauddud water wells near Dukhan No.1.
Additionally, even though a copy of his 1940 report has never been found, Dr. F.R.S. Henson
describes the Mauddud Formation in its report CGLL/1157, 23.10.40 and apparently refers to the
origin of the Formations name coming from Ain Mauddud near Dukhan (Ain means spring
in Arabic). Later, in 1948, Dr. Max Chatton, geologist and palaeontologist in Dukhan writes in his
surface geological report of the northern portion of the Dukhan field (discussed earlier) The bed
distortion at 550m south of DK-0004, and the little water spring of Mauddud on the seashore are
certainly a part of this fault system which seems also to be the cause of the numerous changes of
strike along the coast.. Well DK-0004 is located just about 1.5 kms north from the silicified water
spring area.
The above literature lead us to believe that the Water Spring of Mauddud is (or was) located near
the study area of the silicified pipes. Unfortunately, even after enrolling the help of the Qatar
Geological Section (QGS), Qatar Natural History Group (QNHG), Qatar National Museum
and Qatars Ministry of Environment (MoE), together with conducting thorough searches in the
Qatar Petroleum archives, the BP archives in London and in the following three websites
http://geoportal.gisqatar.org.qa/qmape/index.html , http://qat.geonamebase.com , www.qnl.qa for
the names of Mauddud and Henson, a definite location for this modern water spring was never
ascertained. Given all the geological description of the silicified pipes provided in this document
and my conclusion stressing that their origin can only be from water springs, I continue to believe
that this modern Mauddud Water spring can only be located on the seashore west of the study area,
most probably in the intertidal and along a minor/shallow fault plane. This spring, if it still exists
could look like the examples given in Fig. 5-Dk-28 (note the unique ring in all these pictures).
Fig. 5-Dk-28: Examples of present-day freshwater springs shown here to demonstrate the circular
features created when they surface.
1) The Blowholes of Portland, Australia; 2) Florida,

thenomadicexplorers.com (not yet with https://www.pinterest.com/pin/92183123592918
crystal lining) 553/

4) Partly lithified water spring with its opened

3) Bubbling water spring, Ocala National
conduit, New Caledonia. Note vent pipe lined
Forest, Florida, USA. (not yet with
with crystalline chalcedony.
crystal lining)
http://www.visoterra.com/voyage-nouvelle-
http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ocala/home
caledonie/photo-source-d-eau-chaude.html?
5) In a lake at Circleville, Utah. http://www.wikistrike.com/2014/09/un-cratere-extraterrestre-

apparait-dans-un-lac-aux-etats-unis.html
Keeping in mind the above classification of Etiope (2015) (Figs. 5-Dk-27), the possibility of the
Mauddud water spring lurking in the area, and knowing that the Dukhan area is over a famous oil
producing anticline, i will now describe the mechanism involved at creating these silicified water
springs as I envision it.

6 The mechanism involved at creating the mud volcanoes/springs/gryphons:

A Miocene age for the paleo-springs is implied due to the following reasons8 :
In Eocene time over the Dukhan area, only slumping of the lower beds had occurred due to
the initiation of doming (Fig. 2.7);
If it was Eocene, the origin of the freshwater cannot be easily explained. One could say the
gryphons originated from a dewatering process but this would imply an incredible amount
of water to create these structures; where did it come from? On the other hand, having a
Miocene origin provides a mechanism for freshwater recharge into the UER and other
subsurface formations. Initial tilting and uplift of the Arabian plate would have generated a
huge hydrostatic head of fresh water into near-surface formations.
The paleo-springs cut through all of the layers of the Rus in the area (Fig. 5-Dk-29);
Fig. 5-Dk-29: General distribution of the gryphons and circular features according to the current
topography.
After or during formation of the Dukhan anticline, the fresh water originated from the main
central/domal faults linking the underlying aquifer of the Umm er Radhuma (UER) to the surface
and generating gryphons downslope through crestal faults (Fig. 5-Dk-30). Similarly, sulphide-rich
gas escaped through the same pathway of near-surface faults together with fractures and other faults
occurring in the deeper formations.
Most probably, water and gas also escaped from the UER and deeper formations along fault or
fracture pathways (Fig. 5-Dk-32), by-passing the central point of main faulting. The gryphons then
formed entirely within the host mudstone below the seafloor (Fig. 5-Dk-20, Fig. 5-DK-22, Fig. 5-
Dk-21).
The occurrence of similar gryphons are not limited to NW Dukhan in Qatar. After a tip from a
friend (Marcin Kousznik working at Texas A&M University in Doha) the author investigated an
area of the Dammam formation in the InlandSea (Khor Al Odaid) SE of Qatar where non-silicified
8
As far as it is known, it is impossible to date chert (Strontium [Sr] does not fit into the lattice). As for the mudstone it
is assumed that the Sr isotopic signal would be inherited from the predecessor rock (Rus Formation), especially if the
calcifying waters are not marine (so Sr content would come from dissolution of country rock; not from the Miocene
seawater for instance). So the dates of the mudstone would yield Eocene even if the formation of the feature is
Miocene. Some stable isotopic measurements of the mud could be performed; this might provide some idea how hot
the water was and weather it was meteoric or marine. (John Rivers, pers. comm.)

paleo-water springs had been located (Fig. 5-Dk-33). As per those in Dukhan, the gryphons of the
InlandSea locality could only represent the surface expression of an intricate network of fractures
and/or faults in the subsurface.
Fig. 5-Dk-30: Main Sequence of events:

1) During the Lower & Middle Eocene, deposition of the Rus and Dammam Formations all over
the area.
2) During the Miocene Period, accelerated regional tectonism activities took place together with
folding and faulting of the Dukhan anticline followed by graben collapse/creation.
3) Still during the Miocene Period, and exactly as seen in the sketch, the Dammam Formation
experienced a strong erosional period only on the western side of the anticline; this resulted in
exposing the Rus Formation where a very shallow and protected Miocene marine environment
most likely existed (evaporitic, such as sabkha, or a marine restricted environment (Fig. 5-Dk-
31); which would explain the evaporitic origin of the pipes cortex.
4) Freshwater was then able to escape upward from the aquifer of the Umm er Radhuma through
the crestal system of Miocene faults and propagate downslope into the Rus Formation helped by
the natural hydraulic gradient. The wet climate of the Miocene also helped
5) Sulphide-rich gas from deeper Cretaceous Formations (such as those from the Wasia Group
which are being produced in Bahrain) would have mixed with the expelled water.
6) Gryphons would then have formed only on the west side of the anticline; the east side still being
covered with the rocks of the Dammam Formation.
Sketch modified from: http://jgs.lyellcollection.org/content/168/4/1013/F11.small.gif

Fig. 5-Dk-31: Salt/Evaporites can also occur along Fig. 5-Dk-32: Schematic diagram of gryphon
the margins of a restricted marine basin, if marine formation through direct fault passageways to the
water evaporates faster than it can be resupplied surface; modified from Nyman et al. (2006).
A B
C D
Fig. 5-Dk-33: Similar non-silicified gryphons can also be found in the stratigraphically higher
formation of the Dammam in a locality of the Inland sea in SE Qatar (Lat: 24 43 40.92, Long.:
51 24 10.31) at the level of a sabkha. A) Large gryphons protruding from the ground. B) Some
with their tubular core infilled with recent sediments. C & D) Doughnut shaped water springs.

Fig. 5-Dk-34: Example from a present-day Fig. 5-Dk-35: Perfect expression of what
gryphon/mud volcano. Note how salty the remains of a silicified low velocity discharge
environment is. Obviously, the velocity of the gryphon in the Rus Formation (near 04_P07 in
discharges is subdued. Table 5-Dk1). The core/vent was silicified due
http://www.geologypage.com/2015/07/mud- to the mechanism explained in Figs. 5-Dk-36, 5-
volcano.html Dk-37.
7 The mechanism involved at creating the silica in water springs:

Whether the water and gas came up from a system of crestal faults or direct passageways, I favour a
formative mechanism in which cement (normally calcite/micrite) was first precipitated at the outer
margins of the structures, and continued to precipitate inwards towards the conduit, at times
cementing it entirely and thus stabilizing the opening (as observed in Fig. 5-Dk-36, Fig. 5-Dk-15
and Fig. 5-Dk-17). Alternatively, the conduit could simply have been mud filled. Consequently,
tubular nodules actually encased dominant fluid passageways with an impervious crust, creating a
barrier to lateral fluid flow but encouraging vertical fluid movement. Assuming ongoing similar
rates of fluid movement through a sediment body, the cemented crusts would create a higher fluid
pressure and the conduits would remain open and free of sediment clogging, allowing unrestricted
and direct pathways upwards through the stratigraphy.
Fig. 5-Dk-36: The formative mechanism explained in the previous paragraph.

This phenomenon has been best explained by Clayton (1986) and Zijlstra (1995) who postulated
two hypothesis complementing each other. Both cases assume that silicified conduits are formed by
the formation of nodules around galleries or tubes created by ascending fluids (or organisms that
excavated the sediments). In this case, the nodules are generated by physicochemical processes
along a redox gradient, in which the dissolution and calcite precipitation occurs first, then the
replacement of calcite by silica, giving rise to siliceous nodules. Silicification of the nodules occurs
at an early stage and the leading role is due to the dissolution of calcite and precipitation of silica on
the border between an oxidized zone at the surface of the sediments and a deep anoxic zone, rich in
sulphides (scenario B in Fig. 5-Dk-37) (Galan et al, 2009), however, the role of diatoms, siliceous
sponges and radiolarian cannot be discarded. In the Dukhan area, sulphide-rich gas (such as H2S)
escaping from the deeper formations would provide the source of the sulphide (we are, after all,
over an oilfield). Lastly, referring to image C in Fig. 5-Dk-36 , Guidry et al (2002) describe the
internal part of the vents of Pork Chop Geyser in Yellowstone National Park as being lined with
silicified stromatolitic features instead of the replacement of micrite that is observed in Dukhan.
Fig. 5-Dk-37: Hypothesis A: Zijlstra (1995). B: Clayton (1986).

- Siliceous nodules in solid black.
- The Ox> Red Arrows indicate the redox gradients.
- P = siliceous nodules
- CS = last siliceous bed nodules.
- Sed = sediment surface.
- T = Tubes.
- Curved arrows indicate the passage of oxygen (O2) from tube or burrow
into the sediment (in A) or sulphide (S2) from the sediment into the tubes.
Eventually the water discharge stopped having enough velocity to create gryphons and rings (Figs.
5-Dk-34, 5-Dk-35) and the fault conduits/system became too cemented that water and gas could no
longer reached the surface from these points.

8 Reconstruction of events
LEGEND
Limestone of the Rus Formation Fractured/Faulted limestone
Mud volcano / gryphon Hydrogen Sulphide /CO2/Oil/Water
Ascending direction of fluids & Gas Lateral movement of fluids & Gas
Silica forming organisms
Beginning of silicification
(Diatoms / Radiolaria / Sponges)
Eroded gryphon with no silica core Gryphon with silica core
Silicified sinter and lag deposit Plugged/closed fracture/fault

Fig. 5-Dk-38: Model for the origin of the silicified vertical pipes, sinter and lag deposits. Refer also to Figs. 5-Dk-
30, 5-Dk-36 and 5-Dk-37. (A) The limestone of the marine Rus Formation is deposited during the Lower Eocene
Period (possible slumping of its lower beds not shown). (B) Later, during the Early (?) Miocene Period, the topmost
layers of the Rus Formation (and all other formations that deposited after the Rus, such as the Dammam and possibly
Dam Formations) are eroded. (C) Still during the Miocene, the Dukhan anticline accelerates its ascent and fractures
and faults are created in the Rus Limestone which is now completely lithified. (D) Fresh water from the deeper
Paleocene UER Formation (not seen), charged with sulphide-rich gas, CO2 and possibly oil (probably from older
Cretaceous Formations), finds its way out along fracture & fault zones and creates carbonate mud volcanoes (or
gryphons) on the sea floor. (E) This fluid/gas mixture seeps vertically along the fractures/faults and more diffusely
horizontally along the bedding planes. Over time, the inorganic precipitation of silica due to the mixing of marine and
freshwater (Knauth 1999), and the biogenic silica of organisms (such as diatoms, radiolarian and sponges which must
have flourished in this environment) gradually replaces the micrite/limestone/dolomite in the conduits along the
faults/fractures and the bedding plane. The creation of the sinter then begins. Vent activity stops eventually, probably
due to the silica plugging the fractures and faults in the bedrock, and the decrease in fluid/gas pressure. (F) Today,
the only proof that remains of this past activity are the circular micrite features representing the bases of what were
before gryphons, some of which can still be observed, the silicified conduits which now protrude out of these
gryphons, and finally the lag deposits which represent former sinters that crumbled into pieces. The depositional
environment in sketches A & B is interpreted as marine. In sketches C, D and E it is interpreted as restricted lagoonal
(evaporitic) with occasional marine incursions.
9 Similar localities
A GREECE: A modern example of such water/gas seepage was found recently under the sea off
the coast of the Greek holiday island of Zakynthos (Fig. 5-Dk-39). In 2013, a group of snorkelers
reported finding mysterious huge circular stone columns. These were found to be sitting on top of
the sea bed while around them patches of rectangular stones that looked like paving. Nearby large
doughnut shaped disks jutted conspicuously from the sandy sea floor. The initial thought was that a
new archeological site had been found but it was later revealed that these peculiar structures are
typical of mineralization at hydrocarbon/gas seeps seen both in modern seafloor and paleo
settings. They were the result of an underwater gas leak from a fault just beneath the sea bed. The
escaping methane gas provided energy to microbes living in the sediment on the sea floor, which in
turn turned the sediment into a natural dolomitic cement. This process is common in microbe rich
sediments, but as the fault had not fully ruptured, it formed tubes, columns and doughnut shaped
structures in the sediment along the line of the fault (Fig. 5-Dk-39). The structures contain dolomite.
When bacteria huddle around a reliable source of the gas, their calcium excrement can react with
methane to produce the cement-like substance. This site shows an ancient leak, as gas seeped in
through subsurface faults. The tubular structures were likely formed as microbes piled up around
focused jets of methane.

Fig. 5-Dk-39: Doughnut shaped disk (left) and columnar structure (right) found under 2 to 5
metres of water off the coast of the Greek holiday island of Zakynthos. Formed up to 5 million
years ago at hydrocarbon seeps. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3622148/The-
lost-city-never-Ancient-underwater-Greek-ruins-created-bacteria-feeding-prehistoric-gas-
leak.html ).
B CALIFORNIA: Similarly, in several other parts of the world there are also occurrences of oil
exuding from fractures and faults located either offshore or onshore. For instance, the tar
volcanoes in the asphalt mine of the small seaside town of Carpinteria, California (Fig. 5-Dk-
40) resemble greatly the Dukhan paleo feature. While such a hydrocarbon seep is an unlikely
candidate for silicification, the possibility for the Dukhan specimens cannot be discarded.
Hydrocarbon (and microbial) content would certainly explain the dark colour of the central core
portion of the nodules
Fig. 5-Dk-40: Tar volcanoes in the asphalt mine area of the small seaside town of
Carpinteria, California. 1906 photo, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 321.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_seep

C PAKISTAN: Occurrence of chert nodules is not a unique phenomenon to Qatar. Even though
my knowledge of the geology of Pakistan is very limited, I find that those located over the Dukhan
area are quite similar to those found in the uplifted Eocene Sakesar Formation of Pakistan (Fig. 5-
Dk-41). The Sakesar Formation consists of marine limestones and shales similar to the Rus. Eight
oil/gas fields produce from this formation in the Punjab Basin of Pakistan (Fazeelat, 2011). These
are only called nodules by the locals, but their origin (mode of formation) is unknown. I can only
speculate that they were also formed during the Miocene in much the same way as the Dukhan
specimens when the Zagros Mountains, in which they are found, initiated their ascent.
Fig. 5-Dk-41: Silicified nodules of the Eocene Sakesar Formation at Musa Khel, 4kms from
Nammal Gorge, Western Salt Range, Punjab, Pakistan (pictures from Law, 2003, 2016 & Pers.
Comm.).
D BAHRAIN: Also, Tleel (1973) states that the Rus
Formation of Bahrain contains boulder sized brown to black
chert nodules near the top of the formation and form a lag
gravel when the limestone has weathered away.
E SAUDI ARABIA: In eastern Saudi Arabia, over the

Dammam Dome, Tleel (1973) divided the Rus Formation into
three informal units (Fig. 5-Dk-42). The lower unit, which he
calls the zone of quartz geodes, ranges from 20 to 23 m of
fine- to coarse-grained, white, chalky (microporous), aphanitic,
dolomitic limestone, and limestone with bands of gypsiferous
shale at the top. The middle unit, about 10m thick, consists of
calcite geodes and, less commonly, wafer-like mud balls in
grayish, microcrystalline, massive limestone. The upper unit
consists of about 21 m of quartz geodes and flint nodules
which he interpreted as being formed by ground-water
percolation after formation of the Dome. He interpreted the
depositional environment as restricted lagoonal to supratidal Fig. 5-Dk-42: Rus Fm, Dammam
sabkha with occasional marine incursions. Dome, KSA (Tleel, 1973)
F GULF OF CADIZ: Leon et al (2007), in their study of recent, still active, pipe-like chimneys
in the Gulf of Cadiz between Spain and Morocco, relate their formation to the migration of
hydrocarbon fluids through vertical fissures (Fig. 5-Dk-43), like the spectacular vertical deep-rooted
seismic chimneys observed on seismic images in Daz-del-Ro et al. 2003 (Fig. 5-Dk-44)

Fig. 5-Dk-43: Proposed evolutionary model by Leon et al (2007) for the development of mud
volcanoes and carbonate-mud mounds in the Gulf of Cdiz. A) Active mud-breccia flow
extrusion and building of the cone-shaped volcanic edifice. B) Reduced seepage activity, with
collapse of the edifice and formation of extensive hydrocarbon-derived authigenic carbonates
(HDAC) by chemosynthetic organisms. C) Latent conditions: formation of hardgrounds and
colonisation by non-chemosynthetic organisms such as deepwater corals and development of a
net of burrows. D) New episode of active mud-flow extrusion, with embedded fragments of
HDACs and deepwater corals.
Fig. 5-Dk-44: Photographs of examples of the carbonate chimneys from the Gulf of Cadiz: A)
Details of the central orifice within a thick cylindrical pipe-like type. B) Detailed view of the
enlarged top of a mounded-type chimney showing the central orifice (similar to Fig. 5-Dk-20). C)
Detailed view of a broad central orifice related to thin pipe walls (similar to Fig. 5-Dk-21). (Daz-
del-Ro et al. 2003)

G BULGARIA: De Boever et al. (2006) also comes to the same conclusion as Daz-del-Ro et al.
2003 and Leon et al (2007) in his article about the Lower Eocene carbonate cemented chimneys of
Varna in NE Bulgaria. They interpreted them as evidence of alternating precipitation conditions,
controlled by varying seepage rates of a single fluid source at depth, during buildup of individual
chimney pipes near the sediment surface. Upward migrating methane and other gases, often
channelled along permeable horizons such as fault planes, are oxidized near the sea floor yielding
patchily distributed outcrops of carbonate cemented structures, ranging from small slabs, nodules,
doughnut-like structures to large chimneys (Fig. 5-DK-45).
Fig. 5-Dk-45: Chimneys of Varna in NE Bulgaria. Carbonate cemented columns and horizontal
interbeds. A) Cluster of vertical columns at the Main Group outcrop with cemented horizontal
interbed at their base. Notice also the presence of scattered fragments of broken columns. B)
Cross-section of column with central open conduit. Scale bar = 10 cm (De Boever et al., 2006)
A H AZERBAIJAN: Bonini et al (2013) state that the mud
volcanoes of Azerbaijan (over 200 onshore and even more
offshore) are closely associated with petroleum systems, and
commonly release hydrocarbon gases dominantly consisting of
methane, with significant concentrations of CO2. The mud
volcanoes of Azerbaijan are strongly coupled with the tectonic
evolution of the WNW-trending Greater Caucasus fold-and-thrust
belt, which has resulted from the still ongoing collision of the
Arabian Plate with Eurasia (Fig. 5-Dk-46).
Fig. 5-Dk-46: Oil seeps at the foot of a mud volcano in Azerbaijan

(A), Row of gryphons (B) and methane bubbling pool (C)
B C

B) The Simsima Area

In 1959, Watson et al describe occurrences of quartz
and quartz nodules in boreholes which penetrated the
Rus Formation
Cavelier (1970b) states Celestite nodules occur in
the region of Khor (Umm Abdah) and likewise a
crystalline quartz bed with bitumen in cavities in the
upper part of the white limestones in Simsima.
The above statement from Cavelier lead us to believe

that bitumen could be found in the geodes of the Rus
Formation in this area, as it is the case in Bahrain
(Fig. 5-Sm-02), however, I failed to find any geode
specimens with trace of bitumen. In an interview
conducted in 2013 (LeBlanc 2015b) Cavelier clarified
that his team had to break few hundred geodes to find
one with traces of bitumen. All this said though, the
Simsima area has revealed itself as the most prolific
Fig. 5-Sm-01: The Simsima area with its
area in Qatar for good quality geodes (see the
30 points investigated
multiple pictures in Table 5-Sm1).
Fig. 5-Sm-02: Quartz geodes with liquid (left) and dried (right) oil from Bahrain. Collected by Steve
Craycraft (Pers. Comm)
No walking traverses were followed here. Using the authors vehicle, frequent stops were made
when a particular sector looked promising.

2 Description of all GPS Points

Table 5-Sm1: Description of all waypoints investigated. Note: Altitude values are only an
approximation
WayPoint Alt.
Lat Long Description
Name (m)
Quartz geodes &

nodules occurring in a
white limestone. The
SIM_01 25.80296 51.42443 16.5 broken nodules, once
cleaned, expose shiny
little quartz crystals of
the drusy type
Quartz nodules
SIM_02 25.80299 51.42464 18.6
exposing larger crystals
SIM-03 25.80264 51.42156 29.9 Quartz geodes & nodules

SIM_04 25.80307 51.42559 30.6 Quartz geodes & nodules
SIM_05 25.80252 51.42548 28.7 Quartz geodes & nodules
SIM-06 25.80373 51.4266 27.8 Quartz geodes & nodules
SIM_07 25.80339 51.42668 26.3 Chert
Chert & quartz in white

SIM_08 25.80734 51.43304 22.2
limestone

One large circular rock

SIM_09 25.80254 51.44162 27.3 of the Rus Fm of
unknown origin
SIM_10 25.8023 51.44415 22.5 Quartz

SIM_11 25.7973 51.4484 22.2 Quartz
Quartz crystal
SIM_12 25.79819 51.44881 22.2 protruding from a white
limestone
SIM_13 25.79833 51.4488 21.3 Quartz
Quartz cobbles and

SIM_14 25.80952 51.44998 20.1 nodules. Nodules
expose drusy quartz
Doubly terminated
quartz crystals (Fig.
Def-2) exposed in a
geode. It probably grew
via the support of a
dissolving meshwork of
SIM_15 25.81015 51.44958 20.8
anhydrite. With the
final dissolution of the
supporting mesh, these
quartz crystals would
have dropped to the
floor of the void
SIM_16 25.81068 51.44998 18.9 Quartz

SIM_17 25.81131 51.45005 15.5 Quartz

SIM_18 25.81109 51.45062 16.7 Quartz
Quartz field of cobbles

SIM_19 25.81136 51.45069
and nodules
SIM_20 25.79543 51.41398 Loose quartz
Large concentric quartz

nodules (or large
SIM_21 25.79846 51.42954
stromatolites?) in
limestone.
Quartz nodules in
limestone and spherical
amalgamation of quartz
SIM_22 25.79957 51.42955
crystals at the contact of
two limestone layers
and fractures

Loose and in-situ

Quartz field. The
quartz occurs just
below and at the same
level of a evaporite
stromatolite layer.
Quartz nodules (some
SIM_23 25.80289 51.42791
of cauliflower type,
Fig. 5-Sm-04) also
occur and when broken
in two, they often
display large crystals,
often with spherical
amalgamation of quartz
Field of quartz cobbles

SIM_24 25.80301 51.42789
& nodules

SIM_25 25.80633 51.43426 & nodules on a
limestone hill

and nodules. The quartz
crystals are large and
often associated with
SIM_26 25.8064 51.43467
sub-botryoidal crystals
of a black mineral
(oxidized pyrite? or
manganese?).

SIM_27 25.80635 51.43471 Field of quartz cobbles and nodules.

SIM_28 25.80674 51.44226 Field of quartz cobbles and nodules. Excellent location for
geodes
SIM_29 25.82833 51.45056 Quartz crystals
SIM_30 25.82629 51.45188 10.2 Quartz crystals
3 Description and formation mechanism of the silica nodules

The whole of the Simsima area has been affected by the uprising of the Simsima Dome (Fig. 4-5).
The fractures created by this uprising, together with the continuous erosion of the Rus Formation
here, formed small, 3 to 4 metres, cliffs and slopes. Silica nodules are very widespread in some of
the horizons of these cliffs. These nodules are generally grey in color on the outside, are mostly
round in shape but few elongated shapes are present. When broken, many of the geodes reveal
microcrystalline/druzy quartz (SIM_14) as well as botryoidal (SIM_26). Few of them also display
double-terminated quartz crystals (SIM_15), sometime called Herkimer crystals, and rose-like
quartz (very rare). The size of the nodules can vary in diameter from small to large (2 to 15 cm).
Other than with nodules, silica also occur as loose blobs of chalcedonic quartz, crystals in veins and
in between limestone laminations (SIM_22), and as grey, brown and black chert.
The silica nodule-bearing limestone horizon is white to yellowish. Intermixed with the nodules in
this limestone, are stromatolitic chert features and chert stromatolites (SIM_21, SIM_23) often
forming blobs sticking out of the limestone. Cauliflower nodules occur in few areas, especially in
SIM_23 (Figs. 5-Sm-04, 5-Sm-05)
Field observation (and help from El Khoriby, E.M. 2005) suggests that the silica nodules were
formed by silicification of precursor gypsum nodules probably deposited in a marginal sabkha
environment under an arid climate. Silicification selectively affected the gypsum nodules rather
than the surrounding limestone and occurred through gypsum replacement, dissolution and void
filling. Spherical nodules grew chiefly by the diffusive supply of the silica, and elongated ones grew
by pore water advection9. The integrated effect of climate, pH, salinity, crack systems within the
sediment and oscillation in the groundwater level and its chemical composition probably
contributed to the formation of the nodules (Fig. 5-Sm-03)
9
Transport of a substance

Fig. 5-Sm-03: A flow chart showing the alteration sequence of precursor gypsum nodules in
limestone into silica minerals together with their textures developed in the silica nodules. Modified
from El Khoriby , E.M. 2005

Fig. 5-Sm-04: Texture in silicified-calcitized gypsum nodules (cauliflower chert). A) Most

common style of nodule with thin rim of spherulitic quartzine followed inward by megaquartz
characterised by increasing crystal size and with frequent anhydrite inclusions. B) Nodule with a
large proportion of fibrous quartz. Thick rim of spherulitic quartz passes inward to strongly
undulose megaquartz. Some of the megaquartz has anhydritic nuclei. C) Nodule with a thin rim
of spherulitic quartzine passing inward to a large proportion of megaquartz. D) Nodule with
megaquartz rim and an interior filled with calcite. Calcite may have filled a cavity or replaced
earlier silica. Late stage cavity-fill calcite is often defined by a thin rim of authigenic vapor or
sulphide, prior to precipitation (Warren, July 31st 2016, modified from Milliken, 1979).
Fig. 5-Sm-05: Formation of cauliflower nodules: Anhydrite nodule growth as smaller nodules
grow and coalesce in a larger structure with a boundary resembling the coalesced florets in a
cauliflower. The nodules tend to coalesce into chicken wire and enterolithic anhydrite structures
(Warren, July 31st 2016).

Sometimes the processes of void fill may stop to leave a hollow core in the silica-lined geode (Fig.
5-Sm-06). The void may be filled later by a different burial stage cement such as evaporite, sparry
carbonate (e.g. ferroan dolomite or calcite), or even metal sulphides (Locality SIM_26 in table 5-
Sm1)
Fig. 5-Sm-06: Abbreviations: AN, anhydrite/gypsum; D, dolomite; Fe, oxides and hydroxides of
iron; AC, carbonate crust; Q, quartz; V, voids; CA, calcite; CM, mudstones. A)
Anhydrite/gypsum nodules form in mudstones from early hypersaline fluids. Later, a crust
(probably influenced by the soil) forms around the anhydrite/gypsum nodule. B) Replacement of
the anhydrite/gypsum by dolomite and quartz from continental groundwaters. Voids form by
dissolution of anhydrite/gypsum or dolomite. C) Filling of the voids by hydrothermal minerals
(hematitegoethite). Subsequent precipitation of telogenetic calcite. (Warren, July 31st 2016)

C) The Thakira Area

Al-Hajari (1990) drew a section of the Rus in Al-Khor
(Fig. 5-Th-02) more to the south but does not report
quartz or chert in any significant amount. From an
archeological point of view however, the area between
Al-Khor and Thakira has been described by the French
archeologist Dr. Marie-Louise Inizan (1978). During
the survey conducted in 1976-77 an important
Neolithic site10 was discovered (Fig. 5-Th-01) in
which the use and availability of flint material is
described. This site was located on a shoreline dated
6,000 years old.
No walking traverses were followed here. As per the
Simsima area, frequent stops were made when a
particular sector looked promising. It was determined
fairly early that this area would not be yielding as
much quartz/chert specimens as the previously studied
Simsima area.
Fig. 5-Th-01 (right): The perimeter roughly showing
the investigated Rus formation of the Thakira area. At
the bottom of the image, can be seen the location of
the Al-Khor archeological site discovered by Inizan
(1978). Today, a road passes through it.
Fig. 5-Th-02: Composite section of Al-Khor. By

Al-Hajari (1990). Note that here the Upper
members of the Dammam rest directly on the Rus
Formation. (The name of Khor Limestone refers
here to an older member nomenclature of the Rus
Formation.)
10
Unfortunately this site has been destroyed with the development of the town of Al-Khor


Table 5-Th1: Description of all waypoints investigated. Note: Altitude values are only an approximation
WayPoint Altitude
Lat. Long. Description
Name (m)
Amorphous, rounded quartz on trail (Rus Fm).
Evidences of mangrove-bearing limestone in the two
small hills; these probably occur at the very base of the
THK-001 25.76067 51.52084 4.9
Dammam Formation Refer to Sadooni (2011). One
gastropod was also found here (more evidence of the
Dammam).
Amorphous,
rounded quartz
still in place at the
THK-002 25.75887 51.52405 3.7
very top of the Rus
(half way up the
hill).
THK-003 25.75975 51.51974 3.5 Quartz on floor of depression

Lots of amorphous quartz, sometimes rounded,
sometimes flattened (must have been infilling
THK-004 25.75591 51.50576 9.5
fractures, or in between layers). Quartz occurs on
basin floor (car can be rolling over it)
THK-005 25.73688 51.51094 8.8 Lots of chert in this area
THK-006 25.72479 51.48819 14.6 This seems to be an archeological site (dwellings with
water well)
Convoluted
THK-07 25.7413 51.49613
stromatolites
Large chert
concretion (egg
THK-08 25.74116 51.49614
shaped) associated
with stromatolites

Chert concretions
and stromatolites
THK-09 25.74115 51.49599
on a white
limestone ledge
Quartz crystal
THK-10 25.74019 51.49423 protruding from
the limestone
Al-Khor archeological Site as described by Inizan,

1978. Chert materials were common. The site has
Al-Khor
now been destroyed by the development of the town of
archeological 25.69209 51.49516
Al-Khor. The picture of the site shown in Inizans
Site
publication can be better appreciated by using the 2004
imagery of GoogleEarth.

D) The Shahaniya Area

The Shahaniya area straddles the Qatar Arch
and the Simsima Dome (Fig. 4-5, Fig. 5-Sh-
01).
Geological mapping difficulties

The mapping of the Rus formation in this area
by P.C. Stevenson, geologist who worked for
the freshwater survey of Northern Qatar in
1959 (Watson et al, Le Grand Adsco, 1959)
resulted in outlining a large area where the Rus
outcrops. Cavelier (1970a), geologist for
11
BRGM , reduced the size of the land area
covered by the Rus from his interpretation of
the aerial photographs (scale 1:25,000)
surveyed in 1963 (The Midra Shale of the
overlying Dammam Formation, which has
gradually thinned from the south and west,
disappears completely and the Dukhan
Alveolina Limestone member behaves similarly.
This results in the Umm Bab Limestone lying
juxtaposed on Rus Formation Limestone with
Fig. 5-Sh-01: The Shahaniya area the lithological boundary consequently being
difficult to define). (Fig. 5-Sh-02)
Fig. 5-Sh-02: Correlation of the Lower members of the Dammam Formation showing them
thinning out from West to East/North (Al-Saad, 2005; modified by LeBlanc, 2008)
11
BRGM = Bureau de Recherches Gologiques et Minires

However, a detailed study of the Shahaniya area was conducted by Seltrust Engineering Limited in
1978 (Seltrust 1979) with the purpose of checking the Rus Formation Limestone boundary. It was
found that the earlier geological map by Stevenson of Le Grand Adsco gave a more accurate
outline of the outcrop than the BRGM map. The outcrop was checked on the ground and on aerial
photographs taken at a scale of 1:16,000. The Rus Limestone may be recognised in this area by its
somewhat smoother surface, a greyish coloration and the substantial chert component. The
boundary, although intricately eroded, is commonly marked by a slight step, a minor change in
ground elevation.
Therefore, the perimeters of the Rus that is known today from the Shahaniya sector (Fig. 5-Sh-01)
come from the Seltrust survey and is adequately represented in their geological map of Qatar
(Seltrust, 1980).
In his extensive thesis on the geology of the Cenozoic formations of Qatar and eastern Saudi
Arabia, Al-Hajari (1990), briefly discusses the Abu Thaylah area, equivalent to the Shahaniya area,
and also includes in it a detailed section (Fig. 5-Sh-03). The accessible Rus formation in this area is
very thin, about 4 metres, however chert nodules were observed near the top of the chalky limestone
unit, in the first 2 metre of the section from the bottom.
Fig. 5-Sh-03: Composite section at

Abu Thaylah near the town of the
same name, 253155.00N,
511816.00E (from Al-Hajari
(1990), and modified by the
author)

Fig. 5-Sh-04: Features of Sulphate escarpment scarp (Eccleston et al. 1981, modified by the
author)

Table 5-Sh1: Description of all waypoints investigated. Note: Altitude values are only an approximation
WayPoint Altitude
Name (m)
SH-01 25.55855 51.28493 32.6 Chert
SH-02 25.54459 51.2955 29.2 Chert
SH-03 25.53108 51.31541 27 Chert
Large quantity of chert. Several large black/opaque
SH-04 25.53093 51.31578 26.8 samples. When one was splitted up with hammer, it
displayed small inclusions of quartz crystals
SH-05 25.52651 51.32344 25.8 Chert
Channel cutting
through the Rus
Formation, as seen
in a trench. The
SH-06 25.4295 51.37861 19.1 picture is looking
to the west. The
trench has been
refilled since this
picture was taken.

Quartz layer in the

Rus Formation, as
seen in a trench.
The picture is
SH-07 25.42932 51.37836 21.3 looking to the
North east. The
trench has been
refilled since this
picture was taken.
Note common to SH-06 & SH-07: The locality of this trench coincides exactly with the contact
between the Depositional (A) and Residual (B) Sulphate facies seen in Fig 4-7; thus representing
the Solution Front feature (C) in Fig. 5-Sh-04.
SH-08 25.41459 51.27125 32.8 Very large area of scattered and broken chert
SH-09 25.40003 51.27586 34.5 Very large area of scattered and broken chert
E) The Umm Bab area

The Umm Bab area (Fig. 5-Ub-01) is located
in the south-centre portion of the Dukhan
anticline and thus has been mapped as part of
oil exploration during few occasions since
1933. Shaw & Cox discovered the anticline
structure in 1933 and sketched its general
stratigraphy which resulted in representing
also the general surface and near surface
stratigraphy of the whole country (Leblanc,
2015b). Then came Williamson and
Pomeyrol in 1937 who were given the task of
locating the first exploratory well in Qatar
(approved by Norval E. Baker, the chief
geologist) and mapping the whole Qatar
peninsula (their complete report could not be
located but a portion is discussed in
LeBlanc, 2015b). After WWII, surface
mapping of the Dukhan structural area was
resumed in greater detail than before.
In 1948 Chatton mapped the northern portion

Fig. 5-Ub-01: Localities of the Rus Formation
of the field (discussed earlier) and Morton
visited and described within the Umm Bab area.
(Morton 1949) was in charge of mapping the
Waypoints starting with A in the north are
area from Fahahil Main (just north of Umm
those of Mr. Aubrey Whymark, who had the time
Bab) to the Saudi Arabia border
to explore/collect silica specimens in this area.
(unfortunately, his report could not be
All his pictures can be seen at
located LeBlanc, 2015b). [More on D.M.
https://goo.gl/photos/tJcvPCnrAjyCQm4f7
Morton at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Morton_(
geologist) ].

Cavelier (1970a & 1970b) also mapped the area as part of the BRGMs whole country
geological mapping contract, as did Hunting Geology and Geophysics Limited (1983). The
latter two surveys are the last two known geological surveys which included the Umm Bab
sector concerned in this chapter.

Table 5-Ub1: Description of all waypoints investigated in the Umm Bab area. Note: Altitude values are
only an approximation
WayPoint Altitude
Name (m)
Rus section. White

limestone with a
thin layer of a
1 25.18334 50.80719 31.1
brown shale at the
bottom. GPS as
scale.
2 25.18324 50.81374 41.2 Silica field. Small chunks of Silica everywhere

3 25.18079 50.81512 41.9 Silica field. Small chunks of Silica everywhere
Hill speckled with

large chunks and
blocks of silicified
material; possibly
of stromatolitic
origin (top).
Quartz crystals
can be seen at
times in their
structure and
4 25.17846 50.81364 49.6
internal geodes.
Others seem to
display a
backbone
(bottom) typical of
burrows and/or
paramoudras (see
paramoudra
under
Definitions)
A ledge in the Rus Formation. Silicified chunks of

5 25.17698 50.81531 48.2
stromatolites
6 25.17565 50.81586 46
stromatolites
7 25.17589 50.817 49.9 Hill. Chunks & Blocks of silica
8 25.17347 50.81705 55.9 Chunks of quartz
9 25.17551 50.81278 48.9
stromatolites

Various shapes
and form of quartz
10 25.17892 50.811 38.8
speckled all over
the sector.
11 25.16155 50.82856 48.7 Calcite mineral on limestone
Calcite mineral on
12 25.1615 50.82915 50.9
limestone
13 25.16142 50.83176 45.2 Loose chert

14 25.16186 50.8355 45.5 Loose chert
15 25.16195 50.83631 40.6 Loose chert
Midra shale of the younger Middle Eocene Dammam

Midra 25.15962 50.84386 28.6
Formation
A-1 25.18492 50.81345
A-2 25.18461 50.81391
Locations from Aubrey Whymark. All his Umm Bab
A-3 25.18488 50.81454
silica pictures can be seen at
A-4 25.18461 50.81319
https://goo.gl/photos/tJcvPCnrAjyCQm4f7
A-5 25.18653 50.81150
A-6 25.18915 50.80855
3 Important Point
An important point to mention here is that it seems that in the southern portion of the Umm Bab
area (and in the whole of the Jaleha area; see next chapter) there is a prevalence of calcite crystals
rather than quartz crystals at the surface (to be discussed in the next chapter).

F) The Jaleha area

Fig. 5-Jh-01: Localities

visited and described
within the Jaleha area.
Due to its proximity to the

Umm Bab area more to the
north, the Jaleha area holds
the same geological
mapping history as
described in the previous
chapter. The reader is
therefore referred to the
Umm Bab chapter for
more details.


Table 5-Jh1: Description of all waypoints investigated in the Jaleha area. The localities outlined in green
refer to the pictures. Note: Altitude values are only an approximation
WayPoint Altitude
Name (JH) (m)
1-1 25.0757 50.87729 57.1
1-2 25.07646 50.8778 56.6
1-3 25.07668 50.87812 57.8 Calcite crystal deposit. Some removed blocks are as
1-4 25.07894 50.87993 56.1 thick as 15-20 cm; others are limestone with calcite
1-5 25.08138 50.88185 57.6 crystal layers
1-6 25.08123 50.88202 56.8
1-7 25.08506 50.88342 57.8
1-8 25.08598 50.88474 56.4 Brown chert area.
2-1 25.08728 50.8822 56.4
2-2 25.08719 50.87866 61.4
2-1 25.0871 50.87536 61.9
3-1 25.09595 50.87828 58.5

3-2 25.0961 50.8779 59 Calcite crystal
deposit. Some
removed blocks
are as thick as 15-
20 cm; others are
limestone with
3-3 25.0964 50.8771 59.2 calcite crystal
layers
3-4 25.09737 50.8717 63.1

3-5 25.09746 50.87152 63.8
3-6 25.0976 50.87013 60.9
An area with lots of loose chert; It is unclear if it

comes from the overlying Dukhan & Umm Bab
3-7 25.09805 50.8683 64.8
Member of the Dammam formation just 300 metres to
the west, or from the Rus formation itself, or both.
An area with lots of loose chert which has to come
3-8 25.09857 50.8671 66.7 from either (or both) the Dukhan & Umm Bab Member
of the Dammam formation.
3-9 25.09878 50.86644 67.2 Shark teeth from the Midra shale were found here.

Chert from the Dukhan member of the Dammam

3-10 25.09892 50.8657 73.2
formation (in-place)
Area with lots of

4-1 25.09959 50.8665 70.1
loose quartz.
thick as 15-20 cm; others are limestone with calcite
4-3 25.10308 50.87009 66.5
crystal layers
An area with lots of loose chert; It is unclear if it
comes from the overlying Dukhan & Umm Bab
4-4 25.10461 50.87117 67.4
Member of the Dammam formation just 100 metres to
the east, or from the Rus formation itself, or both
In-place chert from the Dukhan member of the
4-5 25.10515 50.87141 69.8
Dammam Formation
4-7 25.10278 50.87359 64.8 thick as 15-20 cm; others are limestone with calcite
4-8 25.10181 50.87483 63.3 crystal layers
3 Calcite vs silica ratio

From the field observation, the predominant minerals at the surface of the Rus Formation in the
Jaleha area are calcite (70%) and then silica (30%); quite a drastic change from the Dukhan area
more to the north where silica was almost 100%. Therefore, there seems to be a gradual decrease in
visible surface silica from North to South in the Rus. This becomes more apparent from the town of
UmmBab located at the centre of the Dukhan field. Hesse (1989) and Maliva et al. (1989b) reported
three mechanisms for the replacement of carbonates/calcite by silica: A) the production of CO2 by
the decomposition of organic matter, or CO2 introduced into the waters by biological activity,
results in a local lowering of the pH, affecting calcite solubility and inducing silica precipitation; B)
oxidation of hydrogen sulphide, reducing the pH at oxic/anoxic boundaries; and C) the dissolution
of calcite and the precipitation of silica via the mixing of marine and continental waters.
Another possible explanation for this observation was put forward by Stanley (2016), a colleague at
Qatar Petroleum, specifically related to the Dukhan field. According to his theory, the areas north
and south had different water table histories; silica could not have had the time to replace the calcite
(Fig. 5-Jh-02) in the southern part of the anticline due to an earlier paleo water level affecting the
Rus and created by the evolution of the Dukhan anticline (see details in Fig. 5-Jh-03).12
A second observation pertinent to the Jaleha area is that the Midra shale member of the Dammam
Formation, which overlies the Rus Formation, on some hill slopes on the eastern and western sides
of the anticline, is full of silica of various sizes, especially of the biogenic type. This contradicting
Dammam/Rus occurrence (or lack) of silica probably relates to points A or B of Hesse/Maliva
above, however, if Stanleys theory is correct it could be that the Midra shale did not get affected by
the paleo-water table phenomenon which caused the non-replacement of the calcite crystals by
silica in the Rus. This could indicate that the North-South tilting/evolution of the field (Fig. 5-Jh-
12
Norlund et al. (2009) also document an East-West tilting of the Dukhan Field through the Cenozoic

03) took place before the deposition of the Midra Shale or that the paleo-water table never reached
the elevation of the Midra Shale in this area; thus allowing more time for the silica to replace calcite
in the Midra.
Fig. 5-Jh-02: Calcite crystals found at the surface of the Rus Formation in the Jaleha area.

Fig. 5-Jh-03: A possible explanation of the high concentration of calcite at the surface of the
Rus Formation in the Jaleha & Umm Bab areas compared to the silica-rich areas from Umm
Bab to the northern tip of the Dukhan anticline (Stanley 2016).
Step 1: After the Dukhan anticline uplifted, the water table rose up to the Paleo Water Level
(PWL) shown in the diagram.
Step 2: Calcite cementation developed in the water-bearing leg below the PWL. (The Umm Bab
area straddles the Paleo water level, thus calcite is more prominent in the southern part of that area).
Step 3: A minor N-S tilt of the field occurs (~1). The PWL re-equilibrates to the current water
table and in the process exposes cemented rock previously residing below the PWL.

6 Conclusions
In all areas investigated, the silica is most likely to have had a biogenic origin and most of the
quartz geodes thus formed are the products of early diagenesis13 by replacement of carbonate and
evaporite sediments. Radiolarian and siliceous sponges are the most likely source of this silica since
they are both found in greater numbers in warmer than in cold waters, however diatoms cannot be
discarded because they started being dominant in the Eocene. Laboratory analyses are needed in
order to pinpoint the organisms concerned.
Three types of siliceous sediments predominate in the Rus Formation of Qatar. These are: A)
siliceous limestone and limestone-replacement chert (Dukhan area mostly), B) nodular and
concentric chert due to infilling of cavities left behind by dissolved evaporitic (probably gypsum
anhydrite is a burial feature) material (all areas but specifically in Simsima), and C) bedded cherty
limestone (Dukhan and Shahaniya areas specifically). The bedded chert, when in primary position,
appears as lens-shaped layers and pebbles of evaporites size in stratified limestone, however when
exposed on a flat surface it is most often loose and broken into numerous pieces.
Three mechanisms have been reported (Hesse (1989) and Maliva et al. (1989b)) for the replacement
of carbonates/calcite by silica: A) the production of CO2 by the decomposition of organic matter, or
CO2 introduced into the waters by biological activity, resulting in a local lowering of the pH,
affecting calcite solubility and inducing silica precipitation (CO2 would be important in the
formation of chert around the Dukhan mud volcanoes since it can be expelled with sulphite. Decay
of organisms attracted by all the nutrients these gases provided was probably also as important);
B) oxidation of hydrogen sulphide, reducing the pH at oxic/anoxic boundaries (the paleo-water
springs/mud volcanoes of the Dukhan area are a good example); and C) Dissolution of calcite and
the precipitation of silica via the mixing of marine and continental waters. (The Shahaniya, Simsima
and Thakira areas especially and Jaleha and Umm Bab areas to a lesser degree).
With regards to the Dukhan area, faulting, during the Miocene anticlinal folding, created a path for
upward movement of water, gas (sulphide & CO2) and oil (?) to seep to the surface through shallow
submarine vents (carbonate mud mounds). In such a reducing (low pH) environment, silica may
have mobilized from enclosing nearshore quiet-water carbonates rich in radiolarian, diatoms or
sponges. Calcite/micrite cementation along conduits may have been aided by hydrocarbon and
sulphide expulsion. Venting may have been triggered by the formation of pressurized
compartments developed between fault zones, which provided conduits for hydrocarbon/gas-
enriched fluids. These faults (and fractures) were created by the uprising of the Dukhan anticline at
the time when the Red Sea started opening up (Miocene) and applying compressional forces on the
Arabian Peninsula. This coincided as well with the formation of the Zagros Mountains in Iran and
Pakistan. The best modern analogue for the environment that prevailed during the Miocene Period
over the Dukhan area (and possibly also in the Punjab area of Pakistan) is with the
offshore/nearshore mud volcanoes of Azerbaijan.
13
Could be very early; radiolarian chert for instance starts to mobilize during deposition.

7 References
Abdul Nayeem, Muhammad (1998). Qatar Prehistory and Protohistory from the Most Ancient
Times (Ca. 1,000,000 to End of B.C. Era). Hyderabad Publishers. ISBN 9788185492049. (available
at the library of the Virginia Commonwealth University in Qatar)
Abu-Zeid, Mohamed M., Boukhary, Mohamed A. (1984). Stratigraphy, facies and environment of
sedimentation of the Eocene rocks in the Fhaihil (Gebel Dukhan) section, Qatar, Arabian Gulf.
Revue de Paleobiologie, V3, N2, pp159-173
Abu-Zeid Mohamed M. (1991). Lithostratigraphy and framework of sedimentation of the

subsurface Paleogene succession in northern Qatar, Arabian Gulf. N. Jb. Geol. Palaont. Mh. Pages
191-204.
Al-Barzinjy Sherzad T. (2008). Origin of chert nodules in Kometan formation from Dokan area,
Northeast Iraq. Iraqi Bulletin of Geology and Mining Vol.4, No.1, 2008 p 95- 104
Al-Hajari Saif (1990). Geology of the Tertiary and its influence on the Aquifer System of Qatar and
Eastern Arabia. Thesis from University of South Carolina. 276 pages.
Al-Hajari Saif Ali, Kendall C.G.St.C. (1992). The sedimentology of the Lower Eocene Rus
Formation of Qatar and neighboring regions. J. Univ. Kuwait (Sci) Vol. 19. 153-172
Al-Saad Hamad (2003). Facies Analysis, cyclic sedimentation and paleoenvironment of the Middle
Eocene Rus formation in Qatar and adjoining areas. In: Carbonates and Evaporites. V 18/1, Pages
41-50
Al-Saad Hamad (2005). Lithostratigraphy of the Middle Eocene Dammam Formation in Qatar,
Arabian Gulf: effects of sea-level fluctuations along a tidal environment. Journal of Asian Earth
Sciences. Vol. 25, 8 pages.
Benning Liane G., Phoenix Vernon, Mountain Bruce W. (2005). Biosilicification: the role of
cyanobacteria in silica sinter deposition. SGM symposium 65: Micro-organisms and Earth systems
advances in geomicrobiology. Editors G. M. Gadd, K. T. Semple & H. M. Lappin-Scott.
Cambridge University Press. 20 pages.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=
0ahUKEwjO5KSxiefQAhWD7BQKHaLOChkQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepages.see
.leeds.ac.uk%2F~earlgb%2FPublications%2FBenning%2520et%2520al_SMG%2520chapter%2520
2005.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFzEmXRpdcIjW7AD_Bf0K3-
VcbCEQ&sig2=e4jTfXwcXGjqTJlc4nX8aw
Bien George S., Contois David E., Thomas William H. (1959). The removal of soluble silica from
fresh water entering the sea. In: Silica in Sediments (March 1959). A Symposium Sponsored by
The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. Edited by ANDREW IRELAND
Professor of Geology University of Kansas. SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC PALEONTOLOGISTS
AND MINERALOGISTS, Special Publication No. 7, TULSA, OKLAHOMA, U.S.A.
http://sp.sepmonline.org/content/sepspsil/1.toc
Bonini Marco, Tassi Franco, Feyzullayev Akper, Capecchiacci Francesco (2013). Deep gases
discharged from mud volcanoes of Azerbaijan: New geochemical evidence. Marine and Petroleum
Geology 43 (2013) 450-463; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242343424

Boukhary Mohamed.A., Alsharhan Abdulrhaman S. (1998). A stratigraphic lacuna within the

Eocene of Qatar: an example of the interior platform of the Arabian Peninsula. Revue de
Paleobiologie, Geneve. Vol. 17, No. 1, 19 pages
Bryan, Kirk (1919). Classification of springs. USGS Staff Published Research. Paper 493.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/493
Bustillo Mara ngeles (2010). Silicification of continental carbonates. In: Carbonates in

Continental Settings: processes, facies and applications (Eds.: Alonso-Zarza A. and Tanner L. H.)
Developments in Sedimentology Series (Ed: Van Loon A.J). Volume 62, pages 153-174. (2010).
Elsevier, Oxford.
Cavelier Claude (1970a): Geologic description of the Qatar Peninsula (Arabian Gulf). Publ
Government of Qatar, Dept of Petroleum Affairs [39 pp].
Cavelier Claude (1970b): Geological Survey and mineral substances exploration in Qatar. BRGM
Bureau de recherches geologiques et minieres, Government of Qatar, Department of Petroleum
Affairs. 109 pages
Chatton, Max (1948). Geological report on the Dukhan anticline accompanying the 1:20,000
structural map of this area. Unpublished report.
Clayton C.C. (1986). The chemical environment of flint formation in Upper Cretaceous chalks. In:
Sieveking, De, G. & Hart, M.B., (eds). The Scientific study of Flint and Chert, Proceedings of the
4th International Flint Symposium, Brighton, 1983. Cambridge University Press, 43-54
De Boever, E., Swennen R., Dimitrov L. 2006. Lower Eocene carbonate cemented chimneys
(Varna, NE Bulgaria): Formation mechanisms and the (a)biological mediation of chimney growth?
Sedimentary Geology 185:159173.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248233070_Lower_Eocene_carbonate_cemented_chimne
ys_Varna_NE_Bulgaria_Formation_mechanisms_and_the_abiological_mediation_of_chimney_gro
wth
Diaz-del-Rio V., Somoza L., Martinez-Frias J., Mata M.P., Delgado A., Hernandez-Molina F.J.,
Lunar R., Martin-rubi J.A., Maestro A., Fernandez-Puga M.C, Leon R., Llave E., Medialdea T.,
Vazquez J.T. (2003). Vast fields of hydrocarbon-derived carbonate chimneys related to the
accretionary wedge/olistostrome of the Gulf of Cadiz. Marine Geology 195 (2003) 177-200.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=
0ahUKEwiwp_W3nOfQAhUDD8AKHZbOBQUQFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.resear
chgate.net%2Fpublication%2F223630475_Vast_fields_of_hydrocarbon-
derived_carbonate_chimneys_related_to_the_accretionary_wedgeolistostrome_of_the_Gulf_of_Ca
diz&usg=AFQjCNEPc8yeEF08N0Q70s3_I3jiwQvS3w&sig2=HSsFCvmG86TQF_xKpCz41Q
Dill Harald G., Nazir Sobhi and Al-Saad Hamad (2003). Lithological and structural evolution of the
northern sector of Dukhan anticline, Qatar, during the early Tertiary: with special reference to
sequence stratigraphic bounding surfaces. GeoArabia, Vol. 8, No. 2, pages 201-226.

Eccleston B.L., Pike J.G., Harhash I. (1981). The water resources of Qatar and their development (2
volumes). Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Doha: 1981. Technical
report No. 5.
EDGELL, H.S. (1992) Basement tectonics of Saudi Arabia as related to oil field structures. In:
M.J. Rickard et al (eds.), Basement Tectonics 9, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p. 169-
193, 1 table, 13 figures. http://brcgranier.pagesperso-orange.fr/gmeop/Edgell_1992.htm
El Khoriby , E.M. 2005. Origin of the gypsum-rich silica nodules, Moghra Formation, Northwest
Qattara depression, Western Desert, Egypt. Sedimentary Geology, 177, 41-45.
http://geoscan.nrcan.gc.ca/starweb/geoscan/servlet.starweb
Etiope Giuseppe (2015). Natural Gas Seepage: The Earths Hydrocarbon Degassing. 203 pages.
www.springer.com
Fazeelat Tahira, Asif Muhammad, Jalees Muhammad Irfan, Saleem Abdus, Nazir Arif, Saleem
Hina, Nasir Shagufta, Nadeem Shahid (2011). Source correlation between biodegraded oil seeps
and a commercial crude oil from the Punjab Basin, Pakistan. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 77 (2011) 19
Folk, R. L. and Pittman, J. S., 1971. Length-slow chalcedony: a new testament for vanished
evaporites: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 41, pp. 1045-1058.
Fontana John V., Seneshen David M. (2013). Past, Present and Future Advancements in Methods
for Detecting Hydrocarbon Seepage after 75 years. AAPG Annual Conference & Exhibition in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. http://www.slideshare.net/JohnFontana3/past-present-and-future-
advancements-in-methods-for-detecting-hydrocarbons-after-75-years
Galan Carlos, Molia Michel, Nieto Marian (2009). Paramoudras en arenisca de la Formacion
Jaizkibel. http://www.aranzadi.eus/wp-content/files_mf/1298301864GalanMolia.Paramoudras.pdf
Guidry Sean A., Chafetz (2002). Factors governing siliceous sinter precipitation in hot springs,
Yellowstone National Park, USA. Sedimentology.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229862333_Factors_governing_subaqueous_siliceous_sin
ter_precipitation_in_hot_springs_Examples_from_Yellowstone_National_Park_USA
Guidry, Sean (2016). Pers. Comm.
Hesse, R., 1989. Silica diagenesis: Origin of inorganic and replacement cherts. Earth-Science
Reviews 26 4, 253-284.
Hewaidy, A.G.A., and Al-Saad, H., 1993, Surface Eocene stratigraphy of Qatar Peninsula: Al-
Azhar Bulletin of Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 165-193.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272622123_Surface_Eocene_stratigraphy_of_Qatar_Peni
nsula
Hunting Geology and Geophysics Limited (1983). Geological interpretation of digitally enhanced
Landsat imagery of Qatar. 13 pages.

Inizan, M-L. 1978. Premiere mission archaeologoque Francaise a Qatar. Paleorient 4 : 347351
Qatar Reconnaissance Soil Classification Map (1976). State of Qatar and UN Development
Program.
Jameson, Jeremy (2017). Personal Communication
Keene, J. B., 1983, Chalcedonic quartz and occurrence of quartzine (length-slow chalcedony) in
pelagic sediments: Sedimentology, v. 30, p. 449-454.
Knauth Paul L. (1979). A model for the origin of chert in limestone. Geology, vol 7, no. 6, pp. 274-
277. The Geological Society of America. http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/7/6/274.abstract
Kok (Cees) Cornelius (2012). Personal communication
Krauskopf Konrad B. (1959). The Geochemistry of silica in sedimentary environments. In: Silica in
Sediments (March 1959). A Symposium Sponsored by The Society of Economic Paleontologists
and Mineralogists. Edited by ANDREW IRELAND Professor of Geology University of Kansas.
SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC PALEONTOLOGISTS AND MINERALOGISTS, Special Publication
No. 7, TULSA, OKLAHOMA, U.S.A. http://sp.sepmonline.org/content/sepspsil/1.toc
Langham N.T. (1940). Final Report. Dukhan Well No. 1 (unpublished)
Law Randall, Baqri Syed Rafiqul Hassan (2003).Black chert source identified at Nammal Gorge,
Salt Range. Ancient Pakistan, Vol XIV. 34-40. https://www.harappa.com/content/black-chert-
source-identified-nammal-gorge-salt-range
Law Randall Dr. (2016). The Sakesar Formation of Pakistan in pictures

http://www.panoramio.com/user/35451/tags/Salt%20Range?photo_page=2
Le Roux J.P. (2016). Personal Communications.
Le Roux J.P., Nielsen Sven N., Kemnitz Helga, Henriquez lvaro (2008). A Pliocene mega-
tsunami deposit and associated features in the Ranquil Formation, southern Chile.
http://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/125260/Le%20Roux_J_P.pdf?sequence=1
LeBlanc Jacques (2008). A Fossil Hunting Guide to the Tertiary Formations of Qatar, Middle-East.
82 pages. https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome , www.academia.edu ,
www.researchgate.net , www.scribd.com
LeBlanc, Jacques (2009). A Fossil Hunting Guide to the Miocene of Qatar, Middle East: A
Geological & Macro-Paleontological Investigation of the Dam Formation. 192 pages.
https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome , www.academia.edu ,
LeBlanc Jacques (2014 & 2015a). Unpublished personal notes and pictures.
LeBlanc Jacques (2015b). A Historical Account of the Stratigraphy of Qatar (1816 to 2015). 1220
pages. https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome , www.academia.edu ,

Leon R., Somoza L., Medialdea T., Gonzalez F.J., Daz-del-Ro V., Fernandez-Puga M.C., Maestro
A., Mata M.P. (2007). Sea-floor features related to hydrocarbon seeps in deepwater carbonate-mud
mounds of the Gulf of Cdiz: from mud flows to carbonate precipitates. Geo-Mar Lett, 11 pages.
DOI 10.1007/s00367-007-0074-2
Macumber Phil (2009). Chert of the Rus Formation. Unpublished report for the Qatar National
Museum for the main purpose of studying quartz/chert occurrences in relation to known
archeological sites. 6 pages.
Maliva Robert G. , Knoll Andrew H., Siever Raymond (1989a). Secular Change in Chert
Distribution: A Reflection of Evolving Biological Participation in the Silica Cycle. PALAIOS, Vol.
4, No. 6 (Dec., 1989), pp. 519-532. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3514743?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
Maliva Robert G., Siever Raymond (1989b). Nodular Chert Formation in Carbonate Rocks. The
Journal of Geology, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Jul., 1989), pp. 421-433. University of Chicago Press.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30078348
Milliken, K. L., 1979, The silicified evaporite syndrome; two aspects of silicification history of
former evaporite nodules from southern Kentucky and northern Tennessee: Journal Sedimentary
Petrology, v. 49, p. 245-256.
Norlund Susan, Kendall Jerry, Petersen Kenneth, Al-Ansi Hussain, Robinson Scott (2009).
Structural Dynamics and High Resolution Geochemistry: Emerging ideas, Dukhan Field, Qatar.
IPTC 13630.
Nyman, S.L., Nelson, C.S., Campbell, K.A., Schellenberg, F.1,, Pearson, M.J., Kamp, P.J.J.,
Browne, G.H., and King, P.R. (2006). Tubular carbonate concretions as hydrocarbon migration
pathways? Examples from North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Petroleum Conference
Proceedings
Pittman J.S. (1959). Silica in Edwards limestone, Travis County, Texas. In: Silica in Sediments
(March 1959). A Symposium Sponsored by The Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists. Edited by ANDREW IRELAND Professor of Geology University of Kansas.
Powers R.W., L.F. Ramirez, C.D. Redmond, E.L. Eleberg, Jr. (1966). Geology of the Arabian
Peninsula, Sedimentary Geology of Saudi Arabia, United States Geological Survey Professional
Paper 560D, 147 pages
Ray Jyotiranjan S., Kumar Alok, Sudheer A.K., Deshpande R.D., Rao D.K., Patil D.J., Awasthi
Neeraj, Bhutani Rajneesh, Bhushan Ravi, Dayal A.M. (2013). Origin of gases and water in mud
volcanoes of Andaman accretionary prism: implications for fluid migration in forearcs. Chemical
Geology 347, 102113.
Https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236130783_Origin_of_gases_and_water_in_mud_volcan
oes_of_Andaman_accretionary_prism_Implications_for_fluid_migration_in_forearcs
Rickard M.J., Harrington H.J., Williams P.R.; December 6, 2012. Basement Tectonics 9: Australia
and Other Regions Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Basement Tectonics, held

in Canberra, Australia, July 1990. Springer Science & Business Media.

https://books.google.com.qa/books?id=AqVyBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=tectonic+
Dukhan+qatar&source=bl&ots=AdSLpEZXDL&sig=TrP3AvbJp3alu_NmWcmmbQmauNU&hl=e
n&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tectonic%20Dukhan%20qatar&f=false
Riedel William R. (1959). Siliceous organic remains in pelagic sediments. In: Silica in Sediments
(March 1959). A Symposium Sponsored by The Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists. Edited by ANDREW IRELAND Professor of Geology University of Kansas.
Rivers John (2017). Personal Communication
Sadooni Fadhil N., Al-Saad Hamad (2011). Mangrove-bearing limestone from the Eocene
Dammam Formation, Arabian Gulf: implications for the mangrove dispersal controversy. In:
Carbonates Evaporites. 8 pages.
Sander N.J. (1962). Paleontologic and stratigraphic overview of the Paleocene in Eastern Saudi
Arabia. Reprinted in 2012 by Notebooks on Geology and available under
http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2012_A04/index.html
Scott-Jackson J.E., Rose J.I, Scott-Jackson W., Al-Naimi F. (2015). Found: the Palaeolithic of
Qatar. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies. Vol 45, ages 329-336
Seltrust Engineering Limited (1979). Investigation of the Development Potential of Mineral

Occurrences in Qatar ( 9 Volumes).
Seltrust Engineering Limited (1980). Qatar Geological Map 1980 edition, explanatory booklet.
Pages 1-31
Soto Maria, Gmez de Soler Bruno, Vallverd Josep, Vaquero Manuel (2014). Potential siliceous
sources during Prehistory: Results of prospecting in the East margin of the Ebro Basin (NE Iberian
Peninsula). Journal of Lithic Studies, vol.1, nr. 1, p. 293-318. Published by the School of History,
Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh
ISSN: 2055-0472. URL: http://journals.ed.ac.uk/lithicstudies/
Stanley Rowan (2016). Personal Communication
Steineke Max, Bramkamp R.A., Sander N.J. (1958). Stratigraphic relations of Arabian Jurassic oil.
In AAPG: Habitat of oil. Pages 1294-1329
Stern Robert J., Johnson Peter (2010). Continental lithosphere of the Arabian Plate: A geologic,
petrologic, and geophysical synthesis. Earth-Science Reviews 101 (2010) 2967.
Sugden W. (1956). The first Dukhan Type Section. In: LeBlanc (2015b).
Sugden W., Standring A.J., Cavelier C. (1975). Stratigraphic lexicon: Qatar Peninsula. In : ASIE,
Volume III, Fascicule 1O b 3. Union Internationale des sciences geologiques.

Taylor, Sean A. (post 2007). Geologic and petrophysical characterisation of the Basal Etchegoin
Formation: Elk Hills Field, San Joaquin Valley, California. 125 pages. Thesis Submitted to the
office of Graduate Studies and Research of California State University Bakersfield
Thralls, H.W., and Hassan, R.C. (1956). Geology and oil resources of eastern Saudi Arabia. Intern.
Geol. Cong. 20th, Mexico. Symposium sobre Yacimentos de Petroleoy Gas. 2, 9-32 pp.
Tleel J.W. (1973). Surface geology of Dammam Dome, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia: Bull.
Amer. Ass. Petrol. Geol. 57, 558-576
Tollenaere, Joren De (2015). Modelling the influence of the Abu Nakhla pond on the phreatic
aquifer in Qatar: present and future scenarios.
http://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/213/951/RUG01-002213951_2015_0001_AC.pdf
Warren John (July 2nd 2016). Silica mobility and replaced evaporites: 1 Alkaline lakes. In Salty
Matters newsletter. www.saltworkconsultants.com .
http://www.saltworkconsultants.com/assets/15.-silica-mobility-1-alkaline-lakes.pdf
Warren John (July 31st 2016). Silica mobility and replaced evaporites: 2 Silicified anhydrite
nodules. In Salty Matters newsletter. www.saltworkconsultants.com
Watson J.D, Watson D.M. (1959). A survey of the freshwater resources of Northern Qatar.
LE GRAND ADSCO. 135 pages.
Weijermars Ruud (1999). Surface geology, lithostratigraphy and Tertiary growth of the Dammam
Dome, Saudi Arabia: A new Field Guide. GeoArabia. Vol. 4, No. 2. Pages 199-226
Willis R.P. (1967). Geology of the Arabian Peninsula: Bahrain. Geological Survey Professional
Paper, Washington 560E. Pages 1-4
ZIJLSTRA H. J. P. (1995) The Sedimentology of Chalk. Springer-Verlag, 194 p.
From the internet:

Chapter 6: Other sedimentary rocks: chert and evaporites. http://documents.mx/documents/chapter-
6-other-sedimentary-rocks-chert-and-evaporites.html
DeMaster D.J.. The Diagenesis of Biogenic Silica: Chemical Transformations Occurring in the
Water Column, Seabed, and Crust. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/w4937/Readings/Treatise.Geochem.DeMaster.pdf
Illinois State Geological Society: http://isgs.illinois.edu/outreach/geology-resources/geodes-small-

treasure-vaults-illinois

8 Additional Reading
Aiello, I. W. 2005. Fossil seep structures of the Monterey Bay region and tectonic/ structural
controls on fluid flow in an active transform margin:. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology 227:124142.
Aiello, I. W., R. E. Garrison, J. C. Moore, M. Kastner, and D. S. Stakes. 2001. Anatomy and origin
of carbonate structures in a Miocene cold-seep field:. Geology 29:11111114
Bense V.F., Gleeson T., Loveless S.E., Bour O., Scibek J. (2013). Fault zone hydrogeology. Earth-
Science Reviews 127 (2013) 171192
Bissell Harold J. (1959). Silica in Sediments of the Upper Paleozoic of the Cordilleran area. Page
150-190. In: Silica in Sediments. A symposium sponsored by "The Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists. Edited by ANDREW IRELAND Professor of Geology
University of Kansas. SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC PALEONTOLOGISTS AND
MINERALOGISTS, Special Publication No. 7, TULSA, OKLAHOMA, U.S.A., 190 pages.
http://sp.sepmonline.org/content/sepspsil/1.toc
Bustillo, M.A., Ruiz-Ortiz, P.A. (1987) Chert occurrences in carbonate turbidites: examples from
the Upper Jurassic of the Betic Mountains (southern Spain). Sedimentology 34, 611-621.
Buurman, P., van der Plas, L. (1971) The genesis of Belgian and Dutch flints and cherts. Geologie
en Mijnbouw 50, 9-28.
Campbell, K. A., J. D. Farmer, and D. Des Marais. 2002. Ancient hydrocarbon seeps from the
Mesozoic convergent margin of California: carbonate geochemistry, fluids and
palaeoenvironments:. Geofluids 2:6394. CrossRef
Chafetz, H.S (1968/69). Silicification at unconformities. Journal of sedimentary Petrology
Chafetz, H.S., McIntosh Allene G., Rush Patrick F. (1988). Freshwater phreatic diagenesis in the
marine realm of recent Arabian Gulf Carbonates. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. Vol. 58, No. 3,
Pages 433-440.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274054720_Freshwater_Phreatic_Diagenesis_in_the_Mar
ine_Realm_of_Recent_Arabian_Gulf_Carbonates
Charlou, J. L., J. P. Donval, T. Zitter, N. Roy, P. Jean-Baptiste, and J. P. Foucher. and Medinaut
Scientific Party,. 2003. Evidence of methane venting and geochemistry of brines on mud volcanoes
of the eastern Mediterranean Sea:. Deep Sea Research I 50:941958.
Cherns, L. and V. P. Wright. 2000. Missing molluscs as evidence of large-scale, early skeletal
aragonite dissolution in a Silurian sea:. Geology 28:791794. CrossRef
Dekov V.M., N.M. Egueh, G.D. Kamenov, G. Bayon, S.V. Lalonde, M. Schmidt, V. Liebetrau, F.
Munnik, Y. Fouquet, M. Tanimizu, M.O. Awaleh, I. Guirreh, B. Le Gall (2014). Hydrothermal
carbonate chimneys from a continental rift (Afar Rift): Mineralogy, geochemistry, and mode of
formation. Chemical Geology. November 2014, Volume 387, Pages 87100.
http://archimer.ifremer.fr

Etiope Giuseppe, Baciu Calin, Caracausi Antonio, Italiano F., Cosma C. (2004). Gas flux to the
atmosphere from mud volcanoes in Eastern Romania. Terra Nova, Vol 16, No. 4, 179184.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227664660
Guidry, S.A., Chafetz, H.S., 2003. Depositional Facies and Diagenetic Alteration in a Relict
Siliceous Hot-Spring Accumulation: Examples from Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. Journal of
Sedimentary Research 73(5):806-823 September 2003.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250082707_Depositional_Facies_and_Diagenetic_Alterat
ion_in_a_Relict_Siliceous_Hot-
Spring_Accumulation_Examples_from_Yellowstone_National_Park_USA
Guidry, S.A., Chafetz, H.S., 2003. Anatomy of siliceous hotsprings: examples from Yellowstone
National Park, Wyoming, USA: Sedimentary Geology, v. 157, p. 71-106.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223536981_Guidry_S_A_Chafetz_H_S_Anatomy_of_sili
ceous_hot_springs_examples_from_Yellowstone_National_Park_Wyoming_USA_Sedim_Geol_15
7_71-106
Guo Xuan, Chafetz Henry S. (2012). Large tufa mounds, Searles Lake, California. Sedimentology
(2012) 59, 15091535.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258723010_Large_tufa_mounds_Searles_Lake_Californi
a?enrichId=rgreq-286221f9e6c82aef7dae8bdce42e6a51-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1ODcyMzAxMDtBUzoxNDAyMjYwNTU5MDUyODJ
AMTQxMDQ0MzkwNTk3Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
Herrington, R. J., V. V. Maslennikov, B. Spiro, V. V. Zaykov, and C. T. S. Little. 1998. Ancient

vent chimney structures in the Silurian massive sulphides of the Urals,. in Mills, R.A., and
Harrison, K., eds., Modern Ocean Floor Processes and the Geological Record: Geological Society,
London, Special Publication 148, p. 241257.
Hornafius, J. S., D. Quigley, and B. P. Luyendyk. 1999. The world's most spectacular marine
hydrocarbon seeps (Coal Oil Point, Santa Barbara Channel, California): Quantification of emission:.
Journal of Geophysical Research 104:2070320711.
Howe, B. 1987. Tepee Buttes: A petrological, paleontological, paleoenvironmental study of

Cretaceous submarine spring deposits:. M. Sc., University of Colorado, 68 p.
Knauth, L.P. (1994) Petrogenesis of chert. In: Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol.29, Silica - Physical
behavior, geochemistry and materials applications, Mineralogical Society of America.
Krause Federico F., Clark Jesse, Sayegh Selim G., Perez Renee J. (2009). Tube worm fossils or
relic methane expulsing conduits. Palaios, V24, p41-50.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27670578?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
LaMoreaux Philip E., Tanner Judy T. (2001). Springs and Bottled Waters of the World. ISBN 3-
540-61841-4 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York (332 pages).
Little, C. T. S., R. J. Herrington, V. V. Maslennikov, and V. V. Zaykov. 1998. The fossil record of
fossil hydrothermal vent communities,. in Mills, R., and Harrison, K., eds., Modern Ocean Floor
Processes and the Geological Record: Geological Society of London, p. 259270.

Little, C. T. S., R. J. Herrington, V. V. Maslennikov, N. J. Morris, and V. V. Zaykov. 1997. Silurian

hydrothermal vent community from the southern Urals, Russia:. Nature 385:146148. CrossRef
Little, C. T. S., V. V. Maslennikov, N. J. Morris, and A. P. Gubanov. 1999. Two Palaeozoic

hydrothermal vent communities from the Southern Ural Mountains, Russia:. Palaeontology
42:10431078. CrossRef
Little, C. T. S. and R. C. Vrijenhoek. 2003. Are hydrothermal vent animals living fossils? Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 18:582588. CrossRef
Madsen, H.B., Stemmerik, L. (2010) Diagenesis of flint and procellanite in the Maastrichtian chalk
at Stevns Klint, Denmark. Journal of Sedimentary Research 80, 578-588.
Maliva, R.G., Siever, R. (1989) Chertification histories of some Late Mesozoic and Middle
Paleozoic platform carbonates. Sedimentology 36, 907-926.
Meyers, W.J. (1977) Chertification in the Mississippian Lake Valley Formation, Sacramento
Mountains, New Mexico. Sedimentology 24, 75-105.
Oudin, E. and G. Constantinou. 1984. Black smoker chimney fragments in Cyprus sulphide
deposits:. Nature 308:349353.
Polyak Victor J, Guven Necip (2004). Silicates in Carbonate Speleothems, Guadalupe Mountains,
New Mexico, USA. Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004
Reitner, J., J. Peckmann, A. Reimer, G. Schumann, and V. Thiel. 2005. Methane-derived carbonate
build-ups and associated microbial communities at cold seeps on the lower Crimean shelf (Black
Sea):. Facies 51:6679.
Reitner Joachim, Blumenberg Martin, Walliser Eric-Otto, Scheafer Nadine, Duda Jan-Peter (2015).
Methane-derived carbonate conduits from the late Aptian of Salinac (Marne Bleues, Vocontian
Basin, France): Petrology and biosignatures. Marine and Petroleum Geology 66 (2015) 641-652.
www.elsevier.com/locate/marpetgeo
Roberts, H. H. 2001. Fluid and gas expulsion on the northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope:
Mud-prone to mineral-prone responses,. in Paull, C.K., and Dillon, W.P., eds., Natural Gas
Hydrates: Occurrence, Distribution, and Detection: American Geophysical Union, p. 145163.
Shapiro, R. and H. Fricke. 2002. Tepee Buttes: Fossilized methane-seep ecosystems, Field Guide 3:
Science at the Highest Level:. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, p. 94101.
Todd DK (1980). Groundwater hydrology. 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons
Wells Neil Andrew (1983). Carbonate deposition, physical limnology and environmentally
controlled chert formation in Paleocene-Eocene Lake Flagstaff, Central Utah. Sedimentary
Geology. Vol 35, pages 263-296.
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/25149/0000585.pdf?sequence=1

Whelan Jean, Eglinton Lorraine, Cathles Lawrence, Losh Steven, Roberts Harry (2005). Surface
and subsurface manifestations of gas movement through a NS transect of the Gulf of Mexico.
Marine and Petroleum Geology 22 (2005) 479497. www.elsevier.com/locate/marpetgeo
From the internet:

A hydrocarbon seep in Greece: http://inhabitat.com/ancient-greek-underwater-city-turns-out-to-be-
a-completely-natural-formation/
Abruzzese, Mark J.; Waldbauer, Jacob R.; Chamberlain, C. Page (2005). Oxygen and hydrogen
isotope ratios in freshwater chert as indicators of ancient climate and hydrologic regime.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Volume 69, Issue 6, p. 1377-1390.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005GeCoA..69.1377A
Geothermal Fields, Taupo Volcanic Zone, north Island, New Zealand

http://www.anaspides.net/earth_life_sciences/geothermal_fields_taupo_volcanic_zone_nz.html
Chert:
http://www.mindat.org/min-994.html
http://geology.com/rocks/chert.shtml
https://www.flickr.com/photos/28771820@N03/5333391425 (video)
Detrital Sedimentary rocks:

https://web.csulb.edu/depts/geology/facultypages/bperry/Sedimentary%20Rocks%20Tour/Detrital
%20Sedimentary%20Rocks%20page.htm
Methane authigenic derived carbonate tubes: http://fluid-venting-system.weebly.com/methane-

related-carbonate-tube.html
Methane Myopia: 4 Pobiti Kamani (Bulgaria):

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/methane-myopia-4-pobiti-kamani/
Mud volcanoes of Azerbaijan

http://nasotec.com/m/board.html?code=nasotec003_board2&page=2&type=v&num1=996208&nu
m2=00000&number=4004&lock=N
Mud volcanoes of the Salton Sea, USA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAiGo2Rs7Ds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARsa4lfL3z0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj3icM-6xpI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RblkCX8sHA
Nigrini, C. and Sanfilippo, A., 2001. Cenozoic radiolarian stratigraphy for low and middle latitudes
with descriptions of biomarkers and stratigraphically useful species, ODP Tech. Note, 27 [Online].
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/tnotes/tn27/index.html
Princeton chert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Chert
Radiolaria = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolaria
Rhynie Chert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynie_chert

http://cjes.geoscienceworld.org/content/40/11/1697

Richat Structure in Mauritania: http://primary-water.blogspot.qa/2012/03/richat-structure-in-

mauritania-in-yahoo.html
Seeps: http://seeps.geol.ucsb.edu/
http://tierra.rediris.es/TASYO/cold_seeps.html
Silica Polymorphs = http://www.quartzpage.de/gen_mod.html#opal
Silicoflagellates = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictyochales
Spherical amalgamation of quartz crystals (sub-botryoidal):

http://www.faden.it/pagine_htm/024pagina_rocce_evaporitiche.htm
Sponges = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge
The standing stone of creation. http://creation.com/standing-stones-of-creation
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz
https://yankeebarbareno.com/2013/04/22/oil-and-animals-in-the-santa-barbara-channel/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_4egYPDfg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwf-kog2RZs
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Mud%20volcanoes&item_type=topic
http://www.geologypage.com/2015/07/mud-volcano.html
9 Additional Reading on Paramoudra

Campbell Kathleen A., Francis David A., Collins Mike, Gregory Murray R., Nelson Campbell S.,
Greinert Jens, Aharon Paul (2008). Hydrocarbon seep-carbonates of a Miocene forearc (East Coast
Basin), North Island, New Zealand. Sedimentary Geology 204 (2008) 83105.
http://users.ugent.be/~jgreiner/papers/Campbell_etal_2008_SG.pdf
WILLIAM BUCKLAND (1816). On the Paramoudra, and Formation of Flints in Chalk.

Transactions of the Geological Society, 1st series, vol. 4
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transactions_of_the_Geological_Society,_1st_series,_vol._4/On_the
_Paramoudra,_and_Formation_of_Flints_in_Chalk
Les paramoudras des falaises de craie: Promenades gologiques dans les falaises blanches de
Normandie, France. http://craies.crihan.fr/?page_id=2620
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramoudra
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xw865i_bathicnus-paramoudrae_tech
LES PARAMOUDRAS DU JAIZKIBEL (2014)

http://michel.molia.free.fr/dossier%20paramoudras/paramoudra%20michel%20molia.htm
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrAGvrsFZUw
http://www.aranzadi.eus/wp-content/files_mf/1298301864GalanMolia.Paramoudras.pdf

10 Archeological Literature
De Cardi B. (ed.).1978. Qatar archaeological report: Excavation 1973 . Qatar: The Qatar National
Museum/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Cardi, B. (1974). The British Archaeological Expedition to Qatar 1973- I974. Antiquity,
XLVIII, I974
Inizan, M -L, 1988. Prehistoire a Qatar. Mission archeologique francaise a Qatar (2). Paris. Editions
Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Intergrated Water and Land Use project. Ministry of Industry and Agriculture and FAO.
Kapel H.1967. Atlas of The Stone-Age Cultures of Qatar Aarhus: Aarhus University Press
Macumber, P. G. 2011.. A geomorphological and hydrological underpinning for archaeological

research in northern Qatar. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 41:14
Macumber, P.G., 2012. An Examination of the Impact of Environmental Disparity on the

Occupation of Qatar (special geomorphological report), 97. University of Copenhagen
Macumber, P.G., (2015; unpub). The roles of water and landscape in the occupation of Qatar. A
physical framework and illustrated guide. Prepared for Copenhagen University and the Qatar
Museum Authority
Pelegrin, J and Inizan, M-L. 2013. Soft hammer stone percussion use in bi-directional blade-tool
production at Acila 36 and in bifacial knapping at Shagra (Qatar). Arabian archaeology and
epigraphy 2013:24, 79-86
Tixier, J. ed. 1980. Mission Archeologique Francaise a Qatar 1. Doha. Ministry of Information.
Whittle, G.L and Alsharhan, A.S., 1994. Dolomitization and chertification of the Lower Eocene Rus
Formation in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Sedimentary Geology 92.

11 - Definitions
Alkane: any of the series of saturated hydrocarbons including methane, ethane, propane,
and higher members.
Amorphous silica: material composed of relatively pure SiO2 but with only very local
crystallographic order. Amorphous silica includes various kinds of hydrated and dehydrated
silica gels, silica glass, siliceous sinter formed in hot springs, and (certainly of greatest
geological importance) the skeletal materials of silica-secreting organisms (see below, under
opal).
Authigenic: Mineral formed in its present position
Bedded Chert: Chert found as continuous beds, from centimeters up to as much as a few
meters thick. (Web references, Chapter 6)
Biogenic: fragmented or whole remains of marine animals and plants that have hard
skeletons of calcium carbonate. These organisms include corals, mollusks, sea urchins,
single-celled animals called foraminifera and algae.
Botryoidal: Resembling grape bunches with interlocking rounded masses. Formed from
acicular or bladed crystals growing from a common site for each rounded mass. The tops of
the crystals are smooth and blend so that individual crystal edges are indiscernible except
from broken edges. Botryoidal is similar to globular and mammillary; but more of an
aggregation of rounded masses. Sub-botryoidal has more discernible crystals.
Chalcedony: Very finely crystalline form of silica consisting of radiating needles or fibers,
often spherulitic, of quartz. (Web references, Chapter 6). See also Length-slow
chalcedony. Chalcedony is a fibrous-texture quartz made up of several different varieties
classified by the orientation of the fibres with respect to the crystals c-axis, namely:
Calcedonite (length-fast chalcedony, in which the elongation of the fibres is perpendicular to
the crystallographic c-axis), quartzine (length-slow chalcedony, in which the elongation is
parallel), lutecite (another type of length-slow chalcedony, in which the fibre axis is inclined
by approximately 30), and helicoidal calcedonite or zebraic chalcedony (which shows a
systematic helical twisting of the fibre axes around the crystallographic c-axis). These
varieties of chalcedony allow the identification of the environment reigning during the
replacement or cementation as acid or non-sulphate (length-fast), or basic or
sulphate/magnesium-rich (length-slow) (Folk and Pittman, 1971).

Fig. Def-1: Chalcedony as an indicator of vanished evaporites. A) Major quartz types based on
crystal size and orientation of chalcedony fibres with respect to c-axis. B) Style of chalcedony
precipitate is controlled by the degree of polymerization, which in term reflects environment of
precipitation. C) Crystallite orientation with respect to growth surface controls formation of
length slow versus length fast crystals (Warren, July 31st 2016). According to Keene (1983),
precipitation of length-slow quartz is favoured in waters with high SO4 and Mg levels.
Chert: General term for very fine-grained and nonporous sedimentary rocks that consist
mostly or entirely of silica, in the form of either amorphous silica or microcrystalline quartz
presumably derived from recrystallization of amorphous silica. Chert comes in two distinct
varieties, nodular chert and bedded chert, whose sedimentological occurrence is rather
different. Bedded chert is much more common in the Precambrian, and nodular chert is
more common in the Phanerozoic. (Web references, Chapter 6)
Chert & Flint: Both chert and flint are forms of nodular silica. Flints formed in the soft
limestone formation called "Chalk". Chalk is a calcium carbonate rock formed from the
remains of minute planktonic organisms called coccolithophores. Whereas flint is formed as
nodules (individual lumps), chert can be formed as nodules or large beds (layers in the
rock). There is little if any chemical difference between flint and chert. Both consist of
extremely small crystals of quartz (silica) tightly packed together. In the flint, the silica has
come from sponge's spicules and single-celled diatoms or Radiolaria. Flint and chert are
hard and insoluble, so they are left behind when the Chalk or other limestone has been
dissolved and weathered away. The nodules are broken up by frost, stream or wave action,
and the last two of these wear the fragments into round pebbles. Flint brakes with a concave
or conchoidal fracture but the fracture in chert can be more splintery. More on the
differences between chert and flint can be found in
http://forums.arrowheads.com/forum/information-center-gc33/lithic-artifacts-technology-
materials-gc71/lithic-material-types-sourcing-gc72/general-information-multi-regional-
lithics/105610-flint-or-chert-is-there-a-difference
Cold seep: A cold seep (sometimes called a cold vent) is an area of the ocean floor where
hydrogen sulfide, methane and other hydrocarbon-rich fluid seepage occurs, often in the
form of a brine pool. "Cold" does not mean that the temperature of the seepage is lower than
that of the surrounding sea water. On the contrary, its temperature is often slightly higher.
Cold seeps constitute a biome supporting several endemic species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_seep

Concretion: A compact mass of mineral matter, usually spherical or disk-like in shape and
embedded in a host rock of different composition. They form by precipitation of mineral
matter around a nucleus such as a leaf, or a piece of shell or bone. There is an important
distinction to draw between concretions and nodules. Concretions are formed from mineral
precipitation around some kind of nucleus while a nodule is a replacement body.
http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/glossary-of-geologic-terms/
Detrital material: For which the components are fragments of rock due to erosion and
weathering.
Double terminated crystal (Fig. Def-2): A
crystal with two naturally faceted ends. It is a
rarer form of crystal as it forms free-floating in
pockets of clay/mud, rather than on one side of
a stone.
Drusy: Drusy, druse, druzy, drusies - different spellings, but they all mean tiny quartz
crystals that form within or on the surface of other stones. When ground water carrying
dissolved silica is forced into a porous area of the rock, rapid cooling often occurs, causing
the formation of tiny crystals on the surfaces or in cavities of the rock. The clear crystals
often form on top of previously deposited minerals. This is called a drusy
Duricrust: A hard mineral crust formed at or near the surface of soil in semiarid regions by
the evaporation of groundwater.
Flint: (See also Chert & Flint above). Flint is a hard, tough chemical sedimentary rock
that breaks with a conchoidal fracture. It is a form of microcrystalline quartz. It often forms
as nodules in sedimentary rocks such as chalk and marine limestones. The nodules can be
dispersed randomly throughout the rock unit but are often concentrated in distinct layers.
Flint is highly resistant to weathering and when the nodules weather out of the limestone
they are often found as pebbles or cobbles along streams and beaches. One of the most
common uses of flint by prehistoric people was in the making of arrowheads. They were
hard, tough and very sharp. http://geology.com/
Flint meal: Flint meal is a rich source of siliceous microfossils. The material is often packed
with sponge spicules, as well as foraminifera and ostracods. Flint meal bearing nodules tend
to have a pitted and uneven appearance. When broken the hollow nodules can display in
their cavities a powdery chalk like substance this is flint meal. More on this topic at
https://ukfossils.co.uk/2012/07/03/extracting-microfossils-from-flint/ and
https://books.google.com.qa/books?id=4IjCPNkBnqMC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=%22fli
nt+meal%22&source=bl&ots=GCCnxFb8ab&sig=Smni-
tl2x6dUfPZTXw79m9_Khf0&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22flint%20meal
%22&f=false
Geode: A typical geode has an outer shell of chalcedony, a variety of cryptocrystalline
quartz composed of silicon dioxide. Once the outer shell forms, mineral-rich water still
inside the shell may cause more quartz to be deposited and other minerals to form toward
the center. Chalcedony, much harder than the host rock of limestone, helps to preserve the
specimen during weathering. As the weaker host rock is eroded, the geodes "weather out"
and remain behind. They generally are easy to see because of their shape and the texture of
their outer shell. The micro-environment inside the shell is an excellent place for crystal
growth. Temperature and pressure changes, as well as evaporation, cause the mineral matter
to precipitate. More solutions rich in minerals may seep into the geode later, adding to the
quartz crystals or forming other minerals. In addition to the chalcedony of the outer shell,
the insides of some geodes are lined with a pronounced bumpy, mammillary form of blue-
gray chalcedony. Some specimens also have excellent clear quartz crystals. Ankerite,
aragonite, calcite, dolomite, goethite/limonite, gypsum, and marcasite/pyrite are the other

minerals most commonly found. Occasionally, dark bronze, fine, hair-like masses are found
inside; these may be millerite or a filament-like form of pyrite. (Web References, Illinois
State Geological Society)
Gryphon: steep-sided cone shorter than 3 meters that extrudes mud
Hydrothermal circulation in its most general sense is the circulation of hot waters that are
5C above surrounding country rock. It occurs most often in the vicinity of sources of heat
within the Earth's crust. In general, this occurs near volcanic activity, but can occur in the
deep crust related to the intrusion of granite, or as the result of orogeny or metamorphism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_circulation . Hydrothermal is distinguished
from geothermal, which refers to normal burial temperature variation with depth.
Lag Deposit: A coarse-grained residue left behind after finer particles have been transported
away, due to the inability of the transporting medium to move the coarser particles.
Length-fast chalcedony (Fig. Def-1): Commonly called calcedonite has the elongation of
the fibres perpendicular to the crystallographic c-axis. It identifies the environment reigning
during the replacement or cementation as acid or non-sulphate; i.e: carbonate (limestone,
etc.)
Length-slow chalcedony (Fig. Def-1): This type of chalcedony, having its c -axis parallel
to the fibers, is unusual in nature. Its occurrences reveal that this rare type of optically
fibrous silica occurs almost exclusively in association with sulphates and evaporites,
therefore, it is a good way to determine the presence of former salt-flat, sabkha or sulphate-
rich environments where none were before suspected. All petrographic studies of siliceous
deposits should examine the presence of this important genetic marker. Folk and Pittman
(1971) have clearly indicated the importance of length-slow varieties of chalcedony as
evidence for the former presence of evaporites. Other length-slow minerals indicative of
evaporitic environments are quartzine, lutecite and moganite. See also Chalcedony.
Low-quartz: Low-temperature quartz stable below 573 C.
Micron: A measurement unit reprented by m. 1 m = 0.001 millimetre
Mud volcanoes (MVs): Subaerial and submarine sedimentary structures whose surface
morphology resembles that of a real volcano, but on a much smaller scale. They form as a
result of emission of depressurized pore water, gases and argillaceous material from deep
seated sources and occur either on top of surface-piercing shale diapirs or along
faults/fractures. The latter is more common in convergent margins, where lateral tectonic
compression leads to rise of fluidized mud, derived from subducting materials, along the
basal dcollement. The gases emitted by the mud volcanoes are generally hydrocarbon rich,
with methane being the main component. A large number of MVs are observed in actively
producing petroleum basins, e.g., Azerbaijan, Mexico and Colombia. Hydrocarbon
emissions from MVs at convergent margins owe their origin to decomposition of
sedimentary organic matter in response to increase in temperature and pressure due to
tectonic compression. This process also leads to compaction and dehydration of sediments
resulting in release of low saline water with a mixed composition of seawater and water
from dehydration of clay minerals. (Ray et al., 2013). See also
http://www.geologypage.com/2015/07/mud-volcano.html
Nodular chert: (Web references, Chapter 6)
o Chert is widespread as nodules in limestone. Chert nodules are varied in shape, from
more or less regular discoidal or egg-shaped bodies (the common shape for relatively
small chert nodules) to highly irregular knobby and warty bodies (the common shape of
relatively large chert nodules). Their size ranges from a few centimeters to a few tens of
centimeters. They tend to be concentrated along certain bedding planes. Where
abundant, they often form a two or three-dimensionally interconnected network. The

depositional environments for these sediments can be shelf and/or near-shore basins
associated with carbonate reefs.
o Chert nodules are usually structureless, but some show faint traces of stratification
coincident with that in the enclosing limestone. If the limestone is fossiliferous, the
fossils in the chert can be either calcareous or silicified. And the fossils in the rest of the
limestone may or may not be silicified themselves. Sometimes the boundary between the
nodule and the limestone passes right through fossilssuggesting that the nodules are a
diagenetic feature, not a primary feature.
o Although in the past some geologists believed that nodules form by direct precipitation
of silica gel on the ocean bottom, today the evidence for a replacement origin is
considered to be overwhelming:
irregular shape and interconnectedness of many nodules;
presence of irregular patches of limestone in nodules;
association of chert and silicified fossils in many limestones;
presence of replaced fossils in some nodules;
traces of bedding passing through nodules;
contacts of nodules passing through fossils.
o The source of the silica is a problem. Did it come from within the bed or from
somewhere else? In most cases the nodules can be explained by the presence of
abundant biogenic amorphous silica in the original sediment and then diagenetic
reorganization. Diagenetic reorganization means the process by which the disseminated
bodies of opaline silica (sponge spicules, diatoms, radiolarians) are dissolved,
whereupon the silica in solution migrates to certain places in the sediment where it is
reprecipitated in the form of opal-CT to form the nodules. This happens because the pore
fluids are undersaturated with respect to the original biogenic silica, which consists of
opal-A, but are supersaturated with respect to opal-CT, which has lower solubility than
opal-A. The literature on chert nodules, however, never seems to provide the classic
straight answer for what the controls are on the origin of the nodules: Why do they
form where they do? Why is the size and spacing the way they commonly are, rather
than much smaller or much larger?
o Where the chert nodules form only a small part of the bulk volume of the rock, a good
case can be made that the silica that forms the nodules was present in the sediment from
the time of deposition. When the chert forms the greater part of the rock, however, then
a stronger case can be made for introduction of silica in solution after deposition, by
circulating pore solutions.
o The chert in shallow marine limestones probably comes mostly from sponge spicules,
diatoms and radiolarians; that in deep marine cherts probably comes mostly from
diatoms and radiolarians. In either case, the limestones that contain chert nodules are
commonly fine-grained wackestones and mudstones, because the remains of the
organisms responsible for the silica were deposited in quiet-water carbonate
environments conducive to the various silica-secreting organisms.
Nodule: A small, irregular, knobby-surfaced rock body that differs in composition from the
rock that encloses it. Formed by the replacement of the original mineral matter. Quartz in
the form of flint or chert is the most common component. Most common in limestone and
dolostone. Examples include chert masses in a limestone rock unit, pyrite masses in a coal
seam, or carbonate masses in a shale. There is an important distinction to draw between
concretions and nodules. Concretions are formed from mineral precipitation around some
kind of nucleus while a nodule is a replacement body. http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/glossary-
of-geologic-terms/

Opal (or opaline silica): Solid form of amorphous silica with some included water. It is
abundant in young cherts, back into the Mesozoic. Its geological occurrence is by alteration
of volcanic ash, precipitation from hot springs, and, by far most importantly, precipitation as
skeletal material by certain silica-secreting organisms (diatoms, radiolarian, sponges, etc..).
Opal starts out as what is called opal-A, which shows only a very weak x-ray diffraction
pattern, indicating that any crystallographic order is very local. With burial, during the initial
stage of diagenesis, opal-A is transformed into opal-CT, which shows a weak x-ray
diffraction pattern characteristic of cristobalite another silica mineral. Upon further
diagenesis, opal-CT is transformed into crystalline quartz, resulting in chart that consists of
an equant mosaic of microquartz crystals. By that stage, most or all of the fossil evidence of
origin is obliterated.
Paramoudra: Paramoudras, Paramoudra flints, Pot stones or Potstones are flint nodules
found mainly in parts of north-west Europe: Norfolk (United Kingdom), Ireland, Denmark,
Spain and Germany. In Norfolk they are known as Pot Stones. In Ireland they are known as
Paramoudras where they were first studied and described in 1816. The term paramoudra
in the gaelic language means peach of the sea. Pot Stones are chert nodules with a hollow
center and have the appearance of a doughnut. They can be found in columns resembling a
backbone. These flints are normally trace fossils of the burrows of an organism otherwise
unknown except for these relics sometimes referred to as Bathicnus paramoudrae. A site
with very large paramoudras can be visited in France (http://planet-terre.ens-lyon.fr/image-
de-la-semaine/Img504-2015-09-07.xml ).
Replacement: When chert is the result of replacement of carbonate rocks by silica. A good
example of this from the Rus Formation would be the dissolution of gypsum/anhydrite (two
evaporitic minerals) leaving behind empty spherical or multi-shaped cavities which then
receive percolating solutions rich in silica (Figs. 5-Dk-36, 5-Sm-03, 5-Sm-04, 5-Sm-06).
This process results in the formation of geodes similar to those illustrated in chapter 5.
However, provided silica is available in sufficient quantity and the environmental conditions
are prone to initiate a diagenetic process, silica can replace any carbonate material
(including fossils) and/or infill any void left behind by marine organisms or geological
activities.
Siliceous ooze: A siliceous pelagic sediment that covers large areas of the deep ocean floor.
Siliceous oozes consist predominantly of the remains of microscopic sea creatures, mostly
those of diatoms and radiolarians. Sometimes siliceous oozes also contain silicoflagellates
and the spicules of sponges.
Sinter: a hard siliceous or calcareous deposit precipitated from mineral springs.
Thixotropy: The property of becoming less viscous when subjected to an applied stress.

Origin and Types of Silica in The Lower Eocene Carbonates of The Rus Formation, Qatar, Middle-East

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Origin and Types of Silica in The Lower Eocene Carbonates of The Rus Formation, Qatar, Middle-East

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Origin and types of silica in the Lower

Eocene Carbonates of the Rus Formation,

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome -2

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome -3

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome -4

Fig. 2-1: The UER chert horizon

Although the UER underlying

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome -5

B) Tectonic history of Qatar

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome -6

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome -7

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome -8

C) Origins of Silica in Carbonate Rocks

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome -9

3) The main silica concentrating mechanisms in carbonates

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 10

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 11

Fig. 3-2: Radiolaria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolaria

Fig. 3-3: Sponges Fig. 3-4: Silicoflagellates

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 12

Magadi-style chert Cauliflower chert Smooth-wall chert

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 13

4) Geology of the Lower Eocene Rus Formation

Fig. 4-1: Type section locality suggested by Cavelier (Sugden et al.1975)

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 14

C) Age: Lower Eocene (Cavelier, in Sugden et al. 1975)

E) Thickness: 85.30 ft (26 m) of limestone is exposed at the Qatar Reference section.

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 15

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 16

F) Lithologic Description (W. Sudgen, A. J. Standring, C. Cavelier, 1975)

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 17

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 18

Fig. 4-6: Rus Formation: Sedimentary Environment. (Eccleston, 1981)

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 19

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 20

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 21

G) Faults & Fractures

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 22

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 23

5) Areas investigated for silica concentration in the Rus Formation

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 24

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 25

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 26

A) Area North of Dukhan Town

Fig. 5-Dk-01: Neolithic sites (~6,000 years) in relation to the Rus

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 27

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 28

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 29

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 30

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 31

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 32

3 Description of all GPS points

Section of a nodular quartz in

Small nodular quartz in

01_P09 25.47487 50.77345 10.5 More quartz

By Jacques LeBlanc, Geologist: https://sites.google.com/site/leblancjacques/fossilhome - 33

Loose chert in the sand forming

Chert nodules in limestone.

02_P04 25.46759 50.76611 5.7 Nodular quartz in limestone.

02_P05 25.46728 50.76721 9.7 Loose chert (lag deposit)

Small rounded quartz cobbles in

One looks like the mold of a

02_P08 25.46261 50.78312 17.9