Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-110
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-110

  01 Jul 2020

01 Jul 2020

Review status: this preprint was under review for the journal SE but the revision was not accepted.

Comment on Estimating the depth and evolution of intrusions at resurgent calderas: Los Humeros (Mexico) by Urbani et al. (2020)

Gianluca Norini and Gianluca Groppelli Gianluca Norini and Gianluca Groppelli
  • Istituto di Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria, Sezione di Milano, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy

Abstract. A multiple magmatic intrusions model has been proposed by Urbani et al. (2020) for the resurgence of the Los Potreros caldera floor, in the Los Humeros Volcanic Complex. This model predicts (1) the occurrence of few localized bulges in the otherwise not deformed caldera floor, and (2) that the faults corresponding to different bulges exhibit different spatial and temporal evolution. Already available field data from easily accessible outcrops and a simple morphological analysis show that these two conditions are not met at Los Potreros caldera. Also, a geothermal well (H4), located in the most recent supposed bulge for which Urbani et al. (2020) calculated an intrusion depth (Loma Blanca, intrusion depth of 425 ± 170 m), doesn't show any thermal and lithological evidence of such a shallow cryptodome. Finally, already published stratigraphic data and radiometric dating apparently disprove the proposed correlation between extruded viscous lavas and faulting. Thus, even if recent shallow intrusions may exist in the area, Urbani et al. (2020) fails to provide any useful information on their occurrence, location, age, emplacement depth, role in the resurgence of the Los Potreros caldera floor, and influence on the structure of the Los Humeros geothermal field.

Gianluca Norini and Gianluca Groppelli

 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Gianluca Norini and Gianluca Groppelli

Gianluca Norini and Gianluca Groppelli

Viewed

Total article views: 441 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
299 102 40 441 36 37
  • HTML: 299
  • PDF: 102
  • XML: 40
  • Total: 441
  • BibTeX: 36
  • EndNote: 37
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 254 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 252 with geography defined and 2 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 08 Mar 2021
Short summary
We identify several problems of the Urbani et al. (2020) study, showing that their model does not conform to the geological constraints. These problems, which largely undermine their conclusions, are poor field data, inconsistencies between the caldera complex and the modelling, lack of any substantial validation, and contradictions with the reference stratigraphy. The Urbani et al. (2020) analysis fails identify the caldera deformation source and the geothermal field heat source.