Cited by 128CO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsGeological and Geochemical AnalysisGeochemistry and Elemental Analysis

Massive serpentinite carbonation at Linnajavri, N–Norway

Beinlich, Andreas, Plümper, Oliver, Hövelmann, Jörn, Austrheim, Håkon, Jamtveit, Bjørn·2012·Terra Nova

Abstract

Terra Nova, 24, 446–455, 2012 Carbonation of ultramafic rocks is being considered as an in situ disposal strategy for anthropogenic CO 2. We present observations from massively carbonated serpentinites at Linnajavri, N–Norway, where serpentinized fragments of the dismembered ophiolite are hydrothermally altered to soapstone and listvenite on a km‐scale. Several sharp reaction fronts between the soapstone and the serpentinite can be followed for hundreds of metres. Listvenite is present between the underlying carbonate–mica schist and the soapstone. The O‐isotopic compositions of vein minerals in the listvenite and adjacent soapstone indicate an isothermal formation at ∼275 °C. In agreement with C‐isotope signatures, field observations suggest that fluids were derived from overthrusted sediments. Porosimetry data, mass–balance calculations and the perpetuation of serpentinite structures imply an isovolumetric alteration. We conclude that the reactions stopped due to the cessation of the external CO 2 supply. Soapstone formation is associated with sequestration of more than 13 Mt of CO 2.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-3121.2012.01083.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The carbonate morphology is in agreement with a strong driving force causing spherical growth instead of sub- to euhedral Mg-carbonate that is frequently observed in similar alteration systems elsewhere.

    “Indeed, the carbonate morphology is in agreement with a strong driving force causing spherical growth instead of sub- to euhedral Mg-carbonate that is frequently observed in similar alteration systems elsewhere (Beinlich et al., 2012; Hansen et al., 2005; Sunagawa, 2005).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beinlich, A., Plümper, O., Hövelmann, J., Austrheim, H., & Jamtveit, B.
Affiliations
University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Beinlich, Andreas
Venue
Terra Nova
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-07-14
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
446-455
ISSN
  • 0954-4879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-3121
OpenAlex
W1947794993
Cited by
128
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Terra Nova (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Publication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Norges Forskningsråd
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › Geological and Geochemical Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Geochemistry and Elemental Analysis
Keywords
ultramafic rocks, CO2 sequestration, soapstone, listvenite, serpentinization, ophiolite, hydrothermal alteration, reaction front, oxygen isotopes, carbon isotopes, porosimetry, mass balance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review