Basin Evolution and Massive Sulfide Deposition at Rammelsberg (Germany): Updating the Subsidence Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
If you wish to promote fluids derived from the Goslar basin for the genesis of the Rammelsberg deposit, you will have to include a review and discussion of the sulfur, lead and osmium isotope evidence fingerprinting the source. Most of the sulfur and lead isotope data are published in English.
ABSTRACT: The Rammelsberg represents one of the type localities of SEDEX deposits, but its high copper and gold contents set it apart from the main group. Thus, “most representative” is an unfortunate choice of words.
INTRODUCTION: The introduction is long on outlining the basin evolution / basin subsidence concept but short on previous applications to mineral deposits. In general, brines derived from deep sedimentary basins are considered to be involved in the formation of Mississippi Valley type (MVT) Zn-Pb deposits at adjacent paleohighs, and in the formation of Kupferschiefer type Cu-Ag deposits like those at the margin of the Keeweenaw rift basin, Michigan. MVT deposits hosted by platform carbonates are predominantly Zn-rich, whereas those hosted in sandstones (e.g. Lamotte Sandstone, Missouri) are predominantly Pb-rich, perhaps reflecting a shale-dominant versus sandstone-dominant source succession.
Sedimentary-exhalative (SEDEX) deposits in rifted continental basins are more closely related to the large group of volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits in convergent-margin back-arc basins, the latter setting perhaps applicable to the well-studied VMS deposits of the Spanish Pyrite Belt. In both cases, the interaction of tectonic and submarine volcanic activity is critical, rather than subsidence by sediment load. In the case of SEDEX, the basin trapping the hydrothermal fluid needs to be euxinic and shielded from detrital influx.
The Introduction fails to integrate the basin evolution concept with the genetic models outlined above.
GEOLOGIC SETTING: The first paragraph is summarized from Mueller (2008), who should be quoted at the end and not at the beginning. Variscan orogenic phases took place during the early and late Carboniferous, and affected the late Carboniferous coal measures (Pennsylvanian). The Devonian rift stage is usually not counted as part of the Variscan orogenic cycle, which generated the “fold-and-thrust belt”.
In the review of stratigraphy, summarized in Figure 3, the nature of the volcanic rocks has been omitted. Most are basaltic tuffs, lavas and sills. However, the Rammelsberg deposit itself is associated with 22 felsic tuff marker beds representing altered alkali rhyolite (reviewed in Mueller 2008). Abt (1958) used the tuff beds for stratigraphic correlation in the folded Wissenbach black shale at the mine. Similar felsic tuffs are associated with the Meggen and Mount Isa Zn-Pb deposits. They are as characteristic for SEDEX as submarine rhyolite-dacite ridges are for VMS deposits.
SUBSIDENCE ANALYSIS: The evolution of the Goslar basin is interpreted for the stratigraphic section comprising the Devonian Calceola Shale to the Carboniferous Culm flysch (Stages 1 to 5 in Table 1). As the Rammelsberg deposit marks the boundary between the lower sand-banded and upper calcareous Wissenbach black shales, only the rift Stages 1 and 2 are relevant to ore genesis. The post-ore Stages 3 and 4 have some significance for the Goslar basin but not for the Rammelsberg deposit, and the Culm flysch of Stage 5 covered both basin and ridge when the tectonic regime changed to compression. It is plain obvious that the condensed stratigraphic sequence at the site of ore deposition did not influence subsidence. The high heat flow during hydrothermal activity, probably promoted by igneous activity, is equally obvious. The detrital sedimentation rate during accumulation of the massive sulfides was low not “moderately high”, and the base-metal sulfides were not deposited below the sediment-water interface, as the ore marker horizon can be traced kilometers away from the deposit (Sperling and Walcher 1990).
CONCLUSION: The term “basin break-up” should be replaced by “basin rifting”. The concept of “thermal subsidence” is not explained in the Subsidence Analysis section and should be omitted from the Conclusions. The conclusion that the subsidence of the Goslar basin activated “seismic pumping” and the flow of basinal brine to the Rammelsberg ridge is not supported by evidence. Neither the sulfur isotope nor the lead and osmium isotope data (referenced in Mueller 2008; SGA Monograph 30 in English), which help to fingerprint the fluid source, are part of the paper submitted. The high Cu-Bi-Au signature of the Rammelsberg massive sulfides points to a magmatic input (see Hannington et al. 2005; EG 100th Anniv. Vol.).
TABLE 1: The caption refers to a “red line” and “white color” not shown in the table but in Figure 4 below. Please remove and add to the caption of Figure 4.
FIGURES: Proper references have to be added to the captions of some figures, instead of referring to the text.
REFERENCES: Not checked in detail.
Author Response
Our gratitude to the three reviewers involved in the process. Most of their suggestions and comments have been attended to, and I think the paper has improved thanks to that.
Comments and suggestions from reviewer 1 in black color, answers in red color
GENERAL COMMENT:
If you wish to promote fluids derived from the Goslar basin for the genesis of the Rammelsberg deposit, you will have to include a review and discussion of the sulfur, lead and osmium isotope evidence fingerprinting the source. Most of the sulfur and lead isotope data are published in English.
The main objective of this paper doesn´t deal with the source of mineralizing fluids, but with the geodynamic evolution of the basin and its influence in the activation of such fluids. Nevertheless, we have clarified this subject updating the manuscript according to Reviewer 1´s indications.
Regarding the origin of the mineralizing fluids, most of the authors with experience in the Rhenohercynian ore deposits consider that the basin fluids played a noteworthy role in the origin of sulfides (at least partially) (Muchez and Heijlen, 2003; Wermer, 1990; Large and Walcher, 1999). Even Mueller (2008), in two different sections of his paper, expresses textually in relation to the Rammelsberg ore deposit that: “Radiogenic lead and osmium isotope data indicate deep fluid circulation and metal leaching from the thick pile (>1000 m) of Lower Devonian shelf sandstones and from paragneisses in the continental crust below” and also “indicate a large component of radiogenic lead and osmium, probably leached from detritus in the Lower Devonian sandstones and from paragneiss (?) in the basement below the deposit.” A similar fluid circulation mechanism is exposed in our Figure 2.
ABSTRACT:
The Rammelsberg represents one of the type localities of SEDEX deposits, but its high copper and gold contents set it apart from the main group. Thus, “most representative” is an unfortunate choice of words.
Ok. In fact, there are not pure (100%) SEDEX nor VS deposits. Most of them represent a mixture of both extremes with different influence. In any case, the term “most representative” has been eliminated according to the instructions of Reviewer 1.
INTRODUCTION:
The introduction is long on outlining the basin evolution / basin subsidence concept but short on previous applications to mineral deposits
Indeed, this reflexes the current state of the art. The number of papers dealing with basin analysis applied to ore deposits is still negligible.
In general, brines derived from deep sedimentary basins are considered to be involved in the formation of Mississippi Valley type (MVT) Zn-Pb deposits at adjacent paleohighs,
Carbonate sequences currently hosting Mississippi Valley-type sulfides (i.e., the mineralization traps) were effectively deposited in topographic highs because they normally represent reef deposits (patch reef, shoal bars and comparable limestone deposits). The mineralization, nevertheless, is epigenetic, showing occasionally a significant timespan between the age of sedimentation of the hosting rock and mineralization.
and in the formation of Kupferschiefer type Cu-Ag deposits like those at the margin of the Keeweenaw rift basin, Michigan
The mineralization process in the Kupferschiefer deposits is not sin-sedimentary either, but diagenetic or noticeably later (Borg et al., 2012).
MVT deposits hosted by platform carbonates are predominantly Zn-rich, whereas those hosted in sandstones (e.g. Lamotte Sandstone, Missouri) are predominantly Pb-rich, perhaps reflecting a shale-dominant versus sandstone-dominant source succession.
Definitely, we do not try to apply the subsidence analysis performed here to basins that host epigenetic deposits such as MVT and the Kupferschiefer.
Despite of that, we slightly modified the introduction section in order to attend the comment of Reviewer 1.
Sedimentary-exhalative (SEDEX) deposits in rifted continental basins are more closely related to the large group of volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits in convergent-margin back-arc basins, the latter setting perhaps applicable to the well-studied VMS deposits of the Spanish Pyrite Belt.
We agree with Reviewer 1, but unfortunately, neither the biostratigraphic control nor the stratigraphy of the IPB have enough resolution to perform a basin analysis like the one presented in our paper.
In both cases, the interaction of tectonic and submarine volcanic activity is critical, rather than subsidence by sediment load. In the case of SEDEX, the basin trapping the hydrothermal fluid needs to be euxinic and shielded from detrital influx
Our intention is not diminish the role played by tectonic. The origin and evolution of the basin is a tectonic process itself. But, in order to quantify the different mechanisms that operated, it is necessary to perform a quantitative subsidence analysis.The subsidence curves permit the quantification of these mechanisms. The submarine volcanic activity is also a consequence of the evolution of the basin. Instead of “volcanic activity” we prefer to use the broader term “magmatic activity”. This played an important role in the generation of an anomalous geothermal scenario. The subsidence curves also reflex such anomaly.
The Introduction fails to integrate the basin evolution concept with the genetic models outlined above.
The aim of this paper is not reviewing genetic models of deposits hosted by sedimentary and volcanic rocks. It does not even try to review SEDEX-type deposits. It tries to explain how to apply an updated subsidence analysis to a basin hosting a worldwide known sulfide deposit. We included, nevertheless, some rewording and references in order to satisfy Reviewer 1 requirements.
GEOLOGIC SETTING:
The first paragraph is summarized from Mueller (2008), who should be quoted at the end and not at the beginning
OK.
Variscan orogenic phases took place during the early and late Carboniferous, and affected the late Carboniferous coal measures (Pennsylvanian) . The Devonian rift stage is usually not counted as part of the Variscan orogenic cycle, which generated the “fold-and-thrust belt.
To avoid the misunderstanding behind this comment, we have introduced the term “orogenic cycle”, which cover since the stretching phase previous to the initial rifting until the end of the compressive phase responsible of folding and thrusting.
In the review of stratigraphy, summarized in Figure 3, the nature of the volcanic rocks has been omitted
This figure tries to show the stratigraphic units, together with their age and thickness, and tries also to establish the correlation between the condensed sequence at the basin margin and the expanded sequence in the depocenter. The figure does not include details of any lithology.
Most are basaltic tuffs, lavas and sills. However, the Rammelsberg deposit itself is associated with 22 felsic tuff marker beds representing altered alkali rhyolite (reviewed in Mueller 2008). Abt (1958) used the tuff beds for stratigraphic correlation in the folded Wissenbach black shale at the mine. Similar felsic tuffs are associated with the Meggen and Mount Isa Zn-Pb deposits. They are as characteristic for SEDEX as submarine rhyolite-dacite ridges are for VMS deposits
Yes. This correlation is very useful to understand that the sequence is condensed at the basin margin and expanded in the depocenter. In order to clarify the lithological information we have included these references in the caption. We also have clarify in the main text the diversity of the volcanic rocks.
.
SUBSIDENCE ANALYSIS:
The evolution of the Goslar basin is interpreted for the stratigraphic section comprising the Devonian Calceola Shale to the Carboniferous Culm flysch (Stages 1 to 5 in Table 1). As the Rammelsberg deposit marks the boundary between the lower sand-banded and upper calcareous Wissenbach black shales, only the rift Stages 1 and 2 are relevant to ore genesis . The post-ore Stages 3 and 4 have some significance for the Goslar basin but not for the Rammelsberg deposit, and the Culm flysch of Stage 5 covered both basin and ridge when the tectonic regime changed to compression. It is plain obvious that the condensed stratigraphic sequence at the site of ore deposition did not influence subsidence.
We agree with Reviewer 1 in that each stage played a different role in the ore generation process. However, in order to perform the proposed basin analysis and to elaborate the subsidence curves the entire stratigraphic record must be consider for satisfactorily measuring the decompaction. In fact, the pivotal stage in the backstriping technic is decompaction, and this depends on the rock nature (lithological constants), and largely, on the sedimentary pile above a given unit, because such pile has been persistently compacting the unit with time.
The high heat flow during hydrothermal activity, probably promoted by igneous activity, is equally obvious. The detrital sedimentation rate during accumulation of the massive sulfides was low not “moderately high”
Considering that the expression “moderately high” is somewhat ambiguous, it has been removed. Sedimentation rate values are included in Table 1.
and the base-metal sulfides were not deposited below the sediment-water interface, as the ore marker horizon can be traced kilometers away from the deposit (Sperling and Walcher 1990).
We have modified this paragraph to avoid misunderstandings because our intention is trying to evaluate the role of the basin in the generation of the ore deposit, but not to debate which was the mineralizing process itself.
CONCLUSION:
The term “basin break-up” should be replaced by “basin rifting”
Given that we are not talking here about the main rifting episode we prefer to keep using “basing break-up”, a more comprehensive expression that encompasses the term “basin rifting” too.
The concept of “thermal subsidence” is not explained in the Subsidence Analysis section and should be omitted from the Conclusions
Ok. We agree with Reviewer 1, so that conclusion 6 has been removed.
The conclusion that the subsidence of the Goslar basin activated “seismic pumping” and the flow of basinal brine to the Rammelsberg ridge is not supported by evidence
In this occasion, we do not agree with Reviewer 1. Our proposal is sustained on evidences supplied by the subsidence analysis. These allow to suggest that a seismic pumping was the mechanisms that activated the hydrothermal systems in the same way that other authors suggest that the main activation mechanism is the fault activity (not the associated tremors).
Neither the sulfur isotope nor the lead and osmium isotope data (referenced in Mueller 2008; SGA Monograph 30 in English), which help to fingerprint the fluid source, are part of the paper submitted. The high Cu-Bi-Au signature of the Rammelsberg massive sulfides points to a magmatic input (see Hannington et al. 2005; EG 100th Anniv. Vol.).
Ok. Reviewer 1 is right in considering that our paper does not deal with the nature of the mineralizing fluids. This is why we have removed the word “basinal” from the main text. Additionally, we have included new references in the section on Subsidence Analysis that deal with the nature of such fluids. All of them coincide, however, in that at least partially, the basinal fluids played an important role in the generation of the Rammlsberg massive sulfides. See general comment above.
TABLE 1: The caption refers to a “red line” and “white color” not shown in the table but in Figure 4 below. Please remove and add to the caption of Figure 4.
Ok. This depends on the journal edition. We will propose its correction.
FIGURES: Proper references have to be added to the captions of some figures, instead of referring to the text. OK
REFERENCES: Not checked in detail.
Updated
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper analyzes the tectonic subsidence curves and their relationship
with the Rammelsberg sulphide deposit, the Goslar basin (Harz Mountains)
determined the relationship between them and the spatial variation of
the subsidence during successive and different tectonic events
responsible for the evolution of the basin.
In general, the work is well structured, the data are correctly presented and the discussion and conclusions are considered adequate. Some modifications are suggested for consideration by the authors and editor.
The epigraph of methodology should be revised to include some specifications (comments in the text). However, although the results obtained by backstripping 1D model (employing local, Airy, isostasy) are often underestimated compared to 2D models using isostasy 'flexural' backstripping calculations, this technique remains a useful tool as very recent work shows (i.e. Berra and Carminati, 2010; Xie and Heller, 2009; Li and Liu, 2015; Dressel et al., 2015; Lopes et al., 2018).
View comments in the text.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Our gratitude to the three reviewers involved in the process. Most of their suggestions and comments have been attended to, and I think the paper has improved thanks to that.
Comments and suggestions from reviewer 2 in black color, answers in red color
The paper analyzes the tectonic subsidence curves and their relationship with the Rammelsberg sulphide deposit, the Goslar basin (Harz Mountains) determined the relationship between them and the spatial variation of the subsidence during successive and different tectonic events responsible for the evolution of the basin.
In general, the work is well structured, the data are correctly presented and the discussion and conclusions are considered adequate. Some modifications are suggested for consideration by the authors and editor.
The epigraph of methodology should be revised to include some specifications (comments in the text). However, although the results obtained by backstripping 1D model (employing local, Airy, isostasy) are often underestimated compared to 2D models using isostasy 'flexural' backstripping calculations, this technique remains a useful tool as very recent work shows (i.e. Berra and Carminati, 2010; Xie and Heller, 2009; Li and Liu, 2015; Dressel et al., 2015; Lopes et al., 2018).
View comments in the text.
All the corrections suggested by Reviewer 2 have been considered, including the modification of Figure 4C.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very interesting contribution concerning the analysis of subsidence in the Ghoslar basin and its relationships with genesis of the Rammelsberg, SEDEX type massive sulfide deposit. Revisiting previous data, this analysis is performed in both the depocenter and the margin of the basin and distinguishes between the total subsidence and the tectonic subsidence. The subsidence curves obtained allow the authors to define 5 stages in the basin evolution and to discuss their relations with sulfide deposition. The stratigraphic position of the Rammelsberg deposit coincides with an inflexion point between the stages with respectively high and low accommodation rates, leading the authors to propose that the activation of the hydrothermal system and metal transport to the sea floor was triggered by a rapid subsidence event. This is a new and an exciting hypothesis for genesis of SEDEX type deposits.
Any field evidence that support the tectonic origin of subsidence in stage 1 and 2 (intraformational conglomerates, synsedimentary faults, breccia…) should be described.
The authors should clearly state why they consider, in lines 228-231, that the Kahleberg Formation represents the basin substrate and not a part of the Goslar basin infill. Also it is not clear if their stage 1 is related to a syn-rift subsidence stage or post-rift thermal subsidence stage of McKenzie. Actually, in lines 182-184, stage 1 is compared to the initial subsidence stage (syn-rift) while in lines 232-234, stages 1-4 are related to the post-rift thermal subsidence stage.
Lines 167-168 Table caption should be updated.
Other minor changes are indicated in the attached annotated pdf manuscript
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Our gratitude to the three reviewers involved in the process. Most of their suggestions and comments have been attended to, and I think the paper has improved thanks to that.
Comments and suggestions from reviewer 3 in black color, answers in red color
This is a very interesting contribution concerning the analysis of subsidence in the Ghoslar basin and its relationships with genesis of the Rammelsberg, SEDEX type massive sulfide deposit. Revisiting previous data, this analysis is performed in both the depocenter and the margin of the basin and distinguishes between the total subsidence and the tectonic subsidence. The subsidence curves obtained allow the authors to define 5 stages in the basin evolution and to discuss their relations with sulfide deposition. The stratigraphic position of the Rammelsberg deposit coincides with an inflexion point between the stages with respectively high and low accommodation rates, leading the authors to propose that the activation of the hydrothermal system and metal transport to the sea floor was triggered by a rapid subsidence event. This is a new and an exciting hypothesis for genesis of SEDEX type deposits.
Any field evidence that support the tectonic origin of subsidence in stage 1 and 2 (intraformational conglomerates, synsedimentary faults, breccia…) should be described.
Certainly, there are field evidences suggesting tectonic instability in the units 1 and 2. These have been referred in the text.
The authors should clearly state why they consider, in lines 228-231, that the Kahleberg Formation represents the basin substrate and not a part of the Goslar basin infill.
Following this comment, we have included a new paragraph in the Geology section clarifying this.
Also it is not clear if their stage 1 is related to a syn-rift subsidence stage or post-rift thermal subsidence stage of McKenzie. Actually, in lines 182-184, stage 1 is compared to the initial subsidence stage (syn-rift) while in lines 232-234, stages 1-4 are related to the post-rift thermal subsidence stage.
Reviewer 2 and 3 agree in that the use of the McKenzie terminology is confusing. As suggested by Reviewer 2, the text referring to such terminology has been removed.
Lines 167-168 Table caption should be updated.
OK
Other minor changes are indicated in the attached annotated pdf manuscript
OK
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction: As the main subject of your paper is the Rammelsberg deposit, you must establish the connection between basin analysis and ore formation. The two main types of epigenetic ore deposits linked to brines expelled from deep sedimentary basins are MVT Zn-Pb and Kupferschiefer Cu-Ag (Econ Geol 75th and 100th Ann Vol). In both cases, the epigenetic concept was developed in the US (Missouri and Michigan case histories). The Witwatersrand is unique on Earth. You should then explain why you want to extend basin analysis to syngenetic ore deposits like the Rammelsberg and, potentially, the Spanish VMS.
Basin subsidence and fill: You maintain that fluid released from the Goslar basin played a significant part in the formation of the Rammelsberg deposit. Without this conclusion, you may well remove the Rammelsberg from the title. As you point out, the main driving force of fluid release is sediment compaction. Yet, the basin was only half filled when the sedimentary-exhalative Rammelsberg deposit formed, look at your own stratigraphic column in Figure 3. By logical reasoning, the main fluid release due to compaction should have happened during the early Carboniferous (Culm).
Fluid source: The early Devonian Kahleberg sandstone is not part of the Goslar basin, according to your own analysis and that of others. Yet, fluid circulation probably extended through the shelf sandstone into paragneiss of the Cadomian basement (exposed as uplifted Ecker gneiss in the Harz) to explain the extraordinary grades of the Rammelsberg, in particular with respect to lead. This concept of deep fluid circulation dates back to Economic Geology Monograph 5 on the Japanese Kuroko deposits. The Spanish VMS do not match the Rammelsberg in average grade, not even at Neves Corvo (total sulfide mass). You make no serious effort to analyse the published isotope data. Your focus on basin analysis is too narrow, and the discussion should be widened to the interplay between basin sedimentation, faulting, igneous activity, and hydrothermal fluid flow.
Your paper will have more impact once properly revised.
Author Response
Comments and suggestions from reviewer 1 (second round) in black color, answers in red color
Introduction: As the main subject of your paper is the Rammelsberg deposit, you must establish the connection between basin analysis and ore formation. The two main types of epigenetic ore deposits linked to brines expelled from deep sedimentary basins are MVT Zn-Pb and Kupferschiefer Cu-Ag (Econ Geol 75th and 100th Ann Vol). In both cases, the epigenetic concept was developed in the US (Missouri and Michigan case histories). The Witwatersrand is unique on Earth. You should then explain why you want to extend basin analysis to syngenetic ore deposits like the Rammelsberg and, potentially, the Spanish VMS.
Considering the point of view of Reviewer 1, we have highlighted in the introduction the connection between basin analysis and ore genesis. In this regard, we have clearly differentiated now which basin analysis techniques are applicable to syngenetic deposits and which are applicable to epigenetic ores (see lines 29 to 37). Furthermore, we have explained more deeply why the selected case of study is Rammelsberg (see lines 95 to 98).
Additional data about the mineralization of Rammelsberg are now included (see new section 3).
Basin subsidence and fill: You maintain that fluid released from the Goslar basin played a significant part in the formation of the Rammelsberg deposit. Without this conclusion, you may well remove the Rammelsberg from the title.
Given that Rammelsberg is the case of study, it is essential in the title.
As you point out, the main driving force of fluid release is sediment compaction. Yet, the basin was only half filled when the sedimentary-exhalative Rammelsberg deposit formed, look at your own stratigraphic column in Figure 3. By logical reasoning, the main fluid release due to compaction should have happened during the early Carboniferous (Culm)..
In the first round revision we pointed out the decompaction technique. Whit it, we try to know the thickness of each sedimentary unit in each given time, starting with the final thickness (the current one) and finishing with the initial thickness (the one at sedimentation time). This is a continuous and non-homogeneous process only disrupted by stratigraphic unconformities. The loose of thickness due to compaction is exponential (an integral function) and it depends on the lithological constants and the lithostatic weight in each given time. The inclusion of the Culm in the basin analysis is a methodological issue. The compaction effect produced by the sedimentation of the Culm in the underlying sedimentary pile has to be considered for the construction of the subsidence curves, but, quantitatively, this is very small for the lower units.
As you point out, the main driving force of fluid release is sediment compaction.
What we exactly propose in our study is that fast subsidence events are the triggering mechanism of the hydrothermal systems, which partially incorporate basin fluids.
Fluid source: The early Devonian Kahleberg sandstone is not part of the Goslar basin, according to your own analysis and that of others. Yet, fluid circulation probably extended through the shelf sandstone into paragneiss of the Cadomian basement (exposed as uplifted Ecker gneiss in the Harz) to explain the extraordinary grades of the Rammelsberg, in particular with respect to lead. This concept of deep fluid circulation dates back to Economic Geology Monograph 5 on the Japanese Kuroko deposits. The Spanish VMS do not match the Rammelsberg in average grade, not even at Neves Corvo (total sulfide mass).
We deeply agree with Reviewer 1 in this point. Neither the Kahleberg sandstone, nor the rest of underlying substrate rocks can be considered as part of the infill of the Goslar Basin. Consequently, they cannot be used in the analysis of the tecto-sedimentary evolution of a younger basin. But this in no way implies that the substrate rocks couldn’t host the fluids migrated from the overlaying basin or participate in the geochemical signature
You make no serious effort to analyse the published isotope data Your focus on basin analysis is too narrow, and the discussion should be widened to the interplay between basin sedimentation, faulting, igneous activity, and hydrothermal fluid flow. .
Our paper tries to contextualize the Rammelsberg ore deposit in the evolution of the Goslar basin by means of the basin subsidence curve. Even considering that the main objective of this paper is not an update or debate of the metalogenetic models proposed to Rammelsberg or to the SEDEX-type deposits, we have followed your suggestion. We included a new section entirely devoted to the Rammelsberg deposit, the fluids nature and a general overview about its origin (see new section 3).
Your paper will have more impact once properly revised.
Thank. We agree you
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
