From the looks of the photos you've displayed, it appears that these are not boudines as you presume. The portion of the section that faces the observer seems to be the dissolution phenomenon rather than structural deformation. The bulging you infer at the bottom of the lithified limestone may be due to lithostatic pressure - a post depositional phenomenon. May be the bed at the bottom had had high depositional porosity and was not compacted and lithified significant enough to withstand the overburden pressure and the overlying limestone was relatively hard enough to compress the underlying soft-sediment to form bulging. It is quite normal to have bulged bottomside in alternate successions of soft sediment-relatively lithified and or low depositional porous sediment layers.

Dear Muthuvairavasamy Ramkumar,

Thanks for this valuable contribution! I actually haven't called it "boudinage", but "boundinage-shaped", as the shape reminded me much more of "boudins" than of "ball-and-pillow structures" that are common in such sedimentary sequences. In essence, however, we agree, it is the result of postdepositional deformation due to the overburden pressure rather than concretations?

I will try getting Arne Thorshøj from Copenhagen, who I just found on ResearchGate. I just got the information that the interpretation of the features at Ottenby cliff as concretations was actually his. We'll see what his arguments are! 

Kind regards, Martin

The layer with the concretion shaped nodules shows different appearences along the transect. The discussed layer develops from the situation shown on the picture attached below to situation pictured by Martin Trauth. For me it looks like early diagenetic concretions, which accrete to a compact layer in the one direction and dwindling out to the basin centre of this tremadocian shales, caused by a bicarbonate gradient in combination with a gradient in the palaeo-waterdepth.

It would be interesting to see a manuscript or article about processes, showing how postdepositional deformation result in such "boudin-shaped" structures within such a sedimentary setting.

It seems to me from the photograph provided by Johannes Kalbe that when pressure (overburden in this case), mounts, the susceptible portions of the underlying sediments try to acquire least resistance shape, which in turn is sphere, but the shape of the compressed material is also controlled by the available space - which in effect, spreads parallel to the bedding plane, due to which, these may have acquired the discontinuous, quasi sphere-like shapes. The bulging might be partly due to the variations (at micro-mesoscale), the microscale variations in overburden pressure (due to the microscale variations in depositional texture), depositional topography and depositional packing, etc. Certainly this is an interesting feature and one might work on the process that led to their formation.

Cheers and All the best

I agree with Johannes that these are almost certainly early diagenetic concretions. I've seen similar objects in the Ordovician of North America formed in association with burrow systems.

Martin,

I would first look at few thin sections that would tell you about the early or late diagenesis of these nodules and /or contribution of organic activity to it

Martin,

Johannes has it right, I think. These beds are very similar to Lower Toarcian strata in Yorkshire, UK.; as they are, yours are likely to be composed mostly of diagenetic carbonate initially in concretions that then, in places, coalesced into layers. That carbonate may, as you colleague suggests, have nucleated around pre-existing fossil debris.

Dear Bogdan,

Yes, indeed, that's what I have proposed to Johannes. Take a sample and look for a nucleus in the middle of it, together with some zonation around it. THe problem, however, is that it is a very local phenomen and maybe not worth studying it in detail, if you are not running a project on such things.

Sorry for not putting a scale, these feature are big (decimetre-scale) and for me still they seem to have formed out of a continuous layer of carbonate-cemented glaukonite sand between carbonate-free silts and clays. Here is a photo with students standing on the layer and a more detailed photo showing the continuity of the layer.

Kind regards, Martin

EDIT - I have removed the second photo which has shown the wrong layer.

Dear John,

Thanks for your contribution! Do you have photos of it? Or papers describing it? To me it is still not clear why concretions suddenly appear within a single layer, which is mostly glaukonite sand, and then form a continuous layer of constant thickness.

Kind regards, Martin

Hello Martin,

the magnified layer in your last picture is the layer ~ 1m above the horizon we discuss herein, isn't it? It is clearly recognisable due to its large (~3 cm) pyrite concretions in the coarse grained glauconitic beds at the base and in the middle of this section (also visible in the lowermost parts of the Degerhamn quarry). I have thougth you mentioned the structures within the partly glauconitic finer grained shales at the base of the exposed profile (red arrow)?

edit: A good overview about soft sediment deformational structures which are possible in such settings you can find in VAN LOON 2009 "Soft-sediment deformation structures in siliciclastic sediments. an overview" Geologos 15(1): 3-55.

About the material John is talking about is here in a first overview: RAISWELL 1971 "The growth of Cambrian and Liassic Concretions" Sedimentology 17: 147-171.

I was some times in the liassic shales of England, but unfortunately I have no pictures I can provide.

Hi Johannes,

yes, maybe you are right - I'm not sure whether the detailed photo has actually shown the right layer and therefore I have removed it from my previous post. Anyway, I think we need to return to the site next year and take a couple of samples and take them to the lab.

Regards, Martin

Martin,

I looked through my photos but, surprisingly, I have nothing suitable to show; the attached is the best I can do,  although I have seen sediments in Yorkshire you would have been hard put to differentiate from yours. The attached shows large flat concretions in Yorkshire growing out of a laminated unit of diagenetically-cemented coccolith limestone - not quite what you have, but with similarities.

Most of the calcite for a concretion (or concretionary layer) comes from seawater by downward diffusion into the sediment. If the rate of sedimentation just happens to equal the rate of calcite deposition (unusual, but it happens), concretions can form that are very large, and can also coalesce to form as apparent beds.

Dear John,

thanks for the photo that actually shows them very well! However, the seem to be randomly distributed, e.g. at different levels in the section, and not within a single layer, right? Otherwise it looks very similar.

Kind regards, Martin

Martin,

They are all at the same level, despite the photo's illusion of difference. The Millstones (B) and the 'Top Jet Dogger' (A) can be traced over km of coastal section. and form excellent marker horizons when weathered out. In unweathered cliff sections, such as those just exposed by rock fall, they are almost impossible to see.

Mike Howarth described these long ago. His paper is attached.

The limestone bands of the Dorset Kimmeridgian (if memory serves) are maybe better examples. See Ian West's webpages (University of Southampton).

Hi John,

so they are called "millstones" since they are forming isolated bobies rather than a layer as in Ottenby? How have they been proved as concretions? Is there a chemical zonation, a nucleus in the middle? Sorry for being so sceptical ... standing at the outcrop of Ottenby nothing reminds me of anything I have seen before which was a concretion. I have seen quite a lot of soft sediment deformation in South America and Africa.

Regards, Martin

Hi Martin,

a single central nucleus isn't required for formation of concretions (Mozley, P.S. 1996 The internal structure of carbonate concretions in mudrocks: a critical evaluation of the conventional concentric model of concretion growth. Sedimentary Geology 103: 85-91.)

You may contribute pictures here from the prooved soft sediment deformation you mention from your field studies?

Best regards

Johannes

Martin,

Take the right-hand of your photos, to which Johannes drew your attention with a pertinent and, in my view, correct observation. Compare with the attached, which shows a concretionary level in Yorkshire about 3 m lower than the Millstones. This concretionary layer also forms a marker horizon traceable for miles. Most of the layer in this photo have been removed by wave errosion, leaving a few concretionary caps, hence the minor topography, but the few that remain look rather like yours. In a section at the base of the cliff where it is more complete, this layer looks remarkably like yours.

There is a good deal of petrographic and stable-isotopic evidence that has convinced many, including the renowned sceptic who wrote this comment, that the the Millstones, Top Jet Dogger, and other layers of concretions in the Yorkshire lower Toarcian, more or less fused into layers, are diagenetic, Johannes has already cited one of them, by Rob Raiswell. Happy to send others.

For illustrations of beds that look sedimentary, but are mostly diagenetic carbonate, see Ian West's web pages (e.g. http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/Kimmeridge-Bay.htm). These apparent beds of limestone in a shale sequence were revealed by isotopic and petrographic study to be mostly formed of diagenetic carbonate (calcite, dolomite, siderite), albeit reflecting original sedimentary variations.

John and Johannes,

alright, I admit that I cannot falsify your hypothesis of concretions at Ottenby cliff. Lets close the discussion here and have another look at it when we are back on the island of Öland during next years fieldcourse!

Kind regards, Martin

Hi Martin,

Frisk & Ebbestad (2008: Trilobite bio- and ecostratigraphy of the Tremadocian Djupvik and Köpingsklint formations (A. serratus trilobite zone) on southern Öland, Sweden. GFF 130(3), 153-160., more references therein) gave a quite valuable biostratigraphic description of this section (including lithology and the nodular layers of this formation). Hadding (Prequaternary Rocks of Sweden, Vol. 1-7) has made a lot of thinsection studies of the palaeozoic rocks of this area, maybe also a description of these beds, I can access these books next week I think, and will post additional informations.

Meanwhile it would be interesting for us to see pictures from your prooved soft sediment deformational structures from South America and Africa identical to the structures on Öland for comparison.

Best regards

Johannes

Martin,

I'd bet a good bottle of whisky that the two feet of strata overlying your arrowed level is also mostly (> 50%?) diagenetic carbonate.

Look at the Sarsen Stones of Yorkshire or the nodules of the London Clay. As with John's explanation they could be diagenetic carbonates.

Richard

Hi John,

you may be right, the same coarse sandy glauconitic horizons are exposed in a quarry a few km NE of the coastal section, and they contain (beside the pyrite-concretions) calcitic concretions similar to the "Anthraconite-type" (picture attached).

The sedimental setting within this 1.5 m of section is complex, there are severeal hardgrounds and locally different sediment types intercalated. So we should not struggle about percentages.

I think that it is not related to concretion,, but simply related to differential weathering along joints and fractures,, Regards,,

Martin,

With low sedimentation rates (glaukonite) is common to found diagenetic carbonates (nodules). You can found different publications where this proccess is described. Just like example check Figure 11 in Gonzalez et al., 2012 Chemical Geology manuscript.  

Best regards, 

Francis

Martin,

I agree the interpretation of concretion if there are not much grains and no sliding structures within limestone. Similar situation can be observed in the deep sea Cretaceous in the Tethyan Himalaya, Tibet.

Dear Martin,

 is this pure or clean limestone? or it is argillaceous or siliceous. because there are nodular or rubbly limestone which formed because of compaction. what is the texture of this limestone? does it belong to shallow  marine or deep marine depositional environment? I have been working on carbonates in Zagros, Iran since 1976 in surface and sub-surface sections. the beds at the lower part seem affected by erosion or weathering. There are siliceous limesone concretion in limestone with different sizes but in the photos seems to be limestone bed.

This is for sure differencial weathering not a nodule. I do not know the composition of the "limestone", bt from my experience marlstones often behave like that. they do not weather like carbonates, but rather like firm compact shales and that why this creates these buttes. The shapes are caused by fracture or joint spacing in the rock that allow fluids to go farther into the rock and long whose are the rocks eroded too.

I also believe they are concretionary (i.e., diagenetic).  You could solve the problem with a petrographic study, which would be a good project for a thesis.  If it is concretionary and early diagenetic (which most probably are), the texture outside the concretion would appear almost laminated because of alignment of the clay particles and  flattening of any pellets (which might be partially glauconitized) during compaction, whereas the texture in the concretion would have a sedimentary texture consistent with little or no compaction.  Concretionary limestone is very common in argillaceous units.

I am sure that they are nor concretion not boudinage. According to their morphology and your descriptions (laminated) they are stromatolites bodies. In order to confirmation, you can make some thin sections and check them by a fluorescence equipped microscopy. 

Thank You 

Dear all,

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion!

Here's a closer look at the limestone layer. It shows a clear internal layering or bedding caused by vertical variations in the amount of glauconite sand. In the middle of the layer, there is a clay-stil layer, similar to the sediment above and below the limestone bed.

Again, I wouldn't call this layer a concretion. However, having gone through some of the newer literature, and including those citing some of the older sources mentioned by Johannes, it seems that some people use the term concretation in a much wider sense as others. They even give up the typical characteristics of a zonation around a nucleus.

So ... why do we then use the term concretation at all if it is used for everything which is a post-depositional  carbonate precipitation occuring (as in our example, if it is indeed diagenetic) in layers? I am halfway convinced that the layer is of diagenetic origin.

Carbonate has precipitated along one or several layers, characterized by chemical discountinuities or gradients, rather than along the edges of fossil fragments or any other kind of semi-spherical carbonate object used as a nucleus. That's my updated interpretation based on the discussion her and (not more than) browsing the newer literature.

It isn't my topic at all, as I am not a sedimentologist, so I can only speculate on the origin of the mysterious layer at Ottenby cliff.

Kind regards, Martin

Dear Martin,

I must support most of the answers before. I will untangle many concepts which seems to have been mixed together.

The rock you see here was a sediment, some sort of mud for most of it, with probably some bioclastic accumulations of shells. Maybe some detrital sands (did not see a close up). These are soft rock with a lot of water between grains. In your mud (which is here carbonated so maybe a sort of ooze) you had 30 % solid / 70 % water maybe. Today you have clearly less than 10% of porosity. During this process of lithification, i.e. the transformation from a sediment towards a rock, many mechanical and chemical processes occur, noticeably with biological interaction.

During burial, your rock will cross the sulfato-reduction zone which is an area the microscopic bugs kind of like to sit in. These, while feeding and living their life of  unicellular, tend to promote the nucleation of carbonates on anything they can't chew on. Thermodynamically, if the nucleus reaches a certain size, in the right condition, a positive feedback occurs. so that the nucleus continues growing in a process of ion diffusion (check Ortoleva work in thermodynamics). Indeed bugs will tend to live where there is more space/food, so it is likely they enjoy coarser grains. The ion movements are also helped because at these 200 - 300 m burial depth (general value) the mechanical compaction starts to be efficient and the pore water tries to go upward, giving one extra unit to your compaction ratio.

The result of diffusion, if your sediments were isotropic would be a perfect sphere that is quite intuitive. However, as you noticed the beds have different characteristics and the concretions do not form everywhere. So it forms 'beds' by the coalition of numerous nodules. Some outcrops show nice example of going from a nice tabular bed, to some discontinuous bed, to individual nodules, to nothing visible macroscopically (Cf picture attached). Remember that carbonate bandings, nodule bands, and carbonate bed alternations are used routinely as stratigraphic markers for cyclostrat' and the sort. They are diagenetic layers but they issue from a real signal. You have the same if you look at flint bands within the chalk accumulations.

The morality is that you have primary signal doing the bedding, then you overprint it with the progressive pumping of carbonate onto these beds by ion diffusion making nodules around your bed. Meanwhile, you flatten your rock by compaction (mechanical and chemical). If you reach the right depth you start to create stylolites and you do pressure-solution so that your carbonates move again in the pore space. At that point you have pretty much exhausted all the carbonate diagenesis possibilities. I don't think it is an exceptional story but it does not mean we understand all the parts of it.

Best,

Julien

PS: The picture shows a complex system where the nodules/beds grow on the side of a grabben. You can make up a stratigraphy out of the nodule bands and observe the normal offsets. Notice how nodules disappear close to the normal faults.

Dear Julien

Thanks for that! Maybe I forgot to say: the glauconite-rich silts and sands below and above the limestone layer are carbonate free. There is, however, there are thick limestone beds (the ‘orthoceratite limestone’) of primary origin above that.

I attach Stouge's 2004 fieldguide which shows the section (without a legend) as Figure 13, citing Tjernivk 1956, which I don't have. I suspect that the mysterious limestone layer is just above 0.5m. The paper also tells the names of the formations that are exposed in the section.

Kind regards, Martin

Hi Martin,

sorry, that isn't right. In the last days I have studied some thin sections from the glauconitic layers around the concretions, and they contain, beside the glauconitic grains, carbonates (but it is siderite in the most cases). I will post a longer answer in the evening, when I have completly read the Hadding books (Prequaternary rocks of sweden, the glaucinotic rocks).

The limestones above the layer belong the the Ceratopyge limestone, which does not belong to the "orthoceratite limestone", even not if you take it in a wider sense.

Johannes,

well, I have put a little bit of 4% HCl on the layer while I was at the outcrop and didn't see any reaction. If you have done thinsections of it and found carbonate, it was probably below the detection limit of my simple method to test for carbonate.

Regards, Martin

Hi Martin,

I guess, you (or me) would never detect siderite by cold 4% HCl with a macroscopic visible reaction, even if it is there in valuable amounts. With this test you can only detect calciumcarbonate (calcite, aragonite or one of the other variants)  ;)

best regards

Johannes

That's what I've said, Johannes, having taught rocks and minerals for 15 years :-) Martin

Dear Martin,

allow me to summarize the answers of this 5-day-discussion-line (which is splitted in two branches meanwhile, the general forming of concretion and the application of this processes to the lowermost part of the section shown by you in the first picture.)

Several persons familiar with this topic (Mark, John, Richard, Francisco, Li, Judith and Julien) argue “pro concretion”, and are providing pictures and literature (generally and specific one, and if you are interested I can provide more).

Specifying contribution to the discussed layer might be A. Hadding (1932, p. 21-22), who has done an microscopic analysis of these strata:

Glauconitic shale:

“Glauconitic shale, with large crystals of marcasite; Groundmass cement: dark, in transmitted light brown, cryptocrystalline; Fossils: brachiopod with phosphatic shells; Pyrite: scattered small dens aggregates (1 mm), large crystals of marcasite in stellate aggregates [concretions ;)], Glauconite: grains 0,3-1,5 mm with dark margins and rhombohedrons of siderite [picture attached, sorry for bad quality], glauconite 85 per cent”

The limestone layer discussed herein:

“Glauconitic limestone with unevenly distributed glauconitic and passing upwards into dense, gray limestone, covered by a thin layer of glauconitic shale; Groundmass: fine crystalline; fossils: numerous fragments of trilobites and brachiopods, the calcareous shells frequently recrystallized; Pyrite: scattered small aggregates, Glauconite: grains with deep cracks and dark-pigmented margin often enclosing crystals of siderite, size of the grains 0,06-2 mm, glauconite 2-35 percent”

“On that account the rock shows microscopically a granular structure. Where solid particles have formed nuclei in the calcitic mass during recrystallization, a radiate structure has arisen. This is especially noticeable in beds containing abundant fragments of calcareous shells from brachiopods”

Premysl, Mohamed and Forooz suggesting the limestone beds become subsequently partially dissolved (without references or pictures), a thesis which was discussed among norwegian geologists in the 70ies, but it turns out that was a “red herring” (pers. Comm. A.T.Nielsen, who has worked at the lower palaeozoic sections of Fennoscandia and especially in this area).

Muthuvairavasamy agree with Martin, but provides no references, modelings or pictures.

Akbar argues with stromatolites but I have dealt a lot with such structures and I am quite sure to falsify this option.

You (and me, too) exclude sedimentary structures like "ball-and-pillow", "load casts" and "pseudoconcretions" (last ones show a chaotic intermiggling of layers within, a fact that can not be observed in these carbonate structures) These are the structures "normally" (in my porous knowledge) occurring under gravity forces in of soft sediments successions.

Finally, I’m only an unexperienced Ph.D.-student (and far away from being a marine carbonate sedimentologist), and very less experienced then you with the very long teaching experience you have emphasized in your last message. On the one hand I have read a lot (really a lot) of studies and pictures (also new ones provided during this discussion), generally and on this specific area and also on this specific section, giving me the idea, that there is a horizon with concretionary structures, and at a part of the succession the concretions “grow together” to an early diagenetic cemented bank of limestone, a process documented and proven from different secions worldwide and from different ages and sediments.

On the other hand I have this very interesting idea, contributed by you in the field, encouraged by your teaching of rocks and minerals for 15 years and then thankworthy taken to this forum.

For a better understanding and learning from an experienced researcher (and refering to your sentence “it seems that some people use the term concretation in a much wider sense as others”)  I want you to ask: could you provide the actual definition of concretions from a sedimentology textbook, where concretionary processes are reduced on an “only-one nuclei-process”? Can you (and also Muthuvairavasamy) provide references, which show the formation of such ideal spherical structures (with nondisturbed layering), due to soft sediment deformation within such settings by a theoretical model? And can you provide pictures of the structures you have seen in S America or Africa or references about them, so we are able to yield to your arguments?

Best regards

Johannes

(to all participants of this discussion, please correct me, when I brought something in the wrong order or meaning accidentally!)

Dear Johannes and all,

Thank you very much for wrapping up my discussion. I think the issue is adequately discussed. I had pointed out several times that I am not a specialist, in contrast to our colleagues who made their valuable (and very interesting) contributions to the topic. Thanks very much to all of you giving me some insights into carbonate sedimentology.

Kind regards, Martin 

I think these are surface structures altered by weathering and water. If microscopic study support, it could be initially formed by biochemical process or by  microorganisms. Stromatolite that suggested before, could be another possibility. Thus, they are formed initially by biogenic process and later modified by chemical and physical weathering.

Dear Martin:

You have explored the possibility that they are pseudonodules as seismites product?

The photos do not allow sufficient detail, but there convolute lamination, flame structures, dikes, mushroom-shaped structures, curved lamination etc?

The Soft-sediment deformation structures associated seismites are more common than you think (see  p.e. Rodriguez et al, 2000. Soft-sediment deformation structures interpreted as seismites in lacustrine sediments of the Prebetic Zone, SE Spain).

Best regards

Hi Hermann,

I think Martin has withdrawed from the discussion, but: no convolute lamination (lamination within the nodules is only laminar/parallel), no flame structures, no mushroom shaped structures.Synsedimentary microdikes exists only in some mudrock-lenses embedded in the glauconitic sands half a meter above and are more a kind of settlement joints than induced by seismic processes.

best regards

Hi,

the discussion appears to be at its end, but I can't resist to add some points because I know the discussed outcrops from own visits some years ago. 

The paper from Frisk & Ebbestad (2008) provides some insights into the geology and stratigraphy of the section from Ottenby.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Ove_Ebbestad/publication/233450532_Trilobite_bio-_and_ecostratigraphy_of_the_Tremadocian_Djupvik_and_Kpingsklint_formations_%28A._serratus_trilobite_Zone%29_on_southern_land_Sweden/file/9c9605395520d0e5fc.pdf?origin=publication_detail

For a brief description of the section see Frisk & Ebbestad, p. 155.  These authors refer the basal nodular limestones (Ia) to the Apatokephalus serratus trilobite Zone of the Djupvik Formation, which is followed by the bedded carbonates of the Köpingsklint Formation.

There is a characteristic glauconite layer (or at least an enrichment of glauconite grains) in this basal nodular limestones https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=53c11ae4cf57d71a588b464f&key=5a2fcc13-7838-4732-bb7c-5c7f296e34d0 which could be recognized laterally in the corresponding Alum shales (Ceratopyge Shales). Should be interesting for the students.

Anyway, nodular horizons are not that rare in Sweden, especially in the Alum  shale facies. The "Orsten" stinkstones of the Upper Cambrian can be found regulary as nudule beds, sometimes fused to one nodular layer or as single concretion. Towards the border of large concretions a deformation of the usually parallel laminations is possible to observe.

The nodular limestones from Ottenby show only laminar bedding structures as Johannes pointed out earlier.

The other example, the "cannonball doggers" concretions usually with an outer pyrite crust, is also interesting.  I know them  from Sandsend in Yorhshire, but for me they are pretty different in comparison with the nodular beds. Its not unusual for them to have an ammonite as nucleus, but sometimes there can be several ammonites close together showing sorting by currents. There seems to be a precipitation event, because these large concretions are also known from other regions from the same time (Eleganticeras elegantulum Subzone, Toarcian), e.g. northwestern and northeastern Germany with a very similar habitus, but also in Southern Germany a thick concretionary  bed is known as the "Unterer Stein" (Lower Stone, a term used by the miners in the Posidonia shale".  

regards,

Jens

Article Trilobite bio- and ecostratigraphy of the Tremadocian Djupvi...

Dear all,

I'm back in Sweden with another group of students we have looked at the glauconite-rich layer near Ottenby again. I collected a piece which is nicely stratified with Glauconite-rich and -free layers, which are not flat but waivy, supporting the idea that the layer has been subjected to some deformation. We will cut and polish the sample and make some thin sections of it. What would be an appropriate test to falsify one or the other hypothesis?

Kind regards, Martin

Hi,

Sorry I had dropped from the discussion.

I would be interested to see what you call wavy in the bedding and obviously if there are a few thin-sections that is grand.

Maybe have a look on some of the theory of geochemical auto-organisation. Sorry I know only of the old works since I am a bit out of the subject by now.

http://seismo.geology.indiana.edu/merino/pdf/1987_AJS_OrtolevaEtAl_Self_Org_I.pdf

http://acamedia.info/sciences/J_G/sichtF/ortoleva_Geochemical_Self-Organization.pdf

The later book has been cited many times in relation to the lithification processes and the formation of carbonates. Regarding Gotland outcrops also. Maybe you will find some interesting things in it.

Best regards, Julien