Kamenetsk - Hypervelocity Impact Crater

Alternate Names
Local Language
Coordinates 47° 45' 36" N; 32° 21' 0" E
Notes
  1. Located in the Ingul River basin, 95 km S of the town of Kirovograd.
Country Ukraine
Region Mykolaiv
Date Confirmed 2017
Notes
  1. Confirmed based on the presence of PDFs in quartz and feldspars (Gurov et al., 2017).
Buried? Yes
Notes
  1. Covered by quaternary sediments with no surface relief or visibility in aerial images (Gurov et al., 2017).
Drilled? Yes
Notes
  1. 15 boreholes drilled within the impact structure between 2005 and 2009 (Gurov et al., 2017).
Target Type Crystalline
Notes
  1. Crystalline basement rock composed of biotite-, garnet-biotite-, pyroxene-biotite-, and graphite-biotite gneisses of the Proterozoic Chechelev series (2.3-2.4 Ga) and biotite granites of the Kirovograd complex (2.0-2.1 Ga). Structure is covered with Quaternary loess up to 15 m thick that overlie Late Miocene marine deposits (Gurov et al., 2017).
Sub-Type Gneiss, Granite
Apparent Crater Diameter (km) 1.2 km
Age (Ma) 11.63 - 2100
Notes :
  1. Age falls within interval of crystalline target rocks from 2.0-2.1 Ga to Late Miocene (11.63 Ma) sediments overlaying the impact structure. Deep erosion of structure suggests age is likely Palaeozoic (Gurov et al., 2017). Maximum age: youngest basement rocks are Proterozoic granites (Kirovograd complex) 2.0-2.1 Ga (Pankratov et al. 1995) (Gurov et al. 2017) Minimum age: Neogene, probably Late Miocene (11.63 Ma), based on palynology of earliest sediments with organic remnants within the crater, but based on 120-220 m of erosion there was a long period of time between crater formation and sedimentation (Gurov et al. 2017)

Method :
  1. Stratigraphy Palynology
Impactor Type Unknown

Advanced Data Fields

Notes

Erosion
6
  1. Deeply eroded (Gurov et al., 2017).
Final Rim Diameter
Unknown
Apparent Rim Diameter
1.2 km
  1. Oval depression 1.0-1.2 km in diameter (Gurov et al., 2017).
Rim Reliability Index
3
  1. Oval-shaped depression with a depth up to 130 m into the crystalline basement (Gurov et al., 2017).
Crater Morphology
Simple
Central Uplift Diameter
km
Central Uplift Height
Unknown
Uplift Reliability Index
Structural Uplift
Unknown
Thickness of Seds
Target Age
Precambrian
Marine
No
Impactor Type
Other Shock Metamorphism
No
Shatter Cones
No
Planar Fractures
Yes
  1. Occasional sets of PFs in quartz found with PDFs (Gurov et al., 2017).
Planar Deformation Features
Yes
  1. PDFs identified in quartz and feldspar (microcline) in lithic breccias (Gurov et al., 2017).
Diaplectic Glass
No
  1. No diaplectic glass observed (Gurov et al., 2017).
Coesite
No
Stisovite
No
Crater Fill
LB
  1. Lithic breccias are up to 60 m thick. Gradual transition from lithic breccias to the underlying brecciated crystalline rocks in the central part of the crater (Gurov et al., 2017).
Proximal Ejecta
Distal Ejecta
Dykes
Volume of Melt
Depth of Melting

References

Spot a missing reference? Submit Reference

E Gurov, N Nikolaenko, H Shevchuk, A Yamnichenko (2017) Kamenetsk—A new impact structure in the Ukrainian Shield, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 52(12), p. 2461-2469, url, doi:10.1111/maps.12951