Triassic platform-margin deltas in the western Barents Sea

Glørstad-Clark, Evy; Birkeland, E.P.; Nystuen, Johan Petter; Faleide, Jan Inge; Midtkandal, Ivar

doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2011.03.006

Cited by 77 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 a,b,d) as well as in the ancient record (Steckler et al, 1999;Ryan et al, 2009a;Steel et al, 2000Steel et al, , 2003Steel et al, , 2008Steel and Olsen, 2002;Johannessen and Steel, 2005;Glørstad-Clark et al, 2011;Klausen et al, 2016) (Figs. 14-15).…”

Section: Shelf-edge Scale Clinoforms (Figs 14-16)mentioning

confidence: 89%

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Patruno

Helland‐Hansen

2018

Earth-Science Reviews

200

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TClinoforms are inclined and normally basinward-dipping horizons developed over a range of spatial and temporal scales in both siliciclastic and carbonatic systems. The study of clinoform successions underpins sequence stratigraphy and all efforts to reconstruct the relative partitioning of reservoir, seal and source rocks along shoreline to basin-floor profiles.Here, we review clinoform research and propose a more systematic description and classification of clinoforms. This is a crucial step to improve predictions of facies and lithology distribution within shoreline to continental shelf and abyssal plain successions, together with the genesis, drivers and dynamics of their constituent sedimentary units.Four basic clinoform types are here distinguished in delta/shorelines, lacustrines and marine environments, on the basis of their overall spatial and temporal scale, morphology, outbuilding dynamic and geodynamic and depositional setting: (1, 2) delta-scale clinoforms, which in turns are sub-divided into shoreline and delta-scale subaqueous clinoforms; (3) shelf-edge clinoforms; and (4) continental-margin clinoforms. Delta-scale clinoform sets are tens of metres high and typically represent 1-10 3 kyr, with progradation rates ranging from 1,000-100,000 m/kyr for shorelines and "subaerial deltas" to 100-20,000 m/kyr for subaqueous deltas; shelfedge clinoform sets are hundreds of metres high and are nucleated and accreted in 0.1-20 Myr (usual progradation rates of 1-100 m/kyr) by successive cross-shelf transits of delta-scale clinoforms; continental-margin clinoform sets are thousands of metres high, hallmark key geodynamic/crustal boundaries (e.g., continent/ocean transition) and slowly prograde basinwards in ca. 5-100 Myr, with typical rates of 0.1-10 m/kyr. As a consequence of the very different progradation rates and of the difficulty of large-scale clinothems to backstep during transgressions, shorelines are the most dynamic clinoforms with regards to position, continental margins the least, and shelf-edges are intermediate. Shortly after a transgression, therefore, the four clinoform types may prograde synchronously along shoreline-to-abyssal plain transects, forming "compound clinoform" systems. During the subsequent regressive cycle, however, due to the dissimilarity in progradation rates, different clinoform types will normally merge progressively with each other, giving rise to "hybrid clinoforms" (e.g., shelf-edge deltas), and fewer depositional breaks-in-slope are distinguished along a single shoreline-toabyssal plain transect. Overall, all clinoform systems are the result of the dynamic evolution of compound and hybrid clinoforms along a temporal and spatial continuum, regulated by the cyclical backstepping of the smallerscale system within natural progradational-retrogradational cycles of larger-scale clinothem outbuilding.All clinothem types may show either an accretionary/active or draping/passive style, depending on the proximity to the sediment source. Draping clinothems are nearly...

show abstract

Section: Shelf-edge Scale Clinoforms (Figs 14-16)mentioning

confidence: 89%

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Patruno

Helland‐Hansen

2018

Earth-Science Reviews

200

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6. The figure is based on concepts from Bhattacharya & Walker (1992), Reinson (1992), Howell et al (2008), Glørstad-Clark et al (2011) and Rød et al (2014).…”

Section: Depositional Environment 2 -Shallow Marinementioning

confidence: 99%

Facies development of the Upper Triassic succession on Barentsøya, Wilhelmøya and NE Spitsbergen, Svalbard

Lord¹,

Johansen²,

Støen³

et al. 2017

NJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field data collected from the northeasternmost Triassic exposures on the islands of Spitsbergen, Wilhelmøya and Barentsøya during 2015 are used for sedimentological facies analysis to improve our understanding of the stratigraphic development of the Upper Triassic strata. Results presented here build upon previous studies from the eastern areas of the Svalbard archipelago and seek to extend this understanding northward. Paralic deltaic sediments are recognised throughout the field area, and our analysis shows that the Upper Triassic De Geerdalen Formation is composed of three discrete units defined by the differences in gross depositional environments. The lower interval of early Carnian age is dominated by shallow-marine and delta-front/ shoreface deposits, the middle interval of mid Carnian age is dominated by delta-front to delta-top deposits, and the upper interval, corresponding to the Isfjorden Member, of a late Carnian to early Norian age, is dominated by delta-top deposits which include lagoonal and lacustrine deposits. These observations show that the De Geerdalen Formation represents a more distal depositional setting, than the depositional environments previously reported from the islands of Edgeøya and Hopen. We also document the presence of the Tschermakfjellet Formation and Isfjorden Member on Wilhelmøya, thus increasing our understanding of the northwestward development of the Upper Triassic succession in Svalbard.

show abstract

“…However, a rifting phase along the western margin affected N-S lineaments such as the Loppa, 'Stappen' and Sørkapp-Hornsund highs in the Permo-Triassic (Faleide et al, 2010). During the Triassic the Barents Shelf was flooded and the previous dominantly carbonate platform was infilled with siliciclastic material derived mainly from the Urals and TWT (two-way-travel time) the Baltic Shield (Bue et al, 2010;GlørstadClark et al, 2011;Anell et al, 2014b). In the Early Triassic, however, a prominent western source prevailed around the presently exposed island of Spitsbergen (Mørk et al, 1982;Nøttvedt et al, 1992a;Bue et al, 2010;Bue, 2012) which is not apparent in the Late Triassic (Anell et al, 2014b).…”

Section: Geological Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional tectono-sedimentary development of the highs and basins of the northwestern Barents Shelf

Anell¹,

Faleide²,

Braathen³

2016

NJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While many structural elements on the northwestern Barents Shelf initiated early and have remained influential on accommodation and sediment ation, detailed seismic interpretation attests to the development of new structural elements, shifting locus of influence, and burial, reactivation and inactivation at different times of various highs and basins. NE-SWoriented structural elements such as the Gardarbanken and Hopen highs, and the Capria ridge (informally named herein), have old Carboniferous foundations and show signs of reactivation in the Early Triassic. Towards the southwest, the Capria ridge merges with the paleoStappen high, which is a N-S, tilted peneplaned, Late Carboniferous riftshoulder which deeply erodes the Carboniferous deposits, and is onlapped by Permian and Early Triassic sediments. The paleosurface is overprinted by the dominantly postCretaceous development of the Stappen High, which has a maximum uplift and extent south of Bjørnøya. The Sørkapp basin is the main depocentre on the northwestern Barents Shelf; however, the Storjorden, Edgeøya and Ora (informally named herein) basins all formed around the same time in the Carboniferous. While the Sørkapp basin remained a sag basin until the Ladinian, the Edgeøya basin, a narrow rift basin, became largely inactive following infill. As a result, the Hopen high and Edgeøya platform, which bounded the Edgeøya basin, merged to form the Svalbard platform. The Storfjorden basin was reactivated around the Mid Jurassic when the Sørkapp depression, forming west of the Sørkapp basin, was initiated. Both basins are asymmetrical and bounded by gentle anticlinal features on one side implying formation associated with contraction. Cretaceous sediments, largely eroded from the area, are found in basins such as the Olga basin, which formed between two anticlines. One of these anticlines is the Sentralbanken high, which contrary to most other highs in the area shows no signs of initiation in the Carboniferous, but rather appears to have been a depocentre which was inverted around the Cretaceous.

show abstract

Triassic platform-margin deltas in the western Barents Sea

Cited by 77 publications

References 50 publications

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Clinoforms and clinoform systems: Review and dynamic classification scheme for shorelines, subaqueous deltas, shelf edges and continental margins

Facies development of the Upper Triassic succession on Barentsøya, Wilhelmøya and NE Spitsbergen, Svalbard

Regional tectono-sedimentary development of the highs and basins of the northwestern Barents Shelf

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About