Abstract
Several publications propose that main‐phase fold‐thrust development on Spitsbergen was Late Cretaceous and not Tertiary as previously thought. The question of timing is crucial to models for crustal response to transpressive plate motions. Involvement of Tertiary strata in fold‐thrust structures, the sedimentology of the Tertiary basin strata, and studies of paleo‐stress field evolution all indicate Paleocene to Eocene fold‐thrust development during opening of the Norwegian‐Greenland oceanic basin. A regional angular unconformity of < 1° between Paleocene and Early Cretaceous strata is consistently disconformable to the eye and precludes any significant older deformation in the immediate area. Pre‐unconformity deformation was likely strike slip in character and concentrated in the west. The proposal for Late Cretaceous fold‐thrust belt formation is inconsistent with the geology.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
