The cause of foreland deformation has been argued for nearly 100 years, and despite definitive stratigraphy, superb exposure, and extensive seismic and well data, mechanism and geometry remain elusive. It is necessary to separate arguments for cause from arguments that only support a particular geometric interpretation. The following statements are presented for discussion and are not advanced as the answer. (1) Foreland deformation is caused by end-load buckling in a plate tectonic setting driven by abnormally shallow subduction. (2) The crust is active (competent) unit, and plastic subcrust is a passive cushion allowing great vertical component, though a slight slope forced on it by subducting slab may have aided telescoping of crust above. (3) No strictly vertical cause can allow basins to go down as much as they did, and active (causal) intrusion under uplifts only is not likely. (4) While reverse faults and modest shortening predominate, fault attitudes can End_Page 1353------------------------------ have greater diversity than in thin-skinned regime because plastic substratum allows easy vertical motion; nearly vertical faults are allowable. (5) The basement does fold, but with difficulty and in broad wavelength. (6) Because of broad arching, a exists well within basement over uplifts, allowing high-level features, such as Rattlesnake Mountain, to be bounded by high-angle normal faults. (7) This same neutral surface forces out-of-the-basin crowding, causing steep flanks of most basin folds to face toward adjacent uplift. (8) The Hafner approach illustrates diversity of curved faults that can be generated in a vertically sinusoidally loaded beam, and which can be generated equally well in an end-loaded sinusoidally buckled beam, as long as it sits on a passive plastic substratum. (9) The Sanford model is excellent for depicting fault configuration generated in sediments above a high-angle fault. (10) Faults such as Dinosaur Monument can be seen to steepen downward, but my models suggest that they go listric at their lower transition with plastic substratum. (11) The COCORP trace of Wind River fault indicating a nearly planar 35° dipping fault most of way through crust is probably real; arguments that you cannot see a fault of granite against granite do not apply. (12) Gravity highs over uplifts, models, and later collapsed uplifts speak for a flexed and slab configuration and against a buoyant root configuration. (13) Thrusting from several different directions appears not to be a when viewed in context of jostled slabs. (14) Blocky corners do place limits on amount of thrust and strike-slip translation. (15) The argument for pure verticality to solve a presume space problem in Piney Creek structure loses validity as soon as bounding tears are allowed to stray from a perfectly vertical dip. (16) The argument at Elk Mountain that dip of bounding structure must be at least as low-angle as degree of overturning of sedimentary panels is wrong (proven by Five Springs). (17) Sales' eastward crowding of Colorado Plateau and development of a Wyoming couple north of it still seems cogent. (18) The Chapin and Cather, and Gries subdivision into movement phase also appears to be correct. (19) If horizontal compression is a reality, Stone must be correct in principle; there have to be logical connecting structures. (20) The crust can transmit stress over great distances because it is weak enough; southeast Asia tectonics require greater distances of stress transmittal than Laramide foreland tectonics. End_of_Article - Last_Page 1354------------
Read full abstract