Deformation Analysis in the Barents Sea in Relation to Paleogene Transpression Along the Greenland‐Eurasia Plate Boundary

Abstract

Late Cretaceous-Cenozoic contractional structures are widespread in the Barents Sea. While the exact dating of the deformation is unclear, it can only be inferred that the contraction is younger than the early Cretaceous. One likely contractional mechanism is related to Greenland Plate kinematics at Paleogene times. We use a thin sheet finite element modeling approach to compute deformation within the Barents Sea in response to the Greenland-Eurasia relative motions during the Paleogene. The analytical solution for the 3-D folding of sediments above basement faults is used to assess possibilities for folding. Two existing Greenland Plate kinematic models, differing slightly in the timing, magnitude, and direction of motion, are tested. Results show that the Greenland Plate's general northward motion promotes growing anticlines in the entire Barents Sea shelf. Our numerical models suggest that the fan-shaped pattern of cylindrical anticlines in the Barents Sea can be associated with the Eurekan deformation concurrent to the initial rifting and early seafloor spreading in the northeast Atlantic. The main contraction phase in the SW Barents Sea coincides with the timing of continental breakup, whereas the peak of deformation predicted for the NW Barents Sea occurred at later times. Svalbard has experienced a prolonged period of compressional deformation. We conclude that Paleogene Greenland Plate kinematics are a likely candidate to explain contractional structures in the Barents Sea.

Effects of basement structures and Carboniferous basin configuration on evaporite distribution and the development of salt structures in Nordkapp Basin, Barents Sea—Part I

“…Similarly, as for the Tiddlybanken Basin and southwestern Barents Sea area in the nearby vicinity, Carboniferous structures in the Nordkapp Basin were also reactivated by far‐field stresses propagating both during late Triassic due to the evolving Novaya Zemlya fold‐and‐thrust belt farther to the east and during early‐middle Eocene as a result of the transpressional Eurekan/Spitsbergen orogeny farther to the northwest (e.g. Figure 8b; Gac et al., 2020; Hassaan et al., 2020, 2021). We suggest that during these far‐field compressional events, the salt structures underlain by the basement‐involved structural highs within the Nordkapp Basin were more rejuvenated due to stress propagation in contrast to the saddle areas where the master faults cross‐cut, particularly within the CNB segment (Figures 5b,c and 6c).…”

“…On the contrary, other researchers described that the thinning of lower Cretaceous strata towards the salt diapirs was attributed to continued growth due to salt supply from the source layer in the Nordkapp Basin (Koyi et al, 1993(Koyi et al, , 1995Rojo & Escalona, 2018) or as gravityinduced contraction (Nilsen et al, 1995). The Carboniferous structures in the southeastern Norwegian Barents Sea were reactivated during the Cenozoic by far-field stress propagating from the Eurekan orogeny taken place farther to the northwest (Gabrielsen et al, 1997;Gac et al, 2020;Hassaan et al, 2020). In the Nordkapp Basin, most of the late Cretaceous to Cenozoic strata have been eroded due to late Cenozoic uplift and related preglacial and Plio-Pleistocene glacial erosion episodes (Baig et al, 2016;Henriksen et al, 2011;Lasabuda, Laberg, Knutsen, & Høgseth, et al, 2018;Lasabuda, Laberg, Knutsen, & Safronova, 2018;Rojo et al, 2019;Tsikalas et al, 2012Tsikalas et al, , 2021.…”

Glacially Induced Stress Across the Arctic From the Eemian Interglacial to the Present—Implications for Faulting and Methane Seepage

“…These values are more than two orders of magnitude lower than what is typically used in GIA studies (including ours) for the Svalbard area (Auriac et al., 2016; Patton et al., 2017). Model predictions that include such a weak viscosity structure could yield a faster response, hence higher uplift rate, to present‐day ice mass loss (not included in our model) in Svalbard. Background tectonic stresses: Modeling of the gravitational potential energy in the Barents Sea region suggests that the ridge push force from the ocean spreading of the North Atlantic ridges is large enough to cause contraction in the Barents Sea shelf (Gac et al., 2016, 2020). The net horizontal forces that result from this mechanism are most likely important enough to induce a general uplift of the area comprised between the North Atlantic ridges and the East of the Barents Sea (including Svalbard).…”

Interplay between base‐salt relief, progradational sediment loading and salt tectonics in the Nordkapp Basin, Barents Sea – Part II

“…Another main phase of rejuvenation occurred likely during the early-mid Eocene, when reactivation of Carboniferous structures took place in response to far-field stresses from the transpressional Eurekan/Spitsbergen orogeny farther to the NW, and the strata that buried the salt structures were upturned along their flanks (Figures 13A7-B7, 14A15, 15A7-B7 and 16A7-B7; Gac et al, 2020;Hassaan et al, 2020Hassaan et al, , 2021a. In the Nordkapp Basin, the far-field stresses inverted some of the pre-salt normal faults along with reactivation of the structural highs depending on their orientation and controlled the style of salt reactivation (Figures 13A7-B7, 14A15, 15A7-B7 and 16A7-B7).…”

“…In the Nordkapp Basin, thinning of the lower Cretaceous strata towards the salt diapirs has been associated with structural growth caused by the salt supply from the source layer (Koyi et al., 1993, 1995; Rojo & Escalona, 2018) or as gravity‐induced contraction (Nilsen et al., 1995). During the Cenozoic, the Carboniferous structures in the southeastern Norwegian Barents Sea were likely reactivated by far‐field stresses propagating from the Eurekan orogeny (Gabrielsen et al., 1997; Gac et al., 2020; Hassaan et al., 2020). Finally, the Cenozoic uplift and related pre‐glacial and Plio‐Pleistocene glacial erosion have removed most of the late Cretaceous to Cenozoic strata in the Nordkapp Basin (Baig et al., 2016; Henriksen et al., 2011; Lasabuda, Laberg, Knutsen, & Høgseth, 2018; Lasabuda, Laberg, Knutsen, & Safronova, 2018; Rojo et al., 2019; Tsikalas et al., 2012).…”