Distinct petrographic responses to basin reorganization across the Triassic–Jurassic boundary in the southwestern Barents Sea

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Quartz overgrowth textures and fluid inclusion thermometry evidence for basin‐scale sedimentary recycling: An example from the Mesozoic Barents Sea Basin

“…An absence of quartz with recycled overgrowth in the underlying Early‐Middle Triassic strata indicates different source areas and thus that the consolidated sedimentary provenance rock did not become a significant supplier of sediment to the Barents Sea basin until the latest Triassic (Norian; Line et al., 2020). The recycled grains entered the basin shortly after a regional shift in fluvial channel architecture occurred in the western Barents Sea, which was interpreted as a basin response to the Late Triassic Novaya Zemlya phase of the Uralian Orogeny (Klausen et al., 2014).…”

“…From the Late Triassic to Early Jurassic, the western Barents Sea transitioned from a high‐ to a low‐accommodation basin (Ryseth, 2014). Rejuvenation of the Caledonian and Fennoscandian hinterlands resulted in a pronounced shift in depositional trends along the southern margins of the basin, where southerly‐derived sediment largely replaced Uralide provenance signatures (Bergan & Knarud, 1993; Line et al., 2020; Ryseth, 2014). By contrast, petrographic and geochronological data from the basin interior indicate no pronounced change in provenance across the Carnian‐Norian boundary, where mineral characteristics and zircon ages associated with the Uralide Orogeny prevail (Fleming et al., 2016; Line et al., 2020).…”

“…Rejuvenation of the Caledonian and Fennoscandian hinterlands resulted in a pronounced shift in depositional trends along the southern margins of the basin, where southerly‐derived sediment largely replaced Uralide provenance signatures (Bergan & Knarud, 1993; Line et al., 2020; Ryseth, 2014). By contrast, petrographic and geochronological data from the basin interior indicate no pronounced change in provenance across the Carnian‐Norian boundary, where mineral characteristics and zircon ages associated with the Uralide Orogeny prevail (Fleming et al., 2016; Line et al., 2020). Simultaneously, compressional tectonic forces in the east facilitated advancement of the Novaya Zemlya Fold‐and‐Thrust Belt and the associated forebulge development in the central Barents Sea basin (Faleide et al., 2018; Müller et al., 2019).…”

“…Quartz, feldspar and argillaceous minerals constitute the framework minerals. In the sandy Stø Formation, fine‐ to medium‐grained quartz make up the principal framework minerals (Line et al., 2020). The cement phases in the Fruholmen and Stø formations (wells 7124/3‐1, 7220/7‐2S, 7324/7‐2, 7324/8‐1 and 7324/9‐1) are minor authigenic quartz cement (<2%), pore‐filling kaolinite and carbonate cement.…”

“…This study aims to: (a) evaluate the combined use of petrography, cathodoluminescence and fluid inclusion thermometry for proving sedimentary recycling, and (b) demonstrate how the combined approach can exert constraints on provenance rock type and potential provenance source. Upper Triassic to Middle Jurassic strata from the Barents Sea basin (Figure 1) were selected as a case study because the succession records a shift from a high‐ to low‐accommodation basin architecture (Line et al, 2020; Müller et al., 2019; Ryseth, 2014). Although the hinterland reconfiguration that occurred during the Triassic‐Jurassic transition is thoroughly documented along the southern margin of this basin (Bergan & Knarud, 1993; Mørk, 1999; Ryseth, 2014), landscape development in the eastern provenance regions remain uncertain.…”