Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
  Journal of the Geological Society   Don't get GSW? Talk to your librarian.
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Journal of the Geological Society; October 1985; v. 142; no. 5; p. 931-932; DOI: 10.1144/gsjgs.142.5.0931
© 1985 Geological Society of London
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Discussion on the structural evolution of the Witch Ground Graben

DR R. A. CHADWICK writes: In a recent paper, Beach (1984) describes aspects of the structural evolution of the Witch Ground Graben. Figure 2 of his paper illustrates a structural section across the graben, the eseential features of which are reproduced here (Fig. la). Beach’s section is constrained in the shallower part by seismic reflection data, but beneath the base of Permian strata, the geometry of the basin-controlling faults has been deduced using balanced section criteria.

It is here suggested that, barring strike-slip movements of implausible geometry, the section is not viable. A family of late faults labelled L1–L7 on Fig. la, have southwesterly apparent dips, and cut and displace the Upper Cretaceous sequence. Beach shows them terminating, at depth, against a group of earlier faults (labelled E2–E4) which show northeasterly apparent dips. Beach suggests that the two groups of faults have a synthetic-antithetic relationship. This is unlikely. Since the faults labelled E do not displace the highest Cretaceous beds, any post-Cretaceous movement must have been restricted to the deeper segments of their fault-planes, below the intersections with the faults labelled L. This situation is mechanically implausible and is, moreover, refuted by Beach’s original section which shows an early fault (here labelled E3) to have the same throw both above and below the intersection with a late fault (here labelled L3).

Therefore, it is here concluded that the faults labelled E must be cut and displaced by the later faults labelled L. I have constructed an alternative section

...

This 250-word extract was created in the absence of an abstract.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of the Geological SocietyHome page
M. E. BADLEY, J. D. PRICE, C. RAMBECH DAHL, and T. AGDESTEIN
The structural evolution of the northern Viking Graben and its bearing upon extensional modes of basin formation
Journal of the Geological Society, June 1, 1988; 145(3): 455 - 472.
[Abstract] [PDF]




JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Geological Society of London