Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
  Journal of the Geological Society   Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Journal of the Geological Society; December 1988; v. 145; no. 6; p. 1009-1017; DOI: 10.1144/gsjgs.145.6.1009
© 1988 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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GARRETT, S. W.
Right arrow Articles by DAMASKE, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Article

Interpretation of aeromagnetic data from the Ellsworth Mountains-Thiel Mountains ridge, West Antarctica

S. W. GARRETT1,3, M. P. MASLANYJ1 and D. DAMASKE2

1 British Antarctic Survey, NERC, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 OET, UK
2 Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Stilleweg 2, D-3000 Hannover 51, FRG

Over 12000 km of new aeromagnetic data, gathered during periods free from auroral disturbances, are presented for an area of 290 000 km2 in West Antarctica, including the majority of the Ellsworth-Whitmore Mountain crustal block. Selection of an appropriate line spacing (20 km) and rigorous diurnal control allowed interpretation of isolated magnetic anomalies by two-dimensional modellìng. Anomalies of 50–500 nT amplitude extend for over 100 km, predominantly with an east-west orientation. They attain their greatest amplitudes over scattered exposures of Middle Jurassic granite, but the measured magnetizations of these rocks (J <0.1 Am–1) are insufficient to match the observed anomalies. It was necessary during modelling to invoke deeper, magnetite-rich, probably mafic plutons (J >0.5 Am–1) beneath the granites. The intrusions probably form part of a widespread bimodal igneous suite created during early stages of continental fragmentation.







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