Rob I really loved this analysis. Perhaps you might consider a mid crustal detachment below the rider blocks which would explain homogeneous upper crustal extension. I am not convinced of the back dipping mojo shear zone. Instead the detachment could continue and define the top of the continental mantle and root beneath crust on the conjugate margin (not in this section). In this geometry the lower-plate continental mantle could have been derived from beneath the crust of the conjugate margin by normal sense displacement on the detachment. Just some thoughts. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for the comment John. You make some good points. There are (of course) several ways of interpreting this section. A key choice lies in the significance of the reflective lower crust - shear zone or original (undeformed) underplate.... We solicited a suite of interpretations (all different) for the section - paper coming out soon on the results (will update once out). And there are four different published versions out there already. Although a common component in the interpretations is the exposure of originally subcontinental mantle at the seabed (before being buried by post-rift strata), I'm not a fan of a "one-size fits all" model for continental rifting proposed by some groups - orogens don't do it, so why should rift systems... so indeed - your suggestion works too.
I absolutely love your content cheers.🙏🙏🙏
Rob, as a structural geologist and seismic interpreter too, i would say thank you so much for this excellent illustration. keep the good work sir
Thanks - glad you enjoyed it. More to come next week!
Thank you so much ❤❤❤
Thanks! glad it's been useful
Rob I really loved this analysis. Perhaps you might consider a mid crustal detachment below the rider blocks which would explain homogeneous upper crustal extension. I am not convinced of the back dipping mojo shear zone. Instead the detachment could continue and define the top of the continental mantle and root beneath crust on the conjugate margin (not in this section). In this geometry the lower-plate continental mantle could have been derived from beneath the crust of the conjugate margin by normal sense displacement on the detachment. Just some thoughts. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for the comment John. You make some good points. There are (of course) several ways of interpreting this section. A key choice lies in the significance of the reflective lower crust - shear zone or original (undeformed) underplate.... We solicited a suite of interpretations (all different) for the section - paper coming out soon on the results (will update once out). And there are four different published versions out there already. Although a common component in the interpretations is the exposure of originally subcontinental mantle at the seabed (before being buried by post-rift strata), I'm not a fan of a "one-size fits all" model for continental rifting proposed by some groups - orogens don't do it, so why should rift systems... so indeed - your suggestion works too.
Thans Rob your sharings are incredible. For applying simultaneously with you , could you add images to description if it s possible.
Most images and exercises are on The Shear Zone website linked from the Channel banner. But I can't share this exercise I'm afraid...
Hi Dr.Rob. I am just wondering, how do i know from the seismic line there was extension and then inversion or compresion then inversion
Check out the video on Inversion tectonics ruclips.net/video/LD0IaAfV37I/видео.html