Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tectonophysics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tecto

Use of backstripping in the Triassic–Middle Jurassic, south-central Barents

Sea shelf succession to understand regional tectonic mechanisms and
structural responses
Gustavo Martins a, *, Frank R. Ettensohn a, Stig-Morten Knutsen b, c
a
University of Kentucky, Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, 101 Slone Building, 40506-0053 Lexington, United States of America
b
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Storgata 49, 9406 Harstad, Norway
c
Department of Geosciences, UiT – The Arctic University of Norway, Langnes 6050, N-9037, Tromsø, Norway

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Because of its economic importance for hydrocarbon development, the tectonostratigraphic development of the
Novaya Zemlya orogeny Triassic–Middle Jurassic succession across the Barents Sea shelf (BSS) has been of particular interest. Much of
Backstripping method this succession was deposited across Timanian (late Neoproterozoic–early Cambrian) to Caledonian (at least
Tectonic mechanisms
Devonian)-age structural elements that were later reactivated by far-field responses to periods of Ura­
Compressional tectonics
Far-field structural reactivation
lian–Pai–Khoi–Novaya Zemlya and North Atlantic tectonism. The timing and nature of these far-field responses
are analyzed in this study by applying the backstripping method for analysis of tectonic mechanisms and
structural responses, based on stratigraphic thicknesses across multiple south-central BSS structural elements.
Based on ten tectonic subsidence curves from these structural elements generated by backstripping calculations,
it is suggested that structural reactivation occurred at various times during latest Permian to Middle Jurassic
time. The many tectonic mechanisms interpreted in several BSS backstripping curves suggest that the mecha­
nisms were not homogeneous and that the stress regimes under which these structures reactivated were diverse.
The backstripping analysis also shows that among the majority of structural elements analyzed, subsidence
predominated across the southern BSS during Early–Middle Triassic time, followed largely by uplift in Late
Triassic time, and subsequently, by subsidence in Jurassic time. Tectonostratigraphic interpretations extracted
from the backstripping curves suggest that regional structural reactivation generated by Novaya Zemlya
compressional tectonism was significant during at least Late Triassic–Early Jurassic time.

1. Introduction during Paleozoic–Middle Mesozoic tectonism (e.g., Martins et al., 2022).

The backstripping method (e.g., Sclater and Christie, 1980; Allen and
The Barents Sea shelf (BSS) is a vast Arctic epicontinental shelf, Allen, 2013) is a technique that can add additional understanding to the
which is divided into Norwegian (NBSS) and Russian (RBSS) sectors nature of tectonic events and large-scale structural reactivation in any
(Fig. 1). The shelf is located between northern Norway, northwestern basin type by using the sedimentation history across structural elements
Russia, Svalbard, Franz Joseph Land, and Novaya Zemlya, and covers an with well control (Xie and Heller, 2009). In the NBSS, well data are
area of ~1.4 million km2 with an average water depth of ~230 m. The mostly available, but exploratory drilling is concentrated in the south,
area has been studied also as part of hydrocarbon exploration, which has whereas in the north (>74◦ 30′ N lat.), deep drilling has not yet been
been ongoing since the 1970s, but geologic uncertainties, including the permitted. In the RBSS, well data are scarce, are commonly unavailable
large-scale tectonostratigraphic evolution of the latest Permian–Middle to the public, and often do not penetrate Paleozoic sediments.
Jurassic succession, remain (e.g., Müller et al., 2019). Understanding BSS structural activity and its implications for tec­
The structural framework across the BSS is diverse and includes rifts, tonostratigraphy is fundamental for producing and refining geodynamic
intracratonic and foreland basins, platforms, and structural highs (e.g., models. Hence, the main goals of this paper are: 1) use the backstripping
Gabrielsen et al., 1990; Faleide et al., 2017), which were reactivated method (Allen and Allen, 2013) to interpret possible Triassic–Middle

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Martins).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2023.229797
Received 22 June 2022; Received in revised form 26 February 2023; Accepted 4 March 2023
Available online 16 March 2023
0040-1951/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Jurassic tectonic mechanisms across the BSS, and 2) analyze tectonic Examples of tectonostratigraphic studies targeting a similar Tri­
mechanisms in terms of known large-scale BSS tectonic history. Because assic–Middle Jurassic BSS succession using methodologies and datasets
of the disparate temporal and spatial nature of BSS structural reac­ other than backstripping are Lundschien et al. (2014); Klausen et al.
tivation, the method can be used to interpret tectonic mechanisms by (2016); Olaussen et al. (2018); Khudoley et al. (2019); Müller et al.
analyzing and extracting variations in the rate of subsidence from the (2019); Gilmullina et al. (2021a, 2021b), and Martins et al. (2022).
curves and treating them simultaneously in terms of tectonics (e.g., Xie
and Heller, 2009). Although NBSS and RBSS tectonics have been long 2. Regional setting
studied, much work remains to understand how various structures
respond to these events, particularly those related to compressional In broad view, the RBSS includes two very large basins (Fig. 1) with
tectonics (e.g., Petrov et al., 2008; Henriksen et al., 2011; Olaussen sediment thicknesses reaching up to 20+ kilometers, and a roughly N-S
et al., 2018; Müller et al., 2019). To our knowledge, no study has structural trend (Ivanova et al., 2006; Kuznetsov, 2006; Shipilov, 2010;
attempted to use the backstripping method on the BSS on this scale. Pease et al., 2014; Drachev, 2016). The NBSS generally includes plat­
It is important to keep in mind that this study does not aim to inte­ forms and smaller basins with sediment thicknesses of 10+ km with
grate alternative datasets (e.g., seismic; biostratigraphy), but to focus roughly N-S and NE-SW structural trends (Gee et al., 2008, 2010; Corfu
exclusively on traditional backstripping methods, for which well data et al., 2014; Gernigon et al., 2014; Klitzke et al., 2019). The current BSS
are required (e.g., Sclater and Christie, 1980; Allen and Allen, 2013). structural framework is the product of several tectonic events, including

Fig. 1. Main BSS structural elements (modified from Martins et al., 2022). The red lines are highly schematic structural lineaments. The black line is a stratigraphic
cross section (Fig. 2). The blue line is the offshore boundary between the NBSS and RBSS. Blue circles are the approximate location of wells used in the study. HB =
Hammerfest Basin; LH = Loppa High; BP = Bjarmeland Platform; NB = Nordkapp Basin; FP = Finnmark Platform; FHA = Fersmanovskaya High area; FH = Fedynsky
High; KMA = Kola Monocline area; and SBB = South Barents Basin. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)

2
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

the Timanian (Ediacaran–Early Cambrian), Caledonian (Late Ordovi­ of the structural elements used in this study (Fig. 1) can be found in
cian–Early Devonian), and Uralian-Pai-Khoi-Novaya Zemlya (Middle Gabrielsen et al. (1990), Stoupakova et al. (2011), Anell et al. (2016),
Carboniferous–Middle Jurassic) orogenies, as well as subsequent, pro­ and Drachev (2016).
tracted extensional episodes (rifting) culminating in Early Eocene con­ The Timanian and Caledonian orogenies consolidated the basement
tinental breakup and sea-floor spreading (Nikishin et al., 1996; Petrov in the RBSS and NBSS, respectively, whereas central areas represent a
et al., 2008; Drachev, 2016; Faleide et al., 2017; Smelror and Petrov, transitional basement zone (Drachev, 2016; Klitzke et al., 2019). During
2018; Lasabuda et al., 2021; Martins et al., 2022). Detailed description Devonian–Carboniferous time, various extensional basins developed in

Fig. 2. Top figure—Cross section (Fig. 1) schematically illustrating Upper Devonian–Late Jurassic strata across Svalbard (column 1), NBSS (columns 2–7), RBSS
(columns 8–9); and Novaya Zemlya (column 10) (modified from Martins et al., 2022). Bottom figure—Simplified stratigraphic correlation for Triassic units across
Svalbard, Franz Josef Land, NBSS, RBSS, and Novaya Zemlya (modified from Gilmullina et al., 2021a).

3
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

the NBSS in a largely intracratonic domain and were structurally timing, thrusting of Novaya Zemlya led to the development of at least
controlled by the Devonian collapse of the Caledonides and later proto- one, collisional foreland-basin in the RBSS, and the associated uncon­
North Atlantic rifting events (Faleide et al., 1984; Seidler et al., 2004; formity represents the most significant hiatus in the Triassic–Middle
Stemmerik and Worsley, 2005; Marello et al., 2013; Gasser, 2014; Jurassic, BSS succession (Müller et al., 2019; Martins et al., 2022).
Faleide et al., 2017; Olaussen et al., 2018). In these basins, continental During Early to Middle Jurassic time, alternating shallow-marine,
sediments followed by warm-water carbonates accumulated (Fig. 2; coastal, deltaic, floodplain and deep-marine deposits covered the
Columns 1–7). entire BSS (e.g., Olaussen et al., 1984; Dalland et al., 1988; NPD, 2017)
In the RBSS, during Devonian–Carboniferous time, ongoing closure (Fig. 2). By late Middle Jurassic time, major marine incursions and
of the Uralian Ocean generated a Devonian back-arc province (Puchkov resulting deep-marine deposition represent the predominance of North
et al., 2021). Next, final closure of the Uralian Ocean occurred by at least Atlantic rifting across the area (Knutsen and Larsen, 1997; Lopatin et al.,
latest Early Carboniferous time, and the coeval amalgamation of Baltica, 2003; Serck et al., 2017; Fjeldskaar and Amantov, 2018).
Siberia and Kazakhstania into Pangea triggered the Uralian-Pai-Khoi-
Novaya Zemlya orogeny (e.g., Ziegler, 1989; Nikishin et al., 1996; 3. Materials and method
Torsvik and Cocks, 2017). This collision was diachronous (Late Car­
boniferous–Permian), propagating northward from southern central 3.1. Backstripping method
Asia during Carboniferous (late Bashkirian) time towards the Pai-Khoi
and likely Novaya Zemlya areas by Permian (Late Hercynian?) time Generation of quantitative tectonic subsidence curves requires the
(Puchkov, 2009; Filatova and Khain, 2010; Korago et al., 2022), and plotting of stratigraphic data relative to both depth and geologic time,
eventually triggered fast foreland-type subsidence in Novaya Zemlya creating a graphic representation of the vertical movement of a strati­
and coeval intracratonic subsidence in the RBSS (e.g., Martins et al., graphic horizon with respect to a basin datum (Kneller, 1991; Xie and
2022) (Fig. 1). In these basins, carbonates and deep-water shales accu­ Heller, 2009). The backstripping method generates such a representa­
mulated (Fig. 2; Columns 8–10), but by Late Permian time, sedimenta­ tion after subtracting the effect of sediment loading to quantify tectonic
tion of silica-rich carbonates and deep-marine deposits predominated subsidence by sequentially removing overlying strata (Fig. 3A). This
across the BSS (Fig. 2). process simulates the “decompaction” of underlying strata, thus recre­
At the Permo-Triassic transition, emplacement of the Siberian ating the original sedimentary porosity prior to compaction (Heidlauf
superplume triggered widespread hinterland uplift, thus enhancing the et al., 1986; Cloetingh and Lankreijer, 1992; Allen and Allen, 2013) and
already ongoing erosion of the Uralides (Puchkov et al., 2021; Gilmul­ emulating the vertical movement of a datum through time. This method
lina et al., 2021a) and contributing to widespread deltaic progradation produces: 1) a tectonic subsidence curve (subsidence related to tecto­
across the BSS (Riis et al., 2008; Glørstad-Clark et al., 2011; Fleming nism); and 2) a total subsidence curve (subsidence due to gradual
et al., 2016; Klausen et al., 2019; Gilmullina et al., 2021b) (Fig. 2). sediment loading) (Beglinger et al., 2013) (Fig. 3B), and quantitatively
Meanwhile, the Novaya Zemlya basin had closed by at least Late Per­ estimates tectonic subsidence by using the stratigraphic succession in
mian–Early Triassic time (Petrov et al., 2008). each well.
During Triassic time, the NBSS represented parts of a large platform The backstripping method assumes that sedimentation took place in
area, with complex offshore-marine and fluvio-deltaic deposition, a water-filled basin because of the water column’s contribution to sub­
whereas the RBSS basins experienced rapid subsidence in more proximal sidence (e.g., Allen and Allen, 2013; Beglinger et al., 2013). However,
areas dominated by fluvio-deltaic sedimentation (Uchman et al., 2016; eustatic corrections are often not applied, and this has been the case with
Klausen et al., 2015, 2019; Gilmullina et al., 2021a, 2021b). Even most studies that assumed the loss of porosity to be mostly due to me­
though deep-marine to fluvio-deltaic sedimentation persisted during the chanical compaction (Xie and Heller, 2009; Berra and Carminati, 2010;
entire Triassic time (Fig. 2), marine incursions often pushed the delta- Baiyegunhi et al., 2017). These assumptions and data inaccuracies (e.g.,
top far eastward (e.g., Johansen et al., 1993; Henriksen et al., 2011; age control) are the main limitations of the method (Xie and Heller,
Eide et al., 2017). By at least Late Triassic–Early Jurassic time, westward 2009). The main backstripping parameters are sedimentary thicknesses,
thrusting of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago on top of the RBSS formed porosity-at-surface, compaction coefficient, and mineralogical, water
an arcuate fold belt (Fig. 1), representing the final continental collision and mantle densities (Allen and Allen, 2013).
of Siberia with northeastern Baltica (Nikishin et al., 1996; Lopatin et al., In the BSS, detailed regional paleobathymetric data is often insuffi­
2001; Petrov et al., 2008; Drachev et al., 2010; Scott et al., 2010; Faleide cient. To provide some bathymetric reference, we estimated mean
et al., 2017; Curtis et al., 2018; Puchkov and Ivanov, 2020). The Triassic water-depth curves by analyzing the studied NBSS formations and RBSS
succession is likely the most well-understood stratigraphic system in the sedimentary units in terms of lithology and sedimentary facies in each
BSS and adjacent areas and has been recently regionally correlated in well, and based on the work of Glørstad-Clark et al. (2011), we assumed
terms of ages and units (Gilmullina et al., 2021a) (Fig. 2). the following BSS depositional settings and water depths: 1) deep ma­
Even though a Late Triassic age is favored in the literature, the timing rine (500 m); 2) clinoform slope (400–250 m); 3) shallow marine (50 m);
of Novaya Zemlya tectonism is still being debated. The most recent 4) delta front (25 m); 5) coastal plain (10 m); and 6) fluvial plain (0 m).
Novaya Zemlya study by Korago et al. (2022) interpreted a Late Her­ These mean water-depth estimates are only provided as approximate
cynian (?) (Permian)–early Cimmerian (at least Early Jurassic) timing. references but are too general to use in the backstripping calculations.
However, earlier authors, using various methodologies (e.g., seismic, The produced backstripping curves were analyzed in terms of geo­
paleomagnetics, geochronology of granitic rocks, and apatite fission metric patterns, tectonic mechanisms, and unconformities (Fig. 3C), and
track), interpreted the timing of orogeny as Permian (e.g., Filatova and were later interpreted in terms of known regional BSS Triassic–Middle
Khain, 2010; Shatsillo, 2015), Early Triassic (e.g., Gudlaugsson et al., Jurassic tectonics. According to Pitman III and Andrews (1985), Kneller
1998; Scotese and Wright, 2018), Middle Triassic (e.g., Smelror et al., (1991), Xie and Heller (2009) and Beglinger et al. (2013) (Fig. 3C),
2009; Nikishin et al., 2011; Norina et al., 2014), and Late Triassic (e.g., tectonic mechanisms and associated curve geometries are: 1) exten­
Klausen et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2018; Müller et al., 2019). In Pai-Khoi sional (blue curve): produces a concave-up curve towards the time axis,
(Fig. 1), Timonin et al. (2003) suggested that a phase of collision started representing shift from rapid fault-controlled subsidence to slower
as early as Late Permian time and culminated during Late Triassic time. thermal subsidence; 2) strike-slip (green curve): produces variable U-
Moreover, Scott et al. (2010) indicated that phases of Mesozoic Novaya shaped curves that show rapid, but short-lived, subsidence and/or uplift
Zemlya deformation may have been superimposed on earlier, late (transtension/transpression); and 3) flexural (red curve): produces an
Paleozoic deformation of Uralian age, suggesting that there is still a lack overall convex curve towards the time axis that reflects deformational
of clarity about the timing and nature of events. Regardless of the loading typical of a fold-thrust belt. These patterns are, however,

4
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Fig. 3. Basic concepts and outputs of the backstripping method (modified from Angevine et al., 1990; Kneller, 1991; Roberts et al., 1998; and Watts, 2012). A) Each
sedimentary unit is removed from the most recent (Time 4; T4) to the oldest stratum (Time 0; T0). Each unit is brought back to the surface (decompacted), thus
emulating original porosity during deposition. B) Vertical movement of the basement (or datum) in time after the sedimentary load is progressively removed. C)
Backstripping elements for tectonostratigraphic interpretation. The top figure illustrates interpretations of subaerial unconfomities, whereas the bottom figure il­
lustrates the three basic geometries associated with tectonic mechanisms (modified from Angevine et al., 1990; and Kneller, 1991). D) Example of high-resolution
interpretation from the Alaska North Slope basin (modified from Watts, 2012).

oversimplified and may be difficult to identify (Xie and Heller, 2009). having no significant dips. In this study, the top of the Permian System is
Moreover, the backstripping curves can be interpreted in two ways. The considered the “datum” and functions as a reference level that can
most common (lower resolution) is to interpret the entire curve as one change vertically (Fig. 3A, B). For wells that did not penetrate Permian
overall basin style (e.g., Xie and Heller, 2009). The least common strata, the datum will then be the oldest post-Permian stratum pene­
(higher resolution) is to interpret smaller-order curve deflections as in­ trated (Table 1).
dividual tectonic events (e.g., Watts, 2012; Fig. 3D). The petrophysical parameters needed for traditional backstripping
calculations are sediment grain density, compaction coefficient,
3.2. Backstripping parameters and equations porosity-at-surface, and mantle and water densities (e.g., Allen and
Allen, 2013) (Table 2). Even though the lithologic parameters of Sclater
In this study, ten wells were selected based on data availability, and Christie (1980) (Table 2) were obtained from the North Sea, these
stratigraphic completeness, drilling depths, and thicknesses (Table 1) to values have become standardized as appropriate for most BSS lithologies
generate the backstripping curves. Six wells are located in the NBSS, are (Baig et al., 2016; Klausen and Helland-Hansen, 2018). All parameters
in true-vertical-depth, and data from them are publicly available in NPD were then calculated using values from Table 2, proportionate to the
open files (NPD, 2022), whereas published data from four RBSS wells lithologic percentages in each NBSS formation and RBSS sedimentary
were obtained from VSEGEI reports (Astafiev et al., 2008; Burguto et al., unit, as noted in each well (Tables 3 and 4). Age values for each NBSS
2016). The literature did not indicate if the RBSS wells are in true- formation were obtained from Paterson and Mangerud (2019) and Gil­
vertical-depth, however, the wells were drilled through sections mullina et al. (2021a), as well as from Astafiev et al. (2008) and Burguto

5
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Table 1
General information for wells from the NBSS and RBSS used in this study. Location of wells are given in Fig. 1. The following are NBSS formations: Ha = Havert; Kl =
Klappmyss; Ko = Kobbe; Sn = Snadd; Fr = Fruholmen; Tu = Tubåen; No = Nordmela; and St = Stø. The following are RBSS stages: O=Olenekian; A = Anisian; L =
Ladinian; C = Carnian; N = Norian; C–N = Carnian–Norian; R = Rhaetian; H–T = Hettangian-Toarcian; P–T = Pliensbachian–Toarcian; and A–B =
Aalenian–Bathonian.
Well Location Total Individual thicknesses (m) Oldest target Youngest target strata Considered
Thickness strata Datum
(m)

Ha = 30; Kl = 58; Ko = 30; Sn = Havert Fm. Fruholmen Fm. Ørret Fm.

7120/1-1 Loppa High/NBSS 1711
1179; and Fr = 414 (Induan) (Norian–Rhaetian) (Permian)
Ha = 150; Kl = 561; Ko = 283; Sn
Havert Fm. Stø Fm. (late Røye Fm.
7120/9-2 Hammerfest Basin/NBSS 2985 = 1410; Fr = 262; Tu = 134; No =
(Induan) Pliensbachian–Bajocian) (Permian)
108; and St = 77
Kl = 477.5; Ko = 536.5; Sn =
western Bjarmeland Klappmyss Fm. Stø Fm. (late Havert Fm.
7224/2-1 2049.49 935.14; Fr = 77.88; No = 15; and
Platform/NBSS (Olenekian) Pliensbachian–Bajocian) (Induan)
St = 25
Kl = 363; Ko = 969; Sn = 858; Fr = Klappmyss Fm. Stø Fm. (late Havert Fm.
7228/2-1 S Nordkapp Basin/NBSS 2437
119; Tu = 58; No = 46; and St = 24 (Olenekian) Pliensbachian–Bajocian) (Induan)
Ha = 1075; Kl = 451; Ko = 511; Sn
northeastern Finnmark Havert Fm. Stø Fm. (late Ørret Fm.
7229/11-1 2610 = 389; Fr = 131; No = 44; and St =
Platform/NBSS (Induan) Pliensbachian–Bajocian) (Permian)
9
eastern Bjarmeland Platform/ Kl = 650; Ko = 456; Sn = 361; Fr = Klappmyss Fm. Stø Fm. (late Havert Fm.
7335/3-1 1691
NBSS 136; Tu = 21; No = 64; and St = 3 (Olenekian) Pliensbachian–Bajocian) (Induan)
Fermanovskaya High area/ A = 143; L = 409; C–N = 621; H–T
Fersmanovskaya-1 1536 Anisian Aalenian–Bajocian Olenekian
RBSS = 124; and A–B = 239
northwestern Kola Monocline O = 429; A = 477; L = 202; C =
Severo-
area (West Kola Saddle)/ 1709 265; N = 57; H–T = 103; and A–B Olenekian Aalenian–Bajocian Induan
Kildinskaya-80
RBSS = 176
C = 425; N = 229; R = 269; H–T =
Arkticheskaya-1 South Barents Basin/RBSS 1684 Carnian Aalenian–Bajocian Ladinian
402; and A–B = 359
southeastern Kola Monocline A = 246; L = 157; C–N = 416; P–T
Murmanskaya-24 1454 Anisian Aalenian–Bathonian Olenekian
area /RBSS = 287; and A–B = 348

stratigraphic studies (e.g., Paterson and Mangerud, 2019; Gilmullina

Table 2
et al., 2021a) and later adjusted relative to the absolute ages provided in
General parameters used for calculating average grain densities, average
the most recent International Stratigraphic Chart (Cohen et al., 2022).
porosities-at-surface, and average compaction coefficients (modified from
In Fig. 4, each backstripping plot represents variations in the rate of
Sclater and Christie., 1980; Berra and Carminati, 2010; and Allen and Allen,
2013). subsidence on each independent BSS structural element (Fig. 1). The
tectonic subsidence curves (blue) illustrate an idealized subsidence
General parameters
history that would have existed if no sediment filled the basin, thus
Lithology Grain density (kg/ Porosity-at- Compaction emphasizing the tectonic mechanisms (Xie and Heller, 2009; Beglinger
m− 3) surface coefficient
et al., 2013) (Fig. 3A, B). In contrast, the total subsidence curves (or­
Claystones 2720 0.63 0.51 ange) illustrate the effects of sediment-induced loading, summed with
Siltstones 2720 0.63 0.51 tectonically driven subsidence (Beglinger et al., 2013). The water-depth
Sandstones 2650 0.49 0.2
Limestones 2710 0.513 0.518
curves (purple) represent paleobathymetric estimates based in lithology
Mantle density (kg/m− 3) − 3
Water density (kg/m ) and sedimentary facies estimated from each well.
3330 1030 In this analysis, the backstripping curves are interpreted in terms of
both lower (overall curve trend; red curves) and higher (relevant de­
flections and shorter duration trends; black curves) resolutions. Addi­
et al. (2016) for RBSS sedimentary units. These ages were then cali­
tionally, tectonostratigraphic interpretations (unconformity, non-
brated relative to the absolute values in Cohen et al. (2022), and mean
deposition, and overprint) are indicated in the curves. The Rhae­
ages were then calculated (Tables 3 and 4).
tian–Hettangian unconformity (culmination of the Novaya Zemlya
Finally, all these parameters were processed in the following fashion
orogeny) is interpreted in the curves, considering the relationship be­
(Allen and Allen, 2013): 1) calculating variations in porosity as a func­
tween the backstripping curves and estimated water depth (Fig. 3C). In
tion of depth (Table 5; eq. 1); 2) decompacting sedimentary thickness
the discussion section, we will discuss these tectonostratigraphic in­
(Table 5; eq. 2); 3) determining bulk densities for the entire sedimentary
terpretations in more detail and compare them with previous literature
column (Table 5; eq. 3); and 4) quantifying tectonic subsidence (Table 5;
(e.g., Müller et al., 2019; Gilmullina et al., 2021a).
eq. 4). These results were then plotted on a time-to-subsidence graph,
In Fig. 4A–J, the plots can be schematically grouped according to
generating both tectonic and total subsidence curves.
geometric similarities in the tectonic subsidence curve (Table 6). These
groups are: 1) the Hammerfest Basin (HB) and Loppa High (LH)
4. Results
(Figs. 4A, B); 2) the western and eastern Bjarmeland platforms (WBP;
EBP), Nordkapp Basin (NB), northeastern Finnmark Platform (NFP), and
Each of the backstripping curves (Fig. 4; A–J) was plotted on time-to-
northwestern and southeastern Kola Monocline areas (NKMA; SKMA)
depth graphs and represents selected BSS wells on distinct BSS structural
(Figs. 4C, D, E, F, H, J); 3) Fersmanovskaya High area (FH) (Fig. 4G); and
elements (Table 1; Fig. 1). However, the completeness of the target BSS
4) South Barents Basin (SBB) (Fig. 4I). The longest-duration event is
succession (Triassic–Middle Jurassic; ~251 Ma to ~170 Ma) as found in
observed in the Souths Barents Basin (~30 Ma), whereas the Hammer­
each well varies (Table 1). To mitigate age uncertainties, mean ages for
fest Basin had the shortest (~2 Ma). Similarly, the strongest episode of
each targeted NBSS formation and RBSS sedimentary unit (Tables 3 and
subsidence is observed in the Nordkapp Basin (~1.34 km), whereas the
4), plotted as dots on the curves (Fig. 4), were obtained from recent
weakest was identified in the eastern Bjarmeland Platform (0.05 km).

6
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Table 3
General parameters used in NBSS calculations. Average grain densities, porosities-at-surface and compaction coefficients are from Table 2. Mean ages are from
Paterson and Mangerud (2019) and Gilmullina et al. (2021a) normalized to Cohen et al. (2022).
Norwegian Barents Sea shelf (NPD, 2022)

Well number Target Mean age Lithology Grain density Porosity-at- Compaction
formation (Ma) (kg/m− 3) surface coefficient

Havert 250.651 Siltstones (3%) and sandstones (97%) 2652 0.49 0.209
Klappmyss 248.3 Claystones/siltstones (100%) 2720 0.63 0.51
Claystones/siltstones (98%) and sandstones
Kobbe 244.6 2718 0.63 0.503
(2%)
7120/1-1 (Loppa High)
Claystones/siltstones (97%) and sandstones
Snadd 232.65 2717 0.62 0.5
(3%) and limestones (<0.5%)
Claystones/siltstones (89%) and sandstones
Fruholmen 215.4 2712 0.61 0.479
(10%) and limestones (1%)
Havert 250.651 Claystones/siltstones (100%) 2720 0.63 0.51
Klappmyss 248.3 Claystones/siltstones (100%) 2720 0.63 0.51
Claystones/siltstones (92%), and sandstones
Kobbe 244.6 2714 0.62 0.485
(8%)
Claystones/siltstones (70%), sandstones (30%),
Snadd 232.65 2699 0.58 0.417
7120/9-2 (Hammerfest Basin) limestones (<0.01%)
Claystones/siltstones (25%) and sandstones
Fruholmen 215.4 2667 0.52 0.277
(75%)
Tubåen 199.87 Siltstones (5%) and sandstones (95%) 2653 0.5 0.215
Nordmela 187.12 Siltstones (7%) and sandstones (93%) 2654 0.5 0.221
Stø 176 Siltstones (3%) and sandstones (97%) 2652 0.49 0.209
Claystones/siltstones (97%) and sandstones
Klappmyss 248.3 2717 0.62 0.5
(3%) and limestones (<0.5%)
Claystones/siltstones (87%) and sandstones
Kobbe 244.6 2712 0.61 0.476
(11%) and limestones (2%)
Claystones/siltstones (72%) and sandstones
7224/2-1 (western Bjarmeland Snadd 232.65 2702 0.59 0.435
(24%) and limestones (4%)
Platform)
Claystones/siltstones (72%) and sandstones
Fruholmen 215.4 2706 0.59 0.455
(18%) and limestones (10%)
Claystones/siltstones (10%) and limestones
Nordmela 187.12 2711 0.52 0.517
(90%)
Stø 176 Sandstones (100%) 2650 0.49 0.2
Claystones/siltstones (98%) and sandstones
Klappmyss 248.3 2718 0.63 0.503
(2%)
Claystones/siltstones (80%) and sandstones
Kobbe 244.6 2706 0.6 0.448
(20%)
Claystones/siltstones (52%) and sandstones
Snadd 232.65 2686 0.56 0.361
(48%)
7228/2-1 S (Nordkapp Basin)
Claystones/siltstones (75%) and sandstones
Fruholmen 215.4 2702 0.59 0.432
(25%)
Claystones/siltstones (10%) and sandstones
Tubåen 199.87 2657 0.50 0.231
(90%)
Nordmela 187.12 Siltstones (5%) and sandstones (95%) 2653 0.5 0.215
Stø 176 Siltstones (60%) and sandstones (40%) 2692 0.57 0.386
Claystones/siltstones (80%) and sandstones
Havert 250.651 2706 0.6 0.448
(20%)
Claystones/siltstones (85%) and sandstones
Klappmyss 248.3 2710 0.61 0.463
(15%)
Claystones/siltstones (95%) and sandstones
Kobbe 244.6 2716 0.62 0.494
(5%)
7229/11-1 (northeastern Claystones/siltstones (80%) and sandstones
Snadd 232.65 2706 0.6 0.448
Finnmark Platform) (20%)
Claystones/siltstones (50%) and sandstones
Fruholmen 215.4 2685 0.56 0.355
(50%)
Claystones/siltstones (20%) and sandstones
Nordmela 187.12 2664 0.52 0.262
(80%)
Claystones/siltstones (10%) and sandstones
Stø 176 2657 0.50 0.231
(90%)
Claystones/siltstones (85%) and sandstones
Klappmyss 248.3 2710 0.61 0.463
(15%)
Claystones/siltstones (90%) and sandstones
Kobbe 244.6 2713 0.62 0.479
(10%)
Claystones/siltstones (73%) and sandstones
Snadd 232.65 2701 0.59 0.426
7335/3-1 (eastern Bjarmeland (27%)
Platform) Claystones/siltstones (42%) and sandstones
Fruholmen 215.4 2679 0.55 0.330
(58%)
Tubåen 199.87 Sandstones (100%) 2650 0.49 0.2
Claystones/siltstones (50%) and sandstones
Nordmela 187.12 2685 0.56 0.355
(50%)
Stø 176 Sandstones (100%) 2650 0.49 0.2

7
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Table 4
General parameters used in RBSS calculations. Average grain densities, porosities-at-surface and compaction coefficients are from Table 2. Mean ages are from Cohen
et al. (2022).
Russian Barents Sea shelf (Astafiev et al., 2008; Burguto et al., 2016)

Mean age Grain density (kg/ Porosity-at- Compaction

Well Target sedimentary unit Main lithology
(Ma) m− 3) surface coefficient
Claystones/siltstones (66%) and
Anisian 244.6 2696 0.58 0.404
sandstones (34%)
Claystones/siltstones (80%) and
Ladinian 239.5 2706 0.60 0.448
sandstones (20%)
Claystones/siltstones (66%) and
Fersmanovskaya-1 Carnian–Norian 222.75 2696 0.58 0.404
sandstones (34%)
Claystones/siltstones (34%) and
Hettangian–Toarcian 187.7 2673 0.54 0.305
sandstones (66%)
Claystones/siltstones (34%) and
Aalenian–Bathonian 171.2 2673 0.54 0.305
sandstones (66%)
Claystones/siltstones (80%) and
Olenekian 249.2 2706 0.60 0.448
sandstones (20%)
Claystones/siltstones (80%) and
Anisian 244.6 2706 0.60 0.448
sandstones (20%)
Claystones/siltstones (66%) and
Ladinian 239.5 2696 0.58 0.404
sandstones (34%)
Severo-Kildinskaya-
Claystones/siltstones (75%) and
80 Carnian 232 2702 0.59 0.432
sandstones (25%)
Norian 217.75 Siltstones (90%) and sandstones (10%) 2713 0.62 0.479
Claystones/siltstones (20%) and
Hettangian–Toarcian 187.7 2664 0.51 0.262
sandstones (80%)
Claystones/siltstones (20%) and
Aalenian–Bathonian 171.2 2664 0.51 0.262
sandstones (80%)
Claystones/siltstones (65%) and
Carnian 232 2695 0.58 0.401
sandstones (35%)
Claystones/siltstones (66%) and
Norian 217.75 2696 0.58 0.404
sandstones (34%)
Claystones/siltstones (60%) and
Arkticheskaya-1 Rhaetian 204.9 2692 0.57 0.386
sandstones (40%)
Claystones/siltstones (50%) and
Hettangian–Toarcian 187.7 2685 0.56 0.355
sandstones (50%)
Claystones/siltstones (66%) and
Aalenian–Bathonian 171.2 2696 0.58 0.404
sandstones (34%)
Anisian 244.6 Claystones/siltstones (100%) 2720 0.63 0.51
Claystones/siltstones (80%) and
Ladinian 239.5 2706 0.60 0.448
sandstones (20%)
Claystones/siltstones (66%) and
Carnian–Norian 222.75 2696 0.58 0.404
Murmanskaya-24 sandstones (34%)
Claystones/siltstones (60%) and
Pliensbachian–Toarcian 182.45 2692 0.57 0.386
sandstones (40%)
Claystones/siltstones (30%) and
Aalenian–Bathocian 171.2 2671 0.53 0.293
sandstones (70%)

subsidence (Tes Mean; Tes SD) and total subsidence (Tos Mean; Tos SD)
Table 5
were included and are also presented in Table 6. Dividing the standard
Main backstripping equations used in this study (Allen and Allen, 2013).
deviation by the mean results in the coefficient of variation, which can
Main Backstripping equations be understood as a ratio between the standard deviation and the mean.
Eq. 1 Eq. 2 Eq. 3 Eq. 4 Usually, a coefficient of variation value >1 is considered to represent a
Φ = Φ0e Sd = Si(1-Φc)/ ρ b = Σi{[Φi ρw + (1-Φi) Y = S[(ρm-ρb)/ high standard deviation relative to the mean. Except for the Loppa High
(− cy’) (1-Φ0) ρsg]/S}y’i (ρm-ρw)] (Table 6), the coefficient of variation per curve in each well is <1. It is
Variables: possible that the high values for the Loppa High are due to low sampling
1) Φ = variation of porosity as a function of depth; Φ0 = surface porosity; c = because of the largely incomplete Triassic–Middle Jurassic succession
compaction coefficient; y’ = depth of layer
2) Sd = decompacted thickness; Si = compacted thickness; Φc = compacted porosity;
found in this structural element (Table 1).
Φ0 = surface porosity The Hammerfest Basin and Loppa High backstripping curves (Group
3) ρb = bulk density of the entire sedimentary column; Φi = mean porosity of the ith 1; Table 6) are overall characterized by a slow tectonic subsidence that
layer; ρsg = grain density of the same layer; S = total thickness of the column abruptly becomes very rapid and is immediately followed by abrupt
corrected for compaction; y’ = thickness of the ith sediment layer
uplift (Figs. 4A, B). Even though most of the succession in the Loppa
4) Y = depth of the basement corrected for sediment load; S = total thickness of the
column corrected for compaction; ρm = mantle density; ρb = bulk density of the High was eroded, both curves have similar overall curve geometric
entire sedimentary column; ρw = water density patterns. In the Hammerfest Basin (Fig. 4A), deflection 1 (250–248 Ma)
represents a density contrast between clay- and sand-rich intervals
(Klappmyss and Kobbe formations; Table 3). If this contrast is ignored,
Additionally, Table 6 presents the interpreted tectonic mechanisms of the resulting overall shape of the part of the curve containing this
extension (E), flexure (F), and likelihood of transtension (Te) as well as deflection is convex; thus, a flexural mechanism is illustrated (Fig. 3C).
the major characteristics observed in each relevant backstripping-curve In the Hammerfest Basin and Loppa High, abrupt, rapid, short-lived
deflection (age, duration, and subsidence). subsidence (deflections 2 and 3) initially suggest a transtensional
For every plot, the mean and standard deviation for the tectonic mechanism (Fig. 3C). According to Xie and Heller (2009), the magnitude

8
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Fig. 4. Tectonic (blue) and datum (orange) subsidence curves for target BSS structural elements (Table 1). Numbered horizontal black lines represent main curve
deflections. Tectonic mechanisms are based on the curve geometries of Kneller (1991) (Fig. 3C). The black and red curves represent tectonic mechanisms for each
main deflection (higher resolution) and overall geometry of the plot (lower resolution), respectively (Figs. 3C, D). The purple and green vertical lines represent a
Permian-age or a Triassic-age datum respectively. The red rectangle represents the Rhaetian–Hettangian unconformity as interpreted from each curve. Note that plots
A to J are oriented in an approximate west to east direction as shown in Fig. 1. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

9
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Fig. 4. (continued).

and concave-shape of strike-slip curves are like those of passive margins, abrupt uplift phase, the tectonic subsidence curve becomes nearly hor­
although subsidence rates are much faster. However, the abrupt over­ izontal. Because the estimated water depth is about 0.1 km, the depth
print, observed at ~232 Ma, and poor preservation of the Loppa High excludes sub-aerial exposure. Furthermore, the Rhaetian–Hettangian
succession prevent a more accurate determination of the tectonic unconformity in this location (Fig. 4A) is not very extensive due to
mechanism. Because rifting processes were already operant on the NBSS creation of accommodation space, reflected by a possible subtle
(e.g., Klitzke et al., 2019), existence of extension and/or transtension at deflection in the tectonic subsidence curve at ~195 Ma.
these locations is possible. In the Hammerfest Basin, following the The backstripping curves for the western and eastern Bjarmeland

10
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Fig. 4. (continued).

platforms, Nordkapp Basin, northeastern Finnmark Platform, and curve trends. The magnitude of this uplift varies from significant
northwestern and southeastern Kola Monocline (Group 2; Figs. 4C, D, E, (Figs. 4C, E), to moderate (Figs. 4F, H), to subtle (Fig. 4D). Interestingly,
F, H, J; Table 6) areas are overall characterized by rapid tectonic sub­ the western Bjarmeland Platform exhibits significant uplift, whereas the
sidence that is either followed by uplift (Figs. 4C, D, E, F, H) or by flat- eastern part of this same structural element (Fig. 1) shows only a very
curve trend (Fig. 4J). In all these curves, an overall extensional mech­ subtle uplift trend. In all curves of Group 2 (Table 6), the deflections
anism is observed, reflected in the clear concave geometries and periods show a concave geometry that represents rapid initial subsidence, which
of rapid initial grading into slow subsidence (Fig. 3C). In Figs. 4F, H, and is indicative of extension (Fig. 3C). The eastern Bjarmeland Platform
J, short pulses of abrupt uplift may represent distortions caused by in­ tectonic subsidence curve (Fig. 4D), however, exhibits a subtle, convex
tervals having a more sand-rich composition in contrast to underlying, deflection at ~196 Ma (deflection 6), which indicates a flexural
very clay-rich, strata (Tables 3 and 4). mechanism.
In Figs. 4C, D, E, F and H, rapid Early–Middle Triassic initial subsi­ In Group 2, the timing and extension of the Rhaetian–Hettangian
dence, followed by slower subsidence (deflections 4, 7, 8 and 10), is unconformity varies. The tectonic subsidence curve for the southeastern
interrupted by abrupt uplift at ~232 Ma, which overprints the overall Kola Monocline (Fig. 4J) exhibits the most significant erosive episode (at

11
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Fig. 4. (continued).

least ~212–188 Ma), whereas the least significant erosional episode horizontal (Fig. 4J), ongoing subsidence, as indicated by the total sub­
(~197 Ma) is observed in the Nordkapp Basin (Fig. 4E). Flat-curve sidence curve, may preclude interpretations of more extensive erosion.
trends in the above curves at times of significant water depth may The Fermanovskaya High area backstripping curve (Group 3;
represent periods of non-deposition instead of sub-aerial exposure and Fig. 4G; Table 6) represents continuous tectonic subsidence, which is
sediment bypass (Figs. 4C, E, F). In the northeastern Kola Monocline followed by uplift at 222 Ma and renewed subsidence at 187 Ma. The
area (Fig. 4H), a non-flat trend is observed in the tectonic subsidence main curve deflection (deflection 9) illustrates a clear convex geometry,
curve, reflecting gentle subsidence. However, Burguto et al. (2016) thus indicating flexure (Figs. 3C, 4G). The overall tectonic mechanism is
interpreted an unconformity in the well succession for this structural difficult to determine because of the overprinting event; however, a
element that represents the removal of at least the entire Rhaetian flexural mechanism is suggested by its convex geometry and the steep­
succession. Because of the lack of curve horizontality, it is difficult to ness of the curve. Moreover, lack of flat tectonic-subsidence trends does
accurately illustrate the extent of this unconformity in the plot. Hence, not allow for interpretation of a Rhaetian unconformity and/or non-
the extension of the erosional event in this curve is speculative and based deposition (Figs. 3C, 4G). However, like the northeastern Kola Mono­
solely in their interpretation of the well. In the southeastern Kola cline (Fig. 4H), Burguto et al. (2016) interpreted an unconformity that
Monocline (Fig. 4J), a flat tectonic subsidence curve and lack of water removed at least the entire Rhaetian interval in the well succession for
depth allows the interpretation of a widespread unconformity. Even this structural element. Hence, inclusion and magnitude of the Rhaetian
though water depth is minimal, and the tectonic subsidence curve is erosional event in this curve are speculative and based solely in their

12
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Fig. 4. (continued).

interpretation of the well. Interestingly, the overall geometry of the (2008) interpreted an unconformity in the well succession for this
tectonic subsidence curve for the Fersmanovskaya High area evokes that structural element, but Rhaetian strata were not entirely eroded from
of a broad, “bulge-like” geometry (Fig. 4G). the well succession. Hence, inclusion of the erosional event in this curve
The South Barents Basin backstripping curve (Group 4; Fig. 4I; is speculative and based solely in their interpretation of the well.
Table 6) represents a very short initial period of subsidence, followed by
uplift at 232 Ma, and again by subsidence at ~218 Ma, creating a “bulge- 5. Discussion
like” geometry. Like previous curves, the uplift observed at ~232 Ma is
indicative of overprint. Both deflection 11 and the broad, convex shape Interpretations regarding Triassic–Middle Jurassic BSS tectonos­
of the overall curve suggest a flexural tectonic mechanism. In contrast to tratigraphy need to consider interactions between the Uralian (at least
other plots in Fig. 4, an indication of renewed subsidence is present at latest Paleozoic)-Pai-Khoi (at least latest Paleozoic to Late Triassic)-
~218 Ma, and the steepness of the curve shows that subsidence grad­ Novaya Zemlya (at least Late Triassic) orogeny, the Permo-Triassic Si­
ually increased into Hettangian (~200 Ma) time and persisted during berian superplume, and Late Paleozoic North Atlantic rifting events (e.
the entire Jurassic time range included in the plot (from ~201 to ~170 g., Timonin et al., 2003; Henriksen et al., 2011; Faleide et al., 2017). Of
Ma). Like other RBSS locations, the ongoing subsidence observed in the these events, the Uralian-Pai-Khoi-Novaya Zemlya orogeny is the least
curves makes it difficult to determine the possible presence and understood, which often leads to disagreements and contradictions in
magnitude of the Rhaetian–Hettangian unconformity. Astafiev et al. the literature (e.g., Scott et al., 2010; Filatova and Khain, 2010; Drachev,

13
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Table 6
Analyzed structural elements grouped by geometrical similarity, as well as associated deflections and their characteristics. Tectonic mechanisms are discussed later in
the text. Note that the locations are oriented in a west-to-east direction as shown in Fig. 1. Te = transtension; E = extension; and F = flexure. Means, standard de­
viations, and coefficients of variations for each curve are show at the bottom of the table.
Location Group Deflection Approximate Age (Stage) Duration (~Ma) Subsidence (km) Tectonic mechanism

HB 1 1 Induan–Olenekian 2 0.61 F
HB 1 2 Anisian–Carnian 12 1.09 Te?/E?
LH 1 3 Anisian–Carnian 12 1.24 Te?/E?
WBP 2 4 Olenekian–Carnian 18 1.29 E
EBP 2 5 Induan–Carnian 18 0.87 E
EBP 2 6 Hettangian–Pliensbachian 13 0.05 F
NB 2 7 Induan–Carnian 18 1.34 E
NFP 2 8 Wuchiapingian–Carnian 22 1.24 E
FH 3 9 Olenekian–Norian 26 0.89 F
NKMA 2 10 Induan–Carnian 20 0.78 E
SBB 4 11 Norian–Pliensbachian 30 0.81 F
SKMA 2 12 Olenekian–Norian 26 0.63 E

Standard Deviation
Locality Mean (Tes Mean; Tos Mean) Standard Deviation (Tes SD; Tos SD) Coefficient of variation (Tes SD/ Tes Mean; Tos SD; Tos Mean)
HB 0.898; 2.089 0.527; 1.312 0.586; 0.628
LH 0.412; 0.781 0.561; 1.085 1.361; 1.389
WBP 0.815; 1.599 0.411; 0.847 0.504; 0.529
EBP 0.728; 1.378 0.296; 0.576 0.406; 0.417
NB 0.914; 1.955 0.433; 0.972 0.473; 0.497
NFP 1.001; 2.185 0.413; 0.912 0.412; 0.417
FH 0.517; 0.972 0.353; 0.698 0.682; 0.718
NKMA 0.629; 1.209 0.274; 0.559 0.435; 0.462
SBB 0.562; 1.114 0.328; 0.703 0.583; 0.631
SKMA 0.462; 0.862 0.292; 0.590 0.632; 0.684

2016; Zhang et al., 2018; Müller et al., 2019; Korago et al., 2022). Even 2009) (Fig. 3C). Because the sharp curve “rebound,” which may repre­
though resolving the timing of the Novaya Zemlya orogeny is beyond the sent overprint (Figs. 4A, B), it is not possible to clearly determine if
scope of this paper, the backstripping curves in Fig. 4 may be of use in either transtension or extension occurred in the Hammerfest Basin and
addressing future topics like this. Loppa High area. Nevertheless, because of Caledonian collapse and
Observations and backstripping results will be discussed in terms of proto-North Atlantic tectonic processes across at least western areas of
overall tectonic mechanisms and how these interpretations can be the BSS (e.g., Faleide et al., 2008; Blaich et al., 2017), the possibility of
correlated to the large-scale, Triassic–Middle Jurassic, tectonic devel­ extensional or transtensional mechanisms is feasible.
opment of the southern BSS. Even though our approach focuses on In the western and eastern Bjarmeland platforms, Nordkapp Basin,
tectonic responses interpreted from tectonic subsidence curves, it is northeastern Finnmark Platform, and Kola Monocline area (Group 2;
important to emphasize that non-tectonic, Permo-Triassic uplift of Figs. 1, 4C, D, E, F, H, J; Table 6), interpretations are tied to two distinct
eastern hinterland areas triggered by the Siberian Superplume enhanced tectonic settings. In the NBSS, rapid Early Triassic to slow Middle
the already ongoing erosion of the Uralides, thus significantly increasing Triassic tectonic subsidence (Figs. 4C, D, E, F) can be explained by Late
the output of sediments into the BSS system (e.g., Fleming et al., 2016; Permian–earliest Triassic rifting, reactivation of Caledonian-age struc­
Gilmullina et al., 2021b; Puchkov et al., 2021). Therefore, it is important tures, and further thermal sag processes (e.g., Gernigon et al., 2014;
to consider sedimentary weight as a contributing factor to the accen­ Gabrielsen et al., 2016). In the RBSS, non-fault related subsidence trig­
tuated subsidence observed in various total subsidence curves (Fig. 4). gered by phase changes in igneous bodies coeval to orogeny, has been
suggested (e.g., Ritzmann and Faleide, 2009; Gac et al., 2014). This
5.1. Tectonic mechanisms process was not restricted to the BSS, being well-known in the Appala­
chian area to represent intracratonic subsidence associated with the
Following the collapse of the Caledonides, proto-North Atlantic reactivation of earlier rift structures by Appalachian orogenies (e.g.,
rifting systems triggered NBSS extensional episodes during Middle Quinlan and Beaumont, 1984; de Klein and Hsui, 1987). According to
Carboniferous, Carboniferous–Permian, and Late Permian–earliest Xie and Heller (2009), intracratonic backstripping geometries are very
Triassic times (e.g., Faleide et al., 2008; Blaich et al., 2017). Moreover, similar to those resulting from rifting. Similarly, Early–Middle Triassic
Caledonian collapse and lithospheric unloading may have triggered tectonic mechanisms inferred from Figs. 4H and J are interpreted to
flexural responses during extension (e.g., Weissel and Karner, 1989). represent intracratonic subsidence triggered earlier by the Uralian
Hence, transtensional/extensional and flexural mechanisms interpreted orogeny. This interpretation aligns with the reactivation of RBSS
from the Hammerfest Basin and Loppa High curves (Group 1; Figs. 1, 4A, Devonian back-arc/extensional structures, rapid Permo-Triassic subsi­
B; Table 6) can be tied to these NBSS extensional episodes. Even though dence, and coeval Permo-Triassic Uralian stresses (e.g., Nikishin et al.,
Late Permian–earliest Triassic tectonism is suggested to have been 1996; Gac et al., 2016; Faleide et al., 2017).
mainly concentrated at the Loppa High (e.g., Blaich et al., 2017), the In the Fersmanovskaya High area (Group 3; Fig. 4G; Table 6), though
Hammerfest Basin had a phase of Carboniferous extension and wide­ flexure is suggested, interpreting the tectonic mechanism is difficult
spread Late Paleozoic sedimentation (Blaich et al., 2017; Henriksen because of abrupt uplift and overprint at approximately 222 Ma. How­
et al., 2021). Hence, combination of extension, possible far-field reac­ ever, in Group 4 (Table 6; Fig. 4I; Table 6), even though limited drilling
tivation of earlier extensional structures, and sedimentary accumulation depth precludes interpretation of tectonic mechanisms prior to Late
can explain the abrupt and extensive subsidence observed in these Triassic time, the flexural mechanisms observed at ~218 Ma align with
curves (Figs. 4A, B). studies that suggested the development of a foreland basin at this
Traditionally, tectonic-curve geometries showing brief, very rapid location (e.g., Petrov et al., 2008; Müller et al., 2019; Martins et al.,
subsidence are indicative of transtension (Kneller, 1991; Xie and Heller, 2022).

14
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

In plots 4A, B, F, H, and J, minor, short-lived tectonic-curve de­ arrows represent uplift or subsidence respectively, and the shapes of
flections representing “uplift” can be observed during Early to Middle arrow heads reflect schematic trend magnitudes. Columns without ar­
Triassic time. In the Timan-Pechora Basin (Fig. 1), Lobkovsky et al. rowheads represent flat/near-flat curve geometries, which are inter­
(1996) interpreted similar backstripping curve geometries to represent preted as structural stability. In Fig. 5, the green areas represent areas of
inversion events triggered by the propagation of Carboniferous–early major Late Paleozoic North Atlantic rifting (Gabrielsen et al., 2016),
Mesozoic Uralian compressional stresses, which overprinted coeval whereas the light red area represents major Permo-Triassic intracratonic
post-rift, post-Devonian, subsidence mechanisms in that basin. Though subsidence (Gac et al., 2013). The timing of Novaya Zemlya orogeny is
interpretations like those by Lobkovsky et al. (1996) are certainly considered to be at least Late Triassic (reddish arrow). In Fig. 5, Ear­
feasible across the BSS (Martins et al., 2022), lack of Paleozoic deposits ly–Middle Triassic widespread subsidence is reversed by Late Triassic
in most of BSS wells makes it difficult to confidently associate the uplift. During latest Triassic–Middle Jurassic time, most elements either
observed minor Early to early-Middle Triassic deflections to Uralian show subsidence or stability. All these trends were then transposed to a
compressional stresses or to distortions caused by minor local variation series of highly schematic maps (Fig. 6), which are discussed in the next
in sedimentary content (Tables 3 and 4) instead. To better understand section.
the propagation of Uralian compressional stresses would require a much
larger regional analysis, including basins across the entire Uralide belt,
5.3. Basin development
which is well beyond the scope of this study. However, the possibility of
propagation of compressional stresses and overlapping with post-rifting
Early–Middle Triassic subsidence across the BSS (e.g., Henriksen
or intracratonic subsidence in BSS basins should not be ignored.
et al., 2011; Figs. 4, 5, and 6A, B) was accompanied by widespread
progradation across the shelf during this period, which has been inter­
5.2. Structural trends preted to reflect the generation of more accommodation space (e.g.,
Fleming et al., 2016; Figs. 4 and 6). This sedimentary progradation was
The overall trends exhibited in the tectonic subsidence curves were most likely the result of widespread uplift of eastern hinterland areas by
simplified and transposed to a highly schematic map that allows com­ the Siberian superplume (Gilmullina et al., 2021a, 2021b; Fig. 6A),
parison of all trends in space and time (Fig. 5). Using arrows to represent which enhanced ongoing erosion and contributed to the progradation.
structural responses, the length of each arrow represents the approxi­ The shift from rapid Early Triassic subsidence to decreasing rates of
mate time duration of each major backstripping trend, up-or-down Middle Triassic subsidence, followed by abrupt Late Triassic uplift

Fig. 5. Schematic illustration showing main tectonic subsidence curve trends of targeted BSS structural elements, which provides a simple and effective way to
summarize and compare structural backstripping trends on both local and regional scales. The light-gray outlines are the boundaries of the various structural el­
ements (Fig. 1). The black line is the boundary between the NBSS and RBSS. The lengths of the arrows and columns represent the duration of each main curve trend
and are temporally correlated to the International Stratigraphic Chart (Cohen et al., 2022). The reddish arrow represents the westwardly migrating Novaya Zemlya
orogenic events. The green areas represent the location of Late Paleozoic, North Atlantic, rifting events (Gabrielsen et al., 2016), whereas the red ellipse represents
intracratonic subsidence mechanisms (Gac et al., 2013). These structural trends only reflect developments in the southern BSS, but similar responses are likely
present on northern structural elements as well. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

15
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Fig. 6. Highly schematic and extrapolated maps illustrating the main BSS structural trends observed in Fig. 5. A) Early Triassic time; B) Middle Triassic time; C) Late
Triassic time; and D) Early Jurassic time. The purple area represents the likely affected area by the Siberian Superplume (Puchkov, 2018; Puchkov et al., 2021). (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

(Figs. 4, 5, and 6), aligns with studies that show varying rates of sedi­ subsidence in the South Barents Basin (Fig. 4I) and coeval, abrupt, uplift
ment supply through Triassic time (e.g., Gilmullina et al., 2021b). The in the Fersmanovskaya High area (Fig. 4G) suggest the development of a
abrupt uplift, recognized as early as ~232 Ma (Fig. 4) and the only foreland-basin system across these structural elements (Fig. 6C, D), in
tectonic event capable of triggering such regional uplift, is the Novaya agreement with previous studies (e.g., Petrov et al., 2008; Müller et al.,
Zemlya orogeny (Figs. 5, and 6C). This idea that uplift was related to 2019). In addition, the total subsidence curve in Fig. 4I indicates sub­
orogeny agrees with studies that indicate a Late Triassic orogenic timing sidence of ~1.1 km from ~218 to 170 Ma, which is on the same order as
(e.g., Drachev, 2016). Subtle latest Triassic–earliest Jurassic curve foreland thicknesses estimated by Suslova (2014) and Gilmullina et al.
trends (e.g., Fig. 4D) can also be associated with this orogeny. In the (2021a). During latest Triassic–Middle Jurassic time, uplift and subsi­
Hammerfest Basin and Loppa High (Figs. 4A, B), however, the inter­ dence trends can be tied to Novaya Zemlya thrusting, as well as coeval
pretation of Late Triassic orogenic uplift contradicts traditional in­ development of foreland basins and intracratonic reactivation (Figs. 5
terpretations (e.g., Henriksen et al., 2011; Indrevær et al., 2017); hence, and 6). In the NBSS (Figs. 4A–F, 5 and 6), it is not clear if Late Triassic
more studies are needed to investigate the nature of the potential uplift uplift represents bulge deflection (Müller et al., 2019), or if the bulge is
suggested in the backstripping curves for these areas. The Novaya restricted to the transitional NBSS/RBSS area (Olaussen et al., 2018).
Zemlya orogeny has also been interpreted as the main cause for the However, like Olaussen et al. (2018), we suggest that the transitional
generation of the Rhaetian–Hettangian unconformity (Müller et al., BSS area represents bulge uplift, whereas central-western NBSS uplift
2019). In the eastern Bjarmland and northeastern Finnmark platforms, represents back-bulge structural readjustment to Novaya Zemlya
and Kola Monocline area (Figs. 4D, F, H, J), the magnitude of this compression. Clearly, more studies covering other methodologies are
erosional event is like magnitudes presented by Müller et al. (2019) and needed.
Gilmullina et al. (2021a).
The backstripping curve trends from latest Permian–Middle Triassic 6. Conclusions
time and comparison with the literature suggest that the NBSS was
dominated by basin-development mechanisms associated with rifting Understanding structural responses in the hydrocarbon-rich, Tri­
and thermal-sag processes; in contrast, the RBSS reflects intracratonic assic–Middle Jurassic succession across the BSS requires more consid­
subsidence triggered by compressional far-field forces at the same time eration of large-scale, diverse, tectonic triggers and the related
(Figs. 4, 5 and 6). Moreover, during Late Triassic time, flexural reactivation of BSS structures. Thus, the integration of individual

16
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

structural responses to regional events is important, and the back­ Markina, N.V., Paramonova, M.S., Povysheva, L.G., Semenova, L.R., Tomilina, O.V.,
Chekushin, V.A., Shipilov, E.V., Shkarubo, S.I., Yakovleva, T.V., 2008. State
stripping method provides a means of modelling such responses and
Geological Map of the Russian Federation (in Russian): Saint Petersburg, VSEGEI,
their timing. This backstripping treatment of BSS well data allows for the The North-Kara-Barents Sea series, Sheets R-37 and R-38, Scale 1: 1,000,000.
interpretation of low- and high-resolution tectonic mechanisms, as well Baig, I., Faleide, J.I., Jahren, J., Mondol, N.H., 2016. Cenozoic exhumation on the
as for trends of subsidence and uplift, which can be tied to the major BSS southwestern Barents Shelf: estimates and uncertainties constrained from
compaction and thermal maturity analyses. Mar. Pet. Geol. 73, 105–130.
tectonostratigraphic events and to other BSS studies. Backstripping Baiyegunhi, C., Liu, K., Gwavava, O., 2017. Sedimentation rate and subsidence history of
curves for ten, distinct, southern, BSS structural elements provide evi­ the southeastern Karoo Basin, South Africa, using 1D backstripping method. Arab. J.
dence of structural reactivation triggered largely by Uralian-Pai-Khoi- Geosci. 10, 1–21.
Beglinger, S.E., van Wees, J.-D., Cloetingh, S., Doust, H., 2013. Tectonic subsidence
Novaya Zemlya and North Atlantic tectonism. Differences in the history and source-rock maturation in the Campos Basin, Brazil. Pet. Geosci. 18,
timing and type of structural response across the BSS likely reflect the 153–172.
geologic properties and stress regimes under which each specific BSS Berra, F., Carminati, E., 2010. Subsidence history from a backstripping analysis of the
Permo-Mesozoic succession of the central southern Alps (northern Italy). Basin Res.
structure formed. These observations suggest that, despite similar trig­ 22, 952–975.
gers, BSS structural features often responded independently. Even Blaich, O.A., Tsikalas, F., Faleide, J.I., 2017. New insights into the tectono-stratigraphic
though tectonic overprint is a possible complicating factor, most Late evolution of the southern Stappen High and its transition to Bjørnøya Basin, SW
Barents Sea. Mar. Pet. Geol. 85, 89–105.
Triassic uplift can be tied confidently to the later phases of the Uralian- Burguto, A.G., Zhuravlev, V.A., Zavarzina, G.A., Zinchenko, A.G., 2016. State Geological
Pai-Khoi-Novaya Zemlya orogeny. Map of the Russian Federation (in Russian): Saint Petersburg, VSEGEI, the North-
In summary, this backstripping analysis illustrates the diverse nature Kara-Barents Sea Series, Sheets S-36 and S-37, Scale 1: 1,000,000.
Cloetingh, S., Lankreijer, A., 1992. Subsidence history analysis and forward modelling of
and activity of southern BSS, Triassic–Middle Jurassic structural re­
the Cape and Karoo supergroups. In: De Wit, M.J., Ransome, I. (Eds.), Inversion
sponses and tectonic mechanisms, as well as the likely tectonic trig­ Tectonics of the Cape Fold Belt, Karoo and Cretaceous Basins of Southern Africa.
gering events. Moreover, the study shows that despite location, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 239–248.
subsidence predominated across the southern BSS during Early–Middle Cohen, K.M., Finney, S.C., Gibbard, P.L., Fan, J.-X., 2022. The ICS International
Chronostratigraphic Chart, 36, pp. 199–204. Retrieved from. https://stratigraphy.or
Triassic time, followed largely by uplift in Late Triassic time, and sub­ g/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2022-02.pdf.
sequently by subsidence in Jurassic time. Even though many questions Corfu, F., Andersen, T.B., Gasser, D., 2014. The Scandinavian Caledonides: Main
remain, and other analytical techniques need consideration, these re­ features, conceptual advances and critical questions. In: Corfu, F., Gasser, D.,
Chew, D.M. (Eds.), New Perspectives on the Caledonides of Scandinavia and Related
sults align with previous studies, which suggest that southern BSS Areas, 390. The Geological Society of London, Special Publications, London,
structures were much more affected by Novaya Zemlya compressional pp. 9–43.
tectonism than often assumed. Similar patterns and activity are likely in Curtis, M.L., Lopez-Mir, B., Scott, R.A., Howard, J.P., 2018. Early Mesozoic sinistral
transpression along the Phai-Khoi-Novaya Zemlya fold–thrust belt, Russia. In:
northern parts of the shelf, but confirmation must await more evidence. Pease, V., Coakley, B. (Eds.), Circum-Arctic Lithosphere Evolution, 460. Geological
Society, Special Publications, London, pp. 355–370.
Funding Dalland, A., Worsley, D., Ofstad, K., 1988. A lithostratigraphical scheme for the Mesozoic
and Cenozoic succession, offshore mid- and northern Norway, 4. Norwegian
Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger, 65 p.
This work was supported by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. de Klein, G.V., Hsui, A.T., 1987. Origin of cratonic basins. Geology 15, 1094–1098.
Drachev, S.S., 2016. Fold belts and sedimentary basins of the Eurasian Arctic. Arktos 2,
1–30.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Drachev, S.S., Malyshev, N.A., Nikishin, A.M., 2010. Tectonic history and petroleum
geology of the Russian Arctic shelves: An overview. In: Vining, B.A., Pickering, S.C.
Gustavo Martins: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, (Eds.), Petroleum Geology Conferences. Geological Society of London, London,
pp. 591–619.
Visualization. Frank R. Ettensohn: Conceptualization, Investigation.
Eide, C.H., Klausen, T.G., Katkov, D., Suslova, A.A., Helland-Hansen, W., 2017. Linking
Stig-Morten Knutsen: Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources. an Early Triassic delta to antecedent topography: source-to-sink study of the
southwestern Barents Sea margin. GSA Bull. 130, 263–283.
Faleide, J.I., Gudlaugsson, S.T., Jacquart, G., 1984. Evolution of the western Barents Sea.
Declaration of Competing Interest Mar. Pet. Geol. 1, 123–150.
Faleide, J.I., Tsikalas, F., Breivik, A.J., Mjelde, R., Ritzmann, O., Egen, Ø., Wilson, J.,
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Eldholm, O., 2008. Structure and evolution of the continental margin off Norway
and the Barents Sea. Episodes 31, 82–91.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Faleide, J.I., Pease, V., Curtis, M., Klitzke, P., Minakov, A., Scheck-Wenderoth, M.,
the work reported in this paper. Kostyuchenko, S., Zayonchek, A., 2017. Tectonic implications of the lithospheric
structure across the Barents and Kara shelves. In: Pease, V., Coakley, B. (Eds.),
Circum-Arctic Lithosphere Evolution, 460. Geological Society of London, Special
Data availability
Publications, London, pp. 285–314.
Filatova, N.I., Khain, V.E., 2010. The Arctida craton and Neoproterozoic–Mesozoic
Data will be made available on request. orogenic belts of the circum–polar region. Geotectonics 44, 203–227.
Fjeldskaar, W., Amantov, A., 2018. Effects of glaciations on sedimentary basins.
J. Geodyn. 118, 66–81.
Acknowledgements Fleming, E.J., Flowerdew, M.J., Smyth, H.R., Scott, R.A., Morton, A.C., Omma, J.E.,
Frei, D., Whitehouse, M.J., 2016. Provenance of Triassic sandstones on the southwest
We wish to thank the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) for Barents Shelf and the implication for sediment dispersal patterns in northwest
Pangea. Mar. Pet. Geol. 78, 516–535.
providing the necessary funding for this research and Sergey Drachev for Gabrielsen, R.H., Færseth, R.B., Jensen, L.N., Kalheim, J.E., Fridtjof, R., 1990. Structural
providing literature describing key Russian wells. We would like to elements of the Norwegian continental shelf. Pt. 1. The Barents Sea Region. Norw.
thank Peter Klitzke, an anonymous reviewer, and Tore Klausen for Petrol. Direct. Bull. 6, 1–33.
Gabrielsen, R.H., Sokoutis, D., Willingshofer, E., Faleide, J.I., 2016. Fault linkage across
thorough comments on the manuscript. weak layers during extension: an experimental approach with reference to the Hoop
Fault Complex of the SW Barents Sea. Pet. Geosci. 22, 123–135.
References Gac, S., Huismans, R.S., Simon, N.S.C., Podladchikov, Y.Y., Faleide, J.I., 2013. Formation
of intracratonic basins by lithospheric shortening and phase changes: a case study
from ultra-deep East Barents Sea basin. Terra Nova 25, 459–463.
Allen, P.A., Allen, J.R., 2013. Basin Analysis: Principles and Application to Petroleum
Gac, S., Huismans, R.S., Simon, N.S.C., Faleide, J.I., Podladchikov, Y.Y., 2014. Effects of
Play Assessment. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, 632 p.
lithosphere buckling on subsidence and hydrocarbon maturation: a case-study from
Anell, I., Faleide, J.I., Braathen, A., 2016. Regional tectono-sedimentary development of
the ultra-deep East Barents Sea basin. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 407, 123–133.
the highs and basins of the northwestern Barents shelf. Nor. J. Geol. 96, 27–41.
Gac, S., Klitzke, P., Minakov, A., Faleide, J.I., Scheck-Wenderoth, M., 2016. Lithospheric
Angevine, C.L., Heller, P.L., Paola, C., 1990. Quantitative sedimentary basin modeling.
strength and elastic thickness of the Barents Sea and Kara Sea region. Tectonophysics
In: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Continuing Education Course
691, 120–132.
Notes, 32, 133 p.
Gasser, D., 2014. The Caledonides of Greenland, Svalbard and other Arctic areas: status
Astafiev, B.Y., Viskunova, K.G., Voinova, O.A., Glaznev, V.N., Zhuravlev, V.A.,
of research and open questions. Geol. Soc. 390, 93–129.
Zhuravlev, V.I.A., Zinchenko, A.G., Kozlov, S.A., Kostin, D.A., Lopatin, B.G.,

17
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Gee, D.G., Fossen, H., Henriksen, N., Higgins, A.K., 2008. From the Early Paleozoic Lundschien, B.A., Høy, T., Mørk, A., 2014. Tryassic hydrocarbon potential in the
platforms of Baltica and Laurentia to the Caledonide Orogen of Scandinavia and northern Barents Sea; integrating Svalbard and stratigraphic core data. Norw. Petrol.
Greenland. Episodes 31, 44–51. Direct. Bull. 11, 3–20.
Gee, D.G., Juhlin, C., Pascal, C., Robinson, P., 2010. Collisional orogeny in the Marello, L., Ebbing, J., Gernigon, L., 2013. Basement inhomogeneities and crustal setting
Scandinavian Caledonides. GFF 132, 29–44. in the Barents Sea from a combined 3D gravity and magnetic model. Geophys. J. Int.
Gernigon, L., Brönner, M., Roberts, D., Olesen, O., Nasuti, A., Yamasaki, T., 2014. Crustal 193, 1–29.
and basin evolution of the southwestern Barents Sea: from Caledonian Orogeny to Martins, G., Ettensohn, F., Knutsen, S.-M., 2022. The Appalachian area as a
continental breakup. Tectonics 33, 347–373. tectonostratigraphic analogue for the Barents Sea shelf. Basin Res. 34, 274–299.
Gilmullina, A., Klausen, T.G., Paterson, N.W., Suslova, A., Eide, C.H., 2021a. Regional Müller, R., Klausen, T.G., Faleide, J.I., Olaussen, S., Eide, C.H., Suslova, A., 2019. Linking
correlation and seismic stratigraphy of Triassic strata in the greater Barents Sea: regional unconformities in the Barents Sea to compression-induced forebulge uplift
implications for sediment transport in Arctic basins. Basin Res. 33, 1546–1579. at the Triassic-Jurassic transition. Tectonophysics 765, 35–51.
Gilmullina, A., Klausen, T.G., Doré, A.G., Rossi, V.M., Suslova, A., Eide, C.H., 2021b. Nikishin, A.M., Ziegler, P.A., Stephenson, R.A., Cloetingh, S.A.P.L., Furne, A.V., Fokin, P.
Linking sediment supply variations and tectonic evolution in deep time, source-to- A., Ershov, A.V., Bolotov, S.N., Korotaev, M.V., Alekseev, A.S., Gorbachev, V.I.,
sink systems—the Triassic Greater Barents Sea Basin. GSA Bull. 0, 1–21. Shipilov, E.V., Lankreijer, A., Bembinova, E.Yu., Shalimov, I.V., 1996. Late
Glørstad-Clark, E., Birkeland, E.P., Nystuen, J.P., Faleide, J.I., Midtkandal, I., 2011. Precambrian to Triassic history of the East European Craton: dynamics of
Triassic platform-margin deltas in the western Barents Sea. Mar. Pet. Geol. 28, sedimentary basin evolution. Tectonophysics v. 268, 23–63.
1294–1314. Nikishin, V.A., Malyshev, N.A., Nikishin, A.M., Obmetko, V.V., 2011. The Late
Gudlaugsson, S.T., Faleide, J.I., Johansen, S.E., Breivik, A.J., 1998. Late Palaeozoic Permian–Triassic system of rifts of the South Kara sedimentary basin. Mosc. Univ.
structural development of the South-Western Barents Sea. Mar. Pet. Geol. 15, Geol. Bull. 66, 377–384.
73–102. Norina, D.A., Stupakova, A.V., Kiryukhina, T.A., 2014. Depositional environments and
Heidlauf, D.T., Hsui, A.T., Klein, G.D., 1986. Tectonic subsidence analysis of the Illinois the hydrocarbon generative potential of Triassic rocks of the Barents Sea basin.
Basin. J. Geol. 94, 779–794. Mosc. Univ. Geol. Bull. 69, 1–10.
Henriksen, E., Ryseth, A.E., Larssen, G.B., Heide, T., Rønning, K., Sollid, K., Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), 2017. The Barents Sea North. Geological
Stoupakova, A.V., 2011. Tectonostratigraphy of the greater Barents Sea: Implications Assessment of Petroleum Resources in Eastern Parts of Barents Sea North. Norwegian
for petroleum systems. In: Spencer, A.M., Embry, A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A., Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger, 39 p.
Sørensen, K. (Eds.), Arctic Petroleum Geology, 35. Geological Society, Memoirs, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), 2022. Factpages. https://factpages.npd.no/en/
London, pp. 163–195. wellbore/ (accessed 02 November 2022).
Henriksen, E., Kvamme, L., Rydningen, T.A., 2021. Hammerfest Basin composite tectono- Olaussen, S., Dalland, A., Gloppen, T.G., Johannessen, E., 1984. Depositional
sedimentary element, Barents Sea. In: Drachev, S.S., Brekke, H., Henriksen, E., environment and diagenesis of Jurassic reservoir sandstones in the eastern part of
Moore, T. (Eds.), Sedimentary Successions of the Arctic Region and their Troms I area. In: Spencer, A.M. (Ed.), Petroleum Geology of the North European
Hydrocarbon Prospectivity, 57. Geological Society Memoirs, London, Margin. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 61–79.
pp. 2017–2023. Olaussen, S., Larssen, G.B., Helland-Hansen, W., Johannessen, E.P., Nøttvedt, A., Riis, F.,
Indrevær, K., Gac, S., Gabrielsen, R.H., Faleide, J.I., 2017. Crustal-scale subsidence and Rismyhr, B., Smelror, M., Worsley, D., 2018. Mesozoic strata of Kong Karls Land,
uplift caused by metamorphic phase changes in the lower crust: a model for the Svalbard, Norway; a link to the northern Barents Sea basins and platforms. Nor. J.
evolution of the Loppa High area, SW Barents Sea from late Paleozoic to Present. Geol. 98, 1–70.
J. Geol. Soc. 175, 1–12. Paterson, W.N., Mangerud, G., 2019. A revised palynozonation for the Middle–Upper
Ivanova, N.M., Sakoulina, T.S., Roslov, Yu, 2006. Deep seismic investigations across the Triassic (Anisian–Rhaetian) series of the Norwegian Arctic. Geol. Mag. 157, 1–25.
Barents–Kara region and Novozemelskiy fold belt (Arctic shelf). Tectonophysics 420, Pease, V., Drachev, S., Stephenson, R., Zhang, X., 2014. Arctic lithosphere – a review.
123–140. Tectonophysics 628, 1–25.
Johansen, S.E., Ostisty, B.K., Birkeland, Ø., Federovsky, Y.F., Martirosjan, V.N., Bruun Petrov, O.V., Sobolev, N.N., Koren, T.N., Vasiliev, V.E., Petrov, E.O., Larssen, G.B.,
Christensen, O., Cheredeevm, S.I., Ignatenko, E.A., Margulis, L.S., 1993. Smelror, M., 2008. Palaeozoic and Early Mesozoic evolution of the East Barents and
Hydrocarbon potential in the Barents Sea region: play distribution and potential. In: Kara Seas sedimentary basins. Nor. J. Geol. 88, 227–234.
Vorren, T.O., Bergsager, E., Dahl-Stamnes, Ø.A., Holter, E., Johansen, B., Lie, E., Pitman III, W.C., Andrews, J.A., 1985. Subsidence and thermal history of small pull-apart
Lund, T.B. (Eds.), Arctic Geology and Petroleum Potential, 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, basins. In: Biddle, K.T., Christie-Blick, N. (Eds.), Strike-Slip Deformation, Basin
pp. 273–320. Formation, and Sedimentation, 37. SEPM, Tulsa, pp. 45–49.
Khudoley, A.K., Sobolev, N.N., Petrov, E.O., Ershova, V.B., Makariev, A.A., Makarieva, E. Puchkov, V.N., 2009. The evolution of the Uralian Orogeny. Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ.
V., Gaina, C., Sobolev, P., 2019. A reconnaissance provenance study of 327, 161–195.
Triassic–Jurassic clastic rocks of the Russian Barents Sea. GFF 141, 1–9. Puchkov, V.N., 2018. The plumes – a new world in geology of the Urals. Litosfera 18,
Klausen, T.G., Helland-Hansen, W., 2018. Methods for restoring and describing ancient 483–499.
clinoform surfaces. J. Sediment. Res. 88, 241–259. Puchkov, V.N., Ivanov, K.S., 2020. Tectonics of the northern Urals and Western Siberia:
Klausen, T.G., Ryseth, A.E., Helland-Hansen, W., Gawthorpe, W., Laursen, I., 2015. General history of development. Geotectonics 54, 35–53.
Regional development and sequence stratigraphy of the Middle to Late Triassic Puchkov, V.N., Ernst, R.E., Ivanov, K.S., 2021. The importance and difficulties of
Snadd Formation, Norwegian Barents Sea. Mar. Pet. Geol. 62, 102–122. identifying mantle plumes in orogenic belts: an example based on the fragmented
Klausen, T.G., Müller, R., Slama, J., Helland-Hansen, W., 2016. Evidence for Late Triassic large igneous provinces (LIP) record in the Ural fold belt. Precambrian Res. 361,
provenance areas and Early Jurassic sediment supply turnover in the Barents Sea 106–186.
basin of northern Pangea. Lithosphere 9, 14–28. Quinlan, G.M., Beaumont, C., 1984. Appalachian thrusting, lithospheric flexure, and the
Klausen, T.G., Nyberg, B., Helland-Hansen, W., 2019. The largest delta plain in Earth’s Paleozoic stratigraphy of the eastern interior of North America. Can. J. Earth Sci. 21,
history. Geology 47, 470–474. 973–996.
Klitzke, P., Franke, D., Ehrhardt, A., Lutz, R., Reinhardt, L., Heyde, I., Faleide, J.I., 2019. Riis, F., Lundschien, B.A., Høy, T., Mørk, A., Mørk, M.B., 2008. Evolution of the Triassic
The Paleozoic evolution of the Olga Basin region, northern Barents Sea: a link to the shelf in the northern Barents Sea region. Polar Res. 27, 318–338.
Timanian Orogeny. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 20, 1–16. Ritzmann, O., Faleide, J.I., 2009. The crust and mantle lithosphere in the Barents Sea/
Kneller, B.C., 1991. A foreland basin on the southern margin of Iapetus. J. Geol. Soc. 148, Kara Sea region. Tectonophysics 470, 89–104.
207–210. Roberts, A.M., Kusznir, N.J., Yielding, G., Styles, P., 1998. 2D flexural backstripping of
Knutsen, S.-M., Larsen, K.I., 1997. The late Mesozoic and Cenozoic evolution of the extensional basins: the need for a sideways glance. Pet. Geosci. 4, 327–338.
Sørvestsnaget Basin: a tectonostratigraphic mirror for regional events along the Sclater, J.G., Christie, P.A.F., 1980. Continental stretching: an explanation of the post-
southwestern Barents Sea margin. Mar. Pet. Geol. 14, 27–54. mid-Cretaceous subsidence of the Central North Sea basin. J. Gephys. Res. 85,
Korago, E.A., Kovaleva, G.N., Schekoldin, R.A., II’in, V.F., Gusev, E.A., Krylov, A.A., 3711–3739.
Gorbunov, D.A., 2022. Geological structure of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago (West Scotese, C.R., Wright, N., 2018. PALEOMAP paleodigital elevation models (PaleoDEMS)
Russian Arctic) and peculiarities of the tectonics of the Eurasian Arctic. Geotectonics for the Phanerozoic. https://www.earthbyte.org/paleodem-resource-scotese-and-w
56, 21–57. right-2018/.
Kuznetsov, N.B., 2006. The Cambrian Baltica–Arctida Collision, Pre-Uralide–Timanide Scott, R.A., Howard, J.P., Guo, L., Schekoldin, R., Pease, V., 2010. Offset and curvature of
Orogen, and its erosion products in the Arctic. Dokl. Earth Sci. 411A, 1375–1380. the Novaya Zemlya fold-and-thrust belt, Arctic Russia. In: Vining, B.A., Pickering, S.
Lasabuda, A.P.E., Johansen, N.S., Laberg, J.S., Faleide, J.I., Senger, K., Rydningen, T.A., C. (Eds.), Petroleum Geology: From Mature Basins to New Frontiers – Proceedings of
Patton, H., Knutsen, S.-M., Hanssen, A., 2021. Cenozoic uplift and erosion of the the 7th Petroleum Geology Conference, 7. The Geological Society, Petroleum
Norwegian Barents Sea shelf —a review. Earth Sci. Rev. 217, 1–35. Geology Conferences, London, pp. 645–657.
Lobkovsky, L.I., Cloetingh, S., Nikishin, A.M., Volozh, Yu.A., Lankreijer, A.C., Seidler, L., Steel, R.J., Stemmerik, L., Surlyk, F., 2004. North Atlantic marine rifting in
Belyakov, S.L., Groshev, V.G., Fokin, P.A., Milanovsky, E.E., Pevzner, L.A., the Early Triassic: new evidence from East Greenland. J. Geol. Soc. 161, 583–592.
Gorbachev, V.I., Korneev, M.A., 1996. Extensional basins of the former Soviet Union Serck, C.S., Faleide, J.I., Braathen, A., Kjølhamar, B., Escalona, A., 2017. Jurassic to Early
– structure, basin formation mechanisms and subsidence history. Tectonophysics Cretaceous basin configuration(s) in the Fingerdjupet Subbasin, SW Barents Sea.
266, 251–285. Mar. Pet. Geol. 86, 874–891.
Lopatin, B.G., Pavlov, L.G., Orgo, V.V., Shkarubo, S.I., 2001. Tectonic structure of Shatsillo, A.V., 2015. Interaction of Siberia and Baltica at the final stage of amalgamation
Novaya Zemlya. Polarforschung 131, 131–135. of the Eurasian part of Pangea. Phys. Solid Earth 51 (300), 300–314.
Lopatin, N.V., Zubairaev, S.L., Kos, I.M., Emets, T.P., Romanov, E.A., Malchikhina, O.V., Shipilov, E.V., 2010. Role of the tectonomagmatic factor in formation of giant
2003. Unconventional oil accumulations in the Upper Jurassic Bazhenov black shale hydrocarbon accumulations in the East Barents Basin. Dokl. Earth Sci. 434,
formation, West Siberian basin: a self-sourced reservoir system. J. Pet. Geol. 26, 1298–1302.
225–244.

18
G. Martins et al. Tectonophysics 853 (2023) 229797

Smelror, M., Petrov, O.V., 2018. Geodynamics of the Arctic: from Proterozoic orogens to Uchman, A., Hanken, N.-M., Nielsen, J.K., Grundvåg, S.-A., Piasecki, S., 2016.
present day seafloor spreading. J. Geodyn. 121, 185–204. Depositional environment, ichnological features and oxygenation of Permian to
Smelror, M., Petrov, O.V., Larssen, G.B., Werner, S.C., 2009. Geological History of the earliest Triassic marine sediments in Central Spitsbergen, Svalbard. Polar Res. 35,
Barents Sea. Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim, 135 p. 1–21.
Stemmerik, L., Worsley, D., 2005. 30 years on – Arctic Upper Palaeozoic stratigraphy, Watts, A.B., 2012. Models for the evolution of passive margins. In: Roberts, D.G., Bally,
depositional evolution and hydrocarbon prospectivity. Nor. J. Geol. 85, 151–168. A.W., (Eds.), Regional Geology and Tectonics: Phanerozoic rift systems and
Stoupakova, A.V., Henriksen, E., Burlin, Yu.K., Larsen, G.B., Milne, J.K., Kiryukhina, T. sedimentary basins. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 32–57.
A., Golynchik, P.O., Bordunov, S.I., Ogarkova, M.P., Suslova, A.A., 2011. The Weissel, J., Karner, G.D., 1989. Flexural uplift of rift flanks due to mechanical unloading
geological evolution and hydrocarbon potential of the Barents and Kara shelves. In: of the lithosphere during extension. J. Geophys. Res. 94, 13919–13950.
Spencer, A.M., Embry, A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., Sørensen, K. (Eds.), Xie, X., Heller, P.L., 2009. Plate tectonics and basin subsidence history. Geol. Soc. Am.
Arctic Petroleum Geology, 35. The Geological Society of London, Memoirs, London, Bull. 121, 55–64.
pp. 325–344. Zhang, X., Pease, V., Carter, A., Scott, R., 2018. Reconstructing Palaeozoic and Mesozoic
Suslova, A.A., 2014. Seismostratigraphic analysis and prospects of the Jurassic deposits, tectonic evolution of Novaya Zemlya: combining geochronology and
Barents Sea shelf. Petrol. Geol. Theor. Appl. Stud. 9, 1–19. thermochronology. In: Pease, V., Coakley, B. (Eds.), Circum-Arctic Lithosphere
Timonin, N.I., Yudin, V.V., Belyaev, A.A., 2003. Evolution of tectonic processes in history Evolution, 460. The Geological Society, Special Publications, London, pp. 335–353.
development of Pai-Khoi. Bull. Inst. Geol. Komi Sci. Center Ural Branch 10, 7–9. Ziegler, P.A., 1989. Evolution of Laurussia: Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 102
Torsvik, T.H., Cocks, L.R.M., 2017. Earth History and Palaeogeography. Cambridge p.
University Press, Cambridge, 324 p.

19