Advertisement

Geotectonics

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 434–449 | Cite as

Geodynamics and evolution of the northern East European Platform in the late Precambrian as inferred from regional seismic profiling

  • T. N. Kheraskova
  • R. B. Sapozhnikov
  • Yu. A. Volozh
  • M. P. Antipov
Article

Abstract

The available geological data on the Meso-and Neoproterozoic rocks in the north of the East European Platform are considered, involving the results of a comprehensive study along regional seismic profile I-I that extends for 460 km and crosses the main structural units of the Mezen Syneclise from SW to NE. Many previously unknown structural features of aulacogens filled with thick (up to 4–8 km) sequences of the Meso-and Neoproterozoic sedimentary rocks that make up the preplate complex are demonstrated in this profile. The Riphean rocks are subdivided into three seismostratigraphic sequences: the lower part of the Lower Riphean, the Lower-Middle Riphean, and the Upper Riphean. The geodynamic events in the north of the East European Platform are correlated with those that occurred in its central part and the adjacent foldbelts.

Keywords

Sandstone Mudstone Siltstone East European Platform Baltic Shield 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. M. Aksenov, Yu. R. Bekker, Yu. B. Bogdanov, et al., Map of the Precambrian Rock Associations of the Russian Platform and Its Fold Framework (with Omitted Phanerozoic Cover), Scale 1: 2 500 000. Explanatory Notes (VSEGEI, Leningrad, 1983) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. L. Andreichev, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotopic-Geochronologic Systems in Eclogites of the Marunkeu Block (Polar Urals) (Geoprint, Syktyvkar, 2003) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. L. Andreichev, Isotopic Geochronology of Ultramafic-Mafic and Granitoid Rock Associations on the Eastern Slope of the Urals (Geoprint, Syktyvkar, 2004) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. V. Aplonov, M. B. Burin, A. F. Veis, and R. B. Sapozhnikov, Geodynamics and Petroleum Potential of the Mezen Sedimentary Basin (Nauka, St. Petersburg, 2006) [in Russian] (in press).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. N. Afanasov, V. A. Nikolaev, M. T. Orlova, and K. E. Yakobson, “First Finding of Companion Minerals of Diamond in Riphean Rocks of the Ladoga Graben,” Otech. Geol., No. 3, 13–15 (2001).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. S. Baluev, V. M. Moralev, M. Z. Glukhovsky, et al., “Tectonic Evolution and Magmatism of the Belomorian Rift System,” Geotektonika 34(5), 30–43 (2000) [Geotectonics 34 (5), 367–379 (2000)].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. S. Baluev and V. M. Moralev, “Structural Control and Geodynamic Setting of Intraplate Magmatism in the East European Platform,” Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved., Geol. Razved., No. 1, 13–30 (2001).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. T. Belyakova and S. I. Okhotnikova, “The Upper Proterozoic of the Timan and Mezen Syneclise,” Byul. Mosk. O-va Ispyt. Prir. Otd. Geol. 74(3), 38–42 (1999).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. G. Berzin, A. K. Suleimanov, R. B. Sapozhnikov, et al., “Efficiency of CDP Seismic Survey for the Study of Sedimentation in Rifts of the Mezen Syneclise,” Razved. Okhr. Nedr, No. 5, 32–35 (2003).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. V. Bibikova, E. I. Kirnozova, Yu. N. Lazarev, et al., “U-Rb Isotopic Dating of the Vepsian in Karelia,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 310(1), 212–216 (1990).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. A. Bogdanov, “Some Global Problems of Tectonics of the Ancient Platforms (with Reference to the East European Platform)” Sov. Geol., No. 9, 202–222 (1972).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yu. B. Bogdanov, V. V. Savatenkov, V. V. Ivannikov, and D. A. Frank-Kamenetsky, “Isotopic Dating of the Riphean Volcanics of the Salmi Formation,” in Proceedings of Russian Conference on Isotopic Geochronology, St. Petersburg, 25–27 Nov., 2003 (St. Petersburg, 2003), pp. 71–72 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu. B. Bogdanov, O. A. Levchenkov, A. N. Komarov, et al., “A New Type of the Lower Riphean Section in the Baltic Shield,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk 366(1), 76–78 (1999) [Dokl. Earth Sci. 366 (4), 435–437 (1999)].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. V. Bogdanova, T. N. Kheraskova, A. V. Postnikov, and Yu. A. Volozh, “Mesozoic-Neoproterozoic Baltic: Inner Part and Margins,” in Proceedings of Intern. Conference on Magmatism on Passive Margins of the Rodinia in Frames of IGCP-420 (Inst. Geol., Ufa Sci. Center, Ufa, 2003), pp. 6–7 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. F. Veis, N. N. Larionov, N. G. Vorob’eva, and Lee Seong Joo, “Significance of Microfossils for Riphean Stratigraphy of the Southern Urals (Bashkirian Meganticlinorium) and the Adjacent Region (Kama-Belaya River Aulacogen),” Stratigr. Geol. Korrelyatsiya 8(5), 3–28 (2000) [Stratigr. Geol. Correlation 8 (5), 423–446 (2000)].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. F. Veis, D. L. Fedorov, Yu. T. Kuz’menko, et al., “Significance of Microfossils for Riphean Biostratigraphy of the Northern East European Craton (the Mezen Syneclise),” Stratigr. Geol. Korrelyatsiya 12(6), 16–35 (2004) [Stratigr. Geol. Correlation 12 (6), (2004)].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Upper Precambrian of the European North of the USSR. Explanatory Notes to Stratigraphic Chart (Komi Branch, Acad. Sci., USSSR, Syktyvkar, 1986) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yu. A. Volozh, M. P. Antipov, Yu. G. Leonov, and A. F. Morozov, “Structure of the Karpinsky Ridge,” Geotektonika 33(1), 1–18 (1999) [Geotectonics 33 (1), 24–38 (1999)].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. G. Garetsky, Paleotectonics of Byelorussia (Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk, 1983) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. G. Garetsky, R. E. Aisberg, and V. G. Nikolaev, “The Moscow Syneclise: Origin and Evolution,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk 376(4), 506–509 (2001) [Dokl. Earth Sci. 376 (1), 39–42 (2001)].Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    V. M. Gorozhanin, “Application of Rb-Sr Method for Solution of Geologic Problems of the Southern Urals,” Candidate’s Dissertation in Geology and Mineralogy (Yekaterinburg, 1995).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    V. M. Gorozhanin, “The Lower Vendian Geochronology of the Southern Urals,” in Proceedings of All-Union Conference on the Upper Proterozoic Stratigraphy of the USSR (Riphean and Vendian) (Bashkir Sci. Center, Uralian Division, Acad. Sci. USSR, Ufa, 1990), pp. 51–52 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    State Geological Map of the Russian Federation. Map Sheet P-(35)-37, Petrozavodsk, Scale 1: 1 000 000. Explanatory Notes (VSEGEI, St. Petersburg, 2000) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    V. G. Kaz’min, Rift Structures of East Africa: Continental Breakup and Origin of Ocean (Nauka, Moscow, 1987) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. I. Kairyak, “Substantiation of the Boundary between the Karelian and the Riphean,” in Proceedings of V Session of Scientific Council on Precambrian Geology (Bashgeolizdat, Ufa, 1977), pp. 121–139 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. A. Konstantinovsky, “The Onega-Kandalaksha Riphean Graben in the East European Platform,” Geotektonika 12(3), 38–45 (1977).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    N. G. Konopleva and E. K. Fanderflint, “The Pachelma Microfossil Assemblage in the Upper Precambrian Rocks of the Northern Regions of the East European Platform,” in Proceedings of the All-Union Symposium on the Precambrian and Early Cambrian Paleontology (Nauka, Leningrad, 1979), pp. 159–163 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    V. A. Koroteev, A. A. Krasnobaev, and V. M. Necheukhin, “Upper Proterozoic Geochronology and Geodynamics in Northern Eurasia,” in The Riphean of Northern Eurasia: Geology and Global Problems of Stratigraphy (Ural. Division, Russian Acad. Sci., Yekaterinburg, 1997), pp. 28–36 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. A. Krasnobaev, Zircon As an Indicator of Geologic Processes (Nauka, Moscow, 1986) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    N. B. Kuznetsov, A. A. Sobolev, O. V. Udoratina, and M. V. Gertseva, Pre-Ordovician Granitoids of the Timan-Urals Region and the Evolution of the Protouralides-Timanides (Komi Sci. Center, Ural. Division, RAS, Syktyvkar, 2005) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yu. T. Kuz’menko and S. M. Shik, “Refined Stratigraphic Scheme of the Riphean Sequences in the Central Part of European Russia (Eastern Part of the Orsha Basin, Kresttsy and Soligalich Aulacogens,” Byull. Mosk. O-va Ispyt. Prir., Otd., Geol. 81(2), 29–40 (2006).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yu. G. Leonov, “Continental Rifting: Modern Ideas,” in Fundamental Problems of Global Tectonics (Nauchnyi Mir, Moscow, 2001), pp. 155–173 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    V. V. Lyubtsov, N. S. Mikhailova, and A. A. Predovsky, Late Precambrian Lithostratigraphy and Microfossils of the Kola Peninsula (Inst. Geol., Kola Sci. Center, Apatity, 1989) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    N. A. Malyshev, Tectonics, Evolution, and Petroleum Potential of Sedimentary Basins in the European North of Russia (Ural. Division. Russian Acad. Sci., Yekaterinburg, 2002) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    A. V. Maslov, V. G. Olovyanishnikov, and M. V. Isherskaya, “The Riphean of the Eastern, Northeastern and Northern Peripheries of the Russian Platform and the Western Megazone of the Urals: Lithostratigraphy, Formation Conditions, and Types of Sedimentary Sequences,” Litosfera, No. 2, 54–95 (2002).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. V. Mints, A. K. Suleimanov, R. G. Berzin, et al., “Volumetric Model of the Deep Structure of the Southeastern Fennoscandian Shield: Synthesis of the Results of Geological Interpretation of CDP Seismic Images of the Crust and Geological Data,” in Proceedings of XXXIX Tectonic Conference on Regions of Active Tectogenesis in Modern and Ancient History of the Earth (GEOS, Moscow, 2006), Vol. II, pp. 33–38 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. A. Mossakovsky, Yu. M. Pushcharovsky, and S. V. Ruzhentsev, “Spatial-Temporal Relationship between the Pacific-and Indo-Atlantic-Type Structural Units in the Late Precambrian and the Vendian,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk 350(6), 799–802 (1996) [Dokl. Earth Sci. 351 (8), 1208–1211 (1996)].Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    M. A. Nagorny and V. G. Nikolaev, “Quasiplatform Cover of the West and Center of the East European Craton,” Litasfera 18(1), 14–20 (2003).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    V. G. Olovyanishnikov, The Upper Precambrian of the Timan and the Kanin Peninsula (Ural. Division, Russian Acad. Sci., Yekaterinburg, 1998) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    V. N. Puchkov, “The Uralides and Timanides, Their Structural Relationships and Position in the Geological History of the Urals-Mongolia Foldbelt,” Geol. Geofiz. 44(1–2), 28–39 (2003).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    S. I. Rybakov, A. I. Golubev, V. D. Slyusarev, and M. M. Lavrov, “Precambrian Rifting and Present-Day Structure of the Fennoscandian Shield,” Otech. Geol., No. 5, 29–37 (1999).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    The Riphean and Vendian of the European North of the USSR, Ed. by V. G. Getsen, V. A. Dedeev, V. I. Bashilov, et al. (Oblknigoizdat, Vologda, 1987) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    M. D. Samsonov, “Structural Evolution of the Por’eguba Dike Field (Northwestern Flank of the Onega-Kandalaksha Paleorift),” Candidate’s Dissertation in Geology and Mineralogy (Moscow, 2004).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    S. G. Samygin, “Uralian Paleoocean: Time of Origin,” in Proceedings of Conference on Global Problems of Tectonics. Tectonics of Russia (GEOS, Moscow, 2000), Vol. 2, pp. 449–453 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    R. Sapozhnikov, A. Suleimanov, and V. Rassomakhin, “New Data on the Structure of Riphean Sedimentary Cover in the Mezen Depression,” Tekhnologii TEK, No. 5, 3–7 (2003).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    R. B. Sapozhnikov, R. Z. Chernoborisova, R. G. Berzin, et al., “Efficiency of CDP Seismic Survey in the Study of Geological Structure of the Mezen Syneclise,” Razved. Okhr. Nedr, No. 5, 32–35 (2003).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    I. A. Sivertseva and A. F. Stankovsky, “Microfossils in the Upper Precambrian Rocks of the Archangel’sk Oblast,” in Proceedings of the All-Union Symposium on the Precambrian and Early Cambrian Paleontology (Nauka, Leningrad, 1979), pp. 157–159 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    A. P. Simonov, D. M. Guberman, Yu. N. Yakovlev, et al., “Rybachii Peninsula (Barents Sea): Tectonic and Petroleum Potential of Riphean Sedimentary Rocks in Coastal Zone of the Kola Peninsula: New Data,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk 384(6), 795–801 (2002) [Dokl. Earth Sci. 385 (5), 498–504 (2002)].Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Glossary of Stratigraphy. Upper Precambrian (Nauka, Moscow, 1994) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Glossary of Geology, Ed. by M. Gary, R. McAfee, Jr., and C.L. Wolf (Amer. Geol. Inst., Alexandria, 1972; Mir, Moscow, 1978), Vol. 2.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    V. V. Fedynsky, B. O. Sokolov, N. A. Strakhov, and V. G. Feldt, “The Mid-Russian Aulacogen—Ancient Analogue of Modern Rift Structures,” Sov. Geol., No. 1, 129–134 (1975).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    N. P. Kheraskov, Tectonics and Formations (Nauka, Moscow, 1967) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    T. N. Kheraskova, “The Significance of N.S. Shatsky Works on the Tectonics of Ancient Platforms and Their Petroleum Resources from a Modern Viewpoint,” Geotektonika 39(4), 3–24 (2005) [Geotectonics 39 (4), 253–271 (2005)].Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    T. N. Kheraskova, Yu. A. Volozh, N. K. Andreeva, et al., “New Data on Structure and Depositional Environment of the Riphean-Early Vendian Rocks in the Mid-Russian System of Aulacogens,” Geol. Vest. Tsentr. Raionov Rossii, No. 1, 10–22 (2001).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    T. N. Kheraskova, Yu. A. Volozh, N. G. Zamozhnyaya, et al., “The Structure and Evolution of the Western Part of the East European Platform in Riphean-Paleozoic from Geotransect EB-1 (Lodeinoe Pole-Voronezh),” Litosfera, No 2, (2006) (in press).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    A. K. Khudolei, Continental Rifting and Passive Margins. Tectonics and Evolution of Sedimentary Basins (St. Petersburg State Univ., St. Petersburg, 2004) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    N. P. Chamov, “Tectonic History and a New Evolution Model of the Mid-Russian Aulacogen,” Geotektonika 39(3), 3–22 (2005) [Geotectonics 39 (3), 169–185 (2005)].Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    N. S. Shatsky, “On Donets-Type Troughs,” in Selected Works (Nauka, Moscow, 1964), Vol. 2, pp. 544–553 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    V. S. Shchukin, S. M. Sablukov, L. I. Sablukova, et al., “The Late Vendian Areal Rift-Related Alkaline Volcanism in the Zimny Bereg Kimberlite Region (Arkhangel’sk Diamond-Bearing Province),” in Deep Magmatism and Problems of Plumes (Nauka, Moscow, 2002), pp. 151–165 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yu. M. Ernichek and M. A. Milshtein, The Riphean Rifting in the Central Part of the East European Platform (VSEGEI, St. Petersburg, 1995) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    K. E. Yakobson, A. P. Kazak, and E. V. Tolmacheva, “Injective Tuffisites in the North of the Russian Platform,” in Proceedings of the XIII Geological Congress of the Komi Republic (Geoprint, Syktyvkar, 1999), Vol. II, pp. 177–178 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Caledonian-Appalachian Orogen of the North Atlantic Region (Geol. Surv. Canada Paper, 78-13, Ottawa, 1978).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    S. V. Bogdanova, L. M. Page, G. Skridlaite, and L. N. Taran, “Proterozoic Tectonothermal History in the Western Part of the East European Craton: 40Ar/39 Ar Geochronological Constraints,” Tectonophysics 339(1), 39–66 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    R. Gorbatschev and S. Bogdanova, “Frontiers in the Baltic Shield,” Precambr. Res. 64(1), pp. 3–21 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    T. N. Kheraskova, A. N. Didenko, V. A. Bush, and Yu. A. Volosh, “The Vendian-Early Paleozoic History of the Continental Margin of Eastern Paleogondwana, Paleoasian Ocean, and Central Asian Foldbelt,” Russ. J. Earth Sci. 5(3), 165–184 (2003), URL: http://rjes.wdcb.ru/v05/tje03123.htm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    K. Laajoki, F. Corfu, and A. Tom, “U-Pb Zircon Dating of the Mesoproterozoic Brunkeberg Formation and Its Bearing on the Stratigraphy and Tectonic Setting of Telemark Supracrustals, South Norway,” J. Conf. Abstr. 5(2), 611 (2000).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    D. P. McKenzie, “Some Remarks on the Development of Sedimentary Basins,” Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 40, 25–32 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    M. V. Mints and A. N. Konilov, “Geodynamic Crustal Evolution and Long-Lived Supercontinents during the Palaeoproterozoic: Evidences from Granulite-Gneiss Belts, Collisional and Accretionary Orogens,” in The Precambrian Earth: Tempos and Events in Series Developments in Precambrian Geology (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2004), pp. 223–239.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    B. Wernike, “Uniform Sense Simple Shear of the Continental Lithosphere,” Can. J. Earth. Sci. 22, 108–125 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. N. Kheraskova
    • 1
  • R. B. Sapozhnikov
    • 1
  • Yu. A. Volozh
    • 1
  • M. P. Antipov
    • 1
  1. 1.Geological InstituteRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations