[Note: this talk was a replacement for a cancelled talk, and therefore doesn't appear in the conference program or abstracts book. The following are the conclusions copied verbatim from the final two slides of the presentation]:
Conclusions & Key Issues
1st order anticlines are easily recognised: 2nd order structure can be complex
2D views (satellite image, cross-section) cant capture 3D complexity especially whether a structure closes or spills
Satellite analysis is extremely useful but fieldwork is essential to understand 3D fold structure
Rapid along-strike variation in fold geometries
Mechanical stratigraphy is extremely important:
Competent/incompetent multilayers control deformation style
Implications for regional correlation, interpretation of timing of events, etc.
Mud-prone units provide multiple detachment zones
Detachments seen at surface need not necessarily root into deep basal thrusts
Structures at one level may be de-coupled from those at other levels
3D complexity probably arises from the interplay of:
Lateral variation in carbonate/mudrock stratigraphy
Basement inheritance (from opening of Neo-Tethys)?
Oblique collision between Arabia & Eurasia
Structural complexity: regional & block-scale interpretation will be iterative
Data & interpretation need to be separated, more data needs to be published
Good biostrat is very important
More biostrat data should be published (with precise locations of samples)
... and tied to the Neftex sequence strat model (updated Sharland et al)
Individual anticlines are difficult to interpret in isolation
More surface geology should be published.
Timing of deformation incipient anticline growth in late/End Cretaceous
Onlap of Shiranish/Tanjero/Kolosh
Upper Cretaceous extension?
Extent of Cretaceous & Jurassic carbonate platforms
Tethyan rift structures