Paleomagnetism of large igneous provinces: case-study from West Greenland, North Atlantic igneous province

We present new paleomagnetic and multi-model stereo photogrammetry data from lava sequences in the West Greenland part of the North Atlantic igneous province (NAIP). The joint analyses of paleomagnetic and photogrammetric data yield a well-defined paleomagnetic pole located at Lat=73.6°N, Long=160.5°E ( N=44, α 95=6.2°, K=13.1; age ∼61–55 Ma), which is statistically indistinguishable from a pole recently obtained for the Eurasian part of the NAIP on Faroe Islands [Riisager et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 201 (2002) 261–276]. Combining the two datasets we obtain a joint NAIP paleomagnetic pole in Greenland coordinates: Lat=71.1°N, Long=161.1°E ( N=87, α 95=4.3°, K=13.6; age ∼61–54 Ma). The results presented here represent the first study in which photogrammetry profiles were photographed at the exact same locations where paleomagnetic fieldwork was carried out, and a direct flow-to-flow comparison of the two datasets is possible. Photogrammetry is shown to be particularly useful because of (i) highly precise dip/strike measurements and (ii) detailed ‘field observations’ that can be made in the laboratory. Highly precise determination of the structural attitude of well-exposed Kanisut Mb lava sequences demonstrates that their apparently reliable in-field dip/strike measurements typically are up to ∼6° wrong. Erroneous dip/strike readings are particularly problematic as they offset paleomagnetic poles without affecting their confidence limits. Perhaps more important for large igneous provinces is the recognition of a variable temporal relationship between consecutive lava flows. We demonstrate how correct interpretation of paleosecular variation, facilitated by the detailed photogrammetry analysis, is crucial for the rapidly emplaced Vaigat Formation lavas. Inaccurate tectonic correction, non-averaged paleosecular variation and unrecognized excursional directions may, perhaps, explain why coeval paleomagnetic poles from large igneous provinces are often discordant. The difference between the joint NAIP paleomagnetitc pole and apparent polar wander path poles suggests that they may be less reliable than suggested by their confidence limits.