--> S&D, Vol. 1, #97021, © 1997 Datapages, Inc.
[First Hit]

Datapages, Inc.Print this page

wpe20.gif (10232 bytes)

Click to view page images in PDF format.

* Modified for online presentation after paper of same name by the above named authors in AAPG Memoir 65, Previous HitSaltNext Hit Tectonics: A Global Perspective, edited by M.P.A. Jackson, D.G. Roberts, and S. Snelson.
1E & P Technology Company
Shell Exploration and Production Company
Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

3Consultant
Olmstead Falls, Ohio, U.S.A.

2Pecten International Company
Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
4Shell Offshore Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A

Abstract

    The Cenozoic structural evolution of the northern Gulf of Mexico Basin is controlled by progradation over deforming, largely allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures derived from an underlying autochthonous Jurassic Previous HitsaltNext Hit. The wide variety of structural styles is due to a combination of (1) original distribution of Jurassic and Mesozoic Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures, (2) different slope depositional environments during the Cenozoic, and (3) varying degrees of Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal from allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit sheets. Tectono-stratigraphic provinces describe regions of contrasting structural styles and ages. Provinces include (1) a contractional foldbelt province, (2) a tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit-minibasin province, (3) a Pliocene-Pleistocene detachment province, (4) a Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province, (5) an Oligocene-Miocene detachment province, (6) a lower Oligocene Vicksburg detachment province, (7) an upper Eocene detachment province, and (8) the Wilcox growth fault province of Paleocene-Eocene age.

    Within several tectono-stratigraphic provinces, shale-based detachment systems, dominated by lateral extension, and allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment systems, dominated by subsidence, can be distinguished by geometry, palinspastic reconstructions, and subsidence analysis. Many shale-based detachments are linked downdip to deeper Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachments. Large extensions above detachments are typically balanced by Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal.

    Previous HitSaltNext Hit-withdrawal minibasins with flanking Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies occur as both isolated structural systems and components of Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment systems. During progradation, progressive Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal from tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies on the slope formed Previous HitsaltNext Hit-bounded minibasins which, on the shelf, evolved into minibasins bounded by arcuate growth faults and remnant Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies. Associated secondary Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies above allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit evolved from pillows, ridges, and massifs to leaning domes and steep-sided stocks.

    Allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit tongues spread from inclined Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies that appear as feeder faults when collapsed. Coalesced Previous HitsaltNext Hit tongues from multiple feeders formed canopies, which provided subsidence potential for further cycles of Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal. The Sigsbee escarpment is the bathymetric expression of Previous HitsaltNext Hit flows that have overridden the abyssal plain tens of kilometers since the Paleogene. The distribution and palinspastic reconstruction of Oligocene-Miocene Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachments and minibasins suggest that a Paleogene Previous HitsaltNext Hit canopy, covering large areas of the present onshore and shelf, may have extended as far as the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass.


INTRODUCTION

    New concepts, seismic data, and hydrocarbon exploration in deeper water led to a revolution in the understanding of Cenozoic tectonics of the northern Gulf of Mexico continental margin in the 1980s. In particular, recognition of allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies combined with quantitative palinspastic reconstruction changed the prevailing view of the northern Gulf of Mexico Basin from a passive margin with vertical rooted Previous HitsaltNext Hit stocks and massifs with intervening steep growth faults, to a complex mosaic of diachronous detachment fault systems and variously deformed allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit sheets.

    The modern history of Gulf Coast structural studies as expressed in published literature began with the recognition of the Sigsbee escarpment as a Previous HitsaltNext Hit overthrust at the toe of the slope (Amery, 1969). The profound significance of this observation was first considered by Humphris (1978), who proposed large-scale basinward flow of Previous HitsaltNext Hit and subsequent withdrawal by downbuilding of slope sediments deposited on top of the moving Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass. In the same volume (Bouma et al., 1978), which represents a turning point, Martin (1978) reviewed the stratigraphic and structural framework of the Gulf Coast with the contemporary understanding of margin progradation over autochthonous Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit with attendant rooted vertical stocks and steep growth faults apparently related to flow of deeply buried shale and Previous HitsaltNext Hit masses. An allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit canopy in Iran (Jackson and Cornelius, 1985) was recognized at a time when the petroleum industry was interpreting allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit wings and sheets on seismic reflection profiles of the outer shelf and slope, offshore Louisiana.

    In 1989, many of these interpretations and concepts of Gulf Coast Previous HitsaltNext Hit tectonics were presented, including several contributions from industry (GCS SEPM 10th Annual Conference in 1989). In the same year, Worrall and Snelson (1989) used quantitative palinspastic reconstructions to show how Humphris' (1978) model for basinward Previous HitsaltNext Hit flow applied to large-scale growth fault systems of the Texas shelf, and Jackson and Cramez (1989) discussed the recognition of Previous HitsaltNext Hit welds on allochthonous and autochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit. Sumner et al. (1990) described the three-dimensional structure of minibasins developed by Pliocene-Pleistocene evacuation of allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit derived from counter-regional (northward-dipping) feeders on the Louisiana outer shelf. Diegel and Cook (1990) and Diegel and Schuster (1990) used structural reconstructions incorporating subsidence analysis to constrain the geometry and thickness of evacuated allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit in the onshore and shelf of Louisiana even in areas where shallow Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies are no longer present. Studies of Gulf Coast Previous HitsaltNext Hit tectonics since then have focused in areas of relatively recent hydrocarbon exploration efforts in the outer shelf and upper slope (e.g., Huber, 1989; West, 1989; Wu et al., 1990; Seni, 1992; Rowan et al., 1994). In this chapter, we show that the new concepts are equally applicable to coastal and inner shelf areas.

   Typically, reviews of Gulf Coast Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures (e.g., Martin, 1978; Worrall and Snelson, 1989) begin with a description of the low-relief structures at the updip basin margin, proceed to the high-relief Previous HitsaltNext Hit stocks of coastal Louisiana, and then describe the more complex leaning stocks and allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit wings and sheets of the outer shelf and slope. That approach is logical based on the evolutionary deformation sequences described by Trusheim (1960) and Seni and Jackson (1983) for progradation across autochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit, which thickens into the axis of relatively simple cratonic basins. However, the scale and complexity of the Gulf Coast continental margin are more clearly understood by proceeding in the opposite direction, from the abyssal plain to the coastal areas. This inverse approach has the advantage of using shallow and well-imaged structures on the modern slope as analogs for the early history of structures that are now more fully developed and deeply buried beneath neritic and continental sections. This approach also allows us to revisit the less recently studied but still actively explored areas of the inner shelf and onshore Gulf Coast and to provide a consistent and comprehensive tectono-stratigraphic framework of the Gulf Coast from a modern perspective.

   In this chapter, tectono-stratigraphic provinces are defined and described. We analyze the evolution and origin of these provinces with the aid of selected palinspastic reconstructions of two-dimensional cross sections, deep-structure maps, and subsidence analysis. The similarity of structures in the more basinward provinces to reconstructed structures farther landward provides additional analogs for determining the early history of the older structures. The relationships between adjacent provinces are discussed when appropriate. Finally, alternative palinspastic reconstructions of a transect from the Cretaceous margin to the modern abyssal plain in western Louisiana are presented to address the overall Cenozoic structural evolution of the basin. The Chapter Appendix describes the reconstruction and subsidence analysis methodologies and the inferred Previous HitsaltNext Hit budget and magnitude of Previous HitsaltNext Hit dissolution during the Cenozoic.


TECTONO-STRATIGRAPHIC PROVINCES

Overview

   Construction of a regional framework of Gulf Coast structure entails several difficulties. These include the great three-dimensional complexity of the structures, the large variability along strike as well as landward and basinward, and the uncertainty of deep structures in many areas that are not well imaged by contemporary seismic methods. Only the first-order structures are adequately reflected on a structural summary map (Figure 1), which does little to reflect the deep structure and genetic relationships.

   A tectono-stratigraphic province map (Figure 2, Figure 3) illustrates eight distinct regions defined by contiguous areas of similar structural style. The eight nongenetic provinces discussed here are (1) a contractional foldbelt province at the toe of slope, (2) a tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit-minibasin province on the slope, (3) a Pliocene-Pleistocene detachment province on the outer shelf, (4) a Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province, (5) an Oligocene-Miocene detachment province onshore and on the shelf, (6) an Oligocene Vicksburg detachment province onshore Texas, (7) an upper Eocene detachment province, and (8) the Wilcox growth fault province of Paleocene-Eocene age.

   The province map is necessarily a poor representation of the structural complexity at multiple levels, and particularly on the slope, many reasonable subdivisions are possible to reflect some of the significant changes in structural style and degree of structural development in this active structural environment. Also, the nature and origin of middle slope contractional belts on the Texas slope (Figure 1) are not discussed in this chapter. The primary subdivision of the shelf and onshore areas is that between provinces dominated by listric growth faults soling on subhorizontal detachments and the large Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province. The Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province can be further subdivided geographically into updip, eastern, and mid-shelf sectors. The individual detachment provinces are distinguished by age of expanded section, but we also interpret a fundamental genetic distinction between those detachments that are Previous HitsaltNext Hit welds (Pliocene-Pleistocene and Oligocene-Miocene detachment provinces) and those that are purely sliding surfaces not directly related to Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal. In addition, many of the structures in the tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit-minibasin province of the slope represent earlier stages of structural evolution than the more structurally evolved provinces on the shelf and onshore.

   The toe-of-slope contractional foldbelt provinces include the Perdido foldbelt of Oligocene age in Texas (Blickwede and Queffelec, 1988; Weimer and Buffler, 1992) and the Mississippi Fan foldbelt of Miocene-Pliocene age in eastern Louisiana (Weimer and Buffler, 1992; Wu et al., 1990). These Previous HitsaltNext Hit-floored fold and thrust systems apparently formed at the basinward margin of autochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit. Note that these systems are of different ages and separated geographically by a wide zone lacking known contractional deformation. (See the above references for more information on these provinces.)

   The tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit-minibasin province is characterized by extensive Previous HitsaltNext Hit sheets with intervening deep-water sediment-filled minibasins. Most of these minibasins form bathymetric lows today. The Pliocene-Pleistocene detachment province includes areas of evacuated allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit along detachments for listric growth faults as well as remnant allochthonous or "secondary" Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes and wings in the area of the Pliocene-Pleistocene shelf margin depocenters. The Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province is characterized by Previous HitsaltNext Hit stocks and intervening shelf minibasins bounded by large-displacement, arcuate, and dominantly counter-regional growth faults. This province is highly diachronous: structures and related depocenters range in age from Eocene to Pleistocene updip to the modern shelf margin. The Oligocene-Miocene detachment province is large and complex but is characterized by listric down-to-the-basin growth faults that sole in the Paleogene section. The Oligocene Vicksburg detachment system in onshore Texas contains sand-prone Vicksburg deltaic sediments greatly expanded by a listric down-to-the-basin fault system that soles in Eocene Jackson shales. The upper Eocene detachment province includes several listric detachment-based fault systems expanding the upper part of the Eocene section. In the Paleocene-

   Eocene Wilcox growth fault province in southern Texas are found the oldest major growth fault systems downdip of the middle Cretaceous margin. Like the upper Eocene fault systems, the geometries of these systems are variable along strike, with listric faults either soling directly on the autochthonous Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit or in the upper Cretaceous section before stepping down to the Louann level. A more complete description and analysis of the individual provinces follow.

Tabular Previous HitSaltNext Hit-Minibasin Province

   The tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit-minibasin province covers most of the continental slope along the northern Gulf of Mexico margin, stretching from Mexico to eastern Louisiana between the shelf margin and the Sigsbee escarpment at the toe of the slope. Although much variability is present in this large region, allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit tongues or "tabular" Previous HitsaltNext Hit with intervening sediment-filled minibasins represent its dominant structural style (Figure 3). We use the term tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit to refer to laterally extensive Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies with flat tops. The term Previous HitsaltNext Hit sheet refers to allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit with a subhorizontal top and base, and Previous HitsaltNext Hit wing means a less extensive allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit body with a demonstrable base.

   The bathymetry of the modern Louisiana slope reflects the profound influence of Previous HitsaltNext Hit tectonics and sedimentation in the deep-water environment (Figure 4). First-order features include the prominent Sigsbee escarpment, the expression of a large Previous HitsaltNext Hit body overriding the abyssal plain, the Mississippi Canyon, and the upper part of the Mississippi Fan.

   The western Keathley Canyon area and the southern part of the eastern Keathley Canyon and Walker Ridge are underlain by a contiguous canopy of coalesced allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit (Figure 4). The western part is covered by a thin sedimentary cover forming nascent polygonal minibasins above allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit and separated by crestal grabens on Previous HitsaltNext Hit ridges. The southern Keathley Canyon and Walker Ridge area, just landward of the escarpment, is underlain by tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit near the seafloor (Figure 5). The dominant features of the central part of the Louisiana slope are the deep and currently sediment-starved minibasins surrounded by interconnected shallow Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies.

   Isolated Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies and interconnected minibasins surrounded by arcuate growth fault systems also occur in eastern Green Canyon and western Atwater areas (Figure 4), where recent sedimentation has reduced the bathymetric relief relative to areas farther west. Areas northeast of Mississippi Canyon are dominated by erosion, large slides, and isolated allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies forming bathymetric highs with distinct convex outlines. Slope minibasins expressed as bathymetric lows commonly contain sediments greater than 6 km thick either symmetrically or asymmetrically ponded in basins tilted southward (Figure 6).

   In general, there is a gradual transition from isolated minibasins surrounded by contiguous Previous HitsaltNext Hit in the lower slope to isolated Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies surrounded by interconnected fault-bounded minibasins near the shelf margin. This transition reflects progressive deformation during progradation of the margin across allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit. A seismic profile in the middle slope shows an early stage of sedimentation above allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit (Figure 7). The perched basin in Figure 7 is beginning to subside into the Previous HitsaltNext Hit, whereas faults with seafloor expression indicate a contemporaneous sliding downslope. Normal faults occur at the northern end, and reverse faults occur at the southern end.

   A profile (Figure 8) just to the north of Figure 7 shows the result of progradation of the shelf margin across the northern end of another allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit body. Shelf strata, expanded on listric growth faults, forced evacuation of the northern end of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit body to form a weld connected to a south-leaning Previous HitsaltNext Hit massif. Strata within the basin thin rapidly onto the massif and show evidence of erosion. Normal faults occur at the south end of the basin where reverse faults similar to those in Figure 7 may have been present. The updip Previous HitsaltNext Hit weld represents the downdip portion of the Pliocene-Pleistocene detachment province.

Pliocene-Pleistocene Detachment Province

   Sumner et al. (1990, p. 48) divided the Pliocene-Pleistocene detachment province into separate regions of "organized" and "disorganized" roho systems. The organized systems occur in the western and eastern parts of the area and are underlain by extensive Previous HitsaltNext Hit welds, or rohos. The disorganized systems occur in the central area where a combination of residual Previous HitsaltNext Hit wings, evacuation surfaces, and windows between Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies forms a more complex structure.

   We restrict the term roho to the characteristic discontinuous, high-amplitude seismic reflections caused by remnant Previous HitsaltNext Hit along welds (Jackson and Cramez, 1989), also called Previous HitsaltNext Hit-evacuation surfaces or Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal surfaces. We also refer to the Pliocene-Pleistocene Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal structures of the outer shelf as roho systems, after Sumner et al. (1990), but choose the more general genetic term Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal fault system or Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment system for similar structures without roho reflections.

   Organized roho areas of the outer shelf show large amounts of extension by listric down-to-the-basin growth faults that expand Pliocene-Pleistocene sediments above the Previous HitsaltNext Hit welds (Figure 9). Although some contractional structures exist locally, they do not balance the cumulative extensions. Palinspastic reconstruction suggests that extension is balanced by withdrawal of tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit originally present near the seafloor (Figure 10). (See Chapter Appendix for more details on reconstruction methods.) Another reconstructed example from the Pliocene-

   Pleistocene detachment province illustrates the complete collapse of a shelf-margin minibasin onto a Previous HitsaltNext Hit weld (Figure 11, Figure 12). The former north-dipping thinning wedge of sediment is now collapsed to form a complexly faulted turtle structure above the Previous HitsaltNext Hit weld. The evolution of the toe of the former Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass includes possible initial thrusting, followed by inversion into a counter-regional extensional fault during deformation of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit massif into Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes along the counter-regional faults.

   In the last two examples (Figure 10, Figure 12), we reconstructed the top of Previous HitsaltNext Hit by undoing growth fault motions and flattening to a reasonable seafloor constrained by the position of the paleoshelf margins. The base of Previous HitsaltNext Hit in the reconstructions is only inferred from the minimum structural relief above the Previous HitsaltNext Hit through time. Diegel and Cook (1990) and Rowan (1994) presented strategies for incorporating subsidence analysis to independently constrain Previous HitsaltNext Hit thicknesses through geologic time. This technique (see Chapter Appendix), combined with the structural reconstructions, is a powerful tool in deducing the early history of more deeply buried structural systems of the inner shelf and onshore areas. The large Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal component of subsidence, estimated by backstripping in southern Louisiana, provides a solution to the long-standing problem of how space was created for thick Cenozoic shallow water deposits late in the history of a passive margin initiated in Jurassic time (see Chapter Appendix).

Oligocene-Miocene Detachment Province

   The Oligocene-Miocene detachment province covers most of the modern slope and parts of coastal onshore Texas and Louisiana (Figure 2, Figure 3). This is a region of large-displacement, dominantly down-to-the-basin listric growth faults that sole on a regional detachment above the Paleogene section. The updip limit of the detachment is irregular and crosses the more linear trends of the Oligocene and Miocene depocenters (e.g., Winker, 1982). Another characteristic of this province is the great thickness of deltaic sediments above the detachment, usually exceeding 5 km.

   Depth conversion of an interpreted seismic profile (Figure 13, Figure 14) from onshore southern Louisiana illustrates the magnitude of the subsidence problem in this province. Wells have penetrated Miocene neritic sediments as deep as 6 km below sea level. This remarkable stacking of deltaic sandstone reservoirs helps make southern Louisiana one of the world's great petroleum provinces. Thermal and isostatic subsidence alone cannot account for more than 6 km of shallow-water sediment deposited in the late Tertiary on a passive margin where rifting occurred in the Jurassic, but subsidence can be balanced isostatically with Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal (see Chapter Appendix). This technique for estimating Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal also accounts for rotation and translation of fault blocks; in this and other examples from the Oligocene-Miocene detachment, extensional faulting does not account for the large subsidence anomalies.

   Estimated Previous HitsaltNext Hit thicknesses using the method in the Chapter Appendix are used in the alternative reconstructions (Figure 15, Figure 16) of the southern Louisiana cross section (Figure 15). Although this technique estimates the amount of Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal, it does not locate the level of the evacuation surface. End-member models show that either Previous HitsaltNext Hit was withdrawn from the autochthonous Louann level (Figure 15) or the detachment for listric growth faults represents a Previous HitsaltNext Hit weld that formerly contained a thick, allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit body (Figure 16).

   We prefer the allochthonous model for several reasons. (1) Previous HitSaltNext Hit penetrations occur along the Oligocene-Miocene detachment in western Louisiana. (2) The geometries resemble those above the shallower Pliocene-Pleistocene detachment systems, and we know of no example of a listric detachment formed in response to a rolling fold of Previous HitsaltNext Hit beneath several kilometers of deep-water sediments. (3) The thinning wedge above the detachment suggests a collapsed onlap similar to examples from the outer shelf described previously. (4) Sub-detachment counter-regional faults provide a means for extrusion of the Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit to the level of the Oligocene seafloor. Finally, (5) it seems mechanically unlikely that a thick Previous HitsaltNext Hit layer would remain undeformed beneath kilometers of sediments that thicken into counter-regional growth faults of pre-Oligocene age.

   The detachment system discussed in the previous example extends across a large part of coastal Louisiana and Texas and comprises the Oligocene-Miocene detachment province. Also, similar deep penetrations of Miocene deltaic sediments are well known across the entire area. Geometric analogs to known Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment systems of the Pliocene-Pleistocene depocenters, as well as palinspastic reconstructions and subsidence analysis, imply that large areas of the shelf may have been underlain by allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit sheets that were evacuated by progradation of the Miocene deltaic margin. This scenario probably applies even in parts of the Oligocene-Miocene detachment province in western Louisiana and Texas, where few shallow Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes occur. We interpret this entire province to be a Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment with Previous HitsaltNext Hit emplacement at an allochthonous level in the Paleogene and subsequent Previous HitsaltNext Hit evacuation during progradation of the late Oligocene-late Miocene shelf margin.

   A regional seismic profile from western Louisiana illustrates the scale of the Oligocene-Miocene detachment system in an area where the detachment is relatively shallow and well imaged (Figure 17). Sub-detachment strata, seismically correlated to Eocene and Cretaceous rocks penetrated updip, are well imaged. A marked discordance occurs along the detachment: sub-detachment strata extend across the entire profile with relatively even thickness, whereas deltaic units above the detachment are greatly expanded but thin rapidly basinward to be replaced by successively younger strata. This pattern of expansion and thinning reflects the progressive evacuation of allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit during progradation of the shelf. Two wells are shown on this profile where reported Previous HitsaltNext Hit penetrations occur at the level of detachment, basinward of sub-detachment counter-regional structures that may have acted as feeders for allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit. The map distribution of these feeders (Figure 18) suggests multiple sources for a probably extensive Paleogene Previous HitsaltNext Hit canopy that is now reduced to a weld.

   The irregular landward edge of the Oligocene-Miocene detachment system in southeastern Texas and Louisiana corresponds to the landward limit of the continuous Previous HitsaltNext Hit canopy on the Paleogene slope. The age of earliest evacuation of the canopy also varies with its updip extent. Landward reentrants in the canopy edge were the earliest evacuated areas, and basinward promontories were evacuated later. The earliest evacuation corresponds to early Frio deltaic deposition in the early Oligocene of central Louisiana. But just to the east, the detachment reaches only as far landward as the present coast within the early Miocene depocenters.

Previous HitSaltNext Hit Dome-Minibasin Province

   The Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province (Figure 2, Figure 3) is divided geographically into updip, eastern, and mid-shelf sectors. All of the sectors share the same structural style that defines this nongenetic province-Previous HitsaltNext Hit stocks and intervening shelf minibasins bounded by large-displacement, arcuate, and dominantly counter-regional growth faults. Unlike the mid-shelf sector, the updip and eastern sectors are composed of isolated structural systems surrounded by areas of relatively simple structure.

Updip and Eastern Sectors

   The landward edge of the Oligocene-Miocene detachment is interpreted as the updip limit of a continuous Paleogene Previous HitsaltNext Hit canopy, but isolated allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies occur in the updip and eastern sectors of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province. Dominantly down-to-the-basin listric growth faults of the detachment province formed in areas of extensively coalesced allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit, but isolated minibasins rimmed by arcuate faults and flanking Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes formed during evacuation of isolated allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies of the updip and eastern sectors of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province.

   Palinspastic reconstruction of a cross section through coastal southeastern Louisiana illustrates the structural evolution of the eastern sector of the province (Figure 19). The present-day cross section shows a minibasin bounded on the south by a large displacement counter-regional fault and bounded on the north by a smaller displacement down-to-the-south growth fault. Both of these faults sole within the Paleogene section, well above the Jurassic Previous HitsaltNext Hit horizon. South-leaning Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes occur along the counter-regional fault east and west out of the plane of section (Schuster, 1995). The soling horizon connects the shallow counter-regional fault to a deeper counter-regional fault to form a stepped-counter-regional system (Schuster, 1993, 1995).

   The large apparent extension above the soling horizon is much greater than the extension in the Mesozoic and Paleogene section. The section is balanced by including an isolated Previous HitsaltNext Hit body at the soling horizon. This structure evolved in two distinct phases: (1) extrusion of an allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit body near the seafloor in Paleogene time followed by (2) evacuation of that Previous HitsaltNext Hit body to form a minibasin floored by a Previous HitsaltNext Hit weld and bounded by Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal faults and leaning Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes along the counter-regional fault (Figure 19).

   Two distinct structural styles-Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachments and stepped counter-regional fault systems-formed during shelf margin progradation in southern Louisiana. Where the allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit coalesced to form a continuous canopy, Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment systems developed. Conversely, where the Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies were isolated, Previous HitsaltNext Hit-floored minibasins and marginal Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes formed. The modern Louisiana slope is a direct analog for the Paleogene slope before deformation of allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit. The modern bathymetry (Figure 4) shows the outlines of isolated allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit in the easternmost Louisiana slope and a more continuous canopy to the west.

Mid-Shelf Sector

   The structural style of the mid-shelf sector of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province is similar to the updip and eastern sectors of the province. The mid-shelf minibasins generally contain younger deltaic sediments, and the deep structure is obscured by deep burial. Unlike the more isolated fault systems of the updip and eastern sectors, the counter-regional faults of the mid-shelf sector form a linked network across much of the shelf. Also, although characterized by a different structural style than the Oligocene-Miocene detachment province, this sector is probably genetically related to it.

   Previous HitSaltNext Hit-based detachment systems terminate basinward either in minibasins bounded by counter-regional faults or in thrust complexes related to the forward edge of a Previous HitsaltNext Hit sheet (e.g., Sumner, 1990; Schuster, 1995). In the former case, Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes occur around the edges of the minibasins, most commonly along the counter-regional faults. The reconstruction of the previous onshore example (Figure 16) shows the evolution of the basinward margin of a Previous HitsaltNext Hit massif into a minibasin bounded by a counter-regional fault and associated Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome.

   This evolutionary scenario is also evident when comparing typical dip cross sections in sequence from the lower slope to onshore (Figure 20). The lower slope example (Figure 20a) shows extensive allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit near the seafloor; the upper slope example (Figure 20b) shows the initiation of subsidence where basinward sliding is accomplished by a linked slip system of down-to-the-basin normal faults at the landward end of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit body and basinward-directed thrusts at the basinward end. The shelf margin example (Figure 20c) shows complete collapse of the landward part of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit body to form a weld beneath listric normal faults and onlap onto a south-leaning asymmetric Previous HitsaltNext Hit massif similar to the second stage in previous reconstructions of both the Pliocene-Pleistocene and Oligocene-Miocene Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachments (Figure 12, Figure 16). The outer shelf example (Figure 20d) shows complete evacuation of an allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit body by formation of a counter-regional fault at the southern end. The inner shelf example (Figure 20e) is geometrically similar to the outer shelf example except that it is more deeply buried. It is also similar to the reconstructed onshore example (Figure 16).

   The Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin style of structure occurs in isolation within areas of discrete allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies, as in the updip and eastern sectors of the province, but it also occurs as the basinward part of many Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment systems. It is likely that the mid-shelf sector of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province bears this relation to the adjacent Oligocene-Miocene detachment. If the Oligocene-Miocene and mid-shelf provinces are related this way, then the large minibasins in the mid-shelf area may also be floored by allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit at the Paleogene level rather than being rooted directly to the Jurassic Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit horizon. The interpreted regional seismic profile in Figure 17 shows the relationship between the Oligocene-Miocene Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment and the mid-shelf sector of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province. This profile was chosen to avoid Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes, but the large counter-regional faults at the southern end of the section are linked to Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes out of the plane of the section (Figure 3).

Oligocene Vicksburg Detachment System

Palinspastic Analysis and Comparison with Previous HitSaltNext Hit-Based Detachments

   Not all detachments in the northern Gulf of Mexico Basin are Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal fault systems. A large shale-based detachment system is recognized onshore in southern Texas in the lower Oligocene Vicksburg productive trend (e.g., Honea, 1956; Combes, 1993) (Figure 2, Figure 21). The well-imaged detachment surface is about 700 m below the top of the Eocene Jackson shale, which is often penetrated along the detachment. Although this fault system shares a superficial similarity to the Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal detachment systems previously discussed, it is geometrically distinct. The superficial similarities include the presence of expanded deltaic sediments above listric normal faults that sole into a subhorizontal detachment surface.

   The profound differences are apparent in reconstructed depth cross sections (compare Figure 22 and Figure 23). In this shale-based detachment system, the expanded sequences are younger landward in contrast to Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based examples (Figure 10, Figure 12, Figure 16, Figure 23), where expanded sequences prograde basinward. The base of the reconstructed sediments remains sub-horizontal in the shale-based example, unlike the characteristic basinward onlap configuration in reconstructed Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment systems. Growth faults above Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachments generally become younger basinward, but reconstructions of the Vicksburg detachment indicate periodic landward backstepping of the active growth fault. Extension increases with age above the Vicksburg detachment's conveyor belt. In contrast, in Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal systems such the Oligocene-Miocene detachment system, a wave of extension moves basinward with the prograding depocenter such that all the faulted strata, regardless of age, are extended about the same amount, but at different times. Above Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachments a zone of extension in the upper slope and outer shelf progrades along with the margin. Older growth faults are stranded on the shelf rather than continuously translated along the detachment by cumulative extension recurring at the head of the fault system, as in the Vicksburg fault system.

   Unlike the Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal fault systems, the shale-based Vicksburg detachment is an example of extreme extension. The oldest units in the Vicksburg example (Figure 22) were translated horizontally more than 16 km, with all the extension accumulated across a fault zone 2.4 km in restored horizontal width (over 600% extension). In contrast, the oldest sediments in the Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal example (Figure 23) show about 3.2 km of horizontal translation distributed over a zone of faulting 16 km wide in the reconstructed state (about 20% extension). Previous HitSaltNext Hit withdrawal during extension resulted in about 2.1 km of vertical motion, or about 70% of the horizontal extension in the Louisiana example. About 1.2 km of vertical motion during extension occurred in the Vicksburg example, or only about 7% of the horizontal movement.

   Numerous reconstructions, including those presented here, indicate that Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal and shale-based detachment systems can be distinguished using palinspastic reconstruction independent of confirming evidence such as Previous HitsaltNext Hit penetrations. Unambiguous reconstructions are, however, dependent on the availability of reliable biostratigraphic control. Reconstructions are only diagnostic back to the age of the deepest reliable stratigraphic correlation across the fault system. In the absence of deep well control with reliable biostratigraphic markers, interpretations of fault system evolution are as speculative as the correlations. Large changes in speculative correlation across growth faults result in radically different reconstructed geometries. Correlations based solely on seismic character across large growth faults are often misleading or completely useless. In the absence of deep biostratigraphic control, apparently conservative correlations (i.e., minimized fault displacements) tend to make reconstructed Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal systems appear to be shale-based slide systems.

Relationship of Vicksburg Detachment System to Oligocene-Miocene Detachment Province

   Because of the limited dip extent of the cross section, the previous Vicksburg reconstruction (Figure 22) does not address downdip compensation of extension. The relationship to the next youngest extensional fault system of Oligocene Frio age, however, is similar to the relationship of a perched Miocene detachment system to the Oligocene-Miocene master detachment on the Texas shelf (Figure 24). The perched detachment overlies a deeper detachment that extends basinward beneath younger extensional fault systems.

   Reconstruction of the perched detachment (Figure 25) shows extreme extension and a lower Miocene geometry similar to the Vicksburg example, with no indication of allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit at the perched level. The restored onlapping wedge geometry of the subperched detachment section (Figure 25, Oligocene) suggests that Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal occurred at this deeper but still allochthonous level. This model is consistent with the previously presented Previous HitinterpretationNext Hit that the Oligocene-Miocene detachment represents an extensive, time-transgressive Previous HitsaltNext Hit weld.

   The relationship of the Vicksburg detachment to the Oligocene-Miocene detachment beneath expanded Frio sediments may be similar. We know of one cored Previous HitsaltNext Hit penetration at the level of detachment for Frio growth faults in onshore southern Texas that is hundreds of kilometers distant from known shallow Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes along strike. The extreme extension in these sections is probably taken up by a reduction in the length of Previous HitsaltNext Hit near the seafloor. Although the timing of the Perdido folds is appropriate for some of the updip extensional fault systems, the magnitude and duration of contraction are insufficient for balancing the updip extensional fault systems (Worrall and Snelson, 1989).

Wilcox Fault Province of Southern Texas

Description

   The oldest Tertiary growth fault system in the northern Gulf of Mexico Basin is the Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox fault system (Figure 2). Although this system varies greatly along strike, its base is relatively shallow and well imaged in southern Texas (Figure 26). The deep structure of the southern Texas Wilcox fault system is unlike those previously discussed. The most prominent feature of the trend is the great expansion (more than tenfold) of Wilcox deltaic strata confined to narrow depotroughs. These depotroughs are also characterized by the apparent absence of Cretaceous strata, which are well imaged outside the troughs (Figure 26).

   The landward edge of the troughs is the locus of the complex Wilcox growth fault system, which expands the upper Wilcox section by about a factor of ten. The complex imbricate fan of down-to-the-basin growth faults merges downward into major fault planes that sole at the Jurassic Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit level, apparently directly overlain by Paleogene strata. The basinward edge of the Eocene-filled depotroughs is bounded by counter-regional faults that extend to the Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit level and have Cretaceous strata on their footwalls.

Palinspastic Analysis and Alternative Interpretations

   The reconstruction of part of this profile (Figure 26) shows the creation of space for the Wilcox depotrough by collapse of an autochthonous Mesozoic Previous HitsaltNext Hit massif (Figure 27). The width of these massifs at the end of the Cretaceous is not constrained by the reconstruction, which shows a maximum Tertiary extension model with minimum width of the Cretaceous Previous HitsaltNext Hit massifs. The opposite end-member, pinning the basinward Mesozoic block at the eastern end of the section, is also geometrically admissible, resulting in wide Previous HitsaltNext Hit massifs and no net extension in the Tertiary. In either case, this reconstruction does not address the formation of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit walls in Cretaceous time. The two possibilities are (1) thinning of the Lower Cretaceous cover by postdepositional extension in the Late Cretaceous, or (2) syndepositional growth throughout the Cretaceous without extreme extension. The first mechanism has been proposed for the evolution of similar Previous HitsaltNext Hit-depotrough structures in the Kwanza Basin (Verrier and Castello-Branco, 1972; Duval et al., 1992; Lundin, 1992; Vendeville and Jackson, 1992b).

   Arguments in favor of the extensional model (not shown) include documentation of the mechanism by physical modeling (Vendeville and Jackson, 1992a,b) and the generally isopachous nature of the Lower Cretaceous strata. The extensional hypothesis, however, requires basinward sliding of at least 40 km, and no contractional structures of the appropriate age and magnitude are known to exist. Extreme extension could be compensated by large contraction of Previous HitsaltNext Hit width in the downdip Previous HitsaltNext Hit basin or by a hidden thrustbelt beneath the Previous HitsaltNext Hit on the poorly known Texas slope. Although there are extensional structures in the Lower Cretaceous section, the irregular shape of the collapse edge (Figure 28Figure 29) suggests that extension alone may not account for the origin of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit walls.

   Details of the geometry of Wilcox growth faults are controlled by the salients and reentrants in the collapse edge of the Cretaceous strata onto the Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit horizon. At the northeastern end of the map area, the large Wilcox depotrough abruptly terminates but is replaced northward by a separate trough that is offset to the west. At the southern end of the map area, the eastern margin of the trough is not mapped, but the western edge has an abrupt offset that overlies the position of a basement wrench fault system (Figure 30). These steep basement faults offset the base of Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit and are possibly coeval with Louann deposition. Additional displacement on these faults formed a northwest-trending anticline during Paleocene deformation of the Sierra Madre and Coahuila foldbelts in northeastern Mexico.

   The irregular edges of the troughs do not match well, suggesting either that the Lower Cretaceous deep-water equivalent deposits onlapped existing Previous HitsaltNext Hit walls or that complex internal deformation has greatly altered the shape of these edges. The blunt terminations, in particular, are difficult to restore without intervening Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies or large tear faults. Northwest-trending offsets may represent different initial positions of Cretaceous Previous HitsaltNext Hit walls rather than large tear faults. The different initial positions could be caused by original Previous HitsaltNext Hit thickness changes across Jurassic wrench faults. On the downdropped side of these faults, thicker Previous HitsaltNext Hit farther landward might result in formation of a Previous HitsaltNext Hit wall farther updip on that side of the fault.

   Whatever their origin, collapse of large autochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit walls created space for Wilcox depotroughs and related growth fault systems. The southern Texas deep structure, possibly basement controlled, is distinctly different from the isolated counter-regional withdrawal basins beneath the Oligocene-Miocene detachment offshore western Louisiana (Figure 18). Although large Previous HitsaltNext Hit walls existed on the Cretaceous slope in southern Texas, isolated pillows or diapirs, which later became feeders for allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit, existed in southern Louisiana. Similar Previous HitsaltNext Hit walls may have existed in the Louisiana Wilcox trend as well, and sub-detachment withdrawal basins may occur beneath the Texas shelf.

Relationship to Oligocene-Miocene Detachment Province

   A true-scale regional reconstruction (Figure 31) across the onshore part of the central Texas Gulf Coast shows the nature of the transition from the Wilcox depotroughs to the Oligocene-Miocene detachment system. In this part of Texas, the imbricate fan of the Wilcox fault system has widened to form a perched detachment above Upper Cretaceous strata, but it still roots into a broad depotrough with most, if not all, of the Mesozoic section absent above the autochthonous Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit horizon. This depotrough is overlapped by a younger Eocene perched detachment that may terminate in a poorly known depotrough beneath thick Eocene shales. The seaward end of that trough is interpreted to be the feeder system for allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit subsequently evacuated by progradation of the Oligocene Frio shelf margin. Again, the width of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit walls is unconstrained by the reconstructions of the late Eocene and Late Cretaceous.


PROVINCE RELATIONSHIPS ALONG WESTERN LOUISIANA TRANSECT

   The limitations of subregional reconstructions are apparent from the Texas examples just presented, in which Previous HitsaltNext Hit-bounded blocks of sediment are not laterally constrained by reconstruction and the relative magnitudes of extension and Previous HitsaltNext Hit reduction are not determined. Inclusion of Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal in cross section reconstruction produces an extra degree of freedom compared to typical thrust belt reconstructions. Although the backstripping approach is a powerful way to reconstruct syndepositional structures, the results are completely dependent on the stratigraphic correlations. There are no geometric rules for deducing the deep structure of Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal fault systems with nonrigid footwalls. Accurate reconstruction of these systems is dependent on seismic geometries and stratigraphic correlations. The requirement to choose a composite profile that minimizes out-of-plane three-dimensional effects presents an additional burden. Regional reconstructions that cross the entire basin provide additional constraints as well as an opportunity to illustrate models of overall structural evolution.

   Diegel and Schuster (1990) presented two such regional reconstructions. One is in the eastern Gulf through the isolated systems of the eastern part of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province (Figure 19 is extracted from that reconstruction; see also Schuster, 1995, this volume). The other one is in western Louisiana (Figure 32) and is discussed here and is reconstructed in Figure 33, Figure 34, and Figure 35 . The western Louisiana transect is in the center of the basin and crosses (1) the Wilcox fault system, (2) an upper Eocene fault system, (3) the onshore Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province, (4) the Oligocene-Miocene detachment system and related mid-shelf Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province, (5) a Pliocene-Pleistocene organized roho system, and (6) the tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit-minibasin province of the slope.

   The reconstructed western Louisiana cross section has the advantages of being in the complex central part of the basin and being relatively well imaged at deep levels. Still, it is important to separate well-constrained parts of this section from speculative parts without reliable seismic geometries and correlations. To separate Previous HitinterpretationNext Hit from speculation, we include two types of cross sections: (1) an interpreted seismic profile and depth-converted frame cross section showing only reliable correlations and seismic geometries Figure 35, and (2) speculative, alternative cross sections completed to the pre-Louann basement (Figure 33, Figure 34, Figure 35  ).

Description

   The Cretaceous carbonate margin and Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit horizon are imaged at the northern end of the profile. The profile crosses the Wilcox fault system, which terminates in a laterally extensive depotrough. This depotrough is bounded on the south by counter-regional faults and associated south-leaning Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes of the updip sector of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province. A small upper Eocene fault system overlies this trough. This laterally discontinuous detachment system is a relatively superficial structure within the depotrough and is therefore not subdivided from the updip sector of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The landward edge of the Oligocene-Miocene detachment is overlain by expanded middle Oligocene Frio deltaic strata. Successive younger late Oligocene-early Miocene depocenters occur basinward, and a middle Miocene depocenter is located in the mid-shelf sector of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province.

   High-amplitude continuous seismic reflectors correlated to Cretaceous and Eocene chalks persist beneath the Oligocene-Miocene detachment and are deformed into counter-regional fault-bounded minibasins (see Figure 18). The Oligocene-Miocene detachment surface is not imaged beyond the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province. Southward, the roho-based Pliocene-Pleistocene fault systems continue to the Previous HitsaltNext Hit massifs at the shelf edge. Well control indicates that this shallow detachment overlies middle Miocene strata. Presently, the roho reflection along the detachment represents the effective base of reliable seismic geometries in this area. The slope portion of the profile crosses a tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit body without an imaged base, as well as two deep minibasins updip of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass that extends southward to the Sigsbee escarpment. Flat-lying abyssal plain strata are clearly imaged for 70 km under the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass. There is no fold and thrust belt at the toe of the slope here. Small structures within the depth-converted subsalt reflections may be small contractional structures or artifacts of the approximate depth conversion assuming vertical ray paths beneath thick Previous HitsaltNext Hit.

Regional Palinspastic Analysis: Alternative Models

   Two alternative speculative sections based on the frame section were restored to investigate end-member scenarios for the evolution of the north-central Gulf of Mexico Basin (Figure 32, Figure 33, Figure 35 ). Model I (Figure 33) extrapolates the base of the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass directly to the Louann level, as suggested by Worrall and Snelson (1989). In this model, the base of the mid-slope tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit body is also rooted to the autochthonous Louann level. Likewise, speculative feeder systems for the Pliocene-Pleistocene roho systems are shown rooted directly to the autochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit. The updip, better constrained part of the cross section is the same in both models. Model II (Figure 34, Figure 35), also consistent with the frame section, differs from model I in extending the Paleogene weld of coastal Louisiana beneath the outer shelf and slope to connect to the base of the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass. In model II, the middle slope tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit is shown as relatively thin, but this minor difference is independent of the main difference between models I and II. In model II, the feeders for the Pliocene-Pleistocene welds are rooted to a deeper allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit weld at the Paleogene level.

   Additional seismic observations support the continuation of the base of the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit above a Paleogene horizon as in model II. On the frame section, the base of the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit body cuts down to the level of Eocene(?) abyssal plain strata before being obscured by a deep basin, but seismic profiles just west of the cross section show that the base of the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit body extends an additional 30 km northward, subparallel to and above flat-lying Eocene(?) and older strata (Figure 36). Although the details of the speculative parts of both sections are conjectural, several aspects of the reconstructions (described below) lead us to favor model II. Both models restore to a similar structural style at the end of Cretaceous time: low-relief asymmetric Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies developed under a pelagic cover. At the northern end of the section, a thicker Cretaceous section updip of a Previous HitsaltNext Hit massif reflects basinward flow of autochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit into the massif. Initiation of these Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures is not addressed by the reconstructions. In model I, the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit overthrust was initiated by the end of the Cretaceous; it began later in model II at about the same time as other extrusions farther landward.

   In both models, most of the Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures evolved into leaning stocks by the end of Eocene Wilcox deposition. In model I, the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass was up to 3.7 km thick with more than 60 km of overthrust. The northernmost Previous HitsaltNext Hit body on the section remained constrained by shelf margin deposition into a possibly overhung stock near the paleoshelf margin. The entire profile to the south was in the bathyal environment at this time. Although the present-day section in model II appears more complicated than that in model II by inclusion of an additional level of allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit, model II is simpler in the restored upper Eocene section. In model II, the extrusion of allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit began over the entire bathyal part of the section, with the precursor to the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass forming as the most basinward of these flows. In model I, extrusion occurred only from the slope feeders that were updip of the imaged Paleogene detachment. Other Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies (excluding the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit) remained constrained into leaning stocks, even though they were in the same environment.

   By middle Frio time, the Previous HitsaltNext Hit canopy in model II was complete, but some Previous HitsaltNext Hit was still at the autochthonous level. The middle Frio marked the end of about 25 m.y. of relatively low rates of sedimentation in the Louisiana Gulf Coast that followed Eocene Wilcox deposition. This interval, almost as long as all the remaining Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene combined, is probably represented by less than 600 m of sediment beneath the western Louisiana shelf. The exact timing of the extrusion of Previous HitsaltNext Hit during this condensed interval is unconstrained. Initiation and coalescence of Previous HitsaltNext Hit flows did not necessarily occur precisely at the same time throughout the basin.

   In model I, the Paleogene Previous HitsaltNext Hit extrusion occurred only on the upper half of the slope. Previous HitSaltNext Hit remained at the autochthonous level on the lower slope. Although there is no direct evidence for a Paleogene canopy on the lower slope, as in model II, it is likely that sedimentation rates were even lower in this more distal position. Thus, any existing stocks were less constrained by sedimentation and more likely to flow into allochthonous sheets near the seafloor.

   In late Oligocene time, middle Frio deposition represented the renewal of clastic progradation that continues to the Recent. In both models, Frio deltaic sedimentation began to prograde across the completely coalesced Previous HitsaltNext Hit canopy, and the first major Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment faulting began. In model II, several minibasins formed over the canopy on the slope. The age of initiation and the geometry of these postulated minibasins are unconstrained, and the Previous HitinterpretationNext Hit shown in model II is only one of several possible scenarios. The ages of the basins could be synchronous, younging to the south, or more irregular, depending on deep-water sediment dispersal patterns. In model I, the lower slope remained a relatively sediment-starved region with continued downbuilding of sediment between old Previous HitsaltNext Hit stocks.

   The structures initiated in Oligocene Frio time continued through Anahuac, early-middle Miocene in both models. The Paleogene Previous HitsaltNext Hit evacuation surface was created by deltaic progradation and related listric growth faulting that progressively collapsed the Previous HitsaltNext Hit canopy. The Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit body continued to grow and override abyssal sediments. In model I, autochthonous rooted diapirs continued downbuilding, and in model II, minibasins continued to deepen on the slope. In the early Miocene of both models, a large minibasin in the modern mid-shelf region inverted to become a faulted turtle structure above allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit. In model I, the basinward end of the canopy formed a Sigsbee-like Previous HitsaltNext Hit overthrust that climbed section and overrode Frio-middle Miocene slope sediments.

   Previous HitSaltNext Hit withdrawal from the autochthonous level is a possible alternative to the Paleogene canopy indicated in both models I and II for present-day coastal Louisiana and the inner shelf. The implications of autochthonous solution include collapse of onlap onto a large rolling fold within the 4-km-thick subdetachment stratigraphy (Figure 37). There are several arguments against this autochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit model. (1) It is inconsistent with allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit penetrations onshore and (2) inconsistent with mapped subdetachment Previous HitsaltNext Hit-collapse structures (Figure 18). (3) It is unlikely that thick Previous HitsaltNext Hit would remain undeformed beneath 4 km of Cretaceous-Eocene sediments until Oligocene time. (4) Although geometrically admissible, it is unlikely that a shale-based gravity slide would develop over a detachment surface dipping steeply landward, and (5) it is also unlikely that the 4-km-thick subdetachment section could be deformed by a rolling fold mechanism requiring folding and unfolding. Finally, (6) the Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment model is preferred because analogs in the Pliocene-Pleistocene trend are well known whereas no example of a rolling fold and backward-sloping detachment is known to us.

   A possible objection to the regionally extensive Paleogene canopy proposed in model II is that many areas, particularly the western Louisiana inner shelf, are devoid of Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes or other remnant shallow Previous HitsaltNext Hit. However, Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal fault systems are not always associated with remnant shallow Previous HitsaltNext Hit, and large areas of Previous HitsaltNext Hit evacuation may be difficult to recognize. Both models I and II imply efficient Previous HitsaltNext Hit evacuation by lateral flow and/or dissolution. Although there is abundant remnant shallow Previous HitsaltNext Hit in the central Louisiana Pliocene-Pleistocene detachment province offshore, considerably less is present in the same province offshore western Louisiana, where the Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment is also documented by drilling. In the East and West Cameron outer shelf in this province, there is a region of about 80 km dip extent and 65 km strike extent underlain by a Previous HitsaltNext Hit weld without shallow secondary Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes present (Figure 3). In another example in southern Texas, a Previous HitsaltNext Hit interval was cored at the level of detachment for Frio growth faults in southern Texas, where the nearest Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome is 80 km away in an older fault system and the nearest known shallow Previous HitsaltNext Hit in the same age fault system is over 300 km away. These results challenge the dogma that the distribution of Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes in a basin reflects the distribution of original Previous HitsaltNext Hit deposition.

   By late Miocene time, thin Previous HitsaltNext Hit flows formed in the upper slope of both models I and II. In model I, this Previous HitsaltNext Hit had sources at both the autochthonous and allochthonous Paleogene levels. In model II, this Previous HitsaltNext Hit was fed entirely from allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit at the allochthonous Paleogene level. By Pliocene time in both models, additional shallow Previous HitsaltNext Hit flows formed farther downdip. These flows coalesced on this line of section to form an organized roho system, but farther east toward the depocenter, flows were constrained by higher sedimentation rates and remained isolated to form a disorganized roho system. In model II, the flows rooted to the evacuating Paleogene canopy. As the Miocene flows continued to inflate, the updip parts were deformed and evacuated by Pliocene sediments at the prograding shelf edge. From Pleistocene to Recent time, allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit extruded in the Miocene-Pliocene was largely evacuated into domes out of the plane of section and basinward by continued progradation of the shelf margin depocenters. Both models imply significant loss of Previous HitsaltNext Hit from the plane of the section, partly due to accumulation in Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes out of the plane, but probably largely due to dissolution (see Chapter Appendix).

   The four main differences in tectono-stratigraphic evolution highlighted by the alternative reconstructions of models I and II are given in Table 1.

   In summary, model II is favored mainly for two reasons. First, seismic observation of the base of Previous HitsaltNext Hit subparallel to Paleogene horizons on the mid-slope is consistent with model II. Second, although the present-day structure is simpler in model I, the restored Oligocene structure is simpler in model II, and there is no apparent reason to restrict Previous HitsaltNext Hit extrusion to only the upper part of the Paleogene slope.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

   Our current understanding of the structural evolution of the northern Gulf of Mexico Basin is based on improved seismic imaging, deep structural mapping, palinspastic analysis using biostratigraphic correlations, and an analog approach that uses developing structures on the modern slope to understand the early history of older structures on the shelf and onshore. There are still large areas of the basin where the deep structure is obscure and reliable correlations are impossible. In these areas, interpretations and reconstructions are necessarily speculative. Improved imaging and analysis have changed our understanding of Gulf Coast evolution, and it is reasonable to assume that these advances will continue.

   The use of modern and Pliocene-Pleistocene analogs for the early history of older structures, although striking in many cases, may be limited by dramatic changes in sedimentation rates and styles of deep-water sediment dispersal through time. Palinspastic reconstruction results are limited by lack of adequate seismic imaging and stratigraphic correlations in many areas. Reconstructions typically provide viable alternative evolutionary scenarios but not unique solutions. Previous HitSaltNext Hit-withdrawal estimates based on backstripping are limited by uncertainties in paleowater depths and residual tectonic subsidence (an error in water depth produces twice the error in Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal, and an error in tectonic subsidence produces 2.8 times the error; see Chapter Appendix and Figure A-1). Other sources of error include uncertainties in densities, velocities, and decompaction histories, as well as unaccounted flexural effects and complexities in the thermal history of the margin due to rapid sedimentation and complex Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures. Subsidence analysis for Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal is useful for finding first-order phenomena such as distinquishing Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based from shale-based detachment systems, but it is unlikely to be a sensitive indicator of paleobathymetry or sea level changes.

   Large-scale Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal provides a solution to the long-standing problem of production of accommodation space for extremely thick deltaic sections in the Cenozoic. Our observations and analyses argue for large-scale evacuation of a Paleogene Previous HitsaltNext Hit canopy that extended across most of the margin, from the present onshore to the present middle slope, from southern Texas to central Louisiana. We interpret Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal features updip and to the east of this canopy as more isolated structures rooted to the autochthonous level or as isolated allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies not coalesced into a canopy. The location of this transition is not well known to us in many areas. Younger allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures in the outer shelf and upper slope from southern Texas to central Louisiana are tentatively interpreted to be rooted to this older allochthonous level rather than the autochthonous level. This scenario is probably misleading in its simplicity. The complexity, variety, and three-dimensional nature of structures in the region present many additional problems.

   The tectono-stratigraphic provinces described here are nongenetic, but we have presented interpretations of their origins and interrelationships. Although subject to refinement and realignment of boundaries, the provinces may remain useful first-order divisions even as new data become available and new concepts are developed. The variation in structural style from the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province to the Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment provinces is interpreted in two ways. Previous HitSaltNext Hit domes and related counter-regional fault-bounded minibasins occur either as (1) a downdip component of the fully evolved Previous HitsaltNext Hit-based detachment system (mid-shelf sector) or as (2) evacuated allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies that never coalesced into an extensive sheet (updip and eastern sectors).

   The variation in structural style from the tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit-minibasin province to the Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome-minibasin province is probably a difference in the extent of Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal, with basins on the slope surrounded by tabular Previous HitsaltNext Hit evolving into fault-bounded basins flanked by residual Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes, mainly on the shelf. The presence of contractional structures at the toe of allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies may also be due to the extent of Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal, with early contractional systems developed on the slope inverting to become large-displacement counter-regional faults on the shelf. Variation within the Pliocene-Pleistocene roho systems, from organized to disorganized areas, remains unexplained. The comparison of sub-detachment structure beneath the Oligocene-Miocene detachment (Figure 18) and the deep structure beneath the southern Texas Wilcox fault system (Figure 28) highlights the influence of Mesozoic Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures, and possibly pre-Louann structures, in determining the style and geometry of Tertiary growth fault systems.

   Worrall and Snelson (1989) noted a difference in structural style between the Louisiana and Texas parts of the Oligocene-Miocene detachment province, with more linear faults typical of Texas and more arcuate fault patterns in Louisiana. This difference is quantitative rather than qualitative. Similar structures occur on both sides of the state line, but perched detachments are more common and extensive in Texas, whereas regional fault trends are more arcuate in Louisiana. Even within the "linear" fault trends of Texas and western Louisiana, detailed mapping usually shows linear fault systems to be composed of complexly nested arcuate faults. Worrall and Snelson (1989) attributed these differences to the dominance on the Texas shelf of Tertiary strandplain and barrier island depositional environments as contrasted to the alluvial and deltaic environments more typical of offshore Louisiana.

   It is unlikely that geologically rapid shifts of depositional environment on the shelf would radically change the geometry of an active fault system that spans dozens of sequences and began in the slope environment. We suggest a slight modification of this concept. Perhaps the style of deposition initially deforming allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit on the slope is the most important factor determining the ultimate structural style, even though changes in depositional style on the slope are likely to be related to different depositional styles on the shelf (e.g., line sources or point sources for deep-water deposition related to differing shelf environments). The origin of perched detachments may also be linked to the presence of shales likely for detachment, such as the Jackson and Anahuac shales of Texas.

   The extent and origin of the toe-of-slope foldbelts are also not well known. Foldbelts may be entirely absent in some areas or perhaps merely obscured by allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit overriding the basinward depositional limit of autochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit. The timing of the known foldbelts does not appear to correlate in a simple way to the timing of updip extension, which persisted throughout the Cenozoic (compare Peel et al., 1995). Perhaps changes in slope or reduction of deep Previous HitsaltNext Hit, which compensates for most of the extension, are important.

   A final question raised by this discussion is the uniqueness of northern Gulf Coast allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures. Extensive allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit, including Previous HitsaltNext Hit canopies, is reported from few Previous HitsaltNext Hit basins (e.g., Great Kavir, Jackson and Cornelius, 1985; Jackson et al., 1990; Isthmian Previous HitsaltNext Hit basin, southern Mexico, Correa Perez and Gutierez y Acosta, 1983). Are Gulf Coast style allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures more common, but unrecognized, or are the scale and complexity of Previous HitsaltNext Hit-related structures in the Gulf Coast unique?

   Acknowledgments:

   The work presented in this chapter relied on the interpretations and ideas of a large number of Shell Oil Company staff over many years. In particular, the ground-breaking work in the 1960s by C. C. Roripaugh, J. M. Beall, and others led to an early understanding of allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures when the results of seismic surveys were more ambiguous than those from current techniques. The term roho was derived in mock comparison to the moho. Based on seismic refraction experiments in this province during the late 1960s, Roripaugh and others at Shell recognized that the high-amplitude discontinuous reflectors were residual Previous HitsaltNext Hit on evacuation surfaces. Also at Shell, in the 1970s, D. M. Worrall and S. Snelson pioneered computer-aided reconstruction techniques for analysis of growth fault and Previous HitsaltNext Hit structures. A 5-year research project in the 1980s on the Cenozoic tectono-stratigraphic evolution of the northern Gulf of Mexico Basin provided a broad understanding of the complex structural framework across the basin from Florida to Mexico and the Cretaceous margin to the abyssal plain. The project, including both research and exploration staff, was planned by S. Snelson, who supervised the team at Shell Development Company (R. M. Coughlin, A. D. Scardina, F. A. Diegel, and D. C. Schuster). C. L. Conrad, C. C. Roripaugh, and S. C. Reeve at various times supervised the Shell Offshore team (C. F. Lobo, J. F. Karlo, and R. C. Shoup). R. N. Nicholas, M. L. Long, and other management staff at Shell provided critical support for Shell's long-term investment in this project and related research. J. C. Holliday and H. S. Sumner added an important regional study of the Louisiana outer shelf at Shell Offshore Inc.; S. A. Goetsch, C. J. Ando, and P. R. Tauvers undertook additional research projects on regional structural evolution of the Gulf Coast at Shell Development Co. Other Shell staff making critical onshore contributions from Shell Western E&P Inc. included E. J. Laflure and M. R. Lentini. The special interest and paleontologic support provided by E. B. Picou contributed greatly to these projects. This work also depended on the acquisition and processing of seismic data, seismic interpretations, maps, stratigraphic correlations, paleontologic analyses, and ideas of many other Shell staff involved in Gulf Coast exploration. R. W. Cook and C. E. Harvie developed Shell's proprietary workstation reconstruction program used to restore many of the cross sections presented here. E. E. White provided expert graphics support for all Shell Development studies cited here and for this chapter. Critical reviews by F. J. Peel, S. Snelson, M. P. A Jackson, and an anonymous reviewer have improved the quality of the work substantially.

    


Chapter Appendix

Reconstruction Techniques

   Two reconstruction techniques were used to restore syndepositional faulting in this study: the proprietary PREP computer program described by Worrall and Snelson (1989) and a proprietary finite-element program called MESH (Diegel and Cook, 1990). This finite-element technique preserves area, accounts for decompaction, and minimizes the shape change within fault blocks. The horizontal component of unfaulted bed length is preserved, and footwalls are not assumed to be rigid. The method used for each reconstruction is noted in the captions. Paleobathymetric slopes are assumed to be constant through time with respect to the position of the prograding shelf margin, with a maximum slope of 1.5 degrees. Because of the probability of three-dimensional flow and dissolution, Previous HitsaltNext Hit area is not preserved. Instead, Previous HitsaltNext Hit thicknesses through time are estimated from a one-dimensional isostatic calculation described below and by Diegel and Cook (1990).

Subsidence and Previous HitSaltNext Hit Withdrawal

   A fundamental problem of Gulf Coast geology is to explain the great thickness of shallow water Tertiary strata on a Mesozoic passive margin. Barton et al. (1933, p. 1457) clearly recognized the problem early in the history of Gulf Coast exploration:

   The Gulf Coast geosyncline arouses isostatic meditation. . . . Isostatically, the Gulf Coast geosyncline must be, and for a long time must have been, negatively out of equilibrium. Subsidence continued, however, and presumably must have increased the lack of isostatic equilibrium, as the progressive depression of the basement has increased the negative gravity anomaly. The movement, therefore, has been the reverse of what would be expected from the theory of isostasy.

   Barton et al. (1933) were correct in noting that isostatic loading could not account for Gulf Coast subsidence and suggested that basement subsidence was caused by yielding of the crust beneath the sediment load to form a "geosyncline." They concluded their argument ( p. 1458) with a note of uncertainty about this Previous HitinterpretationNext Hit, however:

   The surface in the Gulf Coast seems to have remained nearly at sea-level. . . . The subsidence, therefore, seems more probably to be the effect of the sedimentation and to have tended to compensate it. But the subsidence can not be the effect of a movement toward isostatic equilibrium under the effect of the extra load of the sediments. . . . [The subsidence] seems more easily explainable not as an effect of the sedimentation but of some dynamic cause. . . . But the close equivalence of subsidence and sedimentation is not so easily explained by such a dynamic cause.

   Thermal and isostatic subsidence alone cannot account for over 6 km of shallow water sediment deposited in the upper Tertiary on a passive margin where rifting occurred in the Jurassic. The rate of thermal subsidence of a passive margin decreases exponentially with time and is also proportional to crustal attenuation, where oceanic crust represents a maximum thermal subsidence case (Parsons and Sclater, 1977; McKenzie, 1978; Le Pichon and Sibuet, 1981; Sawyer, 1985). Therefore, by comparison with the North Atlantic (Williams, 1975; Sawyer, 1985) and with theoretical subsidence histories (McKenzie, 1978; Le Pichon and Sibuet, 1981), a reasonable maximum for the excess subsidence (as defined in Figure A-1) since rifting is about 2.3 km (equal to ~3.2 km of conventional tectonic subsidence, including a hypothetical water column). Significant thermal subsidence continued for about 150 m.y. after rifting, but the bulk of this subsidence occurred in the first 100 m.y., with an exponential decline. Even a linear distribution of the total excess subsidence over 150 m.y. suggests that 400 m is a conservative estimate for the maximum excess thermal subsidence since the end of the Oligocene on the Gulf Coast margin.

   For the post-Oligocene subsidence to be the result of isostatic loading, a top Oligocene water depth of about 2700 m would be necessary (Figure A-2), but we know from Previous HitinterpretationNext Hit of depositional environments and faunal picks that this area was on the continental shelf at that time. Even given crude approximations of densities and ignoring decompaction, the magnitude of this discrepancy is impressive. Additional space created by a component of thermal subsidence is also insufficient to account for this subsidence. Using Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal as an unknown and using an estimated paleowater depth, a simple one-dimensional Airy isostatic model estimates the magnitude of Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal (Figure A-1). A plot of the total subsidence and backstripped subsidence as a function of age highlights the profound subsidence anomaly in Miocene time (Figure A-3). As noted by Barton et al. (1933), this subsidence anomaly migrates basinward with the prograding depocenters (Figure A-4). Previous HitSaltNext Hit withdrawal is the "dynamic mechanism" sought by Barton. Thick Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit, deposited in the Mesozoic, in effect stored the early subsidence of the basin for reuse by the prograding Cenozoic clastic margin that displaced the weak Previous HitsaltNext Hit.

   The backstripping technique (Steckler and Watts, 1978) can also be applied to deformed cross sections. Rather than using thicknesses from a single well, we reconstructed the fault motions above the detachment and measured changes in overburden thickness accounting for lateral translation and rotation of fault blocks. Estimated Previous HitsaltNext Hit thickness was then added to the reconstruction (see Figure 15, Figure 16). Although this technique estimates the amount of Previous HitsaltNext Hit withdrawal, it does not locate the level of the evacuation surface. Two possible models are that the Previous HitsaltNext Hit was withdrawn from the autochthonous Louann level (Figure 15) or that the detachment for listric growth faults represents a Previous HitsaltNext Hit weld that formerly contained a thick, allochthonous Previous HitsaltNext Hit body (Figure 16).

   We prefer the allochthonous model for several reasons. (1) Previous HitSaltNext Hit penetrations occur along the Oligocene-Miocene detachment in western Louisiana. (2) The geometries resemble those above the shallower Pliocene-Pleistocene detachment systems, and we know of no example of a listric detachment formed in response to a rolling fold of Previous HitsaltNext Hit beneath several kilometers of deep-water sediments. (3) The thinning wedge above the detachment suggests a collapsed onlap similar to the previous described examples from the outer shelf. (4) Subdetachment counter-regional faults provide a means for extrusion of the Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit to the level of the Oligocene seafloor. Finally, (5) it seems mechanically unlikely that a thick Previous HitsaltNext Hit layer would remain undeformed beneath thousands of meters of sediments that thicken into counter-regional growth faults of pre-Oligocene age.

Previous HitSaltNext Hit Budget and Dissolution

   Thick accumulations of shallow-water sediments and presumed lack of significant tectonic subsidence indicate that a large amount of Previous HitsaltNext Hit-withdrawal subsidence has occurred in the Gulf Coast basin. Certainly a large component of lateral flow of Previous HitsaltNext Hit is reflected in the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass. Although the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit body along the reconstructed profile may not be representative regionally, its area above the Paleogene level is about 320 km2, which corresponds to an average Previous HitsaltNext Hit thickness of 1100 m over the 290-km length of the section from the head of the Oligocene-Miocene detachment to the updip end of the Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass. This area of Previous HitsaltNext Hit accounts for less than half of the original 2.4-km Previous HitsaltNext Hit thickness estimated from subsidence analysis using the method discussed previously. Shallow Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies out of the plane of the section probably account for a small part of the remainder, with dissolution completing the Previous HitsaltNext Hit balance.

   Although downbuilding relative to sediments is necessary to explain the height of Gulf Coast Previous HitsaltNext Hit stocks, evidence of structural truncation and caprock indicates that there has also been considerable upward flow compensated by dissolution. Accumulation of anhydrite residue in caprock implies that thousands of feet of Previous HitsaltNext Hit have been removed from the crests of onshore Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes (Goldman, 1933). This Previous HitinterpretationNext Hit is also supported by the truncation of vertical foliation observed in shallow Previous HitsaltNext Hit mines (Balk, 1949, 1953; Hoy et al., 1962; Kupfer, 1962). Bennett and Hanor (1987) attributed increased formation water salinity in the vicinity of Welsh Previous HitsaltNext Hit dome, onshore southern Louisiana, to active dissolution. They estimate that a minimum of 6 km3 of Previous HitsaltNext Hit was dissolved into the present formation waters. Although Previous HitsaltNext Hit was penetrated at 2050 m depth at Welsh, no caprock was reported. Seni and Jackson (1983), on the basis of withdrawal basin volume, estimated that almost half of the mobilized Previous HitsaltNext Hit of the East Texas Previous HitsaltNext Hit basin was dissolved (380 km3 of a total volume of 800 km3). Caprock, although common in East Texas, is not thick enough to account for all of this volume loss. Seni and Jackson (1983) inferred that the loss occurred by erosion and dissolution at the seafloor rather than solely by circulating groundwater.

   Evidence of Previous HitsaltNext Hit dissolution is not limited to the onshore area. Average Gulf Coast formation waters are more than four times more saline than seawater, and many authors believe this is because of Previous HitsaltNext Hit dissolution (for review, see Hanor, 1983). If halite is exposed to seawater, either directly by Previous HitupliftNext Hit and erosion, sea level drop, or extrusion or indirectly by contact with flowing pore water, it will dissolve. Although caprock is only reported from 5 of 77 cored offshore Previous HitsaltNext Hit domes (Halbouty, 1979), one of the Eureka cores in the upper slope encountered 36 m (117 ft) of anhydrite caprock above a Previous HitsaltNext Hit massif (Lehner, 1969). This amount of caprock would require a minimum of about 2300 ft (700 m) of Previous HitsaltNext Hit dissolution (assuming an average 5% anhydrite content of Louann Previous HitsaltNext Hit). Manheim and Bischoff (1968) reported salinity gradients approaching saturation in formation waters encountered by Eureka core holes near Previous HitsaltNext Hit bodies in the upper slope and interpreted these gradients as indicators of active slope Previous HitsaltNext Hit dissolution. At least one slope minibasin is known to have a stable brine pool (Trabant and Presley, 1978). This brine occurrence was discovered when pore waters in research cores were found to be eight times more saline than seawater.

   Previous HitSaltNext Hit dissolution is undoubtedly occurring in other parts of the slope even though the seafloor structure does not always allow stable brine pools to form. Burk et al. (1969) reported caprock in core recovered from the Challenger Knoll in the Sigsbee abyssal plain. Apparently, circulating meteoric water is not necessary for Previous HitsaltNext Hit dissolution to occur. Caprock on the shelf may be periodically exposed at the seafloor by extrusion or sea level fluctuations and removed by erosion. The allochthonous Sigsbee Previous HitsaltNext Hit mass overrode the abyssal plain sediments with its upper surface at or near the seafloor throughout the entire Cenozoic era. Similarly, an extensive Paleogene Previous HitsaltTop canopy extruded near the sea floor would have provided the opportunity for large amounts of dissolution in the past. Without an impermeable pelagic mud drape, we might expect cumulative dissolution to be more extensive than implied by the reconstructions presented here (compare Fletcher et al., 1995, in this volume).