Following common usage, we broaden the term “salt” to include all rock bodies composed primarily of halite (NaCl). Salt is mechanically weak and flows like a fluid, even at geologically rapid strain ...rates. Salt is also relatively incompressible so is less dense than most carbonates and all moderately to fully compacted siliciclastic rocks. Salt's fluid rheology and incompressibility make it inherently unstable under a wide range of geologic conditions.
The primary driving force for salt tectonics is differential loading, which may be induced by gravitational forces, by forced displacement of one boundary of a salt body relative to another, or by a thermal gradient. Buoyancy, long considered a key driver for salt tectonics, is of secondary importance in many settings. Two factors resist salt flow: strength of the overburden and boundary drag along the edges of the salt body. Salt will move only if driving forces exceed the resistance to flow.
In order for a salt diapir to be emplaced into its overburden, any rock previously occupying that space must be removed or displaced. Emplacement may occur by extension, erosion, or uplift of the overburden or by overthrusting of the salt. Once salt reaches the surface, it can continue to rise by passive diapirism, in which the diapir grows as sediments accumulate around it. A rapidly rising passive diapir may spread over the sediment surface to form an allochthonous salt sheet. A variety of salt-sheet lineages are possible, depending on the geometry of the feeder and the tectonic setting.
Because salt is weak, its tectonism is closely tied to regional deformation. In extension or transtension, diapirs rise up graben axes, taking advantage of the space created by thinning and separation of fault blocks. Later, once the salt source layer is exhausted, diapirs may fall as they continue to widen. In addition, salt typically acts as a detachment in both gravity-driven and basement-involved extension. In compression or transpression, preexisting diapirs are rejuvenated as salt is displaced upward by lateral shortening. This rise is enhanced by buckling and disruption of the diapir roof. In the absence of precursor structures, salt's primary role in compression is to act as a detachment. Some salt sheets may be emplaced in the hanging walls of thrust faults.
Structural systems involving mobile shale represent one of the most difficult challenges for geoscientists dedicated to exploring the subsurface structure of continental margins. Mobile-shale ...structures range from surficial mud volcanoes to deeply buried shale diapirs and shale-cored folds. Where mobile shales occur, seismic imaging is typically poor, drilling is hazardous, and established principles to guide interpretation are few. The central problem leading to these issues is the poor understanding of the mechanical behaviour of mobile shales. Here we propose that mobile shales are at critical state, thus we define mobile shales as "bodies of clay-rich sediment or sedimentary rock undergoing penetrative, (visco-) plastic deformation at the critical state". We discuss how this proposition can explain key observations associated with mobile shales. The critical-state model can explain the occurrence of both fluidized (no grain contact) shales (e.g., in mud volcanoes) and more viscous shales flowing with grain-to-grain contact (e.g., in shale diapirs), mobilization of cemented and compacted shales, and the role of overpressure in shale mobility. Our model offers new avenues for understanding complex and fascinating mobile-shale structures.
We used physical models to investigate the structural evolution of segmented extensional rifts containing syn-rift evaporites and their subsequent inversion. An early stage of extension generated ...structural topography consisting of a series of en-échelon graben. Our salt analog filled these graben and the surroundings before continued extension and, finally, inversion.
Piercement mechanisms for mobile shales Hudec, Michael R.; Soto, Juan I.
Basin research,
October 2021, 2021-10-00, 20211001, Letnik:
33, Številka:
5
Journal Article
Recenzirano
We have identified seven mechanisms by which mobile shales can pierce their roofs. The operative piercement mechanism depends on mobile‐shale viscosity, roof strength and stress state. For mobile ...shales at depths of several kilometres, three mechanisms are possible: fracture piercement, thrust piercement and ductile “piercement.” However, injection up fractures and faults appears to be the dominant mechanism by which mobile shales rise towards the surface. In this process, mobile shales behave similar to magmas rising through the Earth's crust. Nearer the surface, a wider range of piercement mechanisms becomes possible: passive piercement, reactive piercement, active piercement and erosional piercement. These mechanisms all have salt‐tectonics analogues. Although shale tectonics and salt tectonics share common piercement mechanisms, in many cases the resulting structures are different. This is because near‐surface mobile shales can have much lower viscosities than salt. Mobile shales that reach the surface extrude very rapidly, in many cases leading to caldera collapse of the underlying shale chamber. This instability in the near‐surface means that long‐term, stable growth of passive shale diapirs is unlikely, in contrast with the behaviour of salt. A key question in seismic interpretation of mobile‐shale structures is whether large‐volume mobile‐shale diapirs exist. We show that both active piercement and ductile “piercement” can create such structures. Both of these mechanisms create steeply upturned beds on diapir flanks, which are diagnostic. However, active shale diapirs appear to be rare, and ductile “piercements” are not documented. We therefore suggest that large‐volume shale diapirs should be interpreted with caution on seismic data.
We present the first sequential structural restoration with flexural backstripping of the Gulf of Mexico US‐Mexico conjugate margin salt basin. We construct four large‐scale (100s of km) balanced, ...sequential structural restorations to investigate spatio‐temporal patterns of subsidence, geometry of the original salt basin, feedbacks between post‐salt structural and stratigraphic evolution, paleo‐bathymetry, and crustal configurations. The restorations are based on interpretations of 2D and 3D seismic data, and include sequential sedimentary decompaction, flexural isostatic backstripping, and thermal isostatic corrections. The spatially variable crustal thinning factor is directly measured from seismic data, and lithologic parameters are determined by well penetrations. We present a model for the original salt basin and discuss evidence for and implications of a deep water salt basin setting for the GoM. Our analysis suggests a salt basin that contained ∼1–2 km thick salt in a basin 175–390 km across with ∼1 km of bathymetry after salt deposition. The base of salt is mostly smooth with <1 km of local relief in the form of normal faults that disrupt a pre‐salt sedimentary section. We find that supra‐salt extension and shortening are not balanced, with measurable extension exceeding shortening by 18–30 km on each cross‐section. Our subsidence analysis reveals anomalous subsidence totaling 1–2 km during Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous times that may reflect dynamic topography or depth‐dependent thinning. We offer an interpretation of crustal breakup invoking pre‐salt clastic sedimentation, salt deposition in a deep water syn‐thinning basin, and post‐salt lower‐crustal exhumation.
Plain Language Summary
The Gulf of Mexico is a large basin that formed over 200 million years ago due to tectonically driven extension of a supercontinent. Early in its formation it accumulated thick salt deposits. Due to that salt and the later deposition of several kilometers of sedimentary rock that conceal the deep geology, it is difficult to know exactly how extension started and progressed. This study uses new 2D and 3D seismic data that images the deep geology corresponding to that early extension. We sequentially remove each rock layer to reconstruct what the margin looked like in the Mesozoic. By systematically moving back in time we are able to reconstruct the changing geometry, deformation, and bathymetry of the Gulf of Mexico. Our results reveal periods of time when the bathymetry was influenced by unknown factors, which we posit reflects mantle forces.
Key Points
We present sequential structural restorations with flexural backstripping of the post‐rift eastern GoM conjugate US‐MX margin from Mesozoic to present
We interpret the geometry and bathymetry of the restored Mesozoic salt basin
Our analysis indicates significant and widespread Mesozoic anomalous subsidence
In salt‐detached gravity‐gliding/spreading systems the detachment geometry is a key control on the downslope mobility of the supra‐salt sequence. Here, we used regional 3D seismic data to examine a ...salt‐stock canopy in the northern Gulf of Mexico slope, in an area where supra‐canopy minibasins subsided vertically and translated downslope above a complex base‐of‐salt. If thick enough, minibasins can interact with, and weld to, the base‐of‐salt and be obstructed from translating downslope. Based on the regional maps of the base of allochthonous salt and the base of the supra‐canopy sequence, the key controls on minibasin obstruction, we distinguished two structural domains in the study area: a highly obstructed domain and a highly mobile domain. Large‐scale translation of the supra‐canopy sequence is recorded in the mobile domain by a far‐travelled minibasin and a ramp syncline basin. These two structures suggest downslope translation on the order of 40 km from Plio‐Pleistocene to Present. In contrast, translation was impeded in the obstructed domain due to supra‐canopy bucket minibasins subsiding into feeders during the Pleistocene. As a result, we infer that differential translation occurred between the two domains and argue that a deformation area between two differentially translating supra‐canopy minibasin domains is difficult to recognize. However, characterizing domains according to base‐of‐salt geometry and supra‐canopy minibasin configuration can be helpful in identifying domains that may share similar subsidence and downslope translation histories.
The effect of minibasin obstruction processes are investigated in our study area, where two different domains, each containing several minibasins are described. The two domains are characterized by different degrees of mobility (or obstruction) according to the presence (or absence) of highly obstructed minibasins (e.g., bucket minibasins). The obstruction of one domain as opposed to the continuous translation of the other domain, results in differential translation of the sedimentary cover.
We model the evolution of a salt diapir during sedimentation and study how deposition and salt movement affect stresses close to the diapir. We model the salt as a solid visco-plastic material and ...the sediments as a poro-elastoplastic material, using a generalized Modified Cam Clay model. The salt flows because ongoing sedimentation increases the average density within the overburden sediments, pressurizing the salt. Stresses rotate near a salt diapir, such that the maximum principal stress is perpendicular to the contact with the salt. The minimum principal stress is in the circumferential direction, and drops near the salt. The mean stress increases near the upper parts of the diapir, leading to a porosity that is lower than predicted for uniaxial burial at the same depth. We built this axisymmetric model within the large-strain finite-element program Elfen. Our results highlight the fact that forward modeling can provide a detailed understanding of the stress history of mudrocks close to salt diapirs; such an understanding is critical for predicting stress, porosity, and pore pressure in salt systems.
•Forward modeling of an axisymmetric salt diapir during sedimentation.•Modeling sediments as poro-elastoplastic.•Minimum principal stress in the hoop direction and dropping near the salt.•Higher probability for wellbore instability and radial faults near rising salt diapirs.•Lower sediment porosity near the upper diapir, compared to uniaxial sedimentation.
PDF
