I hf Amerieati Assotiaiioii of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin
V. 67, No, SlAugusi 1983), P. 1219-1244, 22 Figs.
Evolution of Salt Structures, East Texas Diapir Province, Part 1:
Sedimentary Record of Halokinesis^
S. J. SENI and M. P. A. JACKSON'
ABSTRACT
Post-Aptian (po$t-112 Ma) strata in the East Texas basin
were strongly influenced by halokinesis and therefore
record the evolution of associated salt structures. Domeinduced changes in patterns of sandstone distribution,
depositional facies, and reef growth indicate that thickness variations in strata surrounding domes were caused
by syndepositional processes rather than by tectonic distortion.
Salt domes in the East Texas basin exhibit three stages of
growth: pillow, diapir, and post-diapir, each of which
affected surrounding strata differently. Pillow growth
caused broad uplift of strata over the crest of the pillows;
the resulting topographic swell influenced depositional
trends and was susceptible to erosion. Fluvial channel systems bypassed pillow crests and stacked vertically in primary peripheral sinks on the updip flanks of the pillows.
Diapir growth was characterized by expanded sections of
shelf and deltaic strata in secondary peripheral sinks
around the diapirs. Lower Cretaceous reefs on topographic saddles between secondary peripheral sinks now
host major oil production at Fairway field. Post-diapir
crestal uplifts and peripheral subsidence affected smaller
areas than did equivalent processes during pillow or diapir
stages.
Documented facies variations over and around domes at
different stages of growth enable prediction of subtle
facies-controlled hydrocarbon traps. Facies-controlled
traps are likely to be the only undiscovered ones remaining
in mature petroliferous basins such as the East Texas
basin.
INTRODUCTION
This paper, Part 1 of a larger report, describes the stages
of diapir growth in the East Texas basin (Fig. 1) and documents the influence of salt movement on adjacent and
©Copyright 1983. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All
rights reserved.
''Manuscript received. November 12,19B2; accepted. February 28.1983.
Published with permission of the Director, Bureau of Economic Geology, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712.
^Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
Texas 78712.
This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract
Number DE-AC97-80ET46617.
L. F. Brown, Jr., W. E. Galloway, N. Tyler, T. E. Ewing, and R. T. Budnik critically reviewed the manuscript; their comments are gratefully acknowledged.
We thank E. Bramson, R. Conti, S. Ghazi, S. Lovell, B. Richter, J. Smith, and D.
Wood for their help in data collection and processing. J.Ames, M. Bentley, M.
Evans, R. Flores, J. Horowitz, and J. McClelland drafted figures under the
supervision of D. Scranton. G. Zeikus and K. Bonnecarrere typed original manuscripts. Twyla J. Coker word processed the manuscript under the direction of
L. Harrell, and S. Doenges supervised manuscript editing.
overlying strata. Part 2 of this report summarizes patterns
of dome growth through time and space and presents
quantitative data on the rates and volumes of salt flow.
Dome growth creates a wide range of subtle traps for
migrating petroleum, such as stratigraphic, unconformity,
and paleogeomorphic types (Halbouty, 1980). The early
formation of subtle traps enables oil to be trapped at the
onset of migration. These subtle traps are especially significant for future exploration in highly mature areas such as
the Gulf Interior and Gulf Coast basins. Using approximately 2,000 wells (Fig. 2) in the East Texas basin, we document specific stages of salt-dome growth, each
characterized by different combinations of subtle traps, as
well as more obvious structural ones. Understanding this
evolution and its lithologic and structural effects allows
prediction of subtle traps in both mature basins and in
other, less explored salt basins.
The East Texas basin is one of several inland Mesozoic
salt basins in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi that flank
the northern Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 1). The general stratigraphy (Fig. 3) and structure of the East Texas basin have
been summarized in many articles (e.g., Eaton, 1956;
Granata, 1963; Bushaw, 1968; Nichols et al, 1968; Kreitler
et al, 1980, 1981; Wood and Guevara, 1981). The evolution of this basin in relation to opening of the Gulf of Mexico is summarized by Jackson and Seni (1983).
The Jurassic Louann Salt was deposited on a planar
angular unconformity across Triassic rift fill and Paleozoic basement (Fig. 3). The early post-Louann history of
the basin was dominated by slow progradation of platform carbonates and minor evaporites during Smackover
to Gilmer deposition (Fig. 3). After this phase of
carbonate-evaporite deposition, massive progradation of
Schuler-Hosston siliciclastics took place in the Late
Jurassic-Early Cretaceous. Subsequent sedimentation
comprised alternating periods of marine carbonate and
siliciclastic accumulation. By the Oligocene, subsidence in
the East Texas basin had ceased and major depocenters
shifted to the Gulf of Mexico. Paleocene and Eocene
strata crop out in most of the basin, indicating that net erosion characterized the last 40 Ma (millions of years ago).
Salt in the East Texas basin first moved during the early
period of basin formation, defined as Jurassic to Early
Cretaceous, prior to 112 Ma (Hughes, 1968; Jackson et al,
1982). We have limited this report to diapirism in the middle and late periods of basin evolution (112 to 48 Ma)
because insufficient subsurface information on the early
period prevents rigorous analysis of salt movement at that
time. Consequently, this report does not cover the initial
stage of movement of most East Texas diapirs. However,
it includes the full growth history of the younger diapirs,
so that all growth stages are represented. All 16 shallow-
1219
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
1220
East Texas Diapir Province, Part I
and intermediate-depth (<2,0(K) m; <6,500 ft) diapirs
were studied.
EVOLUTIONARY STAGES OF SALl MOVEMEN1
The evolution of salt from planar beds to nearly vertical
subcylindrical stocks involved pillow, diapir, and posldiapir stages in the North German salt basin (1 rusheim,
1960). Data presented here indicate that this three-stage
model of dome growth is also appropriate for the East
Texas basin. Each stage had distinctive effects on depositional facies, lithostratigraphy, and thickness of surrounding sediments (Fig. 4).
The evolution of natural salt structures has received
much attention in the literature (e.g., Bornhauser, 1958;
Atwater and Forman, 1959; Trusheim, 1960; Bishop,
1978; Halbouty, 1979) because of their status as obvious
structural traps for petroleum. Controversy surrounds the
emplacement history of diapirs, and hinges on whether the
dominant processes were intrusion (favored by DeGoIyer,
1925; Barton, 1933; Nettleton, 1934; Trusheim, 1960;
Sanneniann, 1968; Kupfer, 1970, 1976; Smith and Reeve,
1970; O'Neill, 1973; Stude, 1978; Kent, 1979; Woodbury
ei al, 1980) or extrusion (favored by Loocke, 1978; Turk,
Kehlc, and Associates, 1978; Jaritz, 1980; R. O. Kehle,
personal commun., 1982). Bishop (1978) theorized that
diapirisfii typically occurs by extrusion or alternates
between intrusion and extrusion. Barton (1933),
Bornhauser (1958, 1969), and Johnson and Bredeson
(1971) emphasized the role of sediment "downbuilding"
around salt structures whose crests remain more or less
stationary and relatively close to the depositional surface.
Bishop (1978) emphasized the importance of understanding the depositional history of surrounding sediments in
order to interpret dome-growth history, an approach followed here.
Regardless of the mechanism responsible for salt movement and diapirism, flow of salt into a growing structure
FIG. 1—Map showing East Texas basin, location of inland salt-diapir provinces, and salt domes. After Martin (1978).
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
S. J . Seni and M. P. A. Jackson
1221
EXPLANATION
^ B
Salt diapir
Nacogdoches Co
^Palestine
•
,
Slocum
;
//'
Oakwood
"
^
• •
•••••••
•
Tf ini ty Co
^
A n g e l i n a Zo
FIG. 2—Index map of East Texas basin showing locations of well logs used in interval isopach mapping and cross-section lines.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
1222
East Texas Diapir Province, Part I
creates a withdrawal basin that is a structural low and an
isopach thick. "Withdrawal basin" is a general term that
includes rim syncline (a geometric term) and primary secondary, and tertiary peripheral sink (genetic terms) (Fig.
4). Trusheim (1960) defined primary peripheral sinks as
forming during pillow growth, secondary peripheral sinks
or rim synclines during diapir growth, and tertiary peripheral sinks during post-diapir growth. We define secondary
AGE DUR^(Mo) ATlONj
peripheral sinks as containing units at least 50% thicker
than adjacent units unaffected by salt withdrawal; tertiary
peripheral sinks have thickening less than 50% because of
much slower rates of salt movement at this later stage. The
term "sink" is used in a structural sense. Ramberg (1981,
p. 286) pointed out that in terms of fluid dynamics, the rim
syncline is actually the source of the flow, whereas the
dome is the true sink.
The following sections present lithostratigraphic effects
of the three stages of dome growth observed in the East
Texas basin (Fig. 4).
Pillow Stage
TOP
WtLCOX
Salt pillows are defined here as concordant anticlinal or
laccolithic salt structures, with any amplitude/wavelength
ratio. Their growth is initiated and maintained by factors
'OP MIDWAY — 5 6
such as depositional rate and erosional rate of post-salt
deposits on the pillow crest, uneven sediment loading, salt
buoyancy, downdip creep of salt, and subsalt discontinuities. Although the relative importance of these various facTCP NAVARRO — 6 6 tors is poorly understood, evidence of early (pre-Gilmer)
salt movement under thin sedimentary cover of less than
600 m (2,000 ft) (Hughes, 1968; Jackson et al, 1982) sugCP L TAYLOR
gests that uneven sediment loading and rate of deposition
are the principal controlling factors early in the history of
salt movement (Bishop, 1978).
Sediments deposited during pillow growth are characterized by: (1) thinning toward the axis of salt uplift; (2) only
minor thickening into relatively distant primary peripheral
1
sinks;
and (3) lithostratigraphic variations over the crest of
,„o„..
the pillow and in primary peripheral sinks.
Geometry of overlying strata.—Syndepositional thinTOP WOODBINE ^ 9 ? ning of sediments over the crest and flanks of growing salt
t
6M0
pillows is the most diagnostic feature of salt movement
TOP WASHITA
-98 "''"^ during this stage. Quitman, Van, and Hawkins salt pillows
are at similar elevations, about —3,650 m ( — 12,000 ft),
5MQ
but show differing patterns in sediment thinning over the
pillow crests (see Figs. 7, 8, 9 in Seni and Jackson, 1983,
TOP PALUXY
!^\i^-^^y-4
pt. 2). Accordingly, drape and differential compaction of
OP GLEN ROSE ^ - 1 0 5
sediments over the salt structures had less effect on thinning than did rate of salt movement.
A 100 to 400 km^ (40 to 155 mi^) area over each of four
Paluxy salt pillows—Van, Hawkins, Hainesville, and
Bethel domes—contains stratigraphic intervals thinned
from 10 to 100%; thinning is typically about 25%. The
areas of strata thinned by salt uplift are stacked vertically
over the crest of each pillow (Fig. 5).
Hainesville dome provides the best example of the geometry of strata around a growing pillow (Fig. 6). Lower Cretaceous strata onlap and pinch out toward the dome,
indicating syndepositional sedimentation and erosion
around a growing swell during pillow stage growth
(Loocke, 1978, p. 40-46).
:••.,.;. s
--
0OO3LAMJu»;TON,^
a s s YE
ANhVDRI'C
?<
HCSSTON
[TROVIS]
Y PEAKJ
SCHULER
COTTCN
VALLEY
BOSSIER
OILMER
^T
FIG. 3—Stratigraphic column of East Texas basin (after Wood
and Guevara, 1981). Right column shows duration of isopach
intervals used in this report. Mapped horizons were selected on
basis of ease of regional subsurface correlation rather than exact
equivalence to group boundaries. Geochronology based on van
Hinte (1976a) and van Eysinga (1975).
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
S. J. Seni and M. P. A. Jackson
GROWTH STAGE
UPLIFTED AREA
Geometry
1223
WITHDRAWAL BASIN
Geometry
PILLOW
Not to scale
r- Broad topogro 3hic
Th n uplifted zone -^
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
4
Sediments above pillow are thin over
broad, equidimensional to elongate
area. Maximum thinning over crest.
Area extends 100 to 400 km^ (40 to 150
mi^), depending on size of pillow. Percentage thinning, 1010 100%.
Sediments are overthickened in broad to
elongate primary peripheral sink, generally located on updip side of salt pillow.
Axial trace of sink parallels axial trace
of elongate uplift, generally separated
by 10 to 20 km (6 to 12 mi). Sink attains
300 km^ (120 mi^) in extent, depending
on size of pillow. Percentage thickening, 10 to 30%. Recognition of primary
peripheral sink may be hindered by
interference of nearby salt structures.
Facies
Facies
Thin, sand-poor, fluvial-deltaic deposits
over crest of pillow include interchannel
and interdeltaic facies. Erosion common . Carbonate deposits on crest would
include reef, reef-associated, and highenergy facies.
Thick, sand-rich, fluvial-deltaic
deposits in primary peripheral sink
include channel axes and deltaic depocenters. Aggradation common in topographically low area of sink. Carbonate
deposits in sink would include lowenergy facies caused by increase in water
depth.
Geometry
Geometry
Strata largely absent above dome. An 8
to 50 km (3 to 20 mi^) area around diapir is thinned, depending on size and dip
on flanks of dome.
Sediments are thickened up to 215% in
secondary peripheral sink. Sinks up to
1,000 km^ (390 mi^) in extent are equidimensional to elongate, and they preferentially surround single or multiple
domes; several sinks flank domes; percentage thickening ranges from 50 to
215%.
Facies
Facies
Facies immediately over dome crest not
preserved because of piercing by diapir
of all but the youngest strata. Sand
bodies commonly pinch out against
dome flanks.
Expanded section of marine facies dominates, including limestones, chalks, and
mudstones; generally sink is filled with
deeper water low-energy facies caused
by increased water depth. Elevated saddles between withdrawal basins are
favored sites of reef growth and accumulated high-energy carbonate
deposits.
Geometry
Geometry
Strata thin or absent in small 10 to 50
km^ (4 to 20 mi^) area over crest and
adjacent to dome; area depends on size
of dome and dip of flanks.
Sediments within 20 to 200 km^ (8 to 80
mi ) tertiary peripheral sink are thickened 0 to 40%, commonly by < 30 m
(1(X) ft). Axial trace of elongate to
equidimensional sink surrounds or
flanks a single dome, or connects a
series of domes.
Facies
Facies
Facies and strata over crest of dome not
preserved in places of complete piercement. Modern analogs have interchannel and interdeltaic facies in uplifted
area. Mounds above dome include thin
sands. Carbonate strata would include
reef or high-energy deposits; erosion
common.
Modern analogs have channel axes in
sink. Aggradation of thick sands common in subsiding sink. Carbonate strata
would include low-energy facies.
SMali
/
Topographic
Alow
TT'-r-rrCr: / • ^ ^ 4 ^ J + - ^ ? v \ T^*
. • I ' - Rim :•.'.'.•
Pillow
"*7**~' " ' j / x ^ * •*• +*T** + * W , - - . •• •. ' A^
svncling^
iLjS^rf\^*
++ +'+ + + +\/Si
stage
'Yl^V^y^ + + + Anticline + + • * J i
+ -F^ • f + - + + + + + + + + *- + + + + + 1-N L l - 1 • j ^ ^ ^ - f ^ + + -f
+ + + + + + + + + + + + •»-•• + + + + + + + + y + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + >- + + + + + + + + • + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + * + +SALT+ + + + • + + + + + + + • + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + *• + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + •• + + + + + + + + _ + + + , + . +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + *• + + + + + + 4.4. B O M of solt+
[;':';••'] Primary penptieral sinl(
DIAPIR
Not to scole
Topograpliic mound
Topogroptiic
+ + + + +
+++++++
++++++++
++++++++
+ + + + Ba$« of salt •
Secondary peripheral sink
POST-DIAPIR
Smoll lopogroplilc inound
Smoll topogroptiic (ow
Terfiory peripheral sink
FIG. 4—Schematic sts^es of dome growth and variations in associated strata above and around salt structures.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
1224
East Texas Diapir Province, Part I
FRANKLIN
< TITUS
EXPLANATION
L.Taylor Fm.-Aui
{
] Woodbine Group
[
I Washita Group
[ J; ] Paluxy Fm.
I • •'. I Glen Rose Subgrou[D
•
^
Salt diapir
) Salt pillow
FIG. 5—Mapped areas of stratal thinning in five isopach intervals over crests of salt pillows in East Texas basin.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
S. J. Seni and M. P. A. Jackson
Geometry of surrounding strata.—A second but less
diagnostic characteristic of pillow growth is primary
peripheral sinks. Primary peripheral sinks are typically
broad, shallow basins that are 10 to 30% overthickened
with respect to adjacent strata unaffected by salt flow. The
axial traces of these basins are located 10 to 20 km (6 to 12
mi) from the crest of the pillows in the Van, Hawkins,
Hainesville, and Bethel domes (Fig. 7). The axial traces are
either subparallel to crest lines of pillows or partially concentric to them, as in a rim syncline. Sinks are equidimensional or elongate in plan and are concentrated on the
updip side of the salt structures, as exemplified by Bethel,
Van, and Hainesville domes (Fig. 7). In the Zechstein basin
of northern Germany, the primary peripheral sinks
migrated toward the growing salt pillows with time as the
flanks of the salt pillows continually steepened (Trusheim,
1960). This migration of primary peripheral sinks was not
observed near East Texas pillows, but secondary and tertiary sinks are nearer the domes.
Depositional
fades
and
lithostratigraphy.—
Depositional facies and sandstone distribution patterns in
the Palnxy Formation (Lower Cretaceous) illustrate the
influence of syndepositional salt movement on surrounding strata. The Paluxy is typical of relatively thin (generally less than 150 m, 500 ft) Cretaceous siliciclastics
around the margin of the basin that interfinger with carbonates of the basin center (Caughey, 1977; Seni, 1981).
1225
A net-sandstone map of the Paluxy Formation (Fig. 8)
documents sandstone distribution in fluvial and dehaic
deposits around three salt pillows—Van, Hawkins, and
Hainesville. Pillow growth is shown by decreased net and
percentage sandstone in strata deposited over these structures. Dip-oriented trends of net sandstone outline fluvial
axes that bypassed the pillows. Sediments in the primary
peripheral sinks are significantly richer in sand than are
deposits over the pillows (Fig. 9); F- and t-statistical tests
indicate that, based on the boreholes shown in Figure 9,
the crestal areas contain between 5 and 20% less sand at
the 95% confidence level. The response of facies trends in
other environments is summarized in Figure 4. A natural
example is provided by Cretaceous rudist reefs that grew
on swells over salt pillows in northern Mexico (Elliot,
1979).
Diapir Stage
A primary peripheral sink is synclinal during the pillow
stage (Fig. lOB, C). During the subsequent diapir stage,
the flanks of the pillow deflate because of sah withdrawal
into the central growing diapir. Pillow deflation results in
a secondary peripheral sink in which the originally uplifted
and thinned strata collapse (Fig. lOD). The thickened primary peripheral sink remains unaffected by collapse,
thereby forming an anticlinal structure cored by unde-
, . . . iHAlVEsVlLLEtinl
i i ; t ; ; t DOME ; ; t ; ; i v
3000--9000
000--I2,C«0
6000-L 10 000
-Pinch-out Washpto GfOuDl92Ma)
1
1
-Pinch-oul PoluJiy Fofmorior004Mol
•*-Pinj;h-ojl Rodesso Limestone {rOMol
U-Pincn-oui- Jomes Limesione (112 Mo)
,
,
I
Pinc^-Ou' 1^' inhydrile 1108 Mo)
FIG. 6—Southwest-northeast cross section and map, Hainesville dome, East Texas basin, showing structure of surrounding strata.
Lower Cretaceous strata onlap, offlap, and pinch out around dome. Both syndepositional and postdepositional erosion was active.
Dome growth evolved from pillow stage to diapir stage between end of Washita time and end of Eagle Ford deposition. Cross section
and map of interpretation of seismic data by Loocke (1978).
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
East Texas Diapir Province, Part I
1226
EXPLANATION
TITUS
LToylor Fm.-Austin Group
[
\ Woodbine Group
[^
] Woshito Group
•
Paluxy Fm.
y^
Fault
A
Salt diapir
( T ) Salt pillow
FIG. 7—Primary peripheral sinks in East Texas basin based on isopach maps of four stratigraphic units. Strata in primary peripheral
sinks thickened mainly by salt flow from areas updip of salt pillow, with subordinate lateral flow into growing pillow.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
DUCK CREEK LS
EXPLANATION
FREDERICKSBURG FM
m
PALUXY
y ^ ^ Limestone
ft
60|r2OO
FM
30 "I 100
0^0
[ • ' I Sandstone
I
I Mudstone Marl
SP RES
{ I
STRUCTURE (top Paluxy Fm.)
NET SANDSTONE
ISOPACH
,5
r-^oo
(D
0)
a
c_
Q>
O
?r
(A
O
3
^-y
Salt
pillow
Salt diapir
Cross-section line
p Structural
oil
field
0
5
10
15km
FIG. 8—Cross section XX' and maps of isopach, net sandstone, and structure (top Paluxy) of Paluxy Formation, northern part of East Texas basin. Effects of both pillow (Van,
Hawkins, and Hainesville) and diapiric (Brooks and East Tyler) salt movement are shown. Sand body in withdrawal basin around East Tyler dome (cross section and net sandstone
map) was isolated from sandstone feeder system between Hainesville and Hawkins pillows by subtle structural saddle east of Steen dome (structure map). This saddle was also a
topographic high during Paluxy deposition (isopach map).
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
_^
M
^
lO
CO
m
a)
UNION OIL OF CALIF.
# lO Max field
CAROWAY
# / Gil more
SUN OIL
#1 Re f her
TRICE AMD
# / Poo/
ford
KIAMICHI
HUMBLE
# / Howkms
JACKSON
S A N D S AND SANDS
# /
McCollum
HUMBLE
i t 15 Hawkins
X
ai
SHALE
GOODLAND
LIMESTONE
0)
•o
Percent
Percent
Percent sand
57
%
s a n d ; 51 %
MINOR
F L U V I A L AXIS
EXPLANATION
1 = ^ ^ LIMESTONE
^ 1
i
MUDSTONE-MARL
Percent
MAJOR
F L U V I A L AXIS
0
SP RES
\
C
sand: 5 0 %
MAJOR
F L U V I A L AXIS
10
I
1
O
10
"-T
20
20
'
30
:
40
'
sand: 4 6
%
Percent s a n d : 5 4 7o
MINOR
F L U V I A L AXIS
4 0 mi
r--
60km
400-|_|20
I SANDSTONE
I*.* Son
-60
O-Lo
FIG. 9—Cross section DD' across Van, Hainesville, and Hawkins salt structures, northern part of East Texas basin. Decreased thickness and sand percentage over each structure
indicate that fluvial systems bypassed topographic swells over salt structures during Paluxy deposition.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
o
<
o
9
0)
S. J. Seni and M. P A. Jackson
formed, overthickened sediments and flanked by collapsed, thinned sediments (Fig. lOE). Interdomal strata
thereby undergo structural reversal from synclines to anticlines creating a turtle-structure anticline (Trusheim,
1960), whereas the reverse takes place for strata immediately adjacent to diapirs. Turtle-structure anticlines are
economically important because they have yielded 363
million bbl of oil, or 22% of the cumulative oil production, from the central part of the East Texas basin (Wood
and Giles, 1982).
The diapir stage of salt movement is therefore characterized by deep sediment-filled sinks that surround or flank
the salt dome as rim synclines (Fig. 4). Secondary peripheral sinks contain thicker sediment accumulations and are
of greater area than the primary or tertiary peripheral
sinks. Diapiric uplift exposes overlying strata to erosion,
thereby destroying the sedimentary record over the diapir.
We can only speculate on the nature of these sedimentary
environments (Fig. 4). Units thin near the dome crests,
commonly abruptly; this thinning may be either syndepositional or postdepositional.
Geometry of surrounding strata.—Seven secondary
peripheral sinks are recognized around Bethel, Brooks,
Boggy Creek, East Tyler, Hainesville, La Rue, and Steen
domes (Fig. 11). These basins vary from equidimensional
1229
loelongatein plan. Theaxialtracesof most of the secondary peripheral sinks intercept the associated domes. The
remaining two traces are within 6 km (4 mi) of the associated domes.
Axial traces of these secondary peripheral sinks are
aligned in two dominant directions, northwest and northeast. Possible controls of this alignment are orientation of
early salt anticlines (northeast) and their crestal depressions (northwest), interference folding of salt, or regional
faulting (Jackson, 1982). The orientation of saltwithdrawal basins may in turn partly control similar orientations of surface lineaments in the East Texas basin (Dix
and Jackson, 1981).
Secondary peripheral sinks are up to 215% thicker than
the strata unaffected by salt movement. The maximum
observed thickness increase is 1,347 m (4,420 ft) in the
fine-grained terrigenous elastics and carbonates of the
Austin through Midway Groups around Hainesville
dome. In Figures 12 and 13 the effects of this thickening
are shown for the lower Taylor and Austin Groups. The
time of maximum withdrawal-basin subsidence was different around different domes, even adjacent domes
(Figs. 5,11, 14; also see Seni and Jackson, 1983, pt. 2).
Deposit tonal fades and lithostratigraphy.—Marine and
deltaic strata (mostly limestone and fine-grained terrige-
tertiary peripheral sink
secondary peripheral sink
secondary peripheral sink
p r i m a r y p e r i p h e r a l sink
+ 4 + + + + -*--t + qh + + + + + *4- + + * + 4- + + 4 + 4 + 4 + +^Tr^--(rTr^ + * + + + + + + + + * . - T T ^ ^ t ^ + T T ^ " + + + -t-+ + *- + + + + 4- + + + + 4 + + f ¥^ + + + + 4- + f^* + t + * + + 4 4
• * + + - f - t - * 4 - 4 * - » + + 4 - > * - » * 4 » - f + 4-* + t + + + * * 4 + * * - f + 4 - t 5 q i l ^^^ + ^^^^^^^^^^t.^^^^^
+ ^ ^ ^ ^ t ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ t t ^ t ^ ^ + ^ ^ ^ * ^ * * ^ ^
FIG. 10—Schematic cross sections sliowing inferred evolution of salt structures from pillow stage (B and C), through diapir stage (D),
to post-diapir stage (E). Modified from Trusheim (1960).
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
East Texas Diapir Province, Part I
1230
FRANKLIN
> TITUS
EXPLANATION
I I Midway- Taylor
I
{ L.Taylor Fm.-Aust
I
J Washita Group
[
] Paiuxy Fm
I
1 Glen Rose Subgroup
^ / ^ Fault
*
Salt diapir
FIG. 11—Secondary peripheral sinks in East Texas basin from isopach maps of five stratigraphic units. Only sinks thickened greater
than 50% with respect to regional thickness are shown. Actual area affected by salt withdrawal is much greater than secondary peripheral sinks shown here (compare Figs. 13,14,15).
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
FIG. 12—Lithostratigraphic cross section U U ' , pre-Pecan Gap Chalk (Upper Cretaceous) strata, in secondary peripheral sink around Hainesville dome. Stratigraphic section
expands up to 215%, but lithic variations are minor. Cross section located on Figures 2 and 13.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
rj
W
1232
East Texas Diapir Province, Part I
RAINS COUNTY
I -
• •
HOPKINS COUNTY
WOOD COUWTY
~'<.
1500-
•
,. FRAMKLIN
_._. - X
'
•
I
COUNTY
.
;
t T
.•
• \ \
• \ \
• »/ \ \
•
• •
•
•
CAMP** COUNTY
EXPLANATION
^
Salt diapir
^- * * • .
r._>]-^-/
Salt pillow
__, Cross-section line
0
•
Salt-withdrowal basin
5
10
15km
C I = 2 0 0 ft with lOOft supplementary contojrs
Well control
Solt-pillow uplift
FIG. 13—Isopach map, lower Taylor-Austin Group, around Hainesville dome» northern part of East Texas basin. Axial trace
(approximately cross-section line U U ' , Fig. 12) of secondary peripheral sink intercepts Hainesville dome.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
S. J . Seni and M. P. A. Jackson
^ . .% / . .
. . . . . .
1233
.-NV
r .2V
.-.VAN %'
.-.SALT , *
.'.PILLOW. • ' : • . • / •
UFNOLRSON C 8 U N T Y _
EXPLANATION
^ ^ B
Snit diopir
I ' . ' . •/ 5oll pillow
Salt withdn/<nl bn-^m
Cross - seclton line
^ e l l control
C I
100ft with supplementary 50-ft contours
FIG. 14—Isopach map, Washita Group, central East Texas basin, showing overthickened strata in salt-withdrawal basins around
Mount Sylvan, Steen, and East Tyler domes.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
1234
East Texas Diapir Province, Part I
VAr^LZANDT COUNTY
SMITH COUNTY
•^HENDERSP^-^COONTV,
-^^
EXPLANATION
y ^
PALESTINE
DOME
/
^ ^
\
•——• Cross-sedion line
Solt diapir
•
Well conlrol
<^
0
i^V
,0^
CCH'
,;
1 Solt-withdrawo( bosm
5
I
'^"lF~
10 m,
~75Tm
CI = 100 ft witti 50-ft supplementary contours
%f'
c9&
,.0ERSON*""''
FIG. 15—Isopach map. Glen Rose Subgroup, central East Texas basin near La Rue, Brushy Creek, and Boggy Creek domes. Domes
are flanked by large secondary peripheral sinks indicating rapid dome growth during Glen Rose deposition. Fairway field Oined pattern) is located in reef and reef-associated facies on elevated saddle between withdrawal basins. Cross section ZZ' is shown in Figure
16.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
S. J. Seni and M. P. A. Jackson
1235
nous elastics) dominate the expanded stratigraphic section distribution of sand and mud in nearshore deposits of the
within secondary peripheral sinks in the East Texas basin. Paluxy Formation (Fig. 8). A strike-oriented trend of
Uplift and erosion occurred over the diapir during subsid- aggregate sandstone thickness is isolated in the mudstone
ence and deposition of deeper water facies in the adjacent fill of a withdrawal basin around East Tyler dome (Fig. 8).
peripheral sinks.
Greater subsidence in this basin preserved what is interLa Rue and Brushy Creek domes are surrounded by preted to be a barrier bar or shelf-sand body produced by
prominent salt-withdrawal basins, containing 152 km' (37 delta destruction.
mi') of overthickened strata (Fig. 15). The region between
these large basins was an elevated saddle, which favored
Post-Diapir Stage
growth of reefs during deposition of the Lower Cretaceous James Limestone (Fig. 16). Today these reefs and
reef-associated facies host oil production of the Fairway
Post-diapir growth can be viewed as the waning phase of
field (Terriere, 1976) (Fig. 15).
salt movement after rapid growth during the diapir stage.
Diapiric growth of Steen and East Tyler domes affected The post-diapir stage is generally the longest stage of salt
FIG. 16—Lithostratigraphic cross section ZZ' near La Rue and Brushy Creek domes, East Texas basin, showing overthickening of
Glen Rose strata in secondary peripheral sinks, and existence of reef facies in James Limestone in elevated saddle between sinks. Cross
section located on Figures 2 and 15.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
1236
East Texas Diapjr Province, Part I
flow. Over geologic time this movement is steady-state
compared with the relatively brief surge of diapirism. During the post-diapir stage, domes stay at or near the sediment surface despite continued regional subsidence and
deposition.
Post-diapir seilt movement is characterized by tertiary
peripheral sinks (Trusheim, 1960). These sinks surround
or flank domes, and some are characterized by lithologic
variations in fluvial deposits that encase the diapirs. Given
the contour interval used in this study (30 m, 100 ft),
changes in thickness may be too subtle to reveal some tertiary peripheral sinks.
All diapirs examined here show evidence of post-diapir
growth. All but five of these domes are within 600 m
(2,000 ft) of the surface (the exceptions being Boggy
Creek, Brushy Creek, Concord, Girlie Caldwell, and La
Rue domes). The post-diapir rise of these five deep domes
failed to keep pace with sedimentation and subsidence of
the salt source layer in the center of the East Texas basin.
The influence of post-diapir salt flow on thickness and
geometry of surrounding strata, on depositional systems,
and on lithostratigraphy of the Eocene Wilcox Group was
studied for three reasons: (1) post-diapir flow is minor,
with little influence on surrounding strata, thus its effects
are best revealed in the youngest units, which have been
less complicated by differential subsidence and compaction; (2) domes have not completely "pierced" the Wilcox
Group in East Texas so that supra-dome strata can also be
investigated; and (3) sand-body geometry and depositional systems of the Wilcox in Texas are well known
CHEROKEE CO
OAKWOOD
CO .- ^
CO
SiS^
\
EXPLANATION
B
Solt diapir
Tertiary peripheral
sink and oxial trace
Domal uplift
20 km
FIG. 17—Map of tertiary peripheral sinks and uplifted areas in Wilcox Group over domes in southern part of East Texas basin. Subsidence in sinks affects greater areas than does uplift over domes. Strata are well preserved in withdrawal areas and are poorly preserved in uplifted areas.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
S. J. Seni and M. P. A. Jackson
(Fisher and McGowen, 1967; Kaiser, 1974; Kaiser et al,
1978,1980).
Geometry of surrounding strata.—In the southern part
of the East Texas basin, eight diapirs were active in the
early Tertiary and are flanked by tertiary peripheral sinks
8 to 40% thicker than areas unaffected by salt flow (Fig.
17). The sink areas range from 20 to 100 km^ (8 to 39 mi^).
The tertiary peripheral sink with the largest volume is on
the eastern flank of Bethel dome. The uplifted and
thinned areas over the dome crests cover 10 to 50 km^ (4 to
19 mi^) (Fig. 17), but rarely extend more than 3 km (2 mi)
beyond the salt stock.
Depositional systems and lithostratigraphy.—Postdiapir growth produced mounds over the domes that
locally influenced distribution of sand and mud in Wilcox
1237
fluvial deposits. Aggrading fluvial channels were preferentially localized by greater subsidence in tertiary peripheral sinks. Deflection of fluvial channels away from the
domal mounds allowed deposition of fine-grained, floodplain sediments over the dome. These relationships are
well illustrated in the southern part of the East Texas basin
by eight domes in the interaxial areas between major sand
belts of the Wilcox Group (Fig. 18).
Sand-body distribution in the Wilcox around Bethel
(Fig. 19) and Oakwood domes (Fig. 20) illustrates the
effect of dome growth on coeval sedimentation. The tertiary peripheral sink east of Bethel dome (Fig. 19) includes
four stacked channel-fill sands, each more than 15 m (50
ft) thick. In contrast, uplifted strata over Bethel dome are
thinned and include only one sand body greater than 15 m
CHLROKEe
COUNTY
EXPLANATION
^^
Salt diapir
[W\ > 7 0 % sand
*->i^ Cross-section line
20
25km
FIG. 18—Percentage sandstone map, WBcox Group, southern part of East Texas basin. Eight diapirs in this area lie in interaxial areas
containing lower percentage of sand.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
1238
East Texas Diapir Province, Part I
t
GO
1
?
§ \
—1—i-—r~
o
8
-o
O
O
ID
'O
sapo;
s
in
O
r=x:
i II
i1iii
"iiowJ
c
o
-CM
B
in
OS
XODllM
-ro
w-
I
e
B
SI
B
e
It
u
12
i
0 <H
SI
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
S. J. Sen! and M. P. A. Jackson
(50 ft) thick, although the percentage of sand is only
slightly lower there than in the peripheral sink. Vertically
stacked, channel-fill sands also dominate the tertiary
peripheral sink 3 to 10 km (2 to 6 mi) southeast of Oakwood dome (Fig. 20). Muddy sediments dominate the
flood plain over the dome and are interbedded with
crevasse-splay sands 0.3 to 4.0 m (Ito 13 ft) thick. F- and t-
1239
statistical tests indicate that, at the 95% confidence level,
strata over the diapirs contain 7 to 18% less sand than do
strata in nearby channel axes.
Holocene analogs.—Surface mapping of the Texas
coastal zone (Fisher et al, 1972, 1973; McGowen et al,
1976; McGowen and Morton, 1979) provides valuable
information on Holocene topography and surficial-
A
NW
A'
SE
McBee *l M-Sforms
KA-38-25-827
RESISTIVITY
C
20
LETCO T0H-2A
RESISTIVITY
0
2C
50
Lake*I Leon Plantation
SA-38-29-902
RESISTIVITY
0
20
SP
i \ - Tl
Datum sea level
FIG. 20—-Cross section AA', Wilcox Group around Oakwood Dome (cross section located on Figs. 2 and 18). The tertiary peripheral
sink contains sand-rich fades. A paleotopographic mound over the dome deflected Wilcox fluvial systems, so that thinned strata over
the crest of the dome comprise mud-rich, floodplain facies.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
East Texas Diapir Province, Part I
1240
•Beaumont-Port Arthur
Houston-Gclveston
Bay City - Freeporl
UMap
I
I Histogrom data
EXPLANATION
p ^ l ^ Sond,includes all suboeriol sandy deposits, fluviol
lMi% sand, distributary sand and silt with locol mud,
sirand-ploin-ctienier sand, and suboqueous-suboerial
spoil
•
Mud, includes all suboerial muddy deposits, flood-basin
mud, interdistributary mud, morsh ond swamp facies,
mud-filled stfond-plain-chenier swales, mud-flats
[^
I
| Salt dome, shollow piercement, projected outline
I (approximate)
(app
of dome, some surface expression,
with locol relief ir feet
0
I
o
o
<
3
t
4
•
5
I
^^^
11
CO ' =
li_
U 10
tt:
o
10
a:
m 5
S
CD ^
S
=i r,
2
I
i
r
_)
I
•
—
-
i
is
PERCENTAGE OF SURFACE OVER
SALT DOME COVERED BY SAND
105
20
15
4,5
10
3
5
1.5
0
-5
-15
LOCAL RELIEF OVER SALT DOME (IT)
FIG. 21—Map of shallow salt domes and surficiai sand and clay, uppermost Texas coast (Beaumont-Port Arthur area). Coastal diapurs are located preferentially along margins of dip-oriented sand belts or in muddy, interaxial areas. Histograms show relief over
domes and percentage of surface over domes covered by sand on upper Texas coast south to the Bay City-Freeport area. Abundant
surfidal sand (including eolian) blankets most of upper Texas coast in the Bay City-Freeport area. Domes in this anomalously sandy
area constitute about half the domes in the 75-100% sand class. (Histograms after Fisher et al, 1972,1973; McGowen et al, 1976; map
after Fisher etal, 1973.)
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
S. J. Seni and M. P. A. Jackson
1241
sediment distribution over shallow domes in a post-diapir high probability that older deposhs encasing the diapirs
stage for analogy with the East Texas domes during early are also mud rich. The lack of relief over some salt strucTertiary deposition (Fig. 21).
tures is related to greater depth of burial, to cessation of
Fifty-six percent of the diapirs on the upper Texas coast upward growth, or to dissolution.
have greater than 1.5 m (5 ft) positive relief over the domes
The modern Persian Gulf is a shallow epicontinental sea
(Fig. 21C). This reUef has apparently influenced the distri- with many similarities to the East Texas basin during the
bution of Holocene surficial sediments. Texas coastal dia- Mesozoic. Holocene sediments in the Persian Gulf are pripirs generally occur in sand-poor areas or along sand-belt marily carbonates similar to the Washita Group and Glen
margins. Since the Tertiary, fluvial fades and environ- Rose Subgroup. Shallow salt domes form mounds on the
ments of the Texas coastal zone have tended to stack verti- sea floor, and particularly active diapirs form islands with
cally owing to rapid subsidence. For example, sandstones salt exposed at the surface (Purser, 1973; Kent, 1979).
are vertically stacked in the upper Pliocene and Pleisto- Some of these salt-dome islands (Fig. 22) are flanked by
cene fluvial-deltaic sequences in the Houston-Galveston arcuate depressions inferred to be the surface expression
area (Kreitler et al, 1977). Thus, the present association of of rim synclines (Purser, 1973). A zone of coral-algal reefs
coastal diapirs in mud-rich surficial deposits indicates a fringes many salt-cored islands and sea floor mounds.
OMAN
• Emergent Hormur Salt Plugs
0
300km
I
'
h
200 mi
after Kent, 1979
after Purser, 1973
EXPLANATION
0
1
I—i'
0
2
I
i'
3 mi
I
I.
Rim syncline depression
W^M Mud i muddy sand
I 2 3 4 5 Krr
yJ.'^CoKil-algal reefs
Solt
';:V;;-.'I Gravel sond
Shoreline
FIG. 22—Bathymetry and the distribution of modern carbonate sediments in the Persian Gulf are strongly controlled by salt flow.
Yas salt dome forms an island north of Tnicial Coast, United Arab Emirates (righthand map), flanked by coral-algal reefs and carbonate sand and gravel. Area between Yas and Jebel Dhana salt dome on Trucial Coast mainland also contains coarse carbonate
elastics and patch reefs. Farther offshore from Yas, rim synclines are expressed as topographic depressions on sea floor in which carbonate mud and muddy sand are accumulating. Modified from Purser (1973).
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
1242
East Texas Diapir Province, Part I
whereas mud and muddy carbonate sand accumulate in
topographic depressions of rim synclines located 1 to 5 km
(0.6 to 3 mi) offshore (Fig. 22). The sea floor around Hormuz Island, the most spectacular salt-dome island, is littered with exotic blocks of the Hormuz Formation that
have been rafted up by the salt, indicating that, in the past,
salt was extruded on the surface and sea bottom (Kent,
1979).
DISCUSSION
Syndepositional lithostratigraphic variations in response
to salt flow highlight the interdependence among sediment
accumulation, dome evolution, and potential for petroleum accumulation. These lithostratigraphic variations
are primarily a function of paleotopography. Salt uplift
formed swells and mounds over salt pillows and diapirs,
respectively. Concurrently, topographic and structural
basins formed over zones of salt withdrawal, a process
that formed saddles with residual elevation between the
basins. This salt-related topography influenced sedimentation patterns, which, in turn, enhanced continued salt
flow by increased sedimentary loading in the basin.
In the East Texas basin, growth of salt pillows was
responsible for uplift and thinning in areas of 100 to 400
km^ (40 to 150 mi^), whereas diapir growth caused uplift
and thinning in areas of only 10 to 50 km^ (4 to 20 mi^).
Continued domal "piercement" commonly destroyed the
uplifted strata by erosion or by shoving the uplifted units
aside in trapdoor manner. In contrast, much of the very
broad, thinned zone over pillow crests was preserved after
pillow collapse when diapirism buried the thinned region
deep below secondary and tertiary peripheral sinks.
Dome and pillow uplifts influenced net-sandstone trends
because fluvial systems bypassed mounds. Uplifted areas,
therefore, tend to be thin and sand poor. Subsidence of the
peripheral sinks, in turn, promoted aggradation of sandrich fluvial-channel facies. These variations are commonly illustrated in nonmarine facies deposited both in
pillow stage (Paluxy Formation) and post-diapir stage
(Wilcox Group) sinks, but are rare in marine facies deposited in diapir-stage sinks. Under marine conditions, sand
can accumulate by winnowing on bathymetric shoals, so
that salt domes with sufficient surface expression, such as
those in the modern Persian Gulf, are overlain by sandrich sediments, in direct contrast to diapirs in fluvially
dominated depositional environments. Small reefs might
also be exp)ected on topographic highs over dome crests,
but these have not been found in East Texas. Such domecrest reefs have been recognized in Oligocene sediments of
the Texas Gulf Coast (Cantrell et al, 1959), in Holocene
strata in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico (Bright, 1977;
Rezak, 1977), and in the modern Persian Gulf (Purser,
1973). Lower Cretaceous reefs have been found in East
Texas on saddles between sadt-withdrawal basins.
During diapirism, the effect of the topographic depression in the peripheral sink far overshadows the effect of
uplift over the dome. Diapir growth is characterized by
enormous secondary peripheral sinks. In East Texas the
largest secondary peripheral sink encloses 1,000 km^ (390
mi^), around Hainesville dome. Low-energy marine facies
characteristically dominate the fill of secondary peripheral
sinks. In contrast to secondary sinks, primary and tertiary
peripheral sinks are usually difficult to map because they
are only slightly thicker than surrounding strata, and
because of interference from other active salt structures
nearby
Locations of sinks are related to evolutionary stage and
regional dip. Axial traces of primary peripheral sinks are
10 to 20 km (6 to 12 mi) from the crest of the associated pillows, and tend to be located updip of the structure. In contrast, secondary and tertiary peripheral sinks commonly
encircle the diapir. This shifting of the peripheral sinks
through time reflects the changing character of salt migration through the various stages of dome growth. The primary change was from predominantly downdip lateral
flow in the pillow stage to a combination of centripetal
and vertical flow in the diapir and later stages.
SIGNinCANCE TO SUBTLE PETROLEUM TRAPS
Variations in thickness and syndepositional facies characterize near-dome strata during salt flow. These variations enable inference of dome-growth stages and provide
a framework with which to predict subtle hydrocarbon
traps.
Pillow growth caused broad crestal uplift so that syndepositionally and postdepositionally thinned strata overlie
the pillow crest. Fluvial and deltaic strata deposited over
the crests of salt pillows are sand-poor but are likely to be
flanked by stratigraphic pinch-outs of sandy reservoirs.
Sand-rich fluvial channel systems bypassed pillow crests
and occupied adjacent primary peripheral sinks. Under
marine conditions, paleotopographic swells over pillows
are potential reservoirs because they were preferred sites
of reef growth, high-energy grainstone deposition, and
sand concentration by winnowing. Primary peripheral
sinks formed preferentially updip of the salt pillows
because of greater salt flow into the pillow from the updip
side.
Structural reversal during diapirism transforms a primary peripheral sink into a turtle-structure anticline. Thus
the location of a primary peripheral sink establishes the
position of the core of the subsequent turtle-structure anticline, generally 10 to 20 km (6 to 12 mi) updip from the
dome crest. This is a valuable exploration guide for one of
the most important salt-related structural traps, especially
at the deeper, less explored horizons.
During diapirism, large secondary peripheral sinks
enclosed or flanked the diapir. In East Texas, marine
strata dominate the fill of secondary peripheral sinks and
represent expanded but otherwise normal, low-energy
sequences. Because secondary peripheral sinks were local
sites of greater subsidence and, hence, topographic lows,
they were more likely to preserve marine sand bodies
formed during transgressive reworking. These pinch-outs
of marine sand bodies may subsequently act as subtle
hydrocarbon traps.
Sea-floor mounds over diapirs may become petroleum
reservoirs because they were sites for reef growth, grainstone deposition, and sand concentration by winnowing,
as in the case of pillows. In contrast, however, these supra-
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
S. J. Seni and M. P. A. Jackson
domal mounds were much smaller than analogous suprapillow swells and were almost invariably destroyed by
further uplift, erosion, and salt emplacement.
Another important stratigraphic trap may be formed
during diapirism. Raised saddles between secondary
peripheral sinks allowed reef growth in James Limestone
(Lower Cretaceous Glen Rose Subgroup); both the structure and lithology of these saddles favored petroleum
accumulation, such as the giant Fairway field in Henderson and Anderson Counties.
Post-diapir growth had only a minor effect on surrounding strata. Mounds over domes undergoing post-diapir
growth deflected Wilcox fluvial channel systems around
supradome areas, so that mud-rich interaxial sediments
were deposited over the diapir. Differential subsidence
caused Wilcox fluvial channel sandstones to stack vertically in tertiary peripheral sinks. Subtle petroleum traps
formed during this stage are expected to be much smaller
than those formed during earlier stages of diapirism.
REFERENCES CITED
Atwater, G. I., and M.J. Forman, 1959, Nature of growth of southern
Louisiana salt domes and its effect on petroleum accumulation:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 43, p. 2592-2622.
Barton, D. C , 1933, Mechanics of formation of salt domes with special
reference to Gulf Coast salt domes of Texas and Louisiana: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 17, p. 1025-1083.
Bishop, R. S., 1978, Mechanism for emplacement of piercement diapirs:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 62, p. 1561-1583.
Bornhauser, M., 1958, Gulf Coast tectonics: AAPG Bulletin, v. 42, p.
339-370.
1969, Geology of Day dome (Madison County, Texas)—a study
of salt emplacement: AAPG Bulletin, v. 53, p. 1411-1420.
Bright, T. J., 1977, Coral reefs, nepheloid layers, gas seeps, and brine
flows on hard banks in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: Third International Coral Reef Symposium Proceedings, no. 3, v. 1, p. 39-46.
Bushaw, D. J., 1968, Environmental synthesis of the East Texas Lower
Cretaceous: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 18, p. 416-438.
Cantrell, R. B., J. C. Montgomery, and A. E. Woodard, 1959, Heterostegina reef on Nash and other piercement sah domes in northwestern
Brazoria County, Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 9, p. 59-62.
Caughey, C. A., 1977, Depositional systems in the Paluxy Formation
(Lower Cretaceous) northeast Texas—oil, gas and ground water
resources: University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 77-8, 59 p.
DeGolyer, E., 1925, Origin of North American salt domes: AAPG Bulletin, v. 9, p. 831-874.
Dix, O. R., and M. P. A. Jackson, 1981, Statistical analysis of lineaments
and their relation to fracturing, faulting, and halokinesis in the East
Texas basin: University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology
Report of Investigations, no. 110,30 p.
Eaton, R. W., 1956, Resume on subsurface geology of northeast Texas
with emphasis on salt structures: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 5, p. 78-84.
Elliot, T. L., 1979, Deposition and diagenesis of carbonate slope deposits,
Lower Cretaceous, northeastern Mexico: PhD dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, 330 p.
Fisher, W. L., and J. H. McGowen, 1967, Depositional systems in the
Wilcox Group of Texas and their relationship to occurrence of oil and
gas: University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Geological
Circular 67-4, p. 105-125.
L. F. Brown, J. H. McGowen, and C. G. Groat, 1973, Environmental geologic atlas of the Texas coastal zone—Beaumont-Port
Arthur area: University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, 93 p.
J. H, McGowen, L. R Brown, and C. G. Groat, 1972, Environmental geologic atlas of the Texas coastal zone—Galveston-Houston
area: University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, 91 p.
1243
Giles, A., and D. H. Wood, 1981, Petroleum accumulation patterns in
the East Texas salt dome area, in Geology and geohydrology of the
East Texas basin, a report on the progress of nuclear waste isolation
feasibility studies (1980): University of Texas Bureau of Economic
Geology Geological Circular 81-7, p. 67-77.
Granata, W. H., 1963, Cretaceous stratigraphy and structural development of the Sabine uplift area, Texas and Louisiana, in Report on
selected north Louisiana and south Arkansas oil and gas fields and
regional geology: Shreveport Geological Society, Reference Volume V,
p.50-95.
Halbouty, M. T, 1979, Salt domes Gulf region. United States and Mexico, second edition: Houston, Gulf Publishing Company, 561 p.
1980, Methods used, and experience gained, in exploration for
new oil and gas fields in highly explored (mature) areas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 64, p. 1210-1222.
Hughes, D. J., 1968, Salt tectonics as related to several Smackover fields
along the northeast rim of the Gulf of Mexico basin: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 18, p. 320-339.
Jackson, M. P. A., 1982, Fault tectonics of the East Texas basin: University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 82-4,
31 p.
and S. J. Seni, 1983, Geometry and evolution of salt structures in
a marginal rift basin of the Gulf of Mexico, east Texas: Geology, v.
l l , p . 131-135.
and M. K. McGowen, 1982, Initiation of salt flow, east
Texas basin (abs.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 66, p. 584-585.
Jaritz, W., 1980, Einige Aspekte der Entwicklungsgeschichte der
nordwestdeutschen Salzstocke: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft, v. 131, p. 387-408.
Johnson, H. A., and D. H. Bredeson, 1971, Structural development of
some shallow salt domes in Louisiana Miocene productive belt:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 55, p. 204-226.
Kaiser, W. R., 1974, Texas lignite near surface and deep basin resources:
University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations no. 79,70 p.
W. B. Ayers, Jr., and L. W. La Brie, 1980, Lignite resources of
Texas: University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Report of
Investigations no. 104, 52 p.
J. E. Johnston, and W. N. Bach, 1978, Sand-body geometry and
the occurrence of lignite in the Eocene of Texas: University of Texas
Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 78-4,19 p.
Kent, P. E., 1979, The emergent Hormuz sah plugs of southern Iran:
Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 2, p. 117-144.
Kreitler, C. W., E. Guevara, G. Granata, and D, McKalips, 1977, Hydrogeology of Gulf Coast aquifers, Houston-Galveston area, Texas:
University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 77-4, 18 p.
O. K. Agagu, J. M. Basciano, E. W. Collins, O. R. Dix, S. P. Dutton, G. E. Fogg, A. B. Giles, E. H. Guevara, D. W. Harris, D. K.
Hobday, M. K. McGowen, D. Pass, and D. H. Wood, 1980, Geology
and geohydrology of the East Texas basin, a report on the progress of
nuclear waste isolation feasibility studies (1979): University of Texas
Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 80-12, 112 p.
E. W. Collins, E. D. Davidson, Jr., O. R. Dix, G. W. Donaldson,
S. R Dutton, G. E. Fogg, A. B. Giles, D. W. Harris, M. R A. Jackson,
C. M. Lopez, M. K. McGowen, W. R. Muehlberger, W. D. Pennington, S. J. Seni, D. H. Wood, and H. V. Wuerch, 1981, Geology
and geohydrology of the East Texas basin, a report on the progress of
nuclear waste isolation feasibility studies (1980): University of Texas
Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 81-7,207 p.
Kupfer, D.H., 1970, Mechanism of intrusion of Gulf Coat sah,/nD. H.
Kupfer, ed.. The geology and technology of Gulf Coast salt, a symposium: School of Geoscience Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, p. 25-66.
1976, Times and rates of salt movement in north Louisiana, in J.
D. Martinez and R. L. Thorns, eds.. Salt dome utilization and environmental considerations: Symposium Proceedings, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, p. 145-170.
Loocke, J. E., 1978, Growth history of the Hainesville salt dome. Wood
County, Texas: Master's thesis. University of Texas at Austin, 95 p.
Martin, R. G., 1978, Northern and eastern Gulf of Mexico continental
margin: stratigraphic and structural framework in Framework,
facies, and oil-trapping characteristics of the upper continental margin: AAPG Studies in Geology 7, p. 21-42.
McGowen, J. H., and R. A. Morton, 1979, Sediment distribution.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user
1244
East Texas Diapir Province, Part I
bathymetry, faults, and salt diapirs, submerged lands of Texas: University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, 31 p.
L. F. Brown, Jr., T. J. Evans, W. L. Fisher, and C. G. Groat, 1976,
Environmental geologic atlas of the Texas coastal zone—Bay CityFreeport area: University of Texas Bureau of Economics Geology, 98
PNettleton, L. L. 1934, Fluid mechanics of salt domes: AAPG Bulletin, v.
18, p.1175-1204.
Nichols, R H., G. E. Peterson, C. E. Wuestner, 1968, Summary of subsurface geology of northeast Texas in Natural gases of North America
AAPG Memoir 9, p. 982-1004.
O'Neill, C. A., Ill, 1973, Evolution of Belle Island salt dome, Louisiana:
Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 23, p.
115-135.
Purser, B. H., 1973, Sedimentation around bathymetric highs in the
southern Persian Gulf, in B. H. Purser, ed.. The Persian Gulf: Holocene carbonate sedimentation and diagenesis in a shallow epicontinental sea: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 157-177.
Ramberg, H., 1981, Gravity, deformation and the earth's crust in theory,
experiments and geological application, second edition: London,
Academic Press, 452 p.
Rezak, R., 1977, West Flower Garden Bank, Gulf of Mexico: AAPG
Studies in Geology 4, p. 27-35.
Sannemann, D., 1968, Salt-stock families in northwestern Germany, in
Diapirism and diapirs: AAPG Memoir 8, p. 261-270.
Seni, S. J., 1981, Depositional systems of the Lower Cretaceous Paluxy
Formation, East Texas basin in Geology and geohydrology of the
East Texas basin, a report on the progress of nuclear waste isolation
feasibility studies (1980): University of Texas Bureau of Economic
Geology Geological Circular 81-7, p. 53-59.
and M. P. A. Jackson, 1983, Evolution of salt structures, east
Texas diapir province, part 2: patterns and rates of halokinesis,
AAPG Bulletin, v. 67 (following this paper).
Smith, D. A., and E A. E. Reeve, 1970, Salt piercement in shallow Gulf
Coast salt structures: AAPG Bulletin, v. 54, p. 1271-1289.
Stude, G. R., 1978, Depositional environments of the Gulf of Mexico
South Timbalier Block 54: salt dome and salt dome growth models:
Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 28, p.
627-646.
Terriere, R. T., 1976, Geology of Fairway Field, East Texas, in North
American oil and gas fields: AAPG Memoir 24, p. 157-176.
Trusheim, F, 1960, Mechanism of salt migration in northern Germany:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 44, p. I5I9-I540.
Turk, Kehle, and Associates, 1978, Tectonic framework and history. Gulf
of Mexico region: Report prepared for Law Engineering Testing
Company, Marietta, Georgia, 28 p.
van Eysinga, F. W. B., 1975, Geological time table: Amsterdam, Elsevier.
One sheet.
van Hinte, J. E., 1976a, A Jurassic time scale: AAPG Bulletin, v. 60, p.
489^97.
1976b, A Cretaceous time scale: AAPG Bulletin, v. 60, p. 498516.
Wood, D. H., and A. B. Giles, 1982, Hydrocarbon accumulation patterns in the East Texas salt dome province: University of Texas at
Austin Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 82-6,36 p.
—
andE. H. Guevara, 1981, Regional structural cross sections and
general stratigraphy. East Texas basin: University of Texas Bureau of
Economic Geology, 21 p.
Woodbury, H. O., 1. B. Murray, Jr., and R. E. Osborne, 1980, Diapirs
and their relation to hydrocarbon accumulation, in A. D. Miall, ed..
Facts and principles of world petroleum occurrence: Calgary, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, p. 119-142.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/67/8/1219/4483322/aapg_1983_0067_0008_1219.pdf
by Stephen F. Austin State University user