Chapter 15 Depositional Evolution of the Gulf of Mexico Sedimentary Basin

Galloway, William E.

doi:10.1016/s1874-5997(08)00015-4

Cited by 147 publications

(198 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

187

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Formation picks for the Norphlet Formation, as reported in a commercial database (IHS Energy Group, 2011), helped define the top of each SAU. The SAU boundary interpretations were supported by (a) the Gulf of Mexico Basin geologic maps and cross sections in the Geological Society of America's Decade of North American Geology volume by Salvador (1991a,b), (b) the chapter and maps on the depositional evolution of the Gulf of Mexico by Galloway (2008), (c) the maps for reservoirs and petroleum systems of the Gulf Coast by Pitman (2011), and (d) formation tops (IHS Energy Group, 2011) differencing to obtain the regional seal thickness. Consequently, Norphlet Formation SAU C50490101 ranges between 3,000 and 13,000 ft in depth and has about a 29 million-acre most-likely area, whereas the Norphlet Formation Deep SAU C50490102 ranges between 13,000 and 22,000 ft and has about a 62 million-acre most-likely area ( fig.…”

Section: Norphlet Formation Sau C50490101 and Norphlet Formation Deepmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…2B). The Buckner Member accumulated on shoal-restricted, shallow, inner platforms (Galloway, 2008), and the Haynesville Formation mudstone was deposited as contemporaneous retrogradational and progradational facies across a restricted basin (Cicero and others, 2010). Hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation in the Haynesville Formation shales (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011) may potentially compromise the seal for the Smackover Formation CO 2 storage reservoir.…”

Section: Smackover Formation Sau C50490103 and Smackover Formation Dementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Water-quality data obtained from a published database (Breit, 2002) indicates that saline formation waters (TDS >10,000 mg/L) are predominant within the Smackover Formation SAUs, and this is expected considering the storage formation overlies the Middle and Upper Jurassic Louann Salt and underlies evaporites of the Buckner Member of the Haynesville Formation (Galloway, 2008;Mancini, 2010). Only relatively small areas exist within the SAUs that contain groundwater with TDS values below the EPA underground sources of drinking water limit of 10,000 mg/L (EPA, 2009(EPA, , 2010.…”

Section: Smackover Formation Sau C50490103 and Smackover Formation Dementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These basins were the Maverick Basin to the southwest, which is located within the Rio Grande embayment, and the East Texas Basin to the east ( fig. 1; Rose, 1972;Galloway, 2008). The platform was once the Central Texas Platform and the southern margin was the Comanchean (Aptian and Albian) Cretaceous reef trend (Rose, 1972), which was dominated by the Stuart City reef trend during the Early Cretaceous (Bebout and Loucks, 1974;Scott, 1990;Galloway, 2008).…”

Section: By Sean T Brennanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The deposition of the Sligo Formation terminated with relative sea level rise, leading to deposition of the deep water Pine Island Shale Member of the Pearsall Formation (Galloway, 2008). This rise in relative sea level was followed by a brief shoaling event, which was on the order of one to two million years (Galloway, 2008) leading to the deposition of the James Limestone Member of the Pearsall Formation (also referred to as the Cow Creek Limestone in the Maverick Basin region; Loucks, 2002). James Limestone Member deposition was terminated by another relative sea level rise, which led to the deposition of the Bexar Shale Member of the Pearsall Formation (Galloway, 2008).…”

Section: By Sean T Brennanmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: U.S. Gulf Coast

Roberts-Ashby¹,

Brennan²,

Buursink³

et al. 2014

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Norphlet Formation Sau C50490101 and Norphlet Formation Deepmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Smackover Formation Sau C50490103 and Smackover Formation Dementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Smackover Formation Sau C50490103 and Smackover Formation Dementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: By Sean T Brennanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: By Sean T Brennanmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: U.S. Gulf Coast

Roberts-Ashby¹,

Brennan²,

Buursink³

et al. 2014

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deep crustal structure of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Implications for rift evolution and seafloor spreading

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We image deep crustal structure using marine seismic refraction data recorded by a linear array of ocean-bottom seismometers in the Gulf of Mexico Basin Opening project (GUMBO Line 3) in order to provide new constraints on the nature of continental and oceanic crust in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. GUMBO Line 3 extends~524 km from the continental shelf offshore Pensacola, Florida, across the De Soto Canyon and into the central Gulf basin. Travel times from long offset, wide angle reflections and refractions resolve compressional seismic velocities and layer boundaries for sediment, crystalline crust, and upper mantle. We compare our results with coincident multichannel seismic reflection data. Our velocity model recovers shallow seismic velocities (~2.0-4.5 km/s) that we interpret as evaporites and clastic sediments. A Cretaceous carbonate platform is interpreted beneath the De Soto Canyon with seismic velocities >5.0 km/s. Crystalline continental crust thins seaward along GUMBO Line 3 from 23-10 km across the De Soto Canyon. High seismic velocity lower crust (>7.2 km/s) is interpreted as extensive syn-rift magmatism and possibly mafic underplating, common features at volcanic rift margins with high mantle potential temperatures. In the central Gulf basin we interpret thick oceanic crust (>8 km) emplaced at a slow full-spreading rate (~24 mm/yr). We suggest a sustained thermal anomaly during slow seafloor-spreading conditions led to voluminous basalt flows from a spreading ridge that overprinted seafloor magnetic anomalies in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico.

show abstract

The ups and downs of North America: Evaluating the role of mantle dynamic topography since the Mesozoic

Liu

2015

Reviews of Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The driving force for transient vertical motions of Earth's surface remains an outstanding question. A main difficulty lies in the uncertain role of the underlying mantle, especially during the geological past. Here I review previous studies on both observational constraints and physical mechanisms of North American topographic evolution since the Mesozoic. I first summarize the North American vertical motion history using proxies from structural geology, geochronology, sedimentary stratigraphy, and geomorphology, based on which I then discuss the published physical models. Overall, there is a progressive consensus on the contribution of mantle dynamic topography due to buoyancy structures associated with the past subduction. At the continental scale, a largely west‐to‐east migrating deformation pattern suggests an eastward translation of mantle dynamic effects, consistent with models involving an eastward subduction and sinking of former Farallon slabs since the Cretaceous. Among the existing models, the inverse model based on an adjoint algorithm and time‐dependent data constraints provides the most extensive explanations for the temporal changes of North American topography since the Mesozoic. At regional scales, debates still exist on the predicted surface subsidence and uplift within both the western and eastern United States, where discrepancies are likely due to differences in model setup (e.g., mantle dynamic properties and boundary conditions) and the amount of time‐dependent observational constraints. Toward the development of the next‐generation predictive geodynamic models, new research directions may include (1) development of enhanced data assimilation capabilities, (2) exploration of multiscale and multiphysics processes, and (3) cross‐disciplinary code coupling.

show abstract

Chapter 15 Depositional Evolution of the Gulf of Mexico Sedimentary Basin

Cited by 147 publications

References 78 publications

Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: U.S. Gulf Coast

Geologic framework for the national assessment of carbon dioxide storage resources: U.S. Gulf Coast

Deep crustal structure of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Implications for rift evolution and seafloor spreading

The ups and downs of North America: Evaluating the role of mantle dynamic topography since the Mesozoic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About