Progradational slope architecture and sediment distribution in outcrops of the mixed carbonate-siliciclastic Bone Spring Formation, Permian Basin, west Texas

Abstract

Sediment transport and distribution are the keys to understanding slope-building processes in mixed carbonate-siliciclastic sediment routing systems. The Permian Bone Spring Formation, Delaware Basin, west Texas, is such a mixed system and has been extensively studied in its distal (basinal) extent but is poorly constrained in its proximal upper-slope segment. Here, we define the stratigraphic architecture of proximal outcrops in Guadalupe Mountains National Park in order to delineate the shelf-slope dynamics of carbonate and siliciclastic sediment distribution and delivery to the basin. Upper-slope deposits are predominantly fine-grained carbonate lithologies, interbedded at various scales with terrigenous (i.e., siliciclastic and clay) hemipelagic and gravity-flow deposits. We identify ten slope-building clinothems varying from terrigenous-rich to carbonate-rich and truncated by slope detachment surfaces that record large-scale mass wasting of the shelf margin. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) data indicate that slope detachment surfaces contain elevated proportions of terrigenous sediment, suggesting that failure is triggered by changes in accommodation or sediment supply at the shelf margin. A well-exposed terrigenous-rich clinothem, identified here as the 1st Bone Spring Sand, provides evidence that carbonate and terrigenous sediments were deposited contemporaneously, suggesting that both autogenic and allogenic processes influenced sediment accumulation. The mixing of lithologies at multiple scales and the prevalence of mass wasting acted as primary controls on the stacking patterns of terrigenous and carbonate lithologies of the Bone Spring Formation, not only on the shelf margin and upper slope, but also in the distal, basinal deposits of the Delaware Basin.

Recognising surface versus sub-surface deformation of soft-sediments: Consequences and considerations for palaeoseismic studies

“…The timing of precipitation of cements in carbonates can therefore play an important role in localising sub-surface deformation, with a number of recent studies highlighting intrastratal deformation in mixed silicalstic-carbonate sequences (e.g. Hou et al, 2020;Walker et al, 2021).…”

Decoding post‐orogenic sediment recycling and dispersal using detrital zircon core and rim ages

“…283–273 Ma). This stage comprised input of silt to fine‐gained sand, mainly from the Northern and Northwestern shelves of the Permian Basin (Hurd et al, 2018; Liu & Ambrose, 2022; Walker et al, 2021) and a lesser southern and eastern input (Waite et al, 2020). Most of the clastic sediment in this stage was delivered to the shelf by alternating sabkha and wadi‐plain systems (Handford, 1980a) or aeolian systems with extensive aridification in southwestern Laurentia (Ruppel & Ward, 2013; Soreghan et al, 2018; Zambito IV & Benison, 2013).…”

Mass transport processes, injectites and styles of sediment remobilization

“…Consequently, deposits resulting from sediment remobilization have been documented across different geologic periods in both siliciclastic (Ogiesoba and Hammes, 2012;Cardona et al, 2016;Sun and Alves, 2020;Gutierrez and Snedden, 2021;Steventon et al, 2021) and carbonate settings (Eyles and Eyles, 2001;Jablonská et al, 2018;Le Goff et al, 2020). More recently, they have also been documented in mixed-composition settings (Moscardelli et al, 2019;Cumberpatch et al, 2020;Walker et al, 2021).…”