Interpretation Example: The Timing of Diapiric Movement
Figure1 is a marine section crossing two salt pillows.
Figure 1
The section represents 27 km (17 miles) of line; we note how the
vertical exaggeration (about 3:1) makes it easy to see the
thickening and thinning of different intervals. An interpreter has
picked the section for us, at several levels. On the basis of
correlations between the section and wells drilled in the area, he
has identified the intervals between the picks as Lower Tertiary
(TL), Upper Cretaceous (KU), Lower Jurassic (JL), Upper and Lower
Triassic (THU, TRL), and the Zechstein salt (Ze). He has also
suggested several faults, in a qualitative manner; we see that, as
usual, the deep faults are absorbed in the thick and mobile salt
section.
The Upper and Lower Triassic maintain substantially constant
thickness over and between the salt pillows. The same parallelism
seems to be maintained in the lowest part of the Lower Jurassic. We
can say, therefore, that there was no significant movement of salt
until some time in the Lower Jurassic, at the earliest. At this
time, the section would have appeared as in Figure4 (f); the whole
depositional system had remained remarkably stable, with the rate
of subsidence generally well matched to the rate of sediment
deposition.
Figure 4
Let us look first at the evolution of the left pillow, which may
have been triggered by rejuvenated faulting in the deep zone below
the salt. We do not know (from this one line) what thickness of
Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous sediments were deposited, for any
Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous sediments which were present
have been eroded. However, the thinning of the remaining Lower
Jurassic sediments over the left pillow tells us that the salt had
moved, and the left pillow had started to form, before this erosion
was complete. Further, the parallelism between the erosional
surface and the lowest reflections in the Upper Cretaceous tells us
that the erosional surface was substantially horizontal, and the
salt had ceased moving, by the early Upper Cretaceous. This
situation is shown in Figure4 (e).
The parallelism of reflections continues through the Upper
Cretaceous and into the Lower Tertiary; there was no movement of
the left pillow during this time ( Figure3 (d)).
Figure 3
Then, some time in the Lower Tertiary, the big uplift started.
Looking at the Tertiary reflections just to the right of the left
uplift, we see thinning toward the high, then a zone of
parallelism, and then renewed thinning; we infer that the salt
started to move, stopped again, and then surged upwards ( Figure3
(c)). Subsequent erosion of the Tertiary sediments led to the
situation of Figure 2 (b).
Figure 2
No movement of the left pillow has occurred since that time, and
sedimentation is proceeding uneventfully at present ( Figure2
(a)).
We turn now to the right pillow. Several interpretations are
possible; we discuss only the simplest. The right pillow did not
start to form at the same time as the left pillow ( Figure4 (e)).
Everything was stable through the period of Jurassic and Lower
Cretaceous deposition and erosion; at the end of the erosion a
topographic high remained at the right of the line. The salt
started to move quite early in the Upper Cretaceous, and continued
until about three-quarters of the Upper Cretaceous was in place;
then it stopped to rest. We can see the clear pattern of onlap
reflections in the Upper Cretaceous during the period of uplift.
The uplift to the right pillow, in distinction from the left
pillow, caused some drop-down faulting over the crest.
Everything then remained stable until early in the Lower
Tertiary ( Figure3 (d)). The right pillow waited while the left
pillow made its false start, and then the final movement started on
both. During this period the withdrawal of salt from between the
pillows caused significant subsidence in the middle of the line (
Figure3 (c)).
During the final erosion, the collapse faulting over the right
pillow hastened the erosion; a valley developed, and broadened to
the left ( Figure2 (b)). Since then the valley has been filled,
though differential compaction of these young sediments has caused
some draping into the valley ( Figure2 (a)).
We turn now to Figure5 .
Figure 5
This shows a salt wall, some 3-4 km in width, which once broke
to the surface. This dramatic example gives us a delightful record
of the salt movement.
Figure6 illustrates complete withdrawal of the salt from the
area between two pillows.
Figure 6
Extensional subsidence in this area has ruptured the Triassic
rocks, and salt has filled the space between them. The right pillow
has engendered a fault of very considerable throw.
These examples are dramatic ones, brought about by the extreme
mobility and low density of salt. In some areas, similar effects
can be caused by mobile shale. However, the techniques which we
learn from these dramatic examples are of general utility in
establishing the order of events in geologic time. And the
importance of this to the interpreter is major; we see from Figure7
(a sedimentary series with the potential for petroleum
accumulation),
Figure 7
Figure8 (the importance of timing: migration before trap
formation)
Figure 8
and Figure9 (the importance of timing: migration after trap
formation) that we have no interest in traps which formed after the
migration of hydrocarbons was complete.
Figure 9
Thus it may emerge, as an area is developed, that some
structures contain oil or gas, and that others do not; the
interpretation task, then, is to relate the drilling success to the
timing of structure, and to propose drilling locations only on
those structures which are of sufficient age. This is a very
important skill.