1887
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2117

Abstract

Abstract

Determining the response of fluvial systems to syn‐sedimentary halokinesis is important for reconstructing the palaeogeography of salt basins, determining the history of salt movement and predicting development and architecture of sandstone bodies for subsurface fluid extraction. To assess both the influence of salt movement on fluvial system development and the use of lithostratigraphic correlation schemes in salt basins we have analysed the Triassic Chinle Formation in the Paradox Basin, Utah. Results indicate that sandstone body development proximal to salt bodies should be considered at two scales: intra‐ (local) and inter‐ (regional) mini‐basin scale. At the intra‐mini basin or local scale, conformable packages of up to 12 m deep meandering fluvial channel deposits and associated overbank deposits are developed, which may thin, pinch‐out or become truncated towards salt highs. When traced down the axis of a mini‐basin, individual stories extend for a few hundred metres, and form part of amalgamated channel‐belt packages up to 60 m thick that can be traced for at least 25 km parallel to palaeoflow. Where salt movement outpaces sediment accumulation, progressive low angle unconformities are developed along the flanks of salt highs. Significantly, in mini‐basins with high sand supply, sandstone bodies are present across salt highs where they show increased amalgamation, decrease in thickness due to truncation and no change in internal sandstone body character. At inter mini‐basin or regional scale, spatial and temporal variations in accommodation space generated by differential salt movement strongly influence facies distributions and facies correlation lengths. Broad lithostratigraphic packages (5–50 m thick) can be correlated within mini‐basins, but correlation of these units between adjacent mini‐basins is problematic. Knowledge of fluvial system development at a regional scale is critical as, fluvial sediment distribution is focussed by topography generated by growing salt bodies, such that adjacent mini‐basins can have significant differences in sandstone body thickness, distribution and lateral extent. The observations from the Chinle Formation indicate that lithostratigraphic‐based correlation schemes can only be applied within mini‐basins and cannot be used to correlate between adjacent mini‐basins or across a salt mini‐basin province. The key to predicting sandstone body development is an understanding of the timing of salt movement and reconstructing fluvial drainage system development.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/bre.12247
2017-05-14
2020-02-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baars, D.L. & Stevenson, G.M. (1981) Tectonic evolution of the Paradox basin, Utah and Colorado. In: Geology of the Paradox Basin (Ed. by WiegandD.L. ) Rocky Mt. Assoc. Field Conf., 23–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Banbury, N.J. (2005) The role of salt mobility in the development of supra‐salt sedimentary depocentres and structural styles. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
  3. Banham, S.G. & Mountney, N.P. (2013a) Evolution of fluvial systems in salt‐walled minibasins: a review and new insights. Sed. Geol., 296, 142–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Banham, S.G. & Mountney, N.P. (2013b) Controls on fluvial sedimentary architecture and sediment‐fill state in salt‐walled mini‐basins: Triassic Moenkopi Formation, Salt Anticline Region, SE Utah, USA. Basin Res., 25, 709–737.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Banham, S.G. & Mountney, N.P. (2014) Climatic versus halokinetic control on sedimentation in a dryland fluvial succession: Triassic Moenkopi Formation, Utah, USA. Sedimentology, 61, 570–608.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbeau, D.L. (2003a) A flexural model for the Paradox Basin: implications for the tectonics of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains. Basin Res., 15, 97–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barbeau, D.L. (2003b) A flexural model for the Paradox basin: implications for the tectonics of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains. Basin Res., 15, 97–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barde, J.‐P., Chamberlain, P., Galavazi, M., Gralla, P., Harwijanto, J., Marsky, J. & Van Den Belt, F. (2002) Sedimentation during halokinesis: Permo‐Triassic reservoirs of theSaigak Field, Precaspian Basin, Kazakhstan. Petrol. Geosci., 8, 177–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blakey, R.C. & Gubitosa, R. (1983) Late Triassic Paleogeography and depositional history of the Chinle Formation, southeastern Utah and northern Arizona. In: Mesozoic Paleogeography of West‐Central United States (Ed. by M.W.Reynolds & E.D.Dolly ), pp. 57–76. Rocky Mountain Section, SEPM, Denver, CO.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blakey, R.C. & Gubitosa, R. (1984) Controls on sandstone body geometry and architecture in the Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) Colorado Plateau. Sed. Geol., 38, 51–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bridge, J.S. (1985) Paleochannel patterns inferred from alluvial deposits: a critical evaluation. J. Sediment. Petrol., 55, 579–589.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Doelling, H.H. (1985) Geology of Arches National Park: Utah Geol. Min. Surv, 15 pp.
  13. Doelling, H.H. (1988) Geology of the Salt Valley Anticline and Arches National Park. Grand County, Utah. In: Salt Deformation in the Paradox Region (Ed. by DoellingH.H. , OviattC.G. & HuntoonP.W. ) Utah Geol. Surv. Bull., 122, 7–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Doelling, H.H. (2001) Geologic map of theMoab and eastern part of the San RafaelDesert 30'x 60'Quadrangles,Grand and Emery Counties, Utah and Mesa County, Colorado. Utah Geol. Surv., Map 180.
  15. Doelling, H.H. (2002) Geological map of the Moab and eastern part of the San Rafael Desert 300 9 600 quadrangles, Grand and Emery counties, Utah, and Mesa County, Colorado. Utah Geol. Surv.
  16. Doelling, H.H. & Ross, M.L. (1998) Geological map of the Big Bend 7.50 Quadrangle, Grand County, Utah. Utah Geol. Surv., Map 171, 29 pp.
  17. Doelling, H.H., Ross, M.L. & Mulvey, W.L. (2002) Geologic map of the Moab quadrangle, Grand County, Utah: Utah Geol. SSurv., Map 181, scale 1:24,000, 34 sheets.
  18. Dubiel, R.F. (1987) Sedimentology of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, southeastern Utah: paleoclimatic implications. J. Arizona‐Nevada Acad. Sci., 22, 35–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dubiel, R.F. (1994) Triassic deposystems, paleogeography, and paleoclimate of the Western Interior. In: Mesozoic Systems of the Rocky Mountain Region, USA (Ed. by M.V.Caputo , J.A.Peterson & K.J.Franczyk ), p. 133–168. Rocky Mountain Section—SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology).
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dubiel, R.F. & Hasiotis, S.T. (2011) Deposystems, paleosols, and climatic variability in a continental system: the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, Colorado Plateau, U.S.A. In: From River to Rock Record: The Preservation of Fluvial Sediments and Their Subsequent Interpretation (Ed. by DavidsonS. , LeleuS. & NorthC.P. ) SEPM Spec. Publ., 97, 393–421.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dubiel, R.F., Parrish, J.T., Parrish, J.M. & Good, S.C. (1991) The Pangaean megamonsoon evidence from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, Colorado Plateau. Palaios, 6, 347–370.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hartley, A.J., Owen, A.E., Swan, A., Weissmann, G.S., Holzweber, B.I., Howell, J., Nichols, G.D. & Scuderi, L.A. (2015) Recognition and importance of amalgamated sandy meander belts in the continental rock record. Geology, 43, 679–682.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hasiotis, S.T. (2002) Continental trace fossils: SEPM Short Course Notes 51, 132 pp.
  24. HazelJr, J.E. (1991) Alluvial architecture of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, Cane Creek anticline, Canyonlands, Utah. M.S. thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
  25. HazelJr, J.E. (1994) Sedimentary response to intrabasinal salt tectonism in the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, Paradox Basin, Utah: U.S.G.S. Bull., 2000‐F, 34 pp.
  26. Huntoon, P.W., BillingsleyJr, G.H. & Breed, W.J. (1982) Geologic map of Canyonlands National Park and vicinity, Utah. Canyonlands Natural History Association, scale 1:62,500, 1 sheet.
  27. JacksonII, R.G. (1978) Preliminary evaluation of lithofacies models for meandering alluvial streams. In: Fluvial Sedimentology (Ed. by MiallA.D. ) Mem. Can. Soc. Pet. Geol., 5, 543–576.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jones, R.W. (1959) Origin of salt anticlines in the Paradox Basin. AAPG Bull., 43, 1869–1885.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jordan, D.W. & Pryor, W.A. (1992) Hierarchical levels of heterogeneity in a Mississippi River meander belt and application to reservoir systems. AAPG Bull., 76, 1601–1624.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lawton, T.F. & Buck, B.J. (2006) Implications of diaper derived detritus and gypsic paleosols in Lower Triassic strata near Castle Valley salt wall, Paradox Basin, Utah. Geology, 34, 885–888.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mack, G.H. & Rasmussen, K.A. (1984) Alluvial‐Fan sedimentation of the Cutler formation (Permo‐Pennsylvanian) Near Gateway, Colorado. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 95, 109–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Matthews, W., Hampson, G., Trudgill, B. & Underhill, J. (2004) Impact of salt movement on fluvio‐lacustrine stratigraphy and facies architecture: late Triassic Chinle Formation, northern Paradox Basin, southeastern Utah, USA. (Proceedings) GCSSEPM Foundation 24th Annual Bob F. Perkins Research Conference, pp. 931–964. Houston, TX, USA.
  33. Matthews, W.J., Hampson, G.J., Trudgill, B.D. & Underhill, J.R. (2007) Controls on fluvio‐lacustrine reservoir distribution and architecture in passive salt diapir provinces: insights from outcrop analogue. AAPG Bull., 91, 1367–1403.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Newell, A.J., Benton, M.J., Kearsey, T., Taylor, G., Twitchett, R.J. & Tverdokhlebov, V.P. (2012) Calcretes, fluviolacustrine sediments and subsidence patterns in Permo‐Triassic salt‐walled minibasins of the south Urals, Russia. Sedimentology, 59, 1659–1676.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Paz, M.G. (2006) Restoration of mountain front and salt structures in the northern Paradox Basin. MS Thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.
  36. Pipiringos, G.N. & O'Sullivan, R.B. (1978) Principal unconformities in Triassic and Jurassic rocks, Western Interior United States: a preliminary survey: unconformities, correlation, and nomenclature of some Triassic and Jurassic rocks, Western Interior. USGS Prof. Pap., 1035‐A, 29.
  37. Prochnow, S.J., Nordt, L.C., Atchley, S.C., Hudec, M. & Boucher, T.E. (2005) Triassic paleosol catenas associated with a salt‐withdrawal minibasin in southeastern Utah, U.S.A. Rocky Mt. Geol., 40, 25–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Prochnow, S.J., Atchley, S.C., Boucher, T.E., Nordt, L.C. & Hudec, M.R. (2006) The influence of salt withdrawal subsidence on palaeosol maturity and cyclic fluvial deposition in the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation: Castle Valley, Utah. Sedimentology, 53, 1319–1345.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ribes, C., Kergaravat, C., Bonnel, C., Crumeyrolle, P., Callot, J.‐P., Poisson, A., Temiz, H. & Ringenbach, J.‐C. (2015) Fluvial sedimentation in a salt‐controlled mini‐basin: stratal patterns and facies assemblages, Sivas Basin, Turkey. Sedimentology, 62, 1513–1545.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Shoemaker, E.M. & Newman, W.L. (1959) Moenkopi formation (Triassic and Triassic) in Salt Anticline Region, Colorado and Utah. AAPG Bull., 42, 1835–1851.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Shukla, U.K., Singh, I.B., Srivastava, P. & Singh, D.S. (1999) Paleocurrent patterns in braid‐bar and point‐bar deposits: examples from the Ganga River, India. J. Sed Res., 69, 992–1002.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith, R.I., Hodgson, N. & Fulton, M. (1993) Salt controls on Triassic reservoir distribution, UKCS Central North Sea. In: Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the 4th Conference (Ed. by ParkerJ.R. ) Geol. Soc. London, 2, 547–557.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Stewart, J.H., Poole, F.G. & Wilson, R.F. (1972) Stratigraphy and Origin of the Chinle Formation and Related Triassic Strata in the Colorado Plateau Region. U.S.G.S. Survey Professional Paper 690.
  44. Trudgill, B.D. (2011) Evolution of salt structure in the northern Paradox Basin: controls on evaporitic deposition, salt wall growth and supra‐salt stratigraphic architecture. Basin Res., 23, 208–238.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Trudgill, B., Banbury, N. & Underhill, J. (2004) Salt‐evolution as a control on structural and stratigraphic systems: northern Paradox foreland basin, SE Utah, USA. In: Salt Sediment Interactions and Hydrocarbon Prospectively: Concepts, Applications and Case Studies for the 21st Century. Gulf Coast State Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Foundation, 24th Bob F. Perkins Research Conference Proceedings (CD‐ROM) (Ed. by P.J.Post ), pp. 132–177. Gulf Coast Section SEPM Foundation, Huston, TX.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Venus, J.H., Mountney, N.P. & McCaffrey, W.D. (2015) Syn‐sedimentary salt diapirism as a control on fluvial‐system eveolution: an example from the proximal Permian Cutler Group, SE Utah, USA. Basin Res., 27, 152–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. White, M.A. & Jacobson, M.I. (1983) Structures associated with the southwest margin of the ancestral Uncompahgre uplift. In: Northern Paradox Basin— Uncompahgre Uplift: Grand Junction Geological Society Guidebook (Ed. by W.R.Averett ), pp. 33–39. Grand Junction Geology Society, Grand Junction, CO.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/bre.12247
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/bre.12247
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error