University of Texas at Austin Libraries Home | Mobile | My Account | Renew Items | Sitemap | Help
support us
University of Texas Libraries
details contents options

Table of Contents

  1. Atlas of salt domes in the East Texas Basin
    1. Introduction

    2. Regional Geology

    3. Explanation Of Atlas Terminology

    4. Gravity Expression and Depth

    5. Shape of Salt Stock

    6. Dome Structure Adjacent to Salt Stock

    7. Growth History

    8. Structural and Hydrologic Stability

    9. Resources

    10. Significance For Exploration

    11. Atlas Of Salt Domes

    12. Bethel

    13. Boggy Creek

    14. Brooks

    15. Brushy Creek

    16. Bullard

    17. Butler

    18. East Tyler

    19. Grand Saline

    20. Hainesville

    21. Keechi

    22. Mount Sylvan

    23. Oakwood

    24. Palestine

    25. Steen

    26. Whitehouse

  2. Illustrations
    1. Untitled

    2. Untitled

    3. Untitled

    4. Untitled

    5. Figure 1. Location map showing the East Texas Basin, Gulf Coast Basin, inland salt-diapir provinces, salt domes, and salt massifs. (After Martin, 1978.)

    6. Figure 2. Generalized stratigraphic column, East Texas Basin. (From Wood and Guevara, 1981.)

    7. Figure 3. Map of structure on top of the Louann Salt or on top of the pre-Louann surface, showing the four salt provinces in the East Texas Basin. Seismic control and line of cross section A-A' (below) are also indicated. (From Seni and Jackson, 1984.)

    8. Untitled

    9. Figure 4. Isometric block diagrams of the East Texas Basin showing three-dimensional configuration of structure contours on top of the Louann Salt or on top of the pre-Louann surface where salt is thin or absent. Where indicated as "absent," the Louann Salt is too thin to be seismically resolved into a discrete unit or is too thin to supply further salt to diapirs; its actual thickness here may be as much as a few hundred feet. (A) Northwest view. (B)Northeast view. Constructed by isometric projection and incremental translation of contours, following Lobeck (1924, p. 138-142). (A) From Jackson and Seni (1983). (B) From Seni and Jackson (1984).

    10. Figure 5. Map showing distribution of salt diapirs, salt pillows, and turtle-structure anticlines in the East Texas Basin. La Rue, Concord, and Girlie Caldwell salt diapirs have been omitted from this atlas because of the great depths— 4,450 ft (1,356 m), 6,000 ft (1,829 m), and 6,002 ft (1,830 m), respectively—to their crests.

    11. Figure 6. Map showing spatial distribution of three age groups of salt diapirs and their surrounding secondary peripheral sinks (ornamented) in the East Texas Basin. Group 1 is the oldest, group 3 is the youngest. La Rue Dome, which is not covered in this atlas, is included to show its age relationship to the shallow domes. Note the gradual migration of group 2 subgroups toward the northern group-3 area. The Mexia-Talco Fault Zone defines the northern and western margin of the basin and marks the approximate updip limit of Louann Salt. (From Seni and Jackson, 1983b.)

    12. Figure 7. Definition of diapir shape in plan view. (A) Major axis, minor axis, and major-axis azimuth. (B) Crestal area and percentage planar crest. Areas can be measured by planimeter.

    13. Figure 8. Three classes of diapir shape in plan view defined by different axial ratios.

    14. Figure 9. Parameters describing inclined diapirs. These are calculated from structure-contour maps drawn on the salt

    15. Figure 10. Four classes of structural symmetry applicable to salt diapirs. Structural symmetry is independent of inclination of the diapir from the vertical. The heavy line through the core of the diapir is the axis except in the triclinic example, in which the line is shown for comparison only.

    16. Figure 11. Derivation of a shape parameter to differentiate between diapir crests with straight or slightly curved sides and crests with strongly curved sides. (A) Calculation of curvature and radius of curvature between two points, x and y, on an arc (after Ramsay, 1967, fig. 7-7). (B) Calculation of the shape parameter in a cross section of a dome (stippled) having a nonplanar crest. The arc shown in heavy line has curvature greater than that of a circular arc and corresponds geometrically (not mechanically) to the hinge of a folded surface. (C) Calculation of the shape parameter in a cross section of a dome (stippled) having a crest with sloping sides and a planar, horizontal upper surface. The horizontal part is not involved in the calculation, and the shape parameter is independent of the percentage planar crest. Designating the shape parameter as a log allows values to vary symmetrically each side of zero.

    17. Figure 12. Quantitative classification of dome shape (left) and a plot of dome shapes from the East Texas Basin (right). Upper triangles plot percentage planar crest (measured in plan) against the shape parameter derived by the method in figure 11 (cross section). Lower triangles plot dome ellipticity (axial ratio) according to the scheme in figure 8 (measured in plan) against the shape parameter (measured in cross section). The log of ellipticity is used to allow better differentiation of near-circular diapirs. Diapirs represented by two end points and a tie line have horizontal sections that vary in shape with depth between the limits shown by the end points.

    18. Figure 13. Classification of the slope of the sides of diapirs into three groups.

    19. Figure 14. Parameters describing diapir overhang. Plan view on the left defines overhang and azimuth of maximum overhang on a structure-contour map on the salt upper surface. Contours are elevation below sea level. Oblique view on the right defines overhang area, neck area, overhang distance, and percentage overhang. Areas are measured by planimeter.

    20. Figure 15. Definition of the size of a rim syncline and drag zone in cross section. Crest points and trough points correspond to the highest and lowest points on salt-related structures in cross section; crest lines and trough lines are the linear extensions of these points. In plan view, trough line is equivalent to axial trace.

    21. Figure 16. Definition of maximum dip of strata and the dihedral angle between strata and the salt-stock flank. Stratal dip provides clues to dome-growth stage, whereas the dihedral angle indicates whether a ring fault exists along the contact of the salt stock, as described in the text (p. 17-18).

    22. Figure 17. Classification of antithetic and homothetic (equivalent to synthetic) faults around salt stocks, based on Cloos (1928) and Dennis and Kelley (1980). Differentiation is based on whether the faults increase (homothetic) or reduce (antithetic) the structural relief induced by dome faulting.

    23. Figure 18. Geometry and lithofacies characteristic of the three stages of salt-dome growth: (A) pillow stage, (B) diapir stage, and (C) postdiapir stage. (From Seni and Jackson, 1983 a, 1984).

    24. Figure 19. Qualitative classification of drainage systems above domes into four ideal types as a guide to relative movement of the land surface above. Type 1 is characteristic of domes undergoing uplift faster than the regional rate of erosion. Types 2 and 3 develop over domes with subsiding crests. Type 4 is characteristic of static domes having negligible influence on surface processes.

    25. Figure 20. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Bethel Dome (salt structure contours from Giles, 1980).

    26. Figure 21. Isometric block diagram of Bethel salt stock.

    27. Figure 22. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of Bethel salt stock.

    28. Figure 23. Structural cross section through Bethel Dome (Wood and Giles, 1982).

    29. Figure 24. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Boggy Creek Dome (salt structure contours from Giles, 1981).

    30. Figure 25. Isometric block diagram of Boggy Creek salt stock.

    31. Figure 26. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of Boggy Creek salt stock.

    32. Figure 27. Structural cross section through Boggy Creek Dome (Giles and Wood, 1981).

    33. Figure 28. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Brooks Dome (salt structure contours from Giles, 1980).

    34. Figure 29. Isometric block diagram of Brooks salt stock.

    35. Figure 30. Cross section through Brooks salt stock, which is axially symmetric.

    36. Figure 31. Structural cross section through Brooks Dome (Wood and Giles, 1982).

    37. Figure 32. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Brushy Creek Dome (salt structure contours from Giles, 1980).

    38. Figure 33. Isometric block diagram of Brushy Creek salt stock.

    39. Figure 34. Cross section through Brushy Creek salt stock, which is axially symmetric.

    40. Figure 35. Structural cross section through Brushy Creek Dome (Wood and Giles, 1982)

    41. Figure 36. Map showing shapes, locations, topography, and drainage systems of Bullard and Whitehouse Domes (salt structure contours from Netherland, Sewell and Associates, 1976).

    42. Figure 37. Isometric block diagram of Bullard salt stock.

    43. Figure 38. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of Bullard salt stock.

    44. Figure 39. Structural cross section through Bullard Dome (Giles, 1980).

    45. Figure 40. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Butler Dome (salt structure contours from Giles, 1980).

    46. Figure 41. Isometric block diagram of Butler salt stock.

    47. Figure 42. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of Butler salt stock.

    48. Figure 43. Structural cross section through Butler Dome (Wood and Giles, 1982).

    49. Figure 44. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of East Tyler Dome (salt structure contours from Giles, 1980).

    50. Figure 45. Isometric block diagram of East Tyler salt stock.

    51. Figure 46. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of East Tyler salt stock.

    52. Figure 47. Structural cross section through East Tyler Dome (Giles, 1980).

    53. Figure 48. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Grand Saline Dome (salt structure contours from Giles, 1980).

    54. Figure 49. Isometric block diagram of Grand Saline salt stock.

    55. Figure 50. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of Grand Saline salt stock.

    56. Figure 51. Structural cross section through Grand Saline Dome (Giles and Wood, 1981).

    57. Figure 52. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Hainesville Dome (salt structure contours from Giles, 1980).

    58. Figure 53. Isometric block diagram of Hainesville salt stock.

    59. Figure 54. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of Hainesville salt stock.

    60. Figure 55. Structural cross section through Hainesville Dome, based on drilling data (Giles and Wood, 1981).

    61. Figure 56. Structural cross section through Hainesville Dome, based on seismic data. (After Loocke, 1978.)

    62. Figure 57. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Keechi Dome (salt structure contours modified from Exploration Techniques, 1979).

    63. Figure 58. Isometric block diagram of Keechi salt stock.

    64. Figure 59. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of Keechi salt stock.

    65. Figure 60. Structural cross section through Keechi Dome and Concord Dome, a deep-diapir area (Giles and Wood, 1981).

    66. Figure 61. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Mount Sylvan Dome (salt structure contours modified from Netherland, Sewell and Associates, 1981).

    67. Figure 62. Isometric block diagram of Mount Sylvan salt stock.

    68. Figure 63. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of Mount Sylvan salt stock.

    69. Figure 64. Structural cross section through Mount Sylvan Dome (Giles, 1980)

    70. Figure 65. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Oakwood Dome (salt structure contours modified from Exploration Techniques, 1979).

    71. Figure 66. Isometric block diagram of Oakwood salt stock.

    72. Figure 67. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of Oakwood salt stock.

    73. Figure 68. Structural cross section through Oakwood Dome, based on drilling and seismic data (modified from Giles and Wood, 1981).

    74. Figure 69. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Palestine Dome (salt structure contours from Giles, 1980).

    75. Figure 70. Isometric block diagram of Palestine salt stock.

    76. Figure 71. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of Palestine salt stock.

    77. Figure 72. Structural cross section through Palestine Dome (Giles, 1980).

    78. Figure 73. Map showing shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Steen Dome (salt structure contours from Giles, 1980).

    79. Figure 74. Isometric block diagram of Steen salt stock.

    80. Figure 75. Cross sections through Steen salt stock, which is axially symmetric.

    81. Figure 76. Structural cross section through Steen Dome (Wood and Giles, 1982).

    82. Figure 77. Isometric block diagram of Whitehouse salt stock. See figure 36 for shape, location, topography, and drainage system of Whitehouse Dome.

    83. Figure 78. Orthogonal cross sections through major and minor axes of Whitehouse salt stock.

    84. Figure 79. Structural cross section through Whitehouse Dome (Giles, 1980).

56

EAST TYLER DOME (continued)

Evidence of Extrusion and Erosion of Salt: None recognized

FAULTING OF ADJACENT STRATA: Faults at Flanks: None Crestal Faults: Homothetic, normal, up-to-dome on S flank Youngest Faulted Strata: Wilcox Group Oldest Strata at Surface: Sparta Formation: ho stratigraphic evidence of doming at surface

YOUNGEST DEFORMATION: Fault in Wilcox Group

EVIDENCE OF SUBSIDENCE: Equivocal Configuration of Overburden Strata: Claiborne strata arch over dome crest Drainage System: Type 2, central supradomal depression, centripetal drainage Sinkholes: None Surface Salines: None

GROWTH HISTORY:

central

PRIMARY PERIPHERAL SINK: Age of Initiation: Pre-110 Ma Age of Cessation: Pre-110 Ma Duration of Growth: Unknown Distance of Axial Trace from Center of Dome: 3 to 5 mi (5 to 8 km)

RESOURCES AND USES:

HYDROCARBONS: Number of Producing Wells: Current: 0 Total: 0 Production: Current: 0 Total: 0 Stratigraphic Reservoir: None Traps: None

SECONDARY PERIPHERAL SINK: Age of Initiation: Pre-110 Ma Age of Cessation: 90 Ma

TERTIARY PERIPHERAL SINK: Age of Initiation: 90 Ma Age of Cessation: Post-50 Ma

ROCK SALT: Not mined

AGE OF MIGRATION OF SINK TO SALT-STOCK CONTACT: 110 Ma

SULFUR: None

GAS STORAGE: 10 wells for LPG storage

DOME-RELATED UNCONFORMITIES: None recognized