Control of structural style by large, Paleogene, mass transport deposits in the Mexican Ridges fold-belt and Salina del Bravo, western Gulf of Mexico

Neogene to recent evolution of the Southern Gulf of Mexico basin: Tectonic controls on deep‐water sediment dispersal systems

“…We interpret this seismic facies to represent the deposits of gravity-driven mass-trasnport events generally displaying evidence of transport by cohesive debris flow processes with some slumping indicated by back rotation against curvilinear detachments and wholesale sliding of detached blocks (following similar Paleogene observations by Kenning & Mann, 2020 for this same area). We follow the general Kenning and Mann (2020) who recently mapped Paleogene mass transport deposits across the study area in our Neogene to recent definition and mapping of this facies for this study. We suggest that there are numerous regional drivers for generating these features by over-steepening of local slopes in the southern GoM including: extensional faulting, deep-water ridge inflation and salt diapirism.…”

“…Yellow arrows are approximate modern plate vectors modified from DeMets et al (1990). Circum-Gulf extensional and intra-Gulf compressional faults are modified from Ewing (1990), Jones and Freed (1996), Ambrose et al (2003Ambrose et al ( , 2005, Padilla y Sánchez (2013) and Kenning and Mann (2020). Blue <30 Ma uplift modified from Gray et al (2001).…”

“…Basin-ward tilting of the MRFTB detachment is evident in the lower left of the cross-sections in Figure 6a-d more clearly indicated on the regional schematic cross sections modified from Alzaga-Ruiz et al (2009) and Roure et al (2009;Figure 3b) that extend across the entire extensional province and into the onshore. Kenning and Mann (2020) recently suggested that the MRFTB detaches along a series of Paleogene mass transport deposits that provided an antecedent mechanical weakness in pre-kinematic stratigraphy which may have aided in tilt-driven failure. Gravity spreading is indicated with the 'up-stepping' of the multiple individual MRFTB detachments as illustrated in Figure 6c and by the presence of a large late Miocene slope clinoform system at the extensional to compressional transition is highlighted with a red box on Figure 6c and d. This same slope clinoform system was previously recognized by Ambrose et al (2005) and may represent the stratigraphic record of the first introduction of a regionally destabilizing sedimentary load.…”

“…Unraveling the offshore stratigraphic record of contemporaneous onshore tectonic drivers and the influence of inherited basin architecture from predecessor tectonic phases is crucial for both understanding the unique sediment dispersal history of the southern GoM and for understanding drivers behind fundamental shifts in regional deep‐water depositional style more broadly. The southern GoM has long been known to host a number of distinct and dynamic depositional features in its Neogene subsurface stratigraphy including margin collapse sequences (Alzaga‐Ruiz et al., 2009; Buffler et al., 1979; Salomon‐Mora et al., 2009), large submarine channel complexes (Winter, 2018), large mass‐transport complexes (Kenning & Mann, 2020) and deep‐water sediment waves (Behrens, 1994; Rodriguez, 2011; Snedden et al., 2012). In this study, we provide the first comprehensive basin evolution model for the deep‐water Neogene to recent southern Gulf of Mexico based on a dense array of newly available subsurface seismic reflection data, a compilation of Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) site cores, hydrocarbon industry well and core data and a synthesis of previously published summaries of regional tectonics.…”

Stacked debris flows offshore Sakarya Canyon, western Black Sea: morphology, seismic characterization and formation processes

“…None of the buried debris flows in the study area has a clear headwall scarp. Generally headwall scarps are observed in the seismic data at the upper parts of the recent slumps and slides on the seafloor (e.g., Antobreh and Krastel, 2007;Rovere et al, 2014;Çukur et al, 2016), but it is typically not possible to define the headwall scarps for buried debris flows (e.g., Diviacco et al, 2006;Wilken and Mienert, 2006;Dondurur et al, 2013;Kenning and Mann, 2020;Kret et al, 2020). The reason why the debrites in the study area could not be associated with a distinct headwall scarp could be because the flows have been displaced far from their source areas due to their relatively large run-out distances.…”