The American Association of Pelroleum Gcologisls

V. 68,No. 11 (November 1984), P. 1790-1802, 12 Figs., 1 Table

Seismic Stratigraphic Framework of

Deep Central Gulf of Mexico Basin^
E JEANNE SHAUB', RICHARD T. BUFFLER', and JOHN G. PARSONS'

ABSTRACT
The deep Gulf of Mexico basin is underlain by up to 10
km (33,000 ft) of Jurassic(?) to Holocene layered sedimentary rocks. The multichannel reflection seismic record
from the deep Gulf of Mexico was divided into six seismic
stratigraphic units for study of the geologic history of this
accumulation. The basal Challenger unit (Jurassic(?) to
middle Cretaceous) is considered coeval with early basin
formation. We interpret it as a deep marine sequence overlying oceanic crust in the central basin and as continental
and shallow through deep marine rocks, including thick
evaporites, over adjacent transitional crust. The next three
units, Campeche, Lower Mexican Ridges and Upper Mexican Ridges, indicate that from the Late Cretaceous
through middle Miocene the basin filled progressively
from the west and north, most probably with siliceous turbidites interlayered with pelagic deposits. By the late Tertiary, however, salt and shale deformation within thick
sedimentary sections along the western and northern margins trapped much of the incoming sediment supply on the
shelves and upper slopes. The late Miocene to PUocene
Cinco de Mayo unit, therefore, represents a relatively
starved interval. In contrast, the uppermost, or Sigsbee
unit, includes the Mississippi Fan, an accumulation up to 3
km (10,000 ft) thick of mainly mass-transported deposits
that bypassed the shelf and slope and were deposited
directly onto the abyssal plain. In the western and southwestern portions of the deep basin, beyond the fan pinchout, the Pleistocene section is largely a continuation of the
Pliocene suspension deposits.
INTRODUCTION
The University of Texas Institute for Geophysics
(UTIG) has completed a regional seismic stratigraphic
study of approximately 5,000 nmi of multichannel reflecCopyright 1984. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All
rights reserved.
''Manuscript received, August22,1983; accepted, February 24, 1984. University of Texas Institute for Geophysics Contribution No. 586.
^University of Texas, Institute for Geophysics, Austin, Texas 78751.
^Pfiillips Petroleum Co., Bellaire, Texas 77401,
We acknowledge the assistance o1 the marine and science crews of the RA/
Ida Green, cruises 6, 12, 13,16, and 23. Financial support for this interpretation project was provided by Atlantic Richfield, Cities Service Oil and Gas
Corp., Gulf Oil Co., Mobil Oil Corp., Phillips Petroleum Corp., Tenreco Corp.,
and Texaco Inc. Additional support for data acquisition and processing was
received from the National Science Foundation (IDOE), Amoco Production
Co., Chevron USA, Inc., Continental Oil Co., Elf Aquitaine Oil and Gas, Shell
Oil Co., Teledyne, Inc., and the U.S. Geological Survey. The writers especially
thank Fred Barmwater, Elizabeth Stark, Julia Rumsey, and Phillips Petroleum
Corp. fortheir technical support in data depth conversion and map production.
James A, Austin, Jr. and Eric J. Rosencrantz provided helpful suggestions for
the final manuscript. Kathryn A. Moser typed all versions of this manuscript.

tion data from the deep Gulf of Mexico basin (Figure 1).
An earlier seismic stratigraphic framework defined by
UTIG from fewer data (Ladd et al, 1976) has thus been
modified using additional track and recently developed
seismic stratigraphic principles (Vail et al, 1977). This
paper describes the six deep basin seismic stratigraphic
units now used by UTIG. Examples of seismic data and
isopach maps show unit characteristics, areal distribution,
and thickness. Each unit is discussed in terms of its estimated age, possible depositional environment, depocenter
locations, and provenance.
SEISMIC STRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF DEEP
GULF OF MEXICO DATA
The study area is, effectively, the deep Gulf of Mexico
basin (Figure 1), an area in which the sedimentary section
is generally horizontal and undeformed except locally by
salt, shale, or gravity-slide structures. Seismic reflections
from this section cannot be followed onto the basin margins because of the severe tectonism within the CampecheSigsbee Salt Dome province to the southwest (Antoine,
1972; Martin, 1980), the Mexican Ridges foldbelt to the
west (Bryant et al, 1968; Buffler et al, 1979), and the Sigsbee Escarpment, the southern margin of the deformed
Texas-Louisiana slope (Martin, 1978, 1980). The seismic
record is also disrupted at the boundary escarpments of
the Florida and Campeche carbonate platforms to the east
and south. In the southeastern Gulf of Mexico, our work
area extends to 24N, where five of the six identified units
each thin to less than 0.1 sec two-way travel time.
The purpose of using seismic stratigraphy on the deep
Gulf of Mexico data is to divide the record into significantly different components, termed "seismic units," that
represent important depositional episodes in the geologic
history of the area. The basin geology is then interpreted
by studying the characteristics of each successive unit.
Specifically we can: (1) estimate basin age and suggest an
early history by identifying the basement surface and the
structures and inferred lithology of the basal unit; (2)
interpret within each of the units the distribution of proximal and distal elastics and pelagic fades by means of
reflection amplitude, continuity, and configuration; (3)
construct unit isopach maps from which we can identify
depocenters and, by their proximity to marginal embayments, suggest the sediment source areas; and (4) infer unit
ages by extrapolation from or correlation with DSDP
holes.
Ladd et al (1976) first defined seismic units in the deep
western Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2). From oldest to youngest, these units were the Viejo, Challenger, Campeche,

1790

1791

F. Jeanne Shaub, Richard T. Buffler, and John G. Parsons

82

100"
3 2

80"

30'

28

UNITED
STATES

26< PIO GRAN[

EMBAYME

24

MEXICO
22

20

18
Figure 1Major physiographic and structural provinces and UTIG multichannel reflection seismic data used in this study. Tick
marks indicate velocity control. Short heavy lines A-D indicate locations of seismic data examples used in this paper: A = Figure 2; B
= Figure 3; C = Figure 4; D = Figure 5. Heavy dots indicate outline of Campeche-Sigsbee Salt Dome province.

WG-2S-E
LADD ET AL ,1976
SEISMIC UNITS

SEA FLOOR

THIS PAPER,
SEISMIC UNITS

10 KM

SEC

SIGSBEE _5^
CINCO DE MAYO

SIGSBEE
CINCO DE MAYO
UPPER MEXICAN RIDGES

MEXICAN RIDGES

LOWER MEXICAN RIDGES

hsi

CAMPECHE

-av:^

i&i=iljLS-iM.iiy:.r;i Vg

CAMPECHE

CHALLENGER
CHALLENGER

VIEJO
: ^V~

^' ; "

'-^v

':rS^'y;^'^-

:_ fef?^ ACOUSTIC BASEMENT

OCEANIC C R U S T ? /
Figure 2Seismic units along line WG-2S-E, as defined by Ladd et al, (1976), and as used in this paper (line A in Figure 1).

1792

Seismic Stratigraphy, Central Gulf of Mexico Basin

NW

SE

C.E.GRID 2

CAMPECHE
ESCARPMENT

UNIT BOUNDARY AGES

PLIOCENE/PLEISTOCENE
LATE MIOCENE
MIDDLE TERTIARY (?)
UNITS

EARLY TERTIARY (?)

SIGSBEE_
CINCO DE MAYO
UPPER MEXICAN RIDGES
LOWER MEXICAN RIDGES
CAMFECHE
CHALLENGER

Figure 3Identification of UTIG seismic units and ages of unit boundaries along line C.E. Grid 2, at base of norttiwestern Campeche
Escarpment (line B in Figure 1).

Mexican Ridges, Cinco de Mayo, and Sigsbee. These were

defined on the basis of vertical variations of seismic characteristics within the record (e.g., there is a significantly
greater percentage of high-amplitude, continuous reflections within the "Mexican Ridges" unit than within the
"Campeche" unit) and continuity of some boundary
reflections (e.g., the "Challenger" unit upper boundary is
a clearly defined, continuous, high-amplitude reflector
over 95% of the deep Gulf of Mexico basin). These original units are described in detail by Watkins et al (1976);
and basically the same stratigraphic framework was used
by Watkins et al (1978), Buffler et al (1979), and Worzel
and Burk (1979).
In this paper, the early units are redefined (Figure 2)
using the principles of seismic stratigraphy presented by
Vail et al (1977). Here, the units are seismic sequences,
(i.e., genetically related, relatively conformable strata
bounded by major unconformities or correlative conformities). From the oldest to the youngest they are named
Challenger, Campeche, Lower Mexican Ridges, Upper
Mexican Ridges, Cinco de Mayo, and Sigsbee. Unit
boundaries are unconformities along the southern and
eastern deep Gulf of Mexico at the base of the Florida and
Campeche Escarpments where the units thin and pinch
out. Figure 3 (C.E. GRID 2) is an example of a seismic line
along the base of the northwestern Campeche Escarpment
where unconformable relationships between units can be
seen. In the central deep Gulf of Mexico, the boundaries
are usually conformable. The boundaries are correlated
and the units mapped throughout the study area using the
UTIG grid of seismic data (Figure 1).

The units vary in thickness and seismic character

throughout the basin. Figure 4 (GT2-1B) illustrates the
units in the west-central part of the basin, and Figure 5
(GT2-8B) shows the east-central basin stratigraphy.
Thickness variations of the units are shown by a series of
isopach maps in which seismic horizons in time have been
converted to depth (Figures 6-12). To obtain these maps,
two-way travel times to unit boundaries were digitized
every 3 nmi. Velocity data for the upper units were
obtained from common depth point (CDP) velocity analysis approximately every 20 nmi (ticks on Figure 1), while
deeper velocity data were estimated from scattered published refraction and wide-angle reflection data (Ewing et
al, I960, 1962; Antoine and Ewing, 1963; Swolfs, 1967;
Houtz et al, 1968; Ibrahim et al, 1981; Ibrahim and
Uchupi, 1982). Average velocities were calculated and horizontally and vertically interpolated to each horizon at the
same 3-nmi locations as the time values. The average
velocity data for each horizon were then gridded, a
smoothing filter was applied, and the resultant grid was
back-interpolated to the 3-nmi locations. The 3-nmi time
and smoothed average velocity sets were then used to calculate and contour horizon depth and unit thickness.
Figure 6 illustrates the total thickness of the entire deep
Gulf of Mexico stratigraphic column. This basin fill is 9-10
km (29,500-33,000 ft) in the west and north and thins
southward by internal convergence and by onlap along the
bases of the Campeche and Florida platforms. The six
units into which this accumulation is now divided are
briefly described from oldest to youngest and are summarized in Table 1.

F. Jeanne Shaub, Richard T. Buffler, and John G. Parsons

1793

GT2-1B
NW

SE

UNITS

UNIT BOUNDARY AGES

SIGSBEE
^..:^^-T,..-r,.T7^ PLIOCENE/PLEISTOCENE
_CINCO_DE_MAY.O_ ^ A T E MIOCENE
UPPER MEXICAN
RIDGES

MIDDLE TERTIARY (?)
LOWER MEXICAN
RIDGES

EARLY TERTIARY (?)

CAMPECHE
MIDDLE CRETACEOUS
CHALLENGER

Figure 4Typical section of UTIG seismic units in west-central deep Gulf of Mexico basin, along line GT2-1BflineC in Figure 1).
GT2-8B
NW
UNIT BOUNDARY AGES

lO KM

SIGSBEE

^ ^ ^ > ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^ - i g ; - ^

PLIOCENE/
PLEISTOCENE
CINCO DE MAYO
LATE MIOCENE
UPPER MEXICAN RIDGES
MIDDLE TERTIARY (?)

LOWER MEXICAN RIDGES

EARLY TERTIARY ( ? ) _

CAMPECHE
MIDDLE CRETACEOUS
LATE JURASSIC (?)

SE

UNITS

-^^ss:'.

, -~- - -

-gg-%:r;:r"T'^"''.''-:
^ . - f : f f ^ ' S ^ f p - ; ^ g % ^ ^ --. - ^
'A, 4 g ' l l ? ' ^ ' - J-^ '-J'L'*'^- -.-^ . .
.--^L^!^^^l^L=^g^-^:^^:;=.^---^I^!.g5^^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ w = - - - -> ~ - - ~ . ^ ^ - g ^
*'*iiaii>l^"^**"*^*^?^^^^^^^!^^^^p
-^^=^j^n^=
^"^^IZlJ^i^l^^^S^K^^SII?--.
T,,uffaTiLi^awSMi'^ligliSgSgSggtS^
>. - ^ - E ^ J r ^
-5r-i_^
""*""-lS;!5StS?t^
_ _ ^ ''" ^
^ ' - " " 1 ^ - 1 ~' ..JLr'"- H i "
M^tttmmm*l[t^*^!^Z'^^"^

'^ ~~ _ ' J S H ! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ _

Figure 5Example of UTIG seismic units in Mississippi Fan area, east-central deep Gulf of Mexico basin along line GT2-8B Qine D in
Figure 1).

Challenger Unit
The Challenger unit consists of all rocks between acoustic basement and a prominent middle Cretaceous reflection surface. Acoustic basement is interpreted as oceanic
crust in the central Gulf of Mexico (Figure 5) (Buffler et al,
1980), whereas along the southern and eastern margins a
base-of-salt reflection is interpreted as the top of transitional crust (Figure 3) (Buffler et al, 1980). In places, transitional crust contains layered sequences inferred to
represent older rift sequences or possibly Paleozoic rocks

(Figure 3) (part of the "Viejo" unit of Ladd et al, 1976).

The unit is 2 km (6,500 ft) thick through most of the basin,
but it thins and, in places, pinches out along the base of the
Campeche Escarpment (Figures 3, 7). Two major depocenters are presentone northwest of the Campeche
Escarpment and the other along the Florida Escarpment
(Figure 7). In these areas, the unit is interpreted as containing locally thick salt deposits and sedimentary rocks of
Middle Jurassic(?) to middle Cretaceous age. The sediments probably include nonmarine through shallow
marine and finally deep marine facies. The salt is probably

1794

Seismic Stratigraphy, Central Gulf of Mexico Basin

100*

Figure 6Total sediment isopach map of deep Gulf of Mexico basin. C.I. = 1.0 km (3,300 ft). Contours with hatchured lines indicate
extrapolated data.
the age equivalent of the Louann evaporites of the northern Gulf of Mexico and, therefore, is Middle Jurassic in
age (Kirkland and Gerhard, 1971). In the central basin,
deep marine rocks probably overlie the oceanic crust.
The upper unit boundary is a prominent reflection
throughout the deep basin and can be correlated by
regional multichannel tie-lines to DSDP drill holes in the
southeastern Gulf of Mexico (Worzeletal, 1973; Schlager
et al, 1984) andto wells on the northeastern Gulf of Mexico
margin (Addy and Buffler, 1984). From these correlations
it is assigned a middle Cretaceous age, although in the
southeastern Gulf of Mexico it may represent a series of
unconformities that spans the entire Late Cretaceous
(Schlager et al, in press).
More details of the Challenger unit in the south-central
and southeastern Gulf of Mexico are discussed by Buffler
et al (1980) and Phair and Buffler (1983), respectively;
however, further discussion of these studies is not within
the scope of the present paper.
Campeche Unit
The Campeche unit includes a 3-km (10,000-ft) depocenter along the western margin of the study area and thins by
internal convergence to the north, east, and south. It also
thins by truncation against the overlying unit and by onlap
against the middle Cretaceous surface along the base of

the Campeche platform (Figures 3,8). The unit exhibits a

uniform seismic character of generally continuous, lowamplitude reflections (Figure 4). Except where deformed
within the Mexican Ridges folds or by salt mobilization in
the underlying unit, the strata are horizontal and parallel
or converge very gently through the western two-thirds of
the study area. In the eastern third of the area, they drape
over the Challenger unit. The unit is interpreted as consisting entirely of deep marine facies, mostly distal (finegrained) elastics in the west and central areas, and pelagic
deposits in the east. The clastic sources, most likely, are
Mexican rivers, especially the area of the present Rio
Grande Embayment (Guzman, 1952; Holcombe, 1971;
Lofton and Adams, 1971).
The age range for the Campeche unit is estimated to be
from middle Cretaceous through early Tertiary(?), though
there is no real control for the age of the upper boundary.
Published isopach maps based on wells on the MexicoTexas mainland (Guzman, 1952; Holcombe, 1971; Lofton
and Adams, 1971) suggest that if the unit is as thick as 3
km (10,000 ft) well out into the basin, it probably includes
part of the lower Tertiary section. There is also reason to
believe that the Late Cretaceous sea level was relatively
high in the North Atlantic (Jansa et al, 1979), and by inference, also relatively high in the Gulf of Mexico. Sediments, including those generated by incipient Laramide
otogenic events (Imlay, 1936, 1937; Humphrey, 1956),

F. Jeanne Shaub, Richard T. Buffler, and John G. Parsons

1795

Figure 7Generalized isopach map of Jurassic (?) to middle Cretaceous Challenger unit. C.I. = 1.0 km (3,300 ft). Contours with
hatchured lines indicate extrapolated data.

would then have been deposited relatively landward.

When sea level began to drop significantly at the beginning
of the Tertiary (Vail et al, 1977), increasing quantities of
sediments were probably deposited farther out into the
main basin. This argument agrees in general with the sedimentation pattern in nearby mainland wells (Guzman,
1952; Holcombe, 1971; Lofton and Adams, 1971). By
analogy, the Campeche unit would consist of a predominantly pelagic Upper Cretaceous section overlain by early
Tertiary elastics containing a large percentage of finegrained siliceous sediments that account for most of the
depocenter accumulation.

mentation. The reflection amplitudes are higher than in

the underlying unit, however, possibly because there is a
significant percentage of larger grain sizes generating
notable impedance contrasts with the dominant finegrained deposits. The sediments are derived mainly from
Mexican and Texas rivers to the west.
Only estimated ages are given for this unit because there
is no direct correlation to a dated horizon for either the
upper or lower unit boundary. The upper boundary is
broadly dated as middle Tertiary by extrapolation, using
data from the overlying Upper Mexican Ridges unit.
Upper Mexican Ridges Unit

Lower Mexican Ridges Unit

Just as with the Campeche, the Lower Mexican Ridges
unit includes a 2.5-3.0 km (8,000-10,000 ft) thick depocenter along the western margin of the study area (Figure 9). It
thins eastward by internal convergence and also thins by
onlap along the base of both the Florida and Campeche
platforms. For the most part, the reflection record consists of virtually horizontal, continuous, parallel reflections. In comparison to the underlying Campeche unit,
pelagic-type drape is seen mainly in the farthest southeastern part of the study area instead of in the entire eastern
third of the basin. The section is considered to be a continuation of deep marine distal (fine-grained) clastic sedi-

Although of limited areal extent, there is still a depocenter indicated for this unit in the western Gulf of Mexico
(Figure 10). This section thins by internal convergence to
the east and north and thins by onlap along the base of the
Campeche platform. In addition, a second, larger (3 km
or 10,000 ft) depocenter has been established in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. This accumulation thins internally southward and thins by onlap along the Florida and
Campeche platforms. The acoustic record still shows, in
large part, continuous, parallel, and virtually horizontal
reflections except in local deformed areas. Amplitudes are
generally high. Near the depocenters, however, reflections
become more discontinuous and channeling is evident.

1796

Seismic Stratigraphy, Central Gulf of Mexico Basin

Figure 8Isopach map of middle Cretaceous to early Tertiary (?) Campeclie unit. C.I. = 0.1 km (330 ft). Small anomalies in central
Gulf of Mexico are due to salt tectonics.

The upper part of this unit was sampled by DSDP holes

87,90, and 91 in the west-central deep basin (Worzel et al,
1973), recovering middle Miocene sands deposited at
abyssal depths and attributable to volcanogenic source
areas such as the Rio Grande Embayment. The presence of
coarse sands in cores and high impedance contrasts in the
reflection record indicate extreme variability of grain sizes
within the sediment column. We interpret this unit to be
the distal part of two large depocenters prograding from
Mexican rivers to the west and an ancestral Mississippi
river to the north.
The upper boundary of this unit is dated late Miocene by
correlation of seismic horizons to cores from DSDP holes
87,90, and 91 in the west-central deep basin (Worzel, Bryant et al, 1973). The lower boundary is estimated as middle
Tertiary by extrapolation (i.e., older than late Miocene).
Also, the sedimentation rate of the middle Miocene rocks
recovered by DSDP drilling may be as high as 8 cm/1,000
yr (3 in./1,000 yr), making it likely that the Upper Mexican Ridges unit consists only of lower and middle Miocene
rocks. This estimate is poorly constrained, however, since
the complete middle Miocene section was never recovered.
Middle Tertiary is, therefore, considered as accurate a
date as the information at hand allows for the boundary
between the Lower and Upper Mexican Ridges units.

Cinco de Mayo Unit

The Cinco de Mayo strata thicken to nearly 1 km (3,0(X)
ft) in the north-central and southwestern deep basin, suggesting the location of major depocenters (Figure 11). The
unit, however, has an average thickness of only 200 m (650
ft) throughout the rest of the deep basin (Figure 11). The
acoustic record is typically transparent or contains lowamplitude reflections. Sampled in the western Gulf of
Mexico in DSDP holes 3, 89, 90, and 91, the unit consists
largely of late Miocene to Pliocene abyssal pelagic and
very fine-grained clastic deposits (Ewing et al, 1969; Worzel et al, 1973). Comparing the middle Miocene sands and
high impedance contrasts of the Upper Mexican Ridges to
the Cinco de Mayo oozes and nondescript acoustic record,
we conclude that this unit's thinness and lack of coarse
elastics are not due to its limited age range. Rather, most
sedimentation was apparently limited to the shelves and
upper slopes by a relatively high early Pliocene sea level
(Vail et al, 1977) and by entrapment behind sedimentary
deformation structures within thick sedimentary sections
underlying the Texas, Louisiana, and Mexican margins
(Bryant et al, 1968; Martin, 1978,1980; Buffler et al, 1979;
Shaub, 1983).

F. Jeanne Shaub, Richard T. Buffler, and John G. Parsons

1797

100

30

UNITED
STATES

28

\
RIO GRANDE
EMBAYMENT

26<

24

22'

20"

MEXICO

18'

Figure 9Isopach map of earlyC?) to middle Tertiary(?) Lower Mexican Ridges unit. C.I. = 0.1 km (330 ft). Small anomalies in
central Gulf of Mexico are due to salt tectonics.

Sigsbee Unit
The Sigsbee unit (Figure 12) (1) includes a 3.5-km
(ll,5(X)-ft) depocenter in the northeastern deep Gulf of
Mexico (Mississippi fan) that thins by internal convergence in all directions and terminates against the base of
the Florida and Campeche Escarpments, (2) maintains a
1.5-2.0 km (4,900-6,6(X) ft) thickness all along the northern margin of the study area, (3) has a relatively uniform
3(X)-400 m (1,000-1,300 ft) thickness in the southwestern
quadrant of the deep basin, and (4) thickens slightly in the
farthest southwestern Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi fan
depocenter has a complex seismic record that, in large
part, represents depositional features such as channels,
levees, channel fill, and interchannel strata. Locally contorted, even chaotic, reflections indicate slumps and gravity slides. Channels and shingled ciinoforms are, in fact,
numerous throughout the northern half of the unit. We
interpret these reflections as mass-transported deposits
and proximal turbidites delivered directly to the deep basin
and deposited at high sedimentation rates onto the preexisting continental rise and abyssal floor (see also Stuart
and Caughey, 1976; Moore and Woodbury, 1978). Distal
fan turbidites are distributed throughout the west-central,
south-central, and eastern deep basin and pinch out completely against continental rises in the far southeastern and

western deep Gulf of Mexico. They generate highamplitude, continuous, usually horizontal reflections.
Contributing factors for this massive rapid accumulation
include: (1) low sea level stands corresponding to Pleistocene glacial stages, during which sediments bypassed the
shelf; and (2) large quantities of melt water periodically
available from glacial masses to transport large bed loads
(Skolnick, 1976). On the western and southwestern continental rises starved basin conditions still prevailed. There,
the Sigsbee section is similar to the Cinco de Mayo unit,
consisting of very fine-grained elastics and abyssal biogenic oozes (Worzel et al, 1973).
As correlated to DSDP holes 3, 89, 90, and 91, this unit
comprises the Pleistocene deep basin section (Ewing et al,
1969; Worzel et al, 1973). It is overlain by less than 100 cm
(39 in.) of Holocene foraminiferal ooze (Davies, 1972).
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
As defined by the stratigraphic units of the reflection
seismic record, supplemented by DSDP drilling and shallow coring results, the deep Gulf of Mexico sedimentary
history includes two major phases. The first phase, Jurassic to middle Cretaceous, comprises the basal Challenger
unit. Challenger strata were influenced by the thermal and
tectonic events of early basin formation (Buffler et al.

Seismic Stratigraphy, Central Gulf of Mexico Basin

1798
100

98

32'

SO" -

28<

26" -

24'

22'

20'

18<

Figure 10Isopach map of middle Tertiary(?) to late Miocene Upper Mexican Ridges unit. C.I. = 0.1 km (330 ft). Small anomalies in
central Gulf of Mexico are due to salt tectonics.

1980). These strata represent a complex transgressive

sequence of continental rift strata, shallow marine facies
including thick evaporites, and deep marine (eventually
abyssal) rocks. Predominantly deep marine sediments are
believed to overlie oceanic crust. The uppermost Challenger strata are inferred to represent a deep marine regime
established by the middle Cretaceous, surrounded on all
sides by extensive carbonate platforms (Worzel et al, 1973;
Garrison and Martin, 1973; Mitchum, 1978; FreemanLynde, 1983).
The second phase of deep Gulf of Mexico basin history,
from the Late Cretaceous through Holocene, includes the
five younger seismic units and consists almost entirely of
terrigenous siUciclastics with intercalated pelagic deposits.
Because grain size apparently increases upward in the section and minor channeling occurs in both the eastern and
western Upper Mexican Ridges unit, we suggest that the
Campeche and the Lower and Upper Mexican Ridges
units are composed of increasingly proximal (i.e., regressive) facies. These units are basinward continuations of
thick Upper Cretaceous to middle Tertiary sedimentary
sections generated by Laramide and subsequent orogenies
and transported basinward during a generally falling sea
level (Vail et al, 1977; Martin, 1978). They prograde into
and partially fill the basin from the west and the north
(Martin, 1978). Eventually, sedimentary deformation

(e.g., salt and shale diapirism and growth faulting) within

these sections along the basin margins, plus a relatively
high early Phocene sea level, controlled and restricted the
supply of sediments to the deep basin. As a result, the late
Tertiary Cinco de Mayo unit is thin and very fine grained
throughout much of the deep Gulf of Mexico. During
Sigsbee deposition (Pleistocene), the extensive Mississippi
fan and the north-central and northwestern continental
rises were constructed by northern Gulf of Mexico proximal turbidites and mass-transported facies. Distal turbidites extend to the western continental rise, the Campeche
Escarpment, and into the far southeastern deep basin.
This accumulation is attributed mainly to glacially
induced low sea level stands. The Pleistocene section in the
southwestern part of the study area is similar to the Cinco
de Mayo very fine-grained clastic and pelagic deposits.
More generally, the definition of individual seismic units
within the acoustic record has allowed us to (1) interpret
geologic faciesevaporites as well as overlying deep
marine strataindicative of initial basin subsidence; (2)
separate and quantify the major sediment contributions of
the Mississippi Embayment, the Tampa Embayment, the
Campeche region, and the present Mexican mainland,
especially the Rio Grande Embayment; (3) identify by age
and provenance the effects on sedimentation within the
deep basin of Laramide and subsequent orogenic events;

F. Jeanne Shaub, Richard T. Buffler, and John G. Parsons

100

1799
80

76'

Figure 11Isopach map of late Miocene through Pliocene Cincode Mayo unit. C.I. = 50m(165ft). Small anomalies in central Gulf
of Mexico are due to salt tectonics.

ical and geophysical investigations of continental margins: AAPG

Memoir 29, p. 319-327.
J. S. Watkins, E J. Shaub, and J. L. Worzel, 1980, Structure and
early geologic history of the deep central Gulf of Mexico, in R. H.
Pilger, Jr., ed., The origin of the Gulf of Mexico and the early opening
of the central North Atlantic Ocean: Symposium Proceedings, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, p. 3-16.
Davies, D. K., 1972, Deep sea sediments and their sedimentation, Gulf of
Mexico: AAPG Bulletin, v. 56, p. 2212-2239.
Ewing, J., J. Antoine, and W. M. Ewing, 1960, Geophysical measurements in the western Caribbean Sea and in the Gulf of Mexico: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 65, p. 4087-4126.
J. L. Worzel, and M. Ewing, 1962, Sediments and oceanic structural history of the Gulf of Mexico: Journal of Geophysical Research,
y. 67, p. 2509-2527.
Ewing, M.,etal, 1969, Initial reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project: v.
REFERENCES CITED
1: Washington D, C , U. S. Government Printing Office, 672 p.
Freeman-Lynde, R. P., 1983, Cretaceous and Tertiary samples dredged
Addy, S. K., and R. T. Buffler, 1984, Seismic stratigraphy of the shelf and
from the Florida Escarpment, eastern Gulf of Mexico: Gulf Coast
slope; northeastern Gulf of Mexico: AAPG Bulletin, v. 68 (this issue).
Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 33, p. 91-99.
Antoine, J., 1972, Structure of the Gulf of Mexico, in R. RezakandV. .1. Garrison, L. E., and R. G. Martin, 1973, Geological structures in the
Gulf of Mexico basin: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
Henry, eds.. Contributions on the geological and geophysical ocean773, 85 p.
ography of the Gulf of Mexico: Houston, Gulf Publishing Co., p. 1Guzman, E. J., 1952, Sedimentary volumes in the Gulf coastal plain of
34.
the United States and Mexico: GSA Bulletin, v. 63, p. 1201-1220.
J. Ewing, 1963, Seismic refraction measurements on the margins
of the Gulf of Mexico: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 68, p. Holcombe,C. W., 1971, Hydrocarbonpotentialof Gulf series of western
Gulf basin, in Future petroleum provinces of the United Statestheir
1975-1996.
geology and potential: AAPG Memoir 15, p. 887-900.
Bryant, W. R., J. Antoine, M. Ewing, and B. Jones, 1968, Structure of
Mexican continental shelf and slope, Gulf of Mexico: AAPG Bulle- Houtz, R., J. Ewing, and X. Le Pichon, 1968, Velocity of deep-sea sediments from sonobuoy data: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 73,
tin, v. 52, p. 1204-1228.
p. 2615-2641.
Buffler, R. X, E J. Shaub, J. S. Watkins, and J. L. Worzel, 1979, Anatomy of the Mexican Ridges, southwestern Gulf of Mexico, in Geolog- Humphrey, W. E., 1956, Tectonic framework of northeast Mexico: Gulf

(4) suggest the transport of Gulf of Mexico sediments over

significant distances by a generally falling Cenozoic sea
level; (5) observe the shifting of the resultant deep basin
depocenters from the west to the north (this observation
agrees vi'ith the migration of sand-rich shelf margins from
the Paleogene Texas-Mexico area to southern Louisiana
during the Neogene; Winker, 1982); (6) note the influence
of sedimentary deformation features on limiting sediment
supply to the deep basin in the late Tertiary; and (7) suggest the effect of Quaternary glaciation on the deep basin
sedimentation.

1800

Seismic Stratigraphy, Central Gulf of Mexico Basin

Table 1. Summary of Deep Gulf of Mexico Seismic Units

Unit

Age

Suggested
Depositional Environment
Depocenter/Source

Typical Reflection
Characteristics

Challenger
(Figure 7)

Middle Jurassic(?) to Middle

Cretaceous ''^'^

Moderate amplitudes, low frequency; generally continuous, parallel and sub-horizontal in central
Gulf; discontinuous and gently dipping, deformed and even chaotic
along the base of the Florida and
Campeche platforms.

Unit immediately overlies acoustic

basement (oceanic and transitional
crust). Predominantly deep marine
sediments in central Gulf. Evaporites, shallow then deep marine
along Campeche and Florida
E.scarpments.
Eastern depocenter may have
source in Tampa Embayment; central Gulf depocenter, apparent
source in Campeche region.

Campeche
(Figure 8)

Upper Cretaceous to Early

Tertiary(?)''^

Low amplitude, low frequency;

continuous, parallel, horizontal or
gently dipping.

Predominantly deep marine distal

elastics in western 2/3 of study area;
pelagic in east.
Western depocenter source is probably Rio Grande Embayment.

Lower Mexican
Ridges
(Figure 9)

Early(?) to Middle(?)
Tertiary

Moderate amplitudes and frequencies; generally continuous; commonly parallel and horizontal.

Predominantly deep marine distal

clastic sediments.
Broad western depocenter attributable to ancestral Texas and Mexican rivers.
Considered a continuation and progradation of the sedimentation pattern of the underlying Campeche
unit, elastics are distributed
throughout the entire deep basin.

Upper Mexican
Ridges
(Figure 10)

Middle Tertiary(?) to Late

Miocene'

High amphtude, high frequency;

continuous, parallel, horizontal/
sub-horizontal; minor channels
and clinoforms near depocenters.

Predominantly deep marine distal

sands, silts, muds.
Western margin progradation and
sedimentation continues from
western margin. A northeastern
depocenter is established in the
study area for the first time and is
attributed to the ancestral Mississippi River.

Cinco de May
(Figure 11)

Late Miocene through

Pliocene'"''

Generally acoustically transparent;

otherwise, variable amplitude and
frequency; parallel and subhorizontal.

Abyssal terrigenous and biogenic

ooze. No major depocenter in deep
Gulf; sediments thicken slightly in
northern and southwestern Gulf.
Most of clastic supply may be
trapped by sedimentary deformation along northern and western
margins^'^-''^-'.

Sigsbee
(Figure 12)

Pleistocene'''*

Mid-fan: variable, but generally

high amplitude and frequency;
complex, even chaotic reflection
configurations interpreted as channels, levees, and channel-fill, interchannel and overbank strata.
Lower fan: high amplitude, high
frequency; continuous, parallel
and horizontal; in places wavy or
distorted with channels.
Western and southwestern continental rise: generally acoustically
transparent.

Abyssal submarine fan and other

northern-source mass-transport
deposits in eastern 2/3 of Gulf, contributed by Pleistocene Mississippi
River'"'"''^; mostly suspension
deposits in west; some fine-grained
turbidites also derived from Mexi-

Uddy and Buffler (1984).

^Schlageretal(1984).
%orzeletal(1973).

''Ewing(1969).
5Bryantetal(1868).
6Buffleretal(1979).

'Martin (1978).
'Martin (1980),
'Shaub(1983).

^"Davies eta! (1972).

^ ^ Stuart and Caughey (1976).
i^Moore and Woodbury (1978).

F. Jeanne Shaub, Richard T. Buffler, and John G. Parsons

100

98

96

94

92

90

88

86

84

1801
82

80

78"

32

30

Figure 12Isopach map of Pleistocene Sigsbee unit. C.I. = 0.1 km (330 ft). Small anomalies in central Gulf of Mexico are due to salt
tectonics.

Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 6, p. 2535.

Ibrahim, A. K. and E. Uchupi, 1982, Continental oceanic crustal transition in the Gulf Coast geosyncline, in Studies in continental margin
geology: AAPG Memoir 34, p. 155-166.
J. Carye, G. Latham, and R. T. Buffler, 1981, Crustal structure in
Gulf of Mexico from OBS refraction and multichannel reflection
data: AAPG Bulletin, v. 65, p. 1207-1229.
Imlay, R. W,, 1936, Evolution of the Coahuila Peninsula, Mexico: part
IV, geology of the western part of the Sierra de Parras: GSA Bulletin,
V. 47, p. 1091-1152.
1937, Geology of the middle part of the Sierra de Parras,
Coahuila, Mexico: GSA Bulletin, v. 48, p. 587-630.
Jansa, L. E, R Enos, B. E. Tbcholke, F. M. Gradstein, and R. E. Sheridan, 1979, Mesozoic-Cenozoic sedimentary formations of the North
American basin; western North Atlantic, in M. Talwani, W. Hay, and
W, B. F. Ryan, eds., Deep drilling results in the Atlantic Ocean: continental margins and paleo-environment: American Geophysical
Union, Maurice Ewing Series 3, p. 1-57.
Kirkland, D. W., and J. E. Gerhard, 1971, Jurassic salt, central Gulf of
Mexico, and its temporal relation to circum-Gulf evaporites: AAPG
Bulletin, V. 55, p. 680-686.
Ladd, J. W., R. X Buffler, J. S. Watkins, J. L. Worzel, and A. Carranza,
1976, Deep seismic reflection results from the Gulf of Mexico: Geology, V. 4, p. 365-368.
Lofton, C. L., andW. M. Adams, 1971, Possible future petroleum provinces of Eocene and Paleocene, western Gulf basin, in Future petroleum provinces of the United Statestheir geology and potential:
AAPG Memoir 15, p. 855-886.
Martin, R. G., 1978, Northern and eastern Gulf of Mexico continental
margin: stratigraphic and structural framework, in Framework,
facies, and oil-trapping characteristics of the upper continental margin: AAPG Studies in Geology 7, p. 21-42.

1980, Distribution of salt structures in the Gulf of Mexico; map

and descriptive text: U. S. Geological Survey Map MF-1213.
Mitchum, R. M., Jr., 1978, Seismic stratigraphic investigation of west
Florida slope. Gulf of Mexico, in Framework, facies, and ciltrapping characteristics of the upper continental margin: AAPG
Studies in Geology 7, p. 193-223.
Moore, G. T, and H. 0 . Woodbury, 1978, Mississippi Fanmorphology,
sedimentational history, petroleum potential: 10th Offshore Technology Conference paper 3093, p. 391-398.
Phair, R. L., and R. T. Buffler, 1983, Pre-middle Cretaceous geologic history of the deep southeastern Gulf of Mexico, in Seismic expression
of structural styles: AAPG Studies in Geology 15, v. 2,2.2.3-141.
Schlager, W., R. X Buffler, and Scientific Party of DSDP Leg 77, 1984,
DSDP Leg 77early history of the Gulf of Mexico: GSA Bulletin, v.
95, p. 226-236.
Shaub.F. J., 1983, Growth faults on the southwestern margin of the Gulf
of Mexico, in Seismic expression of structural styles: AAPG Studies
inGeologyl5,v. 2, 2.3.3-3.
Skolnick, H., 1976, Late Pleistoceneimpact of unique continental climate condition on sediment accumulation on slope of northern Gulf
of Mexico, in A. H. Bouma, G. X Moore, and J. M. Coleman, eds..
Beyond the shelf break: AAPG Marine Geology Committee Short
Course, v. 2, New Orleans, p. J1-J32.
Stuart, C. J., and C. A. Caughey, 1976, Form and composition of the
Mississippi Fan: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies
Xransactions, v. 26, p. 333-343.
Swolfs, H. A., 1967, Seismic refraction studies in the southwestern Gulf
of Mexico: Master's thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas, 44 p.
Vail, RR., R. M. Mitchum, Jr., R. O. Todd, J. M. Widmier, S. Thompson, III, J. B. Sangree, J. N. Buff, W. G. Hatlelid, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, in Seismic
stratigraphyapplications to hydrocarbon exploration: AAPG

1802

Seismic Stratlgrapiiy, Central Gulf of Mexico Basi n

Memoir 26, p. 49-212.

Watkins, J. S., J. W. Ladd, R. T. Buffler, F. J. Shaub, M. H. Houston,
and J. L. Worzel, 1978, Occurrence and evolution of salt in deep Gulf
of Mexico, ;/i Framework, facies, and oil-trapping characteristics of
the upper continental margin: AAPG Studies in Geology 7, p. 43-65.
F. J. Shaub, R. T. Buffler, and J. L. Worzel, 1976,
Southern Gulf of Mexico, seismic line 1, (T^maulipas Shelf to Campeche scarp): AAPG Seismic Line Series.

Winker, C. D, 1982, Cenozoic shelf margins, northwestern Gulf of Mexico, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v.
32, p. 427-448.
Worzel, J. L., and C. A. Burk, l979,Themarginsof the Gulf of Mexico,
in Geological and geophysical investigations of continental margins:
AAPG Memoir 29, p. 403-419.
et al, 1973, Initial reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, v. 10:
Washington D.C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 748 p.