Abstract

Space for shallow-level sills and laccoliths is commonly generated by bending and uplift of overlying rock and sediment. This so-called “roof uplift” produces forced folds, the shape and amplitude of which reflect the geometry of underlying intrusions. The surface expression of forced folds can therefore be inverted to constrain intruding magma body properties, whilst ancient forced folds provide a record of sill and laccolith emplacement. Deciphering how shallow-level intrusion translates into roof uplift is thus critical to enhancing our understanding and forecasting of magma emplacement. To-date, emplacement models and surface deformation inversions are underpinned by the consideration that roof uplift is, to a first-order, an elastic process. However, several studies have suggested inelastic processes can accommodate significant magma volumes, implying first-order roof uplift may be a function of elastic and inelastic deformation. In particular, seismic reflection images of forced folds above ancient sills and laccoliths have been used to argue that final fold amplitudes can be substantially less (by up to 85%) than the underlying intrusion thickness. Although these seismic-based observations imply elastic and inelastic deformation accommodated intrusion, these studies do not consider whether burial-related compaction has reduced the original fold amplitude. Here, we use geological (e.g., lithology) and geophysical (e.g., seismic velocity) information from the Resolution-1 borehole offshore eastern New Zealand, which intersects a forced fold and upper ∼50 m of a sill imaged in 2D seismic reflection data, to decompact the folded sequence and recover its original geometry. We show the Resolution Sill is likely ∼117–187 m thick, depending on the interval velocity for the entire intrusion, whereas the forced fold has an apparent maximum amplitude of ∼127 m, corresponding to a sill thickness-fold amplitude discrepancy of up to 47%. Decompaction indicates the original maximum forced fold amplitude likely ranged from ∼131–185 m, suggesting post-emplacement, burial-related compaction of this and other forced folds may be the source of apparent discrepancies between fold amplitude and intrusion thickness. Whilst seismic reflection data can provide fundamental insights into how shallow-level emplacement translates into roof uplift and ground displacement, we show decompaction and backstripping are required to recover the original fold geometry. To assess the relative importance of elastic and inelastic space-making processes during the formation of seismically imaged sills and forced folds, we demonstrate that our method should be applied to remove any post-emplacement, burial-related compaction signature.

Highlights

  • Generating space to accommodate magma emplacement requires deformation of the host rock

  • We show that emplacement of the Resolution Sill was principally accommodated by elastic bending of the overburden but, without sufficient borehole data to accurately constrain the original fold geometry, cannot confirm whether inelastic deformation generated space for the intrusion

  • Through analysis of the Resolution Sill and its overlying forced fold, imaged in seismic reflection data offshore eastern New Zealand and intersected by the Resolution1 borehole, we present the first robust decompaction and backstripping of an intrusion-induced forced fold to constrain its original geometry

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Generating space to accommodate magma emplacement requires deformation of the host rock. Geodetic data suggest that short-timescale ground displacements at active volcanoes, generated by sill or laccolith emplacement, reflect elastic deformation (e.g., Pagli et al, 2012; Castro et al, 2016; Ebmeier et al, 2018) These zones of roof uplift mimic the plan-view geometry of underlying intrusion(s) and can be described as a form of “forced fold” (e.g., Hansen and Cartwright, 2006; Magee et al, 2013a); i.e., a fold with a morphology controlled by that of a forcing member below (Stearns, 1978). Seismic and field data provide evidence for the accommodation of magma by elastic and inelastic deformation, challenging the assumption that emplacement models need only account for elastic processes (e.g., Galland and Scheibert, 2013; Magee et al, 2013a; Holohan et al, 2017; Scheibert et al, 2017; Gerbault et al, 2018)

Objectives
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call