Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.

org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015

The role of shale deformation and growth faulting in the Late
Cretaceous evolution of the Bight Basin, offshore southern Australia

J.M. T O T T E R D E L L & A.A. K R A S S A Y

Geoscience Australia, GPO Box 378, Canberra A. C. T. 2601, Australia

(e-mail: jennifer, totterdell @ ga.gov.au)

Abstract: The Jurassic-Cretaceous Bight Basin of offshore southern Australia is a large, under-
explored basin with little stratigraphic control. Sequence stratigraphic and structural interpretation
of regional-scale 2-D seismic data has revealed the presence of two large progradational delta
systems of mid-Late Cretaceous age, which are vastly different in terms of geometry and stratal
architecture. The Cenomanian White Pointer Delta is characterized by shale deformation and
growth faulting. Growth fault-controlled depocentres occupy a wide band across the Ceduna Sub-
basin of the Bight Basin that records the progradation of the delta across the palaeo-shelf during
the Cenomanian. The growth faults are generally listric and basinward dipping (regional).
Counter-regional faults are uncommon. The updip extensional features are accompanied downdip
by a zone of diapirs that coincides with an outer basin high and, in deeper water at the toe of slope,
a region of contractional deformation and toe-thrusts. In comparison, the younger (Late
Santonian-Maastrichtian) Hammerhead Delta exhibits strongly progradational stratal geometries
with little evidence of shale tectonics except in the SW part of the Ceduna Sub-basin. There, sus-
tained progradation under a high sediment supply regime caused gravitational instability and the
formation of listric growth faults at the palaeo-shelf margin with associated down-dip contrac-
tional deformation.

The Jurassic-Cretaceous Bight Basin is a large,
mainly offshore basin that lies on the southern
Australian margin in an area known as the Great
Australian Bight (Fig. 1). Although the Bight Basin
covers an area of over 250000 ~ n 2, it is a poorly
explored region, with only nine wells drilled in the
entire offshore portion of the basin. In 1999-2001,
Geoscience Australia (formerly the Australian
Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO)) undertook
an integrated geological study of the Bight Basin,
which resulted in the development of a new chronos-
tratigraphic framework (Fig. 2) and an improved
understanding of the tectonic and depositional
history of the basin (Totterdell et al. 2000). A key
component of this study was the sequence strati-
graphic and structural interpretation of 8500 line
kilometres of newly acquired, high quality, regional
2-D seismic reflection data. These investigations
revealed that the Late Cretaceous evolution of the
basin was dominated by the development of two large
progradational delta systems in the Cenomanian and
the Late Santonian-Maastrichtian. The architecture
and areal extent of these deltaic systems is compar-
able with deltas of the West African passive margin,
particularly the Niger Delta and the Orange Basin
Delta.
Regional and tectonic setting
The Bight Basin developed on the Australian south-
ern margin during two successive periods of exten-
sion and thermal subsidence that commenced in the
Middle-Late Jurassic (Totterdell et al. 2000). The
basin contains four main depocentres - the Ceduna,
Duntroon, Eyre and Recherche sub-basins (Fig. 1).
The two deltaic systems discussed in this paper are
best developed within the northern portion of the
largest and thickest of these, the Ceduna Sub-basin.
The Ceduna Sub-basin underlies a broad bathymet-
ric terrace (the Ceduna Terrace) in water depths
ranging from 200 m to over 4000 m and contains a
sedimentary section in excess of 12 km thick (Fig.
3). The Potoroo 1 well, which provides stratigraphic
control in the northern Ceduna Sub-basin, intersects
a thin mid-Late Cretaceous succession at the edge of
the sub-basin; no wells have been drilled farther
basinward. To the east of the main depocentres, a
thin Bight Basin succession overlies Proterozoic
basement of the Gawler Craton and deformed Early
Palaeozoic rocks of the Kanmantoo Trough. To the
north, the basement includes a variety of Proterozoic
and older terranes. Basement trends have had a pro-
found influence on the structural development of the
Bight Basin, controlling the location and orientation
of early basin-forming structures (Stagg et al. 1990;
Totterdell et al. 2000). The Bight Basin is overlain
unconformably by the dominantly cool-water carbo-
nates of the Cenozoic Eucla Basin. To the south, the
uppermost sequences of the Bight Basin onlap
highly extended continental crust and rocks of the
continent-ocean transition on the abyssal plain
between Australia and Antarctica (Sayers et al.
2001).

From: VANRENSBERGEN,P., HILLIS,R.R., MALTMAN,A.J. & MORLEY,C.K. (eds) 2003. Subsurface Sediment Mobilization.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 216, 429-442. 0305-8719/03/$15 © The Geological Society of
London.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015

430 J.M. TOTTERDELL & A.A. KRASSAY

130 134

SOUTH
AUSTRALIA
Ceduna 32
o-"

Gawler
Block
Basin

SA
\ ~ ~sw 7 [ - ~ Explorationwell South Australian :.
Abyssal Plain
I .... :

Fig. 1. Bight Basin location and structural elements map. Note location of the Potoroo l well on the NE margin of the
Ceduna Sub-basin. Locations of seismic sections used in Figs 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 shown in bold.

The Bight Basin formed within a tectonic frame-
work dominated by the break-up of eastern
Gondwana (Fig. 4). Basin development began in the
Middle-Late Jurassic when extension along the
southern margin of Australia formed one arm of a
triple junction, with the other arms of the system
along the incipient rifts between India and Antarc-
tica, and India and western Australia (Norvick &
Smith 2001; Fig. 4a). At this time, a convergent
margin existed on the eastern margin of the conti-
nent. Rifting along the triple junction eventually
resulted in sea-floor spreading between India and
Australia/Antarctica, but the rift along the southern
margin failed at that time. By the mid-Cretaceous,
open ocean lay to the west and an arm of the sea
extended into the Bight area along the failed rift
(Fig. 4b). At around 90-100 Ma, subduction ceased
along the eastern margin, resulting in dynamic
rebound of the cratonic platform (Waschbusch et al.
1999). This rebound is likely to have resulted in the
development of a regional drainage gradient to the
west. Kilometre-scale denudation took place along
the eastern highlands (Raza et al. 1995). It is pos-
sible that much of the sediment eroded from this area
was transported west and SW towards the Bight
depocentre (Veevers et al. 1991; Raza et al. 1995;
Totterdell et al. 2000). Very slow spreading between
Antarctica and Australia finally commenced in the
Late Santonian around 83 Ma (Sayers et al. 2001;
Fig. 4c). This spreading rate continued until the
Middle Eocene (Tikku & Cande 1999), when there
was a dramatic increase in the rate of spreading and
continental separation began in earnest (Fig. 4d).
Because of the slow spreading, the seaway along the
southern margin would have remained narrow until
the Middle Eocene.
Tectonostratigraphy of the Bight Basin
The tectonostratigraphic development of the Bight
Basin can be described in terms of four basin phases
(Fig. 2; Totterdell et al. 2000). Basin Phase one
(BP1) records the initiation of sedimentation during
the Middle-Late Jurassic phase of intracontinental
extension mentioned previously. This resulted in
the formation of a series of extensional and trans-
tensional half graben. Deformation appears to have
been focused along pre-existing west-east and
NW-SE striking basement trends (Fig. 1), although
the extent of Jurassic age extensional structures
beneath the thick Ceduna Sub-basin succession is
difficult to determine. Half graben have been recog-
nized along the eastern margin of the sub-basin but
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015

SHALE TECTONICS OF THE BIGHT BASIN,AUSTRALIA 431

Ma AGE SUPER BASIN P H A S E S SEA LEVEL CURVE

SEQUENCES 200 0
LU OLIG
>- Z ~: L
40- n- Dugong

LU ..J
Wobbegong BP4: Thermal
60- F-- <
13-
PALEO L Subsidence
E
Maas
Hammerhead C =p
u.J
80 - ~_
,,¢ Cam
J San Aust - Ant breakup
03 -Con Tur--
Tiger BP3: Accelerated
O Cen White Pointer Subsidence
100- uJ Blue Whale
o AIb
I--
LU >_ Apt
n" j Bronze BP2: Thermal
120- o rr
< Barr Whaler Subsidence
LU Haut
Val
140 Berr Southern Right . 9 "2
o Tith Minke
LLI
03 I-- Kimm
03 ,,~ Sea BPI Extension
< J Oxf
Lion
160- cr
_ Call ~ 2,,,~- 9 ? -
Bath A/130 1

Fig. 2. Bight Basin sequence stratigraphy (from Tottei:dellet al. 2000), showing the relationship with basin phases and
the global sea level curve (modified after Haq et al. 1988).

could not be seismically resolved further west (Fig.
3). The extensional phase was followed by a period
of slow thermal subsidence throughout most of the
Early Cretaceous (BP2). Deposition during this
time was largely non-marine. An abrupt increase in
subsidence rate in the mid-Albian signalled the start
of the third basin phase (BP3). This period of accel-
erated subsidence continued until the commence-
ment of sea-floor spreading between Australia and
Antarctica in the Late Santonian, which coincided
with a period of rising global sea level (Fig. 2). This
combination of factors resulted in a high rate of
creation of accommodation, the first major marine
flooding event in the basin and the widespread dep-
osition of marine silts and shales of the Blue Whale
Supersequence. The present-day distribution of the
supersequence indicates that the seaway at that time
extended along the southern margin from the open
sea in the west towards the Otway Basin in the east.
Progradation of deltaic sediments into this seaway
(White Pointer Supersequence) commenced in the
Cenomanian, following uplift and erosion along the
eastern margin of the continent. Deposition was
rapid, resulting in the development of overpressure
in the underlying marine shales and a short-lived
period of shale mobilization and growth faulting
throughout the northern half of the Ceduna Sub-
basin (Fig. 3). Continental break-up in the Late
Santonian was followed by a period of thermal sub-
sidence and the establishment of the southern
Australian passive margin (BP4). It was during this
phase that the second large progradational delta
developed, represented by the Hammerhead Super-
sequence. In contrast with the earlier deltaic
system, this sand-rich delta is characterized by
strongly prograding stratal geometries and shows
no evidence of widespread shale tectonics. A dra-
matic reduction in sediment supply at the end of the
Cretaceous saw the abandonment of deltaic deposi-
tion and the development of a cool-water carbonate
margin.
The two deltaic phases feature very different stra-
tigraphy, stratal geometry and structural architec-
ture. They are separated by a dominantly
aggradational marine succession and a regionally
extensive, break-up-related unconformity underlies
the later delta. For these reasons, we prefer to treat
the two systems as separate deltas. In the absence of
an extant river system, they are herein referred to
informally as the White Pointer Delta and
Hammerhead Delta, after the supersequences con-
taining the deltaic successions.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015
432 J.M. TOTTERDELL & A.A. KRASSAY
SW
0 50 km
I I
Base Tertiary
2 + +++++++++++++
94-
6-
+~+ + ÷ + + + + + + + + ~ + +
• ÷ + + + + + + + + +
+~+++++i+~+~+i+i+~+~+i+~
8-
Fig. 3. Geoseismic profile across ~e no,hem Ceduna Sub-basin. Jumssic-E~ly Cretaceous supersequences
abbreviated as ~llows: SL Sea Lion; M Minke; SR Southern Right; BrW Bronze WhaleE
W h i t e Pointer Delta
Stratigraphic and structural framework
The White Pointer Delta comprises the deltaic sedi-
ments of the White Pointer Supersequence and the
underlying marine silts and shales of the Blue Whale
Supersequence. The few petroleum exploration
wells drilled in the Ceduna and Duntroon sub-basins
intersect the relatively thin, proximal parts of the
basin succession. In these wells, the Blue Whale
Supersequence generally consists of nearshore or
restricted marine siltstone. The overlying White
Pointer Supersequence contains dominantly fluvial
to lagoonal siltstone and mudstone.
The structural style of the White Pointer Delta is
dominated by growth faults developed above a
regionally extensive d6collement within the mobile
sediments of the Blue Whale Supersequence (Fig.
5). A limited set of depth-migrated seismic lines
shows that the d6collement has a very gentle
seaward dip; in some distal areas of the basin it may
dip landward. Growth faulting is interpreted to be
accompanied by reactive shale diapirism. The reac-
tive diapirs are triangular in cross-section and form
the footwall to the adjacent growth faults (Fig. 5). In
general, the height of the diapirs is equivalent to the
throw on the fault. The seismic character of the
mobile shale is typically chaotic, characteristic of
overpressured facies and there is little seismic pene-
tration beneath it. There is some seismic reflectivity
at about the level of the d6collement, which may
mark the base of mobile facies. The listric growth
Potoroo 1
• NE
+++++++!
+++++++
+ +++++++++++++
+++++++
*÷÷÷++++÷÷++++~+
. ++++++++++++*++++
÷
++++.++++*++++++++++
+ . + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + +
++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
+ + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + +
+ ++++++++++++++++++++++
+÷++++++++.++++++++++++++++++
+++.++
++++++++++++
~ ++++++. +.+ +. + .+ +.+ +. . . . . .
faults are dominantly regional, or basinward-
dipping, faults. Counter-regional faults are uncom-
mon and only a few have been recognized (Fig. 6).
Throws on the regional faults are in the order of
1500-2500 m (approximate thickness herein based
on depth-migrated seismic data or calculated using
seismic stacking velocities). The growth faults have
a generally arcuate trace and a NW-SE strike (Fig.
7). The regional faults dip to the WSW or SW.
Throughout the northern Ceduna Sub-basin, the
growth section, defined by reflections that diverge
towards the bounding fault, is capped by a uni-
formly-thick aggradational unit (upper White
Pointer Supersequence) that lacks synsedimentary
growth (Figs 5, 6), indicating that faulting ceased
during the late Cenomanian.
The seismic character of the White Pointer
Supersequence within the growth fault controlled
depocentres (moderate to high continuity and ampli-
tude) is suggestive of interbedded sandstone and
mudstone. The presence of coal within the superse-
quence is suggested by a band of high amplitude
reflections along the eastern side of the Ceduna Sub-
basin.
The region of growth faulting forms a 150 km
wide band across the northern and central Ceduna
Sub-basin (Fig. 7). Down-dip of this zone, across the
continental slope is a zone of contractional deforma-
tion that features NE-dipping imbricate thrust fans
(Figs 7, 8). These thrust faults sole out within the
overpressured Blue Whale Supersequence. The
thrust front most likely indicates the basinward limit
of overpressure. Between these two zones is a struc-
turally complex region (transitional zone) contain-
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015

SHALE TECTONICS OF THE BIGHT BASIN, AUSTRALIA 433

23/OA/1308
~Normalcrust~Thickenedcrust ISeaOoor ,~UpOft (AfterNorvick&Smith, 2001)
0 1000 km
~ Thinnedcrust ~ Volcanic ~ Extensional ~
depocentres Spreading ridge t__l
Fig. 4. Plate tectonic reconstructions for the southern Australia-Antarctica conjugate margin. Modified after Norvick &
Smith (2001).

ing zones of chaotic seismic reflection character and
upright folds (Fig. 7). These folds could be simply
shale-cored anticlines, but the absence of coherent
seismic reflections beneath the crests of the anti-
clines and thickening of strata between them sug-
gests diapiric movement of the overpressured shales
(Fig. 9). This region, which underlies the seaward
edge of the bathymetric terrace, has been termed the
'Outer Basin High' by previous workers (Stagg et al.
1990).
Structural development
The structural style of the White Pointer Delta is
comparable to that of many other large prograda-
tional deltas around the world. Similar zones of
growth faulting, accompanied farther basinward by
zones of diapirism and contractional deformation,
developed above a mobile substrate have been
described from deltas such as the Niger and Baram
(e.g. Doust & Omatsola 1990; Damuth 1994; Cohen
& McClay 1996; Morley & Guerin 1996; McClay et
al. 1998; Van Rensbergen et aL 1999), as well as the
Gulf of Mexico (Buffler et al. 1978; Winker &
Edwards 1983). Despite these structural similarities,
the extent of active diapirism in the White Pointer
Delta is significantly less than in the Niger and
Baram deltas. Analogue modelling of large progra-
dational delta systems has demonstrated that delta
top extension is dynamically linked to delta toe
contractional deformation and diapirism (McClay et
al. 1998; McClay et al. 2003). Figure 10 compares
the structural architecture of the White Pointer Delta
in the northern Ceduna Sub-basin with Morley &
Guerin's (1996) idealized profile of a progradational
delta. Such deformation, where updip extension is
compensated by downdip contraction, is driven by
two processes that are end-members of a continuous
series - differential loading and gravity sliding
( M a n d l & Crans 1981; Morley & Guerin 1996).
Differential loading (due to lateral variations in load)
of a weak substrate such as overpressured shale
results in lateral pressure gradients and causes dis-
placement of the mobile substrate beneath the load
(Cohen & Hardy 1996). Gravity sliding involves the
downslope displacement of material above a dipping
ductile d6collement (Jackson & Talbot 1991). Both
processes can result in growth faulting and shale
diapirism and it is likely that both contributed to the
 SW NE

e
p-

Fig. 5. Seismic line from the northern Ceduna Sub-basin illustrating the typical structural style of the White Pointer Delta. Note growth section within the White Pointer
Supersequence and listric faults soling out within the Blue Whale Supersequence. Note also the classic progradational geometry of the younger Hammerhead Supersequence. Ages
are given (in italics) for the bases of the Blue Whale, Tiger and Hammerhead Supersequences. Location shown on Fig. 1.
 SW NE

6
I---

Fig. 6. Seismic line from the northern Ceduna Sub-basin showing a rare example of counter-regional faulting (CR). Ages are given (in italics) for the bases of the Blue Whale, Tiger
and Hammerhead Supersequences. Location shown on Fig. 1.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015

436 J.M. TOTTERDELL & A.A. KRASSAY

I ,". , I , ."

r ...~ Potoroo-1

-....
,-....,

\
TAS"~

,",
X,,~/\ . 1 /,7

.:.!....

- 35

• " . • .
-. / Gro~h t~,.,li~ . . . . .
"~~" not present :
- Growthfaults "<':-:z:'. "." "...
""<<.Z_'.'..."3-7~.~'/19~
Transitional z o n e • ...'.. ~\

Contractional / toe-thrust z o n e 0 50 km 1

130 "'<L , 132

I I ," ' I
23/QA/1 306

Fig. 7. Structure map for the base of the White Pointer Supersequence, showing the distribution of growth faults and the
farther basinward transitional and contractional zones.

development of the White Pointer Delta. The impor-
tance of gravity sliding as the dominant controlling
mechanism is presented below.
Deposition of the White Pointer Supersequence
occurred rapidly, over a period of about 5 million
years and rapid progradation of deltaic sediments
across the undercompacted marine shales of the
Blue Whale Supersequence led to the development
of overpressure within the shales. The differential
load provided by the prograding wedges of sediment
triggered the reactive rise of shale diapirs and the
commencement of growth faulting.
The structural style of the delta provides an
insight into the various factors that controlled defor-
mation. In general, the normal faults are strongly
listric and flatten out into a d6collement within the
Blue Whale Supersequence (Fig. 5). This style of
faulting is similar to that in the South Texas region of
the Gulf of Mexico (Winker & Edwards 1983) and is
characteristic of gravity sliding-driven deformation
(Morley & Guerin 1996). As would be expected of
such strongly listric faults, the heave-to-throw ratio
of the growth faults is generally high. While fault
throw is generally around 1500-2500 m, heave is on
the order of 4000-8000 m, so heave to throw ratios
range from 2:1 to greater than 3:1. According to
Morley & Guerin (1996), this type of fault geometry
indicates that downslope processes, that is gravity
sliding, played a more important role than vertical
processes in the development of the faults. Another
striking feature of the White Pointer Delta is the
dominance of regional over counter-regional fault-
ing (Figs 5, 6). Such scarcity of counter-regional
faulting is unusual in large progradational deltas. In
the Niger and Baram deltas, for example, counter-
regional faults are a common feature of the outer
parts of the shelf. Analogue modelling of prograda-
tional deltas has also shown the importance of
counter-regional faulting (McClay e t al. 1998;
McClay e t al. 2003). This modelling suggests that in
the development of delta-top graben systems,
regional faults are the first to form and are then
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015

SHALE TECTONICS OF THE BIGHT BASIN, AUSTRALIA 437

SW NE

~8
&
i-.

Fig. 8. Seismic line from the continental slope in northern Ceduna Sub-basin showing shale-cored anticlines and toe-
thrusts of the outer White Pointer Delta. Location shown on Fig. 1.

SW NE

o 6
E

Fig. 9. Seismic line from the transitional zone between updip growth faults and downdip contractional structures, White
Pointer Delta, northern Ceduna Sub-basin. Note the presence of possible diapiric features at 6.0-7.0 s (TWT), adjacent
synformal strata, and the chaotic seismic character of much of the section, particularly beneath the crests of the
anticlines. Location shown in Fig. 1.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015

438 J.M. TOTTERDELL & A.A. KRASSAY

1 Fold & thrust belt I Transitional I Growth fault zone l

SW zone NE

-2

-4 .~_

-6 d~

•
-8

I- Fold & thrust belt I Shale diapir zone [ Growth fault zone [
Offshore Onshore

23/OA/1320
~ Deltaicsediments l Mobilemarineshale 0 50 km
I J

Fig. 10. Comparison of White Pointer Delta and the idealized progradational delta of Morley & Guerin (1996). Note
the similar distribution of extensional, diapiric/transitionaland contractional structural zones.

superseded by generally larger counter-regional
faults. Lewis (1997), in a study of the development
of growth faults, found that counter-regional faults
were less common in areas with thin substrates. The
study showed that counter-regional faults only
formed at high rates of extension and that the thick-
ness of the mobile substrate was the key control on
the rate of extension. Therefore, if the mobile unit
was too thin, counter-regional faults could not
develop. This may explain the faulting patterns of
the White Pointer Delta, as the mobile substrate here
is thin relative to other large deltas. For example, the
Setap Shales of the Baram Delta are more than 3000
m thick (Van Rensbergen et al. 1999) and the Akata
Shales of the Niger Delta over 6000 m thick (Cohen
& McClay 1996). By comparison, the maximum
pre-deformation thickness of the Blue Whale was
probably around 1500-2000 m. The relatively thin
mobile shale in the Ceduna Sub-basin may also have
provided a constraint on the amount of growth pos-
sible on the regional faults. Possible touchdown
areas, where the base of the growth-faulted section
impinges upon the d6collement, have been recog-
nized on several seismic profiles (Fig. 5). The cessa-
tion of growth faulting, marked by the change in
sedimentary architecture from growth strata to
simple aggradation, may therefore have been con-
trolled by the vertical limit of mobile shale rather
than dewatering.
Shale deformation and growth faulting within the
White Pointer Delta appears to be restricted to the
northern half of the Ceduna Sub-basin. Thicker suc-
cessions of the Blue Whale and White Pointer
Supersequences occur in the southern half of the
basin, but there is no evidence of the type of shale
tectonics that are evident to the north. The most
likely explanation is that overpressure did not
develop in the Blue Whale Supersequence in this
part of the basin. This could have been related to
either changes in lithofacies, or to the rate of burial.
The White Pointer Supersequence in this area has a
strongly aggradational stratal geometry, which sug-
gests that it was away from the direct influence of the
delta and the rapid progradation of deltaic sedi-
ments. Therefore, the sedimentation rate was not
rapid enough to lead to the development of overpres-
sure, and there was no differential loading to trigger
shale mobility or diapirism.
Hammerhead Delta
Stratigraphic and structural framework
From the Turonian to the Late Santonian, in the lead
up to seafloor spreading, deposition in the Bight
Basin occurred in a rapidly subsiding, dominantly
restricted marine environment. During this period,
the marine and marginal marine sediments of the
aggradational Tiger Supersequence accumulated
(Fig. 2). Uplift associated with continental break-up
resulted in widespread exposure and incision of the
former shelf. A major unconformity separates the
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015
SHALE TECTONICS OF THE BIGHT BASIN, AUSTRALIA
SW
2
:=
>,
Fig. 11. Seismic line from the central Ceduna Sub-basin showing the gravity-driven deformation at the palaeo-shelf
margin of the Hammerhead Delta. Location shown on Fig. 1.
deltaic Hammerhead Supersequence from the
underlying Tiger Supersequence. In places, the
contact is an angular unconformity where gently-
dipping tilt blocks of the Tiger Supersequence have
been eroded. This relationship suggests at least local
uplift, possibly related to the commencement of sea-
floor spreading, occurred prior to deposition of the
Hammerhead Supersequence.
The Hammerhead Supersequence represents a 19
million year period of sustained deltaic sedimenta-
tion in the Bight Basin. The Hammerhead Delta is a
sand-rich shelf-margin delta complex that is subdi-
vided into three internal sequence sets. The lower two
sequence sets (Late Santonian to Campanian) exhibit
strongly progradational geometries (Fig. 3). The
upper sequence set (Maastrichtian) has a dominantly
aggradational geometry indicating a major change in
basin dynamics due to a gradually decreasing rate of
sediment supply. Well data shows that in proximal
parts of the basin, the supersequence consists mainly
of amalgamated fluvial channel sandstones. In distal
parts of the basin the Hammerhead Supersequence
comprises basinward-thinning wedges of marine
shale at the toe of slope. Between these two end
members of the deltaic depositional system, there are
14 other mappable seismic facies that have been
interpreted to represent coastal and deltaic plain,
shallow marine and shelf-margin to slope palaeoen-
vironments. In the NW Ceduna Sub-basin, the
Hammerhead Delta is only affected by widely
spaced, high-angle planar faults of Late
Maastrichtian-Paleocene age. These faults are either
439
NE
reactivated Cenomanian growth faults, or are new
structures that have nucleated at the tips of the earlier
growth faults, which were previously reactivated
during Turonian-Santonian extension (Figs 3, 5).
Fault density within the Hammerhead Super-
sequence increases to the southeast and west. The
most striking structural feature of the Hammerhead
Supersequence is the series of high-offset, listric
growth faults that occur near the SW margin of the
Ceduna Sub-basin across a narrow belt subparallel to
the palaeoshelf-margin. The growth section on these
faults reaches thicknesses of up to 3500 m. The
extensional faults are accompanied downdip by
contractional deformation in the form of imbricate
thrust fans (Fig. 11). The deformation appears to have
taken place in the Campanian, during the strongly
progradational phase of deltaic development.
Structural development
The marked difference in structural style between
the Hammerhead and White Pointer deltas is evident
on seismic profiles (Fig. 3). The most striking differ-
ences are the strongly progradational stratal geome-
try of the Hammerhead Delta and the absence of an
underlying ductile and mobile substrate. Across the
shelf, the underlying sediments show no evidence of
overpressure and deformation. In fact, the clear evi-
dence of erosion at the sequence boundary, such as
large incised valleys, argues that the underlying sed-
iments were not rapidly buried. In addition, there is
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015
440
i i
130
- 33
/
- . . ,
" o ~
0 50 km
I I
- 35
1 I
Fig. 12. Isopach map of the Hammerhead Supersequence (ms TWT)
no seismic evidence of the presence of thick coeval
pro-delta or basinal muds. For the most part, particu-
larly in the northern part of the basin, the
Hammerhead Delta simply prograded across a broad
shell with no syn-depositional faulting. However,
this situation changed at the palaeoshelf margin. The
time isopach map of the Hammerhead Super-
sequence (Fig. 12) shows that it thickens both basin-
ward and towards the south, where it reached
thicknesses in excess of 3000 ms TWT (over 5000
m). It is at the palaeo-shelf margin, where the super-
sequence is thickest, that gravitational instability
resulted in localized deformation, with large growth
faults compensated down-dip by folds and imbricate
thrust systems (Fig. 11). This deformation is a
classic example of gravity sliding at an unstable
shelf margin. The drcollement occurs within the
basal part of the Hammerhead Supersequence and
was probably provided by overpressured pro-delta
shale or fine-grained slope facies. Deformation was
accompanied by only limited shale mobilization,
with relatively small triangular shale masses present
beneath the large growth faults and detachment folds
occurring within the transitional zone between
growth faults and toe-thrusts (Fig. 11). Comparable
examples of gravity-driven deformation, with the
J.M. TOTTERDELL & A.A. KRASSAY
polio 1 132
1
Shelf-margin
growth faults
I f ~23IOA/131 £
development of updip listric growth faults and
downdip contractional deformation, have been rec-
ognized from other basins in similar tectonic set-
tings, including the west African passive margin
(Duval et al. 1992; Turner 1995).
The structural and stratigraphic architecture of the
Hammerhead Delta is markedly different from
deltas that involve deformation of a mobile sub-
strate, such as the earlier White Pointer Delta and the
Niger and Baram deltas. It does, however, exhibit a
broad similarity to the relatively coarse clastic prog-
radational delta of the Orange Basin on the south-
west African passive margin (Muntingh & Brown
1993). Both deltas feature strongly progradational to
aggradational stratal geometries and load-induced
gravitational failure at the shelf margin. The Orange
River Delta, which is proving to be a successful
petroleum province, provides an interesting ana-
logue for understanding the reservoir and trapping
potential of the Hammerhead Delta.
Petroleum implications
Growth faulting and shale mobility are interpreted to
have played important roles in the development of
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015
SHALE TECTONICS OF THE BIGHT BASIN, AUSTRALIA
the Bight Basin and are directly related to its hydro-
carbon prospectivity. The structural fabric devel-
oped during the evolution of the White Pointer delta
has provided a strong control on later deformation.
During the extensional phase prior to break-up in the
Late Santonian and flexure of the margin in the Late
Maastrichtian-Early Paleocene, the Cenomanian
growth faults were selectively reactivated. These
structures provide important potential fluid path-
ways for migrating hydrocarbons, and rollovers into
the growth faults are potential structural traps. In
addition, both the overpressured marine shale (Blue
Whale Supersequence) and the prograding deltaic
sediments (White Pointer Supersequence) contain
potential source rocks (Struckmeyer et al. 2001).
The Blue Whale Supersequence has proven source
potential in onshore wells (Boreham et al. 2001) and
enhanced potential for the preservation of organic-
rich rocks within rapidly subsiding growth faulted
depocentres makes the White Pointer Super-
sequence an attractive potential source rock interval.
Growth faulting is also important for the petroleum
prospectivity of the Hammerhead Delta. Synsedi-
mentary growth within the large listric faults at the
palaeoshelf-margin provides enhanced reservoir
potential due to thickness increases and greater trap
potential with the formation of large rollover struc-
tures within the larger rotated fault blocks.
Conclusions
The Albian-Cenomanian White Pointer and
Santonian-Maastrichtian Hammerhead deltas of the
Bight Basin provide an example of two very differ-
ent types of progradational delta. The White Pointer
Delta is characterized by regionally extensive shale
mobilization and shares many characteristics with
other deltas developed above mobile substrates,
such as the Niger and Baram deltas, although on a
smaller vertical scale. A combination of differential
loading and gravity sliding resulted in the develop-
ment of a broad zone of basinward-dipping listric
growth faults above a drcollement formed within
overpressured marine shales. These extensional
structures were accompanied downdip by a zone of
complex deformation, including possible diapirism,
and farther offshore by a contractional fold and
thrust belt. The thickness of the mobile substrate
appears to have provided a constraint on both the
style of faulting and the amount of growth. In con-
trast, the younger Hammerhead Delta is character-
ized by strongly progradational stratal geometries
and a general absence of syndepositional shale def-
ormation or faulting other than a narrow band of
gravity driven deformation at the palaeo-shelf
margin. The Hammerhead Delta has broad similar-
ities with the coarse clastic progradational systems
441
of the Orange Basin and exhibits shelf-margin
gravity tectonics similar to that seen along parts of
the west African margin.
We wish to thank B. Bradshaw, R O'Brien, N. Lemon and
M. de Jong for their thoughtful reviews and Fugro MCS for
permission to use the seismic images. This paper is pub-
lished with the permission of the Chief Executive Officer,
GeoscienceAustralia.
References
BOREHAM,C.J., KRASSAY,A.A. & TOTTERDELL,J.M. 2001.
Geochemical comparisons between asphaltites on the
southern Australian margin and source rock analogues
of Early Cretaceous age. In: HILL, K.C. &
BERNECKER, T. (eds) Eastern Australasian Basins
Symposium. Petroleum Exploration Society of
Australia, Special Publication, 531-541.
BUFFLER,R.T., SHAUB,EJ., WATKINS,J.S. ~: WORZEL,J.L.
1978. Anatomy of the Mexican Ridges, southwestern
Gulf of Mexico. In: WAT~NS,J.S., MONTADERT,L.
DICKERSON, P.W. (eds) Geological and geophysical
investigations of continental margins. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 29,
319-327.
CoI-IE~, H.A. & HARDY,S. 1996. Numerical modelling of
stratal architectures resulting from the differential
loading of a mobile substrate. In: AESOP, G.I.,
BLUNDELL,D.J. & DAVISON,I. (eds) Salt Tectonics.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
100, 265-273.
COHEN, H.A. & MCCLAY, K. 1996. Sedimentation and
shale tectonics of the northwestern Niger Delta front.
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 13, 313-328.
DAMUTH,J.E. 1994. Neogene gravity tectonics and deposi-
tional processes on the deep Niger Delta continental
margin. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 11,320-346.
DOEST,H. & OMATSOLA,E. 1990. Niger Delta. In: EDWARDS,
J.D. & SANTOGROSSl,P.A. (eds) Divergent~passive
margin basins. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Memoir, 48, 201-238.
DUVAL,B., CRAMEZ,C. & JACKSON,M.EA. 1992. Raft tec-
tonics in the Kwanza Basin, Angola. Marine and
Petroleum Geology, 9, 389-404.
HAQ, B.U., HARDE~OL, J. & VAIL, P.R. 1988. Mesozoic
and Cenozoic chronostratigraphy and cycles of sea-
level change. In: WILGUS, C.K., HASTrNGS, B.S.,
POSAMENTIER, H., VAN WAGONER,J., Ross, C.A. &
KENDALL,C.G. (eds) Sea-level changes: an integrated
approach. Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists, Special Publication, 42, 71-108.
JACKSON,M.RA. & TALBOT,C.J. 1991. A glossary of salt
tectonics. Bureau of Economic Geology, Geological
Circular, 91-4.
LEWIS,G.J. 1997. The development of growth faults above
ductile substrates. PhD thesis, Royal Holloway,
University of London.
MANDL, G. 8z CRANS, W. 1981. Gravitational gliding in
deltas. In: MCCLAY,K.R. & PRICE,N.J. (eds) Thrust
and Nappe Tectonics. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 9, 41-54.
MCCLAY, K.R., DOOLEY,T. & LEWIS, G. 1998. Analog
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of St Andrews on March 22, 2015
442 J.M. TOTTERDELL & A.A. KRASSAY
modeling of progradational delta systems. Geology,
26, 771-774.
MCCLAY, K., DOOLEY, T. & ZAMORA, G. 2003. Analog
models of delta systems developed above mobile
shale detachments. In: VAN RENSBERGEN,P., HILLIS,
R.R., MALTMAN, A.J. & MORLEY, C.K. (eds)
Subsurface Sediment Mobilization. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 216, 411-428.
MORLEY,C.K. & GUERIN,G. 1996. Comparison of gravity-
driven deformation styles and behaviour associated
with mobile shales and salt. Tectonics, 15,
1154-1170.
MUNTINGH,A. & BROWN,L.E 1993. Sequence stratigraphy
of petroleum plays, post-rift Cretaceous rocks (lower
Aptian to upper Maastrichtian), Orange Basin,
western offshore, South Africa. In: WEIMER, R &
POSAMENTIER,H.W. (eds) Siliciclastic sequence stra-
tigraphy - recent developments and applications.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Memoirs, 58, 71-97.
NORVICK, M.S. & SMITH, M.A. 2001. Mapping the plate
tectonic reconstruction of southern and southeastern
Australia and implications for petroleum systems. The
APPEA Journal, 41, 15-35.
RAZA, A., HILL, K.C. & KORSCH, R.J. 1995. Mid-
Cretaceous regional uplift and denudation of the
Bowen-Surat basins, Queensland and its relation to
Tasman Sea rifting. In: FOLLINGTON,I.L., BEESTON,
J.W. & HAMILTON, L.H. (eds) Bowen Basin Sym-
posium 1995 - 150 years on. Geological Society of
Australia, supplement.
SAYERS,J., SYMONDS,P., DIREEN,N.G. & BERNARDEL,G.
2001. Nature of the continent-ocean transition on the
non-volcanic rifted margin of the central Great
Australian Bight. In: WILSON, R.C.L., WHITMARSH,
R.B., TAYLOR, B. & FROITZHEIM, N. (eds) Non-
volcanic Rifting of Continental Margins: a Compari-
son of Evidence from Land and Sea. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 187, 51-77.
STAGG,H.M.J., WILLCOX,J.B., NEEDHAM,D.J.L., O'BRIEN,
G.W., COCKSHELL,C.D., HILL, A.J., THOMAS, B. &
HOUGH, L.P. 1990. Basins of the Great Australian
Bight region: geology and petroleum potential.
Continental Margins Program Folio 5. Bureau of
Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics,
Australia, and Department of Mines and Energy,
South Australia.
STRUCKMEYER, H.I.M., TOTTERDELL,J.M., BLEVIN, J.E.,
LOGAN,G.A., BOREHAM,C.J., DEIGHTON,I., KRASSAY,
A.A. & BRADSHAW,M.T. 2001. Character, maturity
and distribution of potential Cretaceous oil source
rocks in the Ceduna Sub-basin, Bight Basin, Great
Australian Bight. In: HmL, K.C. & BERNECKER,T.
(eds) Eastern Australasian Basins Symposium.
Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia, Special
Publication, 543-552.
TIKKU, A.A. & CANDE, S.C. 1999. The oldest magnetic
anomalies in the Australian-Antarctic Basin: are they
isochrons? Journal of Geophysical Research, 104,
B 1,661-677.
TOrrERDELL, J.M., BLEVrN, J.E., Struckmeyer, H.I.M.,
Bradshaw, B.E., Colwell, J.B. & Kennard, J.M. 2000.
A new sequence framework for the Great Australian
Bight: starting with a clean slate. The APPEA Journal,
40, 95-117.
TURNER, J.R 1995. Gravity-driven structures and rift
basin evolution: Rio Muni Basin, offshore Equatorial
West Africa. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 79, 1138-1158.
VAN RENSBERGEN,P., MORLEY, C.K., ANG, D.W., HOAN,
T.Q. & LAM, N.T. 1999. Structural evolution of shale
diapirs from reactive rise to mud volcanism: 3D
seismic data from the Baram delta, offshore Brunei
Darussalam. Journal of the Geological Society,
London, 156, 633-650.
VEEVERS, J.J., POWELL, C.McA. & ROOTS, S.R. 1991.
Review of seafloor spreading around Australia. I.
Synthesis of the patterns of spreading. Australian
Journal of Earth Sciences, 38, 373-389.
WASCHBUSCH, E, BEAUMONT,C. & KORSCH, R.J. 1999.
Geodynamic modelling of aspects of the New
England Orogen and adjacent Bowen, Gunnedah and
Surat basins. In: FLOOD, RG. (ed.) New England
Orogen: regional geology, tectonics and metallogene-
sis. Earth Sciences, University of New England,
Armidale, 203-210.
WTNKER,C.D. & EDWARDS,M.B. 1983. Unstable prograda-
tional clastic shelf margins. In: STANLEY, D.J. &
MOORE, G.T. (eds) The shelfbreak: critical interface
on continental margins. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publica-
tion 33, 139-157.