Faculty of Science and Technology MASTER’S THESIS · 2016. 4. 24. · Cerrejón thrust. In this thesis, I make a 3D structural model of the Tabaco anticline using a high resolution

Faculty of Science and Technology

MASTER’S THESISFaculty of Science and Technology

MASTER’S THESIS

Study program/Specialization:

Petroleum Geosciences EngineeringSpring, 2013

Open

Writer:Dora Luz Marín Restrepo

Faculty supervisor: Nestor Cardozo

External supervisor(s): Camilo Montes, Universidad de Los Andes (Bogota-Colombia)

Faculty supervisor: Nestor Cardozo

External supervisor(s): Camilo Montes, Universidad de Los Andes (Bogota-Colombia)

Title of thesis:

Structural analysis of the Tabaco anticline, Cerrejón mine, Northern Colombia (South America)

Title of thesis:

Structural analysis of the Tabaco anticline, Cerrejón mine, Northern Colombia (South America)

Credits (ECTS): 30Credits (ECTS): 30

Keywords:Strain, curvature, restoration, strike slip fault, throw, 3D model

Pages: 71

Stavanger, June 13, 2013

i

Copyright

by

Dora Luz Marín Restrepo

2013

ii

Structural analysis of the Tabaco anticline, Cerrejón mine, Northern

Colombia (South America)

by


Master Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of Science and Technology

The University of Stavanger

The University of Stavanger

06-2013

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisors Nestor Cardozo and Camilo Montes for their help with

preparation and processing of the data, as well as for their valuable comments, edits and

constructive discussions. Thanks to Dave Quinn at Badleys for his fast and effective answers

about TrapTester, which were crucial to accomplish my goals. I would also like to thank Chris

Townsend for help in the construction of the 3D model, and Lisa Bingham for help with ArcGis.

Finally, thanks to Andreas Habel for IT support. The computers programs TrapTester (Badleys),

3DMove (Midland Valley), Petrel (Schlumberger), Matlab (Mathworks), and OSXStereonet

(Cardozo and Allmendinger, 2013) were used in this thesis.

iv

Abstract

Structural analysis of the Tabaco anticline, Cerrejón mine, Northern Colombia (South

America)


University of Stavanger, 2013

Supervisor: Nestor Cardozo Ph.D.

External Supervisor: Camilo Montes Ph.D.

The Tabaco anticline is located in the Cesar-Ranchería basin of northern Colombia, South

America, close to the transpressional collision between the Caribbean and South American

plates. The anticline is bounded by the Cerrejón thrust to the east, the right lateral strike slip Oca

fault to the north, and the left lateral strike slip Ranchería fault to the south. The anticline is

asymmetric and verges to the SE, with a NW limb dipping in average 26°W, a SE limb dipping

41°E, and a fold axis 217°/7° (trend and plunge). The fold’s vergence is opposite to that of the

Cerrejón thrust. In this thesis, I make a 3D structural model of the Tabaco anticline using a high

resolution dataset from the Cerrejón open coal mine in an area of about 10 km2. This 3D model

contains 17 coal seams and 67 faults. The thesis is divided in three main parts: Construction of a

3D structural model, fault displacement analysis, and restoration of the anticline. Four different

patterns in the contours of fault throw were observed: 1) Low throw in the middle of the fault

and high throw in the areas around, 2) Highest throw at one corner of the fault and not in the

center, 3) Highest throw in the middle of the fault, and 4) In conjugated faults, highest value of

throw at the intersection of the two fault planes. Most of the faults show pattern 3. Patterns 1 and

2 are mostly due to lack of sampling of the entire fault surfaces. Faults show a consistent pattern

of slip in the area. 3D restoration of the anticline using a flexural slip technique suggests a total

v

shortening of 18%. Fault-related strain (from the analysis of fault displacement) and fold-related

strain (from the restoration of the coal seams) are related, with the highest values of fold-related

strain associated with a fault in the core of the anticline, and the faults located in the SW

anticlinal limb. Fold-related strains are also high in the SE, steeply dipping anticlinal limb. The

results of this study show that the anticline was affected by uplift of the Santa Marta massif,

Perijá range deformation, and strike-slip movement of the Oca , Samán and Ranchería faults.

vi

Table of Contents

List of Tables................................................................................................................................viii

List of Figures................................................................................................................................ix

1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................11

2 Geological setting.......................................................................................................................15

2.1 Regional tectonic setting..............................................................................................15

2.2 Cenozoic stratigraphy of the Cesar-Ranchería Basin..................................................18

2.3 The Tabaco Anticline and the Cerrejón mine data.......................................................19

3 Methods.......................................................................................................................................26

3.1 Construction of 3D structural model............................................................................26

3.1.1 Coal seams construction...............................................................................26

3.1.2 Fault network construction..........................................................................28

3.2 Fault displacement analysis.........................................................................................29

3.3 Restoration of the anticline..........................................................................................30

3.4 Curvature......................................................................................................................32

4. Results........................................................................................................................................33

4.1 3D structure of the Tabaco anticline............................................................................33

4.1.1 Fault geometry....................................................................................................33

4.1.2 Curvature...........................................................................................................39

4.2 Fault displacement analysis............................................................................................43

4.2.1 Fault displacement patterns................................................................................43

4.2.2 Fault array summation and strain.......................................................................45

4.3 Restoration......................................................................................................................54

4.3.1 Strain maps.........................................................................................................57

5. Discussion..................................................................................................................................59

5.1 Summary of the main events affecting the Tabaco anticline in a regional context........63

References......................................................................................................................................66

vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of main faults in the area.................................................................................17

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the study area in Northern Colombia (South America)..............................12

Figure 2. Geologic map of the northern Cesar-Ranchería Basin in the area of the Tabaco

anticline..............................................................................................................................13

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of an isolated fault.....................................................................14

Figure 4. Generalized Cenozoic stratigraphy of the northern Cesar-Ranchería Basin.................16

Figure 5. Systematic dissection of the Tabaco Anticline in ten horizontal mining levels.............22

Figure 6. Map showing the location of measured bedding data (red lines) in the Tabaco

anticline..............................................................................................................................23

Figure 7. Lower hemisphere stereographic projection of poles to bedding in the Tabaco

anticline..............................................................................................................................24

Figure 8. Lower hemisphere stereographic projection of poles to bedding from reconstructed

coal seams surfaces in the Tabaco anticline.......................................................................24

Figure 9. Down-plunge projection of the Tabaco anticline...........................................................25

Figure 10. Steps in the construction of the coal seam surfaces.....................................................27

Figure 11. Steps in the construction of a fault plane.....................................................................29

Figure 12. a) Map showing the location of the cross sections A-A’, B-B’ and C-C’ b) Three cross

section of the Tabaco anticline after the reconstruction of upper coal seams with parallel

folding................................................................................................................................32

Figure 13. Geologic curvature classification................................................................................33

Figure 14. Faults in the 3D model and their occurrence in each of the coal seams......................39

Figure 15. Distribution of maximum curvature (kmax), minimum curvature (kmin), and geologic

curvature with kt = 0..........................................................................................................42

Figure 16. Fault throw patterns observed in the 3D model...........................................................44

Figure 17. Distribution of fault patterns in coal seam 130............................................................45

Figure 18. Left side: Maps displaying the faults affecting each coal seam, contoured by their

throw attribute. Right side: Plots of individual and cumulative fault throw, and cumulative

ix

fault related strain vs. distance. The initial and the last position of the sampling line are

indicated in the map view. e-o contain two groups of plots, one corresponding to NW-SE

striking faults, and another to NE-SW striking faults..........................................................54

Figure 19. Restoration of the Tabaco anticline using the flexural-slip technique.........................56

Figure 20. Maps of maximum principal elongation (e1)..............................................................58

Figure 21. Stearn and Friedman (1972) model showing the fractures set associated with

folding...................................................................................................................................60

Figure 22. Individual and aggregate fault throw, and fault-related strain vs. distance for coal

seam 123 after the re-interpretation of fault 4......................................................................61

Figure 23. Summary of the main events affecting the Tabaco anticline.......................................66

x

1. Introduction

3D structural models allow the integration of scattered 2D and 3D data (e.g. field mapping, 2D

and 3D seismic, wells) into a common framework, where the data must complement each other

and give rise to an internally consistent model. There are beautiful examples of 3D models,

particularly in areas where the data have very high resolution, large coverage, and are measured

on 2D slices of various orientations (e.g. Yorkshire coal mines data in the UK). Integration of

these data in 3D has given us tremendous insight into the geometry, displacement fields and

growth of faults, particularly in extensional settings (e.g. Rippon 1985; Walsh and Watterson,

1987, 1988; Huggins et al, 1995). Restoration of 3D structural models is a great tool to better

understand the spatial and temporal evolution of geological structures, and in the subsurface

where often only seismic and sparse well data are available, it is the most relevant tool to predict

subseismic features such as fractures. 3D structural models are thus key to represent and

characterize reservoirs. They are the basic framework of hydrocarbon flow models.

Inconsistencies in 3D structural models (e.g. incorrect positioning of the fault network and layer

juxtapositions) have higher impact on fluid flow models than the exact calibration of fluid flow

model parameters (Fisher and Jolley, 2007).

In this thesis, I make a 3D structural model of the Tabaco anticline, using a high resolution

dataset from the Cerrejón open coal mine in La Guajira department, northern Colombia, South

America (Figure 1). The dataset consists of differential GPS measurements of coals seams and

fault traces on 10 horizontal slices (i.e. mining levels) in an area of about 10 km2. These coal

seams delineate the geometry of the anticline in 3D. Additionally, this dataset offers an unique

opportunity to understand faulting and folding in a transpressional setting, in an area bounded by

regional strike-slip faults to the north and south, and a thrust to the east. This study is a

continuation of previous research by Montes et al. (in prep.) who acquired and processed the

GPS data, measured kinematic indicators in the area, and constructed a pseudo-3D model of the

anticline.

11

±

0 30 60 90 12015Km

Caribbean Plate

Southern Cari

bbean Defo

rmed Belt

South American Plate

Santa Marta

CR basin

Perijá

Panamá

Cartagena

Maracaibo Lake

72°00`W73°00`W74°00`W75°00`W76°00`W77°00`W78°00`W79°00`W

74°00`W75°00`W76°00`W77°00`W78°00`W79°00`W

12°00`N

11°00`N

10°00`N

9°00`N

8°00`N

7°00`N

12°00`N

11°00`N

10°00`N

9°00`N

8°00`N

7°00`N

15.28

10.87

16.53

29.17

30.48

22.06

19.69

9.53

6.87

5.253.16

4.92

Tuesday, June 11, 13

Figure 1. Location of the study area in Northern Colombia (South America). The red rectangle is the study area (Figure 2). Black lines are faults. CR = Cesar-Ranchería Basin. Black arrows are GPS velocity vectors relative to stable South America (1991, 1994, 1996, and 1998 CASA campaigns; Trenkamp et al., 2002). Numbers are velocity vectors in mm/yr.

The Tabaco anticline is located in the Cesar-Ranchería Basin of Northern Colombia, South

America, close to the transpressional collision between the Caribbean and South American plates

(Figure 1). The anticline is an asymmetric fold plunging to the southwest (Ruiz, 2006; Palencia,

2007). The asymmetry of the fold is defined by steeply dipping strata (average of 41°E) on its

southeastern flank, and shallowly dipping strata (average of 26°W) on its northwestern flank

(Montes et al., in prep.). The Tabaco anticline is bounded to the southeast by the northwest-

verging, Cerrejón thrust (which is also the boundary between the Cesar-Ranchería Basin and the

Perijá range), to the north by the right-lateral Oca fault, to the south by the left-lateral Ranchería

fault, and to the west by the 5700 m high Santa Marta massif (Figure 2). The trend of the

anticline (N20°E) is oblique to the Oca and Ranchería strike-slip faults, and its vergence is

12

opposite to that of the Cerrejón thrust (Montes et al., 2010). The Tabaco anticline is important for

the geology of the area because it records the deformation of the strike-slip and thrust faults, and

the uplift of the Santa Marta massif and Perijá range.

Ku

Tpc

Tpm

Tep

Tpc

Tep

Tet

Tet

Kc

72°30'W

72°30'W

72°40'W

72°40'W

72°50'W

72°50'W

11°10'N 11°10'N

11°0'N 11°0'N

±

0 2 4 6 81Km

Oca fault

Cerrrejón

fault

Ranchería fault

Tabaco anticline

Perijá ra

nge

Santa Marta

massif

Tep: Palomino FmTet: Tabaco FmTpc: Cerrejon FmTpm: Manantial FmKu: Cretaceus undiff.Kc: Cogollo Gr.

16

13

14

26

41

Samán fault

Thursday, April 25, 13

Figure 2. Geologic map of the northern Cesar-Ranchería Basin in the area of the Tabaco anticline. Modified from Montes et al. (2010). The red rectangle shows the area of the Cerrejón open coal mine where the GPS data were collected.

This thesis is subdivided in three main topics: Construction of a 3D structural model, fault

displacement analysis, and restoration of the anticline. The 3D model of the anticline was

constructed using the traces of coal seams and faults on horizontal mining levels, giving a total

of 17 coal seams and 67 faults. The faults were divided into four structural domains as suggested

by Palencia (2007). The 3D model was used to calculate the displacement field on faults. An

important concept is that the faults should show a reasonable variation in displacement, with zero

displacement at the fault tipline and maximum displacement at the center of the fault surface

(Kim and Sanderson, 2005; Figure 3).

13

Dis

plac

emen

t (D

)Tip

Point

Tip Point

Dmax

Hei

ght (

H)

Length (L)

DmaxHanging wall

Footwall

Sunday, April 21, 13

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of an ideal, isolated fault. Displacement is maximum at the center of the fault and decreases outwards to be zero at the fault tipline (modified from Fossen, 2012).

Using TrapTester (Badleys), the throw was calculated on each fault. Four different patterns in the

contours of fault throw were found: 1) Low throw in the middle of the fault and high throw in the

areas around, 2) Highest throw at one corner of the fault and not in the center, 3) the most

common pattern, highest throw in the middle of the fault, and 4) In conjugated faults, highest

throw at the intersection of the two fault planes.

Pattern 1 can be explained by the fault linkage model (Peacock and Sanderson, 1991; Cartwright

et al., 1995), in which the faults grow as isolated faults at early stages and then link to produce

larger faults. In this case, the area of low throw is indicating the zone of fault linkage. A possible

explanation for pattern 2 is that the fault is actually larger, but there are not enough data to

14

resolve the complete fault plane. Pattern 3 is the consistent pattern of fault displacement of

Figure 3. In pattern 4, the two conjugate faults add to a larger displacement.

Profiles of fault displacement versus distance were also constructed to visualize the 3D

distribution of fault displacement in the anticline, and to make inferences about fault-related

strain (i.e. the gradient of fault displacement) in the area. The faults with highest value of throw

are fault 59 (an E-W fault located in the core of the anticline), and fault 45 (the Samán fault). The

faults that show the highest values of strain are located in the SW limb of the anticline and have a

strike NE-SW.

Finally a restoration of the Tabaco anticline was performed using a flexural-slip technique. This

technique preserves volume in 3-D, line length in the unfolding direction, and orthogonal bed

thickness (Griffiths et al., 2002). The restoration shows that the total shortening of the Tabaco

anticline is 18%. The shortening of coal seam 130 is 6%, 115 is 2%, 105 is 7%, and 100 is 3%.

The maximum fault-related strain for coal seam 130 is 5%, 115 is 3%, 105 is 10 % and 100 is

2.5%. The results of this study show that the anticline was affected by the uplift of the Santa

Marta massif and Perijá range, and the strike slip movements of the Oca, Samán and Ranchería

faults.

2 Geological setting

2.1 Regional tectonic setting

The Tabaco anticline is located in the Cesar-Ranchería basin, northern Colombia, South America,

close to the transpressional collision between the Caribbean and South American plates (Figure

1). The northern part of the Cesar-Ranchería basin is defined by a southeast-dipping monocline

that shows structural continuity with the Santa Marta massif to the west (Figure 2). The

monocline is bounded to the north by the right-lateral Oca fault and to the east by the northwest-

vergent Cerrejón thrust (Montes et al., 2010) which limits the Perijá range (Kellogg, 1984;

Figure 2). Faults and folds in the footwall of the Cerrejón thrust are only affecting Cenozoic

15

rocks (Figure 4), these structures include the left-lateral Ranchería fault and the Tabaco anticline

(Montes et al., 2010). Table 1 shows a summary of the main faults in the area. Sánchez and

Mann (2012) describe 3 major periods of shortening for the Cesar-Ranchería Basin that include:

an event in the Paleocene- early Eocene, an Oligocene- early Miocene event, and a last period in

the Pliocene-Pleistocene.

Legend

Sandstone

Shale

Claystone

Limestone

Coal

Siltstone

Early

Pal

eoce

ne

Mid

dle

to L

ate

Pale

ocen

eLa

te P

aleo

cene

to E

arly

Eoc

ene

Early

Eo

cene

Upp

er C

erre

jón

Fm

S100

S102

S95S90

S105

S106

S110

S115

S120

S123S125

S130

S135

S145

S150

S155

S160S170

S175

3

Man

antia

lC

erre

jón

59

61

57

Taba

coPa

lmito

FormationAge

Ma

Lithology

55

20 m

Tuesday, May 21, 2013Figure 4. Generalized Cenozoic stratigraphy of the northern Cesar-Ranchería Basin and detail of the Upper Cerrejón Formation where the coal seams (S) analyzed in this study are located. Identification numbers on the coal seams are the same as those of the 3D model (modify from Bayona et al., 2011).

16

Table 1. Summary of main faults in the area

Name of Fault Type Displacement Age

Oca Right lateral strike slip

Feo-Codecido (1972): 15 to 20 kmTchanz et al. (1974): 65 km

Montes et al. (2010): 75-100 KmKellogg (1984): 90 km

Pindell et al. (1998): 100 km

Middle to Late Miocene (Konn in Shagam, 1984

Cerrejón Reverse Total throw between 16-26 km (Kellogg and Bonini, 1982)

Early Eocene and Late Oligocene (Montes et

al., 2010)

Ranchería Left lateral strike slip

5 km (Sánchez, 2008; Montes et al., 2010)

No information available

The western boundary of the area is the Santa Marta massif (Figure 2), an isolated, triangular

basement block with a maximum elevation of 5700 meters above sea level. Cardona et al. (2008)

estimated exhumation rates for the Santa Marta massif of 0.7 km/Ma between 65-48 Ma, 0.16

km/Ma until the Late Oligocene, and 0.33 km/Ma in the middle-late Miocene.

The eastern limit of the Cesar-Ranchería basin is the northwest-vergent Cerrejón thrust with an

average dip of 9-12° towards the SE in the surface (Montes et al., 2010). This fault is the western

boundary of the Perijá range (Figure 2). The Perijá range consists of Mesozoic and Palaeozoic

igneous and sedimentary rocks with a maximum elevation of 3650 meters above sea level

(Kellogg, 1984). Four deformation phases have been described in the area starting in the Early

Eocene (53 Ma) and Middle Eocene (45 Ma), intensifying during the Late Oligocene with thrust

sheet emplacement and unroofing of 3–4 km (Kellogg, 1984), and ending between the Late

Miocene to recent. Four post-Jurassic, thrust detachment levels have been proposed in the Sierra

de Perijá: at the base and top of the Upper Cretaceous shales of the Colón Formation, at the

shales of the Guaimaros Member of the Cretaceous Apón Formation, at the shale and sandstone

with high mica content of the Lisure Formation; and an intrabasement detachment level (Duerto

et al., 2006).

17

2.2 Cenozoic stratigraphy of the Cesar-Ranchería Basin

A Late Cretaceous to Eocene sedimentary succession is preserved in the area (Figure 4). The

Early Paleocene Manantial Formation is composed of glauconitic shales and sandy limestones

(Bayona et al., 2011). The upper Manantial Formation include calcareous sandstone and

biomicrite beds, followed by a thick succession of dark-coloured mudstone and siltstone beds

with plant remains and signs of bioturbation. Towards the top, calcareous and fossiliferous

sandstone beds interbedded with laminated mudstone and siltstone beds and local conglomerates

occur. Bayona et al. (2011) described a change in thickness of this unit eastward from 600 m at

the west of the basin, to 180 m in a well close to the Ranchería fault.

The Cerrejón Formation is a 1 km thick coal-bearing unit that consists of very fine to fine

grained argillaceous sandstones, dark colored sandy siltstones and interbedded mudstones, shales

and coal seams (Bayona et al., 2011). Jaramillo et al. (2007) established an age of Middle-to-Late

Paleocene for this formation. The Cerrejón Formation is a deltaic sequence that were deposited

in less than 2 My (Bayona et al., 2007; Jaramillo et al., 2007). Almost all the coal seams that

were modeled in this thesis are located in the upper part of the Cerrejón Formation (S 100-175,

Figure 4), only coal seams 90 and 95 are located in the lower part of the Formation. Provenance

analyses in the Paleocene Manantial and Cerrejón Formations in the northernmost part of the

Cesar-Ranchería valley indicate that these Formations were supplied from the Santa Marta

massif (Cardona et al., 2010; Bayona et al., 2007), indicating uplift of the massif from the

Paleocene.

The Late Paleocene-Early Eocene Tabaco Formation is a 75 m thick unit that includes variedly

colored, massive mudstone beds interbedded with cross-bedded conglomeratic sandstone beds

(Bayona et al., 2011; Cardona et al., 2010). Montes et al. (2010) interpret the Tabaco Formation

as syntectonic strata based on thickness changes and field relations with the Cerrejón Formation.

They suggested that mild deformation took place in the Cesar-Ranchería basin during the

accumulation of this Formation. Provenance analyses in these syntectonic strata indicate a source

of the Santa Marta massif (Cardona et al., 2010), but also point to tectonic activity of the Perijá

18

range (Bayona et al., 2007). Finally, the Palmito Formation (Early Eocene) is composed of light-

colored, massive mudstones (Bayona et al., 2011). Beck (1921) estimated a thickness of 60 m for

this Formation.

2.3 The Tabaco Anticline and the Cerrejón mine data

The Tabaco anticline is an asymmetric fold plunging to the southwest (Ruiz, 2006; Palencia,

2007). The asymmetry of the fold is defined by steeply dipping strata (average of 41°E) on its

southeastern flank, and shallowly dipping strata (average of 26°W) on its northwestern flank

(Montes et al., in prep.). The anticline affects Cenozoic rocks, including the Upper Cerrejón

Formation where the coal seams analyzed in this study are (Figure 4).

I use in this thesis a dataset collected in the Cerrejón open coal mine (red square in Figure 2) by

several geologists working in the mine. The data are the result of routine in-pit mapping of the

intersection of dipping coal seams and horizontal mining levels (Montes et al., in prep.). Each

coal seam intersection was followed with differential GPS. Attributes such as the name of the

seam, elevation, roof and floor lithologies, dip angle, and apparent thickness along the dip

direction were recorded. Structural features such as faults, minor folds, bedding, kinematic

indicators (minor folds and slickensides) were also recorded. All this information was stored in a

GIS database (Montes et al., in prep.). The coal seams and fault traces in the GIS project were

cleaned and interpreted (Montes et al., in prep.). This “clean” database is the initial information

for this thesis.

The GIS project contains the traces of 19 coal seams in 10 horizontal mining levels, and more

than 1000 fault traces (i.e. fault intersections with the mining levels). The stratigraphic position

of the coal seams is shown in Figure 4. The faults are classified by their level of confidence as

observed, interpolated or inferred. Figure 5 shows the 10 mining levels. Of the 19 mapped coal

seams, 17 were used in the construction of the 3D model. Coal seams 90 and 175 (Figure 4) were

not used because there are not enough data to reconstruct them. A limitation of the dataset is that

19

as the layers become younger, the data coverage becomes less in the core of the anticline.

Younger coal seams are only mapped in the limbs of the anticline.

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! !

! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! !

! !

! !

115

145

150

106

110

120

100

123

155

10510

2

130

125

135

95

90

160

152

11013

5

130

105

145

145

123

130

105

135

125

115

123

105

125

115

115

105

115

115

145

120

106

123

155

105

130

110

123

105

95

120

105

110

125

135

135145

123

106

123

125

106

130

130

125

106

150

105

125

115

115

12311

5

145

102

130

120

120

115

150

130

135

110

110

145

110

12013

5

102

115

160

105

115

123

120

155

123

130

123

123

125

123

105

100

125

105

145

105

135

13513

0

115

95

155

115

115

102

145

125

120

110

135

125

125

102

150

150

100

123

130

100

125

115

115

110

123

130

106

110

120

100

130

145

130

135

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 0

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS

145

100

123 135

106

115

130

120

125

95

150

160

105

102 11

0

155

170

113

152

150

155

130

105

135

135

120

110

145

150

105

102

145

105

145

145

130

106

150

123

106

155

130

120

115

135

155

150

155

115

135

135

123

105

130

95

135

102

100

102

130

110

130

115

102

125

100

135

120

106

145

115

130

145

145

110

150

135

115

145152

150

110

125

123

125

135

100

125

120

123

120

150

135

125

115

115

150

155

110

105

155

125

160

110

115

150

102

123

115

110

106

110

110

115

130

150

135

145

120

105

130

102

123

123

115

105

106

115

130

150123

105

110

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 10

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS

Wednesday, June 12, 13 130

125120

150

106

123

135

155

105

95

115

110

100

102

145

160

90

170

152

106

130

135

102

135

130

130

125

125

123

120

135

100

155

110

123

105

115

150

150

160

95

115

135

100

130

145

125

115

155

95

115

123

155

145

115

120

95

150

120

100

155

115

160

145

110

115

152

115

110

145

120

110

100

135

135

145

102

130

102

130

125

130

130

150

135

130

130

120

123

155

155

150

105

123

135

125

110

145

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 20

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS

123

120 130

110

135

105

155

95

125

115

102

106

160

145

150

170

100

90

152

102

100

105

106

130

145

110

125

100

123

102

145

120

123

123

155

110

102

120

135

95

115

100

155

125

135

110

102

100

135

130

120

106

105

115

110

145

120

145

155

145

155

105

145

115

160

110

135

123

160

110

155

125

123

120

150

115

130

100

102

123

152

102

115

150

125

130

115

130

125

125

145

115

135

105115

100

100

150

105

130

102

145

120

170

145

135

150

135

102

110

95

105

155

145

120

130

135

105

125

125

106

110

115

155

102

130

106

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 30

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS

Wednesday, June 12, 13

20

120

160

115

152

150

105

155

100

106

9512

3

135

102

170

145

125

130

110

135

123

125

123

102

105

115

102

145

95

102

102

110

125

125

152

160

105

123

105

155

150

150

145

123

120

123

125

145

145

135

150

102

120

110

130

120120

125

105

123

110

150

105

155

102

110

135

115

145

130

130

150

150

130

120

100

120

135

150

102

125

100

102

102

102

160

106

145

130

130

145

150

102

155

150

150

130

110

102

130

123

135

115

135

102

95

130

102

120

155

102

110

130

110

145

130

100

145

115

100

105

130

105

130

105

123

145

150

152145

106

120

130

160

115

120

106

135

135

125

150

105

102

155

145

115

125

130

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 40

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS

150

125123

115

120

110

106

160

175

155

170

105

145

102

130

135

100

95

152

173

106

155

120

125

135

100

130

130

123

106

106

145

160

160

135

106

145

125

170

105

102 110

123

125

155

150

115

105

145

120

125

160

123

100

130

106

105

125

106

160

135

145

135

130

105

120

100

95

120

120

100

12317

5

123

123

123

102

145

130

110

130

175

123

145

145

135

115

115

110

150

115

160

105

135

110

102

135

135

152

145

105

150

155

160

170

120

155

130

170

123

155

120

135

105

150

110

145

100

135

102

170

95

170

102

106

135

135

135106

115

160

155

102

125

123

123

125

170

130

120

105

110

160

102

123

130

135

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 50

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS

173

175150

145

135

130

170

125

160

123

120

115

155

105

106

110

90

102

9510

0

152

125

125

123

150

106

135

170

120

105

115

102

115

105

160

115

105

145

160

135

125

145

123

120

120

150

100

120

95

106

160

160

145

95

115

120

125

120

110

175

145

105

170

120

130

106

155

130

115

123 155

110

123

135

115

102

135

135

135

115

102

152

135

130

123

155

130

16090

110

145

130

170

120

95

102

100

102

125

115

170

102

110

110

110

120

160

160

106

150

125

155

130

170

115

155

102

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 60

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS

175

150

160

135

120

123

145

173

155

125

170

106

110

130

105

115

102

90

100

95

152

130

115

160

102

123

135

145

130

155

170

105

13513

0

123

160

160

105

145

105

150

110

110

125

105

102

120

130

105

115

102

106

105

135

12512

3

106

155

105

135

105 106

120

110

106

123

135

150

115

130

145

125

130

120

110

120

160

115

175

100

123

145

120

170

160

125

170

115

110

145

106 15

014

5

106

102

90

170

115

145

130

130 13

5

145

123

115

12011

5

145

130

120

150

155

105

170

145

173

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 70

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS


120

160

115

152

150

105

155

100

106

95

123

135

102

170

145

125

130

110

135

123

125

123

102

105

115

102

145

95

102

102

110

125

125

152

160

105

123

105

155

150

150

145

123

120

123

125

145

145

135

150

102

120

110

130

120120

125

105

123

110

150

105

155

102

110

135

115

145

130

130

150

150

130

120

100

120

135

150

102

125

100

102

102

102

160

106

145

130

130

145

150

102

155

150

150

130

110

102

130

123

135

115

135

102

95

130

102

120

155

102

110

130

110

145

130

100

145

115

100

105

130

105

130

105

123

145

150

152145

106

120

130

160

115

120

106

135

135

125

150

105

102

155

145

115

125

130

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 40

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS

150

125123

115

120

110

106

160

175

155

170

105

145

102

130

135

100

95

152

173

106

155

120

125

135

100

130

130

123

106

106

145

160

160

135

106

145

125

170

105

102 110

123

125

155

150

115

105

145

120

125

160

123

100

130

106

105

125

106

160

135

145

135

130

105

120

100

95

120

120

100

123

175

123

123

123

102

145

130

110

130

175

123

145

145

135

115

115

110

150

115

160

105

135

110

102

135

135

152

145

105

150

155

160

170

120

155

130

170

123

155

120

135

105

150

110

145

100

135

102

170

95

170

102

106

135

135

135106

115

160

155

102

125

123

123

125

170

130

120105

110

160

102

123

130

135

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 50

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS

173

175150

145

135

130

170

125

160

123

120

115

155

105

106

110

90

102

9510

0

152

125

125

123

150

106

135

170

120

105

115

102

115

105

160

115

105

145

160

135

125

145

123

120

120

150

100

120

95

106

160

160

145

95

115

120

125

120

110

175

145

105

170

120

130

106

155

130

115

123 155

110

123

135

115

102

135

135

135

115

102

152

135

130

123

155

130

16090

110

145

130

170

120

95

102

100

102

125

115

170

102

110

110

110

120

160

160

106

150

125

155

130

170

115

155

102

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 60

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS

175

150

160

135

120

123

145

173

155

125

170

106

110

130

105

115

102

90

100

95

152

130

115

160

102

123

135

145

130

155

170

105

135

130

123

160

160

105

145

105

150

110

110

125

105

102

120

130

105

115

102

106

105

135

125

123

106

155

105

135

105 106

120

110

106

123

135

150

115

130

145

125

130

120

110

120

160

115

175

100

123

145

120

170

160

125

170

115

110

145

106 15

014

5106

102

90

170

115

145

130

130 13

5

145

123

115

12011

5

145

130

120

150

155

105

170

145

173

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 70

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS


21

150

173

175

145130

155

110

135

170

125 16

0

123120

106

115

105

152

170

123

173

150

130

160

106

135

106

135

130

125

160

105

115

123

145

105

160

135

123

135

13012

3

120

160

106

120

105

105

106

105

123

120

115

145

115

170

105

115

110

115

175

155

130

130

173

175

170

106

130

130

110

160

115

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 80

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS

150

135130 14

5

175

125

160

123

110

173

120

170

115

155

106

105

105

145

115

135

173

145

120

125

120

145

130

173

175

173

120

173

115

120

170

110 106

130

105

170

106

125

170

115 145

106

175

150106

125135

135

123

125

160

115

175

170

173

120

155

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

Level 90

DFTABDFLSEDAFSDFSS


Figure 5. Coal seams (black lines with identification numbers) and fault traces (colored lines) in ten horizontal levels in the Cerrejón mine. Number on level is its elevation a.s.l. in meters. Faults are colored according to the structural domains defined by Palencia (2007). DFTAB : Tabaco fault domain, DFLSE: Southern limb domain, DAFS: Samán antithetic fault domain, DFSS: Samán fault domain.

488 bedding measurements were taken by geologists in the Cerrejón mine (Montes et al., in

prep.). The bedding information is located in all mining levels in both, the core of the anticline to

the north of the modeled coal seams, and in the limbs of the anticline where there are GPS data

(Figure 6). A cylindrical best fit to the data suggests that the anticline is roughly cylindrical, with

a fold axis (trend and plunge) 217/7 (Figure 7). Strike and dip data from the reconstructed coal

seam 3D surfaces (best-fit plane routine of Fernandez, 2005 in 3DMove) suggest also a roughly

cylindrical fold with a fold axis 204/5 (Figure 8).

22

oo ooo

o

ooooooooooo o

ooo

o

oo

ooo

oo

ooo oo

oo

o

ooo

o

o

o

o o

oo

ooooooooooooo

o

oo

oo

oo

ooo

o

ooo

o

o

oo

o o

ooo

oo

o

o

o

o

oo

ooo

ooo

ooo

o

oooo

o

o

oo

o ooo

o

oo oo

o

o

oooooooo

o

o

o

oooooooo

ooo

oo

oooo

o

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

o

o o o

oooo

o oooo

ooo

o

o

o

o

oooo

ooo

ooooooooo

o ooo ooo

ooo

oooo

o

o

ooo

o

oo

o

o

o

ooo

oo

o

oo

oo

o

o

ooo

o

oo

o

ooooo

o

o

ooo

ooo

o

o

oo

oo

oo

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

oo

o

oo

ooo

o

o

oo

o

o

oo

ooooo oo

oooo o

ooo

o

oo

oo

o

ooo

oo

ooo

o

ooo

o

o

o

ooooooo

oo o

oo

ooo

o

o

o

o

o

o

oo

o o o

ooo

ooo

o

oo

o

o

o

ooo

o

o

oo

ooo

o

o

o

o

oooo

oo

oo

oooooo

o

o

o

oo

o

o

oo

o

o

oo

o

ooo oooo

o

oooooo

o

o

oo

ooo

ooo

oooooooo

ooo

ooo

ooooo

o

o

oooooooooo

o

o

o

o

oo

o

o

oo

o

o

oo

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o

o

115

145

150

106

110

12010

0123

155

105102

130

125

135

95 90

160

152110

105

115

120

130

115

150

123

115

135

125

110

105

130

105

135

115

123

120

123

105

155

125

105

105

145

130

110

130

95

115

123

135

125

135

100

145

150

123

130

125

105

100

130

130

115

115

106

102

130

145

115

120

150

115

106

123

110

110

11012

0

135

102

115

115

135

120

155

123

123

145

100

125

105

135

135145

95

155

130

125

115

145

102

110

125

102

150

150

115

130

123

125

115

115

120

123

130

106 11

0

100

130

145

130

135

72°33'30"W

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

72°35'0"W

11°9'0"N 11°9'0"N

11°8'30"N 11°8'30"N

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 400 800200m23

31

54

28

28

14

25

20

71

3450

2138

3417

11

25

6

22

11

24

55

65

15

2237

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Figure 6. Map showing the location of bedding data (red strike and dip symbols) in the Tabaco anticline. Bedding data was measured in all mining levels. The black lines are the coal seams and faults traces in the lowest mining level 0. Numbers on coal seams traces are the coal seams ids. (data from Montes et al., in prep.).

23

Figure 7. Lower hemisphere stereographic projection of poles to bedding in the Tabaco anticline. A cylindrical best fit to the data (red great circle and eigenvectors) suggests a fold axis of 217/7.

Kamb ContoursC.I. = 2.0 Sigma

Equal AreaLower Hemisphere

N = 20947

Thursday, April 25, 13

Figure 8. Lower hemisphere stereographic projection of poles to bedding from the reconstructed coal seams 3D surfaces. A cylindrical best fit to the data (red great circle and eigenvectors) suggests a fold axis of 204/5.

Kamb ContoursC.I. = 2.0 Sigma

Equal AreaLower Hemisphere

N = 488

24

A down-plunge projection of the coal seams along the fold axis 217/7 was performed

(Allmendinger et al., 2012). Since the anticline is not perfectly cylindrical, not all points on a

coal seam surface fall along the same line in the projection (Figure 9). However the down-plunge

projection is still useful to visualize the geometry of the anticline. The projection shows that the

anticline is asymmetric, with a SE vergence, and a rounded hinge. Lower points in the projection

suggesting a west dipping, overturned forelimb, should not be taken into account. They result

from projecting the entire data to the profile plane. Disharmonic folds, for instance in beds

100-105 and 150-155 towards the east, were observed in the anticline (cross section C-C in

Figure 12). Small thickness changes are also observed between the coal seams.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

050100

east mnorth m

up m

−1000 −800 −600 −400 −200 0 200 400 600 800

−800

−600

−400

−200

0

200

400

m

m

a

b

c

Friday, April 26, 13

Figure 9. Down-plunge projection of the Tabaco anticline. a) 3D view of the anticline. b) Down- plunge projection of the anticline. Notice that since the fold axis plunges south (Figure 7), the cross section in b is looking to the south (east is to the left).

Based on the dataset above, detailed field mapping, and kinematic indicators; Palencia (2007)

divides the anticline into four structural domains (Figure 5). 1) The Tabaco fault domain

(DFTAB), characterized by a main SE dipping reverse fault (Tabaco fault) and a series of SE

dipping, right-stepping in echelon reverse faults, the average dip of these faults is around 54°. 2)

The Samán fault domain (DFSS) (left-lateral strike slip fault), characterized by short faults with

high dip angles and striking NNW-SSE. 3) The Samán fault antithetic domain (DAFS),

characterized by short segment faults with an average dip of 55° S-SW and NE with almost no

25

associated folding. And 4) The southeast limb domain (DFLSE), characterized by short segment

faults with an average dip of 60° NE and SW. Additionally, the kinematic indicators (in the core

of the anticline) suggest a tectonic transport direction to the northwest (between 310° and 330°)

consistent with shortening perpendicular to the strike of the Cerrejón thrust, but in a direction

opposite to the vergence of the Tabaco anticline.

3 Methods

3.1 Construction of 3D structural model

To describe and analyze the geometry of the anticline, a 3D structural model was built. The 3D

model was important since it was a way to integrate the data on the different mining levels.

When the coal seams and the fault planes were reconstructed, and the relationship between these

two were checked, it was possible to evaluate the consistency of the model (whether the model

was geologically reasonable or not). The 3D model was made in two steps: 1. Coal seams

construction, and 2. Fault network construction.

3.1.1 Coal seams construction

Since the initial GIS project was the result of cleaning and interpretation of the original GPS data

(Figure 10a, Montes et al., in prep.), the first step in the construction of the 3D model was the

resampling of the coal seams and fault traces to increase the number of vertices on them. This

was done by setting vertices every 2 meters along the traces, using a resampling tool in ArcGIS.

This process did not change the shape of the traces, it just increased the number of vertices on

them (Figure 10b).

26

120 m 120 ma b

120 m c 120 m d

NN

N N


Figure 10. Steps in the construction of the coal seam surfaces, in this case coal seam 100. a) Original points. b) Resultant points (light blue) after resampling the original data (dark blue). c) Resultant points (green) after gridding. d) Final coal seam surface with contours. In c and d, the blue lines are the resampled data in b. Notice that the modeled surface closely follows the data.

Second, each coal seam was interpolated in Matlab using a grid fitting routine called gridfit

(D’Errico, 2005). Gridfit fits a surface to scattered or regular 3D data points. It allows the

existence of point replicates in x and y but with different elevation. Gridfit also allows building a

gridded surface directly from the data, rather than interpolating a linear approximation to a

surface from a Delaunay triangulation. A low smoothness was used in this process to closely

follow the traces. Only interpolated areas with control data were exported. The purpose of this

step was to increase the number and regularity of data points in the coal seam, while closely

following the original data (Figure 10c-d). Steps 1 and 2 were performed to guarantee that the

27

coal seams were continuous enough. Near a fault scarp for instance, the coal seam must have

enough resolution and continuity to create lines of intersection (cutoff lines) with the fault.

3.1.2 Fault network construction

The first step was to quality control and edit the fault traces, to make sure they follow the offsets

displayed by the traces of the coal seams. The second and most crucial step was the correlation

of the fault traces on the different mining levels (Figure 11a). This undoubtably was the step with

highest uncertainty and where it was possible to introduce interpretation errors. The traces were

visually correlated level by level in Petrel (Figure 11a). Some of the challenges I faced were:

Fault traces were mapped by different geologists with perhaps different connotations as to what a

fault trace is. Where fault traces of similar strike were very close in a mining level, it was

difficult to identify the correct trace to correlate. Another challenge was that in some areas one

trace in one level looked as it could be correlated with another in a different level, but the strike

of the traces were different, giving an irregular fault plane. The question here was whether to

include or not the fault trace.

Each group of correlated fault traces were triangulated into a fault plane (Figure 11b). Some of

the fault planes were very irregular (Figure 11b). To make a more geologically reasonable plane,

an interpolation of the fault traces with a small degree of smoothing was made using gridfit

(D’Errico, 2005). The result was a more regular fault plane that still followed the fault traces

(Figure 11c). Finally a double check of the fault surfaces was made with the original fault traces

and with the coal seams.

28

80 m 80 m 80 m

80 m 80 m

a b c

d e


Figure 11. Steps in the construction of fault planes. a) Correlation of fault traces on different mining levels. b) Triangulation of fault traces to obtain a fault plane. c) Gridding of fault plane to obtain a more geologically reasonable structure. d) Computation of fault-coal seams intersections. e) Estimation of the throw attribute in the fault planes.

3.2 Fault displacement analysis

Fault displacement analysis was used in this thesis with three main objectives: 1) To check

inconsistencies in the interpretation, 2) to understand the behavior of the fault network in the

anticline in terms of displacement, and 3) to look at the fault displacement gradients or fault-

related strains.

The first step was to calculate in TrapTester the faults-coal seams intersections. This process

generated a series of polygons that represent the hanging wall and footwall cutoffs (Figure 11d).

The input for this step were the fault planes and the coal seams of the 3D structural model. I only

worked in areas with control data, so in the case of the younger coal seams, fault-horizons

intersections were not computed in the core of the anticline (Figure 12).

29

Some of the faults-horizons intersections polygons show anomalies (for example abrupt spikes).

After checking the consistency of the modeled coal seams and fault planes, and if these

irregularities persist, a minor edition of the faults-horizons intersection polygons was performed.

Then the throw attribute was computed on the fault planes (Figure 11e). The throw on the fault

surface is derived from the cutoffs generated in the fault-horizons intersection step. With the 3D

model and the throw information, fault statistics were calculated, including fault orientation

plots, fault displacement profiles, and fault array summation and strain. This was done using the

fault statistics tool of TrapTester.

3.3 Restoration of the anticline

To restore the anticline, the coal seams data and the fault surfaces were imported into 3DMove.

In the case of the coal seams, I reconstructed the part of the anticline without data. This applies

mostly to the younger coal seams without data in the core of the anticline (Figure 12). To avoid

errors in the reconstruction of the surfaces, for instance crossing of surfaces in the core of the

anticline, the area without control data was reconstructed from the older surface assuming

parallel folding or constant stratigraphic thickness across the structure (Figure 12). This

assumption is not completely correct because as we can see in the cross sections in the area with

control data (black dots), the beds are not completely parallel (Figure 12). However, this is a

reasonable approach to represent the core of the anticline in younger levels.

After reconstructing the coals seams, a kinematic restoration of the anticline was performed

using a 3D flexural-slip restoration technique in 3DMove. This technique utilizes a slip method

that preserves volume in 3D, line length in a given unfolding direction, and orthogonal bed

thickness (Griffiths et al., 2002). The technique only deals with the coal seams and does not take

into account the slip on the fault surfaces (that would be very hard to do with so many fault

surfaces). My aim is to compare the kinematics and strain of this “unfolding” restoration with

those obtained in the fault displacement analysis of the previous section.

30

72°33'30"W

72°33'30"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'0"W

72°34'30"W

72°34'30"W

72°35'0"W

11°8'0"N 11°8'0"N

11°7'30"N 11°7'30"N

11°7'0"N 11°7'0"N

±

0 200 400 600100m

A

A´

B

B´

C´

C


a

EW

100m

A A’


EW

100m

B’B

C C’

100m

EW

control data

100105106110115120123125

130135145150155160170

Monday, June 10, 13

31

EW

100m

B’B

C C’

100m

EW

control data

100105106110115120123125

130135145150155160170

Monday, June 10, 13

Figure 12. a) Map showing the location of cross sections A-A’, B-B’ and C-C’. These cross sections are shown after the reconstruction of the younger coal seams with parallel folding. Black dots in the sections show the areas with data. Sections have no vertical exaggeration. Numbers on legend refer to the coal seams IDs.

3.4 Curvature

The curvature of the coal seams was calculated using differential geometry algorithms by Mynatt

et al, (2007). The Matlab codes for the calculations were taken from Pollard and Fletcher (2005,

their chapter 3). The principal curvatures, kmax and kmin, were calculated, as well as the

geological curvature. The geological curvature is based on the gaussian curvature (kG = kmin *

kmax) and the mean curvature (kM = (kmin+ kmax)/2) (Mynatt et al., 2007). The geologic curvature

defines the shape and orientation of points on the folded surface. The curvature threshold

specifies an absolute curvature value below which calculated principal curvatures are set to zero,

thereby allowing the classification of ‘‘idealized’’ shapes (Bergbauer, 2002). Figure 13 shows the

geologic curvature classification scheme for points on a surface as a function of the Mean and

Gaussian curvatures (Mynatt et al, 2007).

32

By specifying kt, sections of the parabola can be defined ashaving zero curvature for subsequent analyses or calculations.For kt ¼ 0.1 m"1, all locations on the parabola with jkj <0:1 m"1 (R > 8.8 m) are assigned a curvature of zero (light

grey) and treated mathematically as linear. This isolates thesections of the parabola with greater curvature (dark grey andblack) and continues to consider them parabolically curved.Making a greater approximation and setting kt ¼ 0.5 m"1 as-signs sections of the parabola with jkj < 0:5m"1 (R > 1.9 m)curvature values of zero. With this approximation all lightand dark grey sections are treated as linear. For a surface, thisprocess can be used to define points as synformal, antiformaland planar.

In order to approximate geologic surfaces as perfect saddles(Fig. 2), a similar algorithm is applied. Recall that saddleshave principal curvatures kmin and kmax of opposite signs,and a perfect saddle would have kmin ¼ "kmax, or kM ¼ 0.The principal curvature values will never be of equal magni-tude for geologic surfaces, but may be close enough to warrantthis approximation. Idealized perfect saddles can therefore bespecified at points where the sum jkmin þ kmaxj falls below kt.

3. Description of an anticlinal surface usingdifferential geometry

3.1. Description of field area and creation ofsurface model

Sheep Mountain anticline is a doubly plunging asymmetricfold located near Greybull, Wyoming (Forster et al., 1996;

Fig. 3. Application of the curvature threshold kt to the parabola y ¼ x2. Lightgrey sections of the curve are treated as linear when kt ¼ 0:1 m"1 and darkgrey are treated as linear when kt ¼ 0:5 m"1. In both cases the black sectionretains its curvature values.

Fig. 2. Geologic curvature classification. The geologic curvature of a point on a surface can be determined from the Gaussian (kG) and mean kM curvatures at thepoint. The color code is used throughout the paper. Modified from Roberts (2001) and Bergbauer (2002).

1259I. Mynatt et al. / Journal of Structural Geology 29 (2007) 1256e1266

Figure 13. Geologic curvature classification. The geologic curvature of a point on a surface can be determined from the gaussian (kG) and mean kM curvatures. The color code is used in the curvature calculation (Mynatt et al., 2007).

4. Results

4.1 3D structure of the Tabaco anticline

4.1.1 Fault geometry:

Figure 14 shows the faults in the 3D structural model. A total of 67 faults labeled 1 to 67, were

interpreted in 17 coal seams. Most of the faults are reverse, except fault 45 (Samán fault), which

is as a left lateral strike-slip fault (Palencia, 2007). Only faults displacing more than one coal

seam are present in the 3D model. Rose diagrams of fault orientations are also included in Figure

14.

33

The four fault domains mapped by Palencia (2007) in the field, were identified in the 3D model

(Figure 14). The four domains are: 1) The Tabaco fault domain (DFTAB) which is present in the

anticline’s S-SW limb. In the 3D model, the faults belonging to this domain are long (300-400 m

along strike) reverse faults with a strike NE-SW (except for fault 59 that has an E-W strike). 2)

The domain of the SE limb (DFLSE). The faults belonging to this domain are mainly short (100

to 150 m along strike), except for fault 1 (340 m along strike). Their strike is NW-SE and

approximately E-W to the south of the anticline. Between coal seams 120 and 145, some of the

faults show a conjugated pattern. 3) The antithetic Samán fault domain (DAFS). The faults

belonging to this domain are very short segments (60 m along strike) close to the Samán fault.

These faults get longer as their distance to the Samán fault increases (for instance fault 63 is 340

m along strike, Figure 14 coal seam 123). The strike of the faults in this domain is NW-SE. 4)

The Samán fault domain (DFSS) which consists of the Samán fault and a couple of very short

faults (50 m along strike). In the original database (Figure 5) there were more fault traces

belonging to this domain. However, these faults offset just one coal seam and therefore were not

included in the 3D model.

Coal seam 95 is affected by 4 main faults with a main orientation NW-SE (Figure 14). These

faults are located in the eastern limb of the anticline, and belong to the fault domains DFLSE,

DFTAB, and DAFS. Coal seam 100 is affected by 7 main faults with a main orientation NW-SE

(Figure 14). These faults are mainly located in the eastern limb of the anticline. In addition, fault

59 crosses almost the whole seam in an E-W direction (Figure 14). The faults affecting this coal

seam belong to the domains DFLSE, DFTAB, and DAFS.

Coal seam 102 is affected by 6 main faults with a main orientation NW-SE (Figure 14). Almost

all the faults that offset this coal seam are the same as those of the lower coal seam 100, except

fault 60 which has a different strike NE-SW, and it is located in the SW part of the anticline.

Additionally fault 45 (the Samán fault) was identified in this coal seam. The faults affecting this

coal seam belong to the domains DFLSE, DFTAB, DAFS and DFSS. Coal seam 105 is affected

34

by 7 main faults with two main orientations, NW-SE which are located in the NE limb of the

anticline, and NE-SW which are located to the south of the anticline. The faults in the south with

a strike NE-SW belong to the domain DFTAB, and those striking NW-SE belong to the domains

DFLSE, DAFS and DFSS.

Coal seam 106 is affected by 6 main faults with orientations similar to those in the lower seam

105. The NW-SE striking faults are located in the NE limb of the anticline, and the NE-SW

striking faults are located to the south of the anticline. In this coal seam (and the seams above),

there are no data from the core of the anticline, so there is no control for the faults affecting this

part of the anticline. Therefore it is not possible to know the behavior of faults such as fault 59 in

younger coal seams. The faults in the south with a strike NE-SW belong to the domain DFTAB,

and those in the NE limb with a strike NW-SE belong to to the domains DFLSE, DAFS and

DFSS.

Coal seams 110 and 115 are affected by 15 and 16 main faults respectively, with strike NW-SE in

the NE limb, NE-SW in the south, and a new fault, fault 1, striking E-W. In these coal seams, the

number of faults with strike NE-SW increases. The faults in the south with strike NE-SW belong

to the domain DFTAB and the faults in the NE with strike NW-SE belong to to the domains

DFLSE, DAFS and DFSS. Fault 1 (E-W) also belongs to the domain DFLSE.

Coal seam 120 is affected by 22 faults with strike NW-SE in the NE limb, NE-SW in the south,

and fault 1, striking E-W. In this coal seam, a conjugated pattern of the faults in the eastern limb

was recognized. This conjugated pattern include two orientation of thrust faults and it was very

clear in coal seams 120 to 145. The faults that show the conjugated pattern belong to the DFLSE

domain. The other 3 domains were also recognized here.

Coal seams 123, 125, 130, 135 and 145 are affected by 25, 29, 29, 28 and 25 faults respectively,

with strike NW-SE in the NE, NE-SW in the SW, and E-W in the SE. One characteristic of these

coal seams is that they have a series of E-W faults in the southern part of the anticline.

35

Additionally the conjugated pattern in the east limb is also present. Both the E-W faults and the

conjugated pattern belong to the DFLSE domain. The other 3 domains were also recognized

here.

In coal seam 150 the number of faults start to decrease. This coal seam is affected by 16 faults

with two main strikes, NW-SE and NE-SW. Faults striking E-W have almost disappeared. In this

coal seam the conjugated pattern was not observed. This is the last coal seam where the 4 faults

domains were observed. Coal seam 155 is affected by 12 faults with two strikes, NW-SE and

NE-SW. In this coal seam, there was not a lot of information available in the north part of the

anticline, so only 2 domains were recognized, DFLSE and DFTAB.

Coal seam 160 is affected by 8 faults with a main strike NW-SE. In this coal seam there are only

faults in the eastern limb that belong to the DFLSE, DAFS and DFSS domains. The last modeled

coal seam, 170, is affected by 4 faults with a main strike NW-SE in the SE. The faults affecting

this coal seam belong to the DFLSE domain.

95

1:10000

N

DAFS

DFTABDFLSE

100

1:10000

N

DFTAB

DAFS

DFLSE59

102

1:10000

N

DFTAB

DAFS

DFSS

DFLSE59

45

N=4 N=7

N=6

105

1:10000

NDAFS

DFTAB

DFSS

DFLSE59

45

N=7


36

95

1:10000

N

DAFS

DFTABDFLSE

100

1:10000

N

DFTAB

DAFS

DFLSE59

102

1:10000

N

DFTAB

DAFS

DFSS

DFLSE59

45

N=4 N=7

N=6

105

1:10000

NDAFS

DFTAB

DFSS

DFLSE59

45

N=7


106

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFSDFSS

DFTAB

45

63

37

N=7

110

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS DFSS

DFTAB

45

63

37

115

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFSDFSS

DFTAB

45

63 44

37

1

120

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFSDFSS

DFTAB

45

63

25

44

37

4

2

N=15

N=16 N=22

1

1


106

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFSDFSS

DFTAB

45

63

37

N=7

110

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS DFSS

DFTAB

45

63

37

115

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFSDFSS

DFTAB

45

63 44

37

1

120

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFSDFSS

DFTAB

45

63

25

44

37

4

2

N=15

N=16 N=22

1

1


37

123

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS DFSS

DFTAB

45

63

25

44

37

4

2

125

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS

DFSS

DFTAB

45

63

25

44

37

4

2

130

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFSDFSS

DFTAB

45

63

25

44

37

4

2

135

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS DFSS

DFTAB

45

63

17

25

44

37

4

2

N=25 N=29

N=29 N=28

1

11

1


123

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS DFSS

DFTAB

45

63

25

44

37

4

2

125

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS

DFSS

DFTAB

45

63

25

44

37

4

2

130

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFSDFSS

DFTAB

45

63

25

44

37

4

2

135

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS DFSS

DFTAB

45

63

17

25

44

37

4

2

N=25 N=29

N=29 N=28

1

11

1

Tuesday, June 11, 13 145

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS DFSS

DFTAB

45

17

44

37

2

150

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS

DFSS

DFTAB

45

17

155

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DFTAB

17

160

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DFSS

DAFS

45

17

N=25 N=16

N=12 N=8


38

145

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS DFSS

DFTAB

45

17

44

37

2

150

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DAFS

DFSS

DFTAB

45

17

155

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DFTAB

17

160

1:10000

N

DFLSE

DFSS

DAFS

45

17

N=25 N=16

N=12 N=8


170

1:10000

N

DFLSE

N=4

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Figure 14. Faults in the 3D model and their occurrence in each of the coal seams. Faults are labeled with number 1 to 67. Numbers on top of the figures refers to the coal seam (95 is the lowest coal seam). Rose diagrams show the orientation of the faults in each coal seam. N is the number of faults. DFTAB : Tabaco fault domain, DFLSE: Southern limb domain, DAFS: Samán fault antithetic domain, and DFSS: Samán fault domain.

4.1.2 Curvature:

Curvature was calculated in the older, more complete stratigraphic seams (95, 100, 102, 105,

106). Curvature was also calculated in coal seam 130, which has the highest amount of faults.

Figure 15 shows the maximum curvature (kmax, left side), minimum curvature (kmin, middle side)

and geologic curvature (right side).

39

kmax highlights the anticline’s hinge and minor folds hinges. The anticline’s hinge is clearly

visible in coal seam 100 suggesting a fold axis trending 210° (approximately the same as in

Figures 7 and 8). In the other coal seams, the highest values of kmax indicate minor hinges. kmin

mainly highlights synclines but also erosional features (drainage pattern). The principal

curvatures clearly show that the fold is no cylindrical. A folded surface is cylindrical when the

principal curvature parallel to the hinge line is zero (Mynatt et al., 2007).

By using the concept of geologic curvature and implementing a curvature threshold (kt), it is

possible to examine how far a coal seam departs from the cylindrical geometry (Mynatt et al.,

2007). Figure 15 (right side) shows the geologic curvature calculated across the surface with kt =

0. The color code of Figure 13 is used in the coal seams. The geologic curvature calculated

across the surface with kt= 0 shows that no principal curvatures are approximated as zero, so no

cylindrical or planar points appear. As it can be seen, there are no orange, yellow or light blue

colors representing cylindrical synforms, planes or antiforms (Figures 13 and 15 right side).

Areas on the surface are identified as domes, basins, and antiformal and synformal saddles. The

domes (blue) and the antiformal saddle (green) coincide with the anticlinal hinge, and the basin

(dark red) and synformal saddles (dark yellow) coincide with the synclines position or valleys

(Figure 15).

In coal seam 130 there is a clear difference between the size of the basins (dark red) and

synformal saddles (dark yellow), in both limbs. In the western limb the basins are bigger than in

those in the eastern limb (Figure 15 right side). For this coal seam the eastern limb of the

anticline is affected by more faults that the western limb (Figure 14).

40

95

100

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2

Kmax

100 m

N

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2

Kmin

100 m

N

2

0

-2

-4

Kt=0

100 m

N

Kmax0.08

0.04

0

-0.04

-0.08

100 m

N

Kmin0.08

0.04

0

-0.04

-0.08

100 m

N

Kt=0

2

0

-2

-4100 m

N

Friday, May 24, 2013

95

100

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2

Kmax

100 m

N

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2

Kmin

100 m

N

2

0

-2

-4

Kt=0

100 m

N

Kmax0.08

0.04

0

-0.04

-0.08

100 m

N

Kmin0.08

0.04

0

-0.04

-0.08

100 m

N

Kt=0

2

0

-2

-4100 m

N


102

105

-2

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

Kmax

100 m

N

Kmin

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

100 m

N

0

2

Kt=0

-4100 m

N

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

Kmax

100 m

N

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

Kmin

100 m

N

-4

-2

0

2

Kt=0

100 m

N


41

102

105

-2

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

Kmax

100 m

N

Kmin

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

100 m

N

0

2

Kt=0

-4100 m

N

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

Kmax

100 m

N

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

Kmin

100 m

N

-4

-2

0

2

Kt=0

100 m

N


106

125

0.1

0

-0.1

Kmax

100 m

N

Kmin0.1

0

-0.1

100 m

N

Kt=0

-4

-2

0

2

100 m

N

Kmax

0.1

0

-0.1200 m

N

-4

-2

0

2

Kt=0

200 m

N

Kmin

0.1

0

-0.1200 m

N


-0.1

-0

0.1Kmax

200 m

N

-0.1

-0

0.1Kmin

200 m

N

-4

-2

0

2

Kt=0

200

N

130

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Figure 15. Distribution of maximum curvature (kmax), minimum curvature (kmin) and geologic curvature with kt = 0. Curvature was calculated for coal seam 95, 100, 105, 106 and 130.

42

4.2 Fault displacement analysis

4.2.1 Fault displacement patterns

The throw was calculated for all faults in the 3D model. Figure 16 shows four different fault

throw patterns: 1) Low throw in the middle of the fault and high throw in the areas around

(Figure 16a), 2) Highest throw at one corner of the fault and not in the center (Figure 16b), 3) the

most common pattern, highest throw in the middle of the fault (Figure 16c), and 4) In conjugated

faults, the highest value of throw is located at the intersection of the two faults (Figure 16d).

Figure 16a shows a fault plane with low throw in the middle of the fault and high throw in the

areas around. This pattern was observed in two faults of the model. Three possible explanations

for this pattern are: 1) the area of low throw suggests a tip point which indicates that the mapped

fault is actually 2 faults, so the fault plane should be split. 2) The linkage fault model (Peacock

and Sanderson, 1991; Cartwright et al., 1995), in which the faults grew as isolated faults at early

stages and linked to produce additional fault length. In this case the area of low throw is the

region of fault linkage. 3) Outer areas of high displacement result from the intersection of two

faults with different orientations that together add to a larger displacement (Kim and Sanderson,

2005). This third option is discarded because there are no other fault crossing the fault plane.

However, it is difficult to know which of the two first options is generating this fault throw

pattern.

Figure 16b shows the highest throw value in a corner of the fault and not in the center as we

would expect (Figure 3). Two possible explanations for this pattern are: 1) the fault could

actually be larger, but there are not enough data to cover the complete fault plane. 2) there is a

problem in the interpretation of the faults.

Figure 16c shows two fault planes with the area of high throw in the middle of the fault. This is

the most common pattern in the faults of the 3D model. Although this is not exactly the ideal

43

pattern of Figure 4, it is a consistent pattern of fault displacement. Figure 16d shows a pair of

conjugated faults, where the highest value of throw is at the intersection of the two fault planes.

The two faults with different orientations add to a larger displacement.

a b

c d

30

30m

60m

60m

Friday, May 3, 2013

Figure 16. Fault throw patterns observed in the 3D model. The blue-purple color indicates the highest values of throw a) fault plane with low throw in the middle of the fault b) fault plane with highest throw at the corner of the fault c) fault planes with the highest throw in the middle of the fault d) fault throw in conjugated faults.

Figure 17 shows the distribution of the four displacement patterns in coal seam 130. This coal

seam has the highest number of faults, so the distribution of the patterns here reflects very well

the behavior in the anticline. Figure 17 shows that pattern 3 (P3) is the most common pattern,

followed by pattern 2 (P2). Pattern 1 (P1) was observed in two faults in the anticline, and pattern

4 (P4) in conjugated faults.

44

P1

P2

P2

P4

P3

P3

P3 P3

P3

P3P3

P3

P3

P3

P3

P1

P3P3

P3

N

100 m

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Figure 17. Distribution of fault displacement patterns (P1 to P4) in coal seam 130.

4.2.2 Fault array summation and strain

A series of fault displacement versus distance profiles were made for each coal seam in the

anticline. Figures 18a-q contain maps showing the faults affecting each coal seam contoured by

their throw attribute (left side), and plots of individual displacement, fault array displacement

summation, and strain. The throw was measured along sample lines oriented perpendicular to the

average strike of the faults. Sample line spacing (in the horizontal) was 10 m. The location of the

sample grid was adjusted for each coal seam according to the area where the faults were located.

That allows sampling and visualization of specific details in each case. The initial and the last

position of the sampling line are shown in the map views of Figure 18.

45

Figures 18e-o for coal seams 106 to 155 show faults with two main strikes, NW-SE and NE-SW.

For this reason two different plots of fault array summation and calculated strain (labeled 1 and

2) were made. The first one is for the faults with strike NW-SE (in the map view the area

surrounded by the square 1). The second one is for the faults with strike NE-SW (in the map

view the area surrounded by the square 2). In both cases the sample line spacing was 10 m.

The fault displacement versus distance profiles (Figure 18, middle and right side) show the

vertical offsets (throws), the fault array summation, and the strain for the 67 interpreted faults in

the 17 coal seams of the 3D model. The fault that shows a highest apparent throw is fault 59,

which shows a throw of 21 m in coal seam 100, 27 m in coal seam 102, and 35 m in coal seam

105 (Figures 18b, c, and d). It is not possible to know the behavior of fault 59 in younger coal

seams, due to lack of data in the core of the anticline.

Fault 45 (Samán fault) shows also an important amount of displacement (25 to 26 m in coal

seams 105 and 110, Figures 18d and f). However, there is some uncertainty in the calculation of

throw of fault 45 due to lack of data in some coal seams. Other faults that show an important

amount of displacement are fault 63 in coal seam 115 (19 m, Figure 18g), fault 17 in coal seam

155 (18 m, Figure 18o), fault 25 in coal seam 130 (18 m, Figure 18k), fault 44 in coal seam 120

and 123 (17 m, Figures 18h and i), fault 37 in coal seam 120 (17 m, Figure 18h), fault 4 in coal

seams 120 and 123 (17 m, Figures 18h and i), and fault 2 in coal seam 130 (16 m, Figure 18k).

On each coal seam, the aggregate vertical component of displacement (dashed line) was also

calculated. For this analysis it is important to mention that the younger coal seams did not have

any data in the core of the anticline. This can result in underestimation of cumulative throw in

these younger seams. The coal seam with the highest value of cumulative throw (50 m) is 105,

followed by coal seams 130 (44 m), and 125 (43 m) (Figures 18d, 18k and 18j). Coal seam 105 is

affected by a limited number of faults (7 in total), so the high cumulative throw in this coal seam

is due mainly to faults 59 and 45 (Figure 18d). In contrast, coal seams 125 and 130 are the ones

affected by more faults (29 faults in both coal seams), so in these two cases the highest value of

46

the total throw results from the contribution of small throw faults (Figures 18j and 18k). In

younger coal seams than 130, the total throw starts to decrease gradually up-section. Coal seam

135 shows a maximum cumulative throw of 29 m, 145 a maximum of 27 m, 150 a maximum of

15 m, 155 a maximum of 21 m, 160 a maximum of 12 m, and 170 a maximum of 15 m (Figures

18l to 18q).

In some of the coal seams, it is easy to correlate the spikes in the cumulative throw curve with

the different fault domains of Palencia (2007). Between coal seams 120 to 145 (Figures 18h and

m), it is possible to identify 3 clear spikes. The first one corresponds to the cumulative throw

generated by the conjugated faults of the DFLSE domain. The second spike is generated by the

DFLSE domain (the no conjugated faults), but in some cases there are also faults of the DAFS

domain. The third spike is generated by the faults that belong to the DAFS domain. The

magnitude of these spikes changes through the coal seams. In coal seams 120 and 123 the

highest spike is the third one, which includes the DAFS domain, with a throw of 30 m (Figures

18h and 18i). However, in coal seams 125 to 135, the highest spike is the first one, which

belongs to the conjugated faults of the DFLSE domain, with the highest value of throw of 45 m

(Figures 18j and 18k).

The spike generated by the domain DFSS is more difficult to see due to the lack of data in the

coal seams in the most northern part of the anticline. However this pattern is clearly indicated in

coal seam 125 (Figure 18j). The pattern of the DFTAB is mainly shown on the right side of

Figure 18. However, in half of the cases the cumulative throw curve does not resemble a

continuos curve due to the faults being widely spaced. In general, it is not possible to observe

that the displacement in the anticline gradually decreases towards one specific direction, but it

seems to decrease up-section younger coal seams than 130 as indicated before.

Figure 18 also shows the fault-related strain (i.e. horizontal elongation calculated from aggregate

heave of all faults divided by original length of horizon) for each coal seam over the 3D model.

The fault-strain in the modeled coal seams of the anticline varies between 0.0015 in coal seam

47

150, and 0.2 in coal seam 123 (Figures 18n and 18i). Only coal seam 123 shows strain values

higher than 0.1, while coal seam 105 has values of 0.1 (Figures 18i and 18d). Freeman et al.

(2010) based on a large number of published data for strike dimension and maximum

displacement for faults, established that 0.1 represents a realistic upper limit of the longitudinal

strain when it is measured in the displacement direction of a fault. The strain value 0.2 identified

in coal seam 123 (Figure 18i, right side) is higher than the upper limit suggested by Freeman et

al. (2010). This value of 0.2 is generated by fault 4 (Figure 18i, right side). Additionally to the

high value of fault-related strain, fault 4 has the second fault throw pattern: fault plane with

highest throw at the corner of the fault (Figure 16), which is not a consistent pattern of fault

displacement. For those two reasons it was very plausible that there was a problem in the

interpretation of the fault 4. So it was necessary to check the interpretation of fault 4 again. The

re-interpretation of fault 4 will be shown in the discussion chapter.

In Figures 18e-o, the plots for faults with strike NW-SE (middle) show lower strain values than

those for faults with strike NE-SW (right). The only exceptions are coal seams 115 and 155

(Figures 18g and 18o). The right side plots show the faults that belong mainly to the DFTAB

domain, while the middle plots show the faults that belong to the other 3 fault domains.

0

25

sampling lin

e

number

47

40

50

2

Sampling line number

App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

0.005

20

0.01

4 8 16

4

12

404750

95

N

6

200m

SE NW

DFTAB

DFTAB and DAFS

Monday, May 27, 13

a

48

0

25

sampling lin

e

number

47

40

50

59

5


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

0.01

20

0.02

4 8 16

10

20

12

100

N

15

25

404247

505859

48

200m

SE NW

DFTAB and DAFS

Monday, May 27, 13

b

0

25

sampling lin

e

number

47

40

60

5


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

25

0.02

5 10 20

15

20

15

4047

60

102

N

0.04

200m

SE NW

10

25

30

35

59

DFTAB and DAFS

59


c

0

25

sampling lin

e

number

59

47

40

45

60

10

40


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

0.05

20

0.1

5 10 25

30

20

50

105

N

15

4045475159

200m

SE NW

60

51

DFTAB

DFSS and DFTAB

DAFS

Monday, May 27, 13

d

49

0

20

0

25

sampling line

number

sampling lin

e

number

106

47

63

38

603

N

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sampling line numberA

ppar

ent t

hrow

(m)

0.005

0.01

0.015

Stra

in5 10 15 20 25

2

4

6

5

7


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)

0.02

0.04

Stra

in

38

6347

4

360

200m

1

2

1 2

SE NW NE SW

DFLSE and DAFSDAFS

DFTAB

Monday, May 27, 13

e110

0

35

sampling lin

e

number

0

35

sampling line

number

47

45

63

38

41

3760

67 1

5 10 15 20 25 30

5

10

15

20

25

30


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)

0.02

0.04

Stra

in

38

63474541

37

5 10 15 20 25 30

2

4

6

8

10

12


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)

0.02

0.04

Stra

in

6067

1

0.06

N

200m

1

2

1 2

SE NW NE SW

DFLSE and DAFS

DAFS and DFSS DFTAB and DFLSE


f

0

42

sampling lin

e

number

0

60

sampling line

number

115

37

6343

4445

1

60

55

6757

5 10 15 20 4030

5

10

15

20

25

30


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)

0.02

0.04

Stra

in

43

63534544

37

5 15 25

3

5

7

9


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)

0.01

0.02

Stra

in

0.03

25 35

0.06

1

35 45 55

5557

1

6760

N

200m

1

21 2

SE NW NE SW

Mainly DAFS

DFSS

DFTAB and DFLSE


g

50

120

0

40

sampling lin

e

number

0

65

sampling line

number

45

4463

37

39

3235

2528

43

1

2

4

5 10 15 20

5

10

15

20

25

30


ppar

ent t

hrow

(m)

0.01

Stra

in10 20

8

12


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)

0.02

0.04

Stra

in

0.06

25

0.02

4

30 40 50

24

1

5

0.03

60

16

43

6364

39

44

37

2526283435

49

N

5

200m

1

2

1 2

SE NW NE SW

DAFS

DFLSE

DFTAB and DFLSE

DFLSEconjugated

Monday, May 27, 13

h

0

40

sampling lin

e

number

0

65

sampling line

number

2

4

43

44

1 28

2764

37 39

25

3235

4 12

5

10

15

20

25

30


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

10

8

12


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)

0.1Stra

in

24

0.2

0.005

4

20 30

0.01

16

8 16

0.015

43

6364

39

44

1

27283235

49

25

123

N

63

200m

1

2

1 2

SE NW NE SW

DFLSEconjugated

DAFS

DFLSE

DFTAB


i

0

32

sampling lin

e

number

0

52

sampling line

number 20

10

20

40


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

10

8

12


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)

0.02Stra

in

0.06

4

20 30

0.01

16

10 30

0.02

30

31

3537

29

32

1

25262728

33

20394344496364

125

N

40 50

20

0.04

24

135

212262

1

2

45

62

13

2221

43

44

37

39

28

2764

2532

35

20

6349

33

200m

1

2

1 2

SE NW NE SW

DFTAB and DFLSEDFLSEconjugated

DAFS

DFLSE and

DAFS

DFSS

Monday, May 27, 13

j

51

0

30

sampling lin

e

number

0

52

sampling line

number

10

20

40


ppar

ent t

hrow

(m)

Stra

in10

8

12


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)

0.02Stra

in

4

20 30

0.01

16

4 20

0.02

3031

3537

29

32

25262728

33

20

394344466364

40

20

0.04

24

135

212223

8 12 16

130

N

2

4

62

5

13

2221

20

2528

2764 32

33

35

3739

63 43

44 49

200m

1

2

1 2

SE NW NE SW

DFTAB and DFLSEDFLSEconjugated

DAFS

DFLSE and

DAFS

Monday, May 27, 13

k

0

25

sampling lin

e

number

0

48

sampling line

number

5

15

25


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

10

8

6


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)

0.02Stra

in

4

20 30

0.01

4 20

0.02

20

40

10

0.04

245212223

8 12 16

135

N

10

31

37

29

32

25262728

3320

394344466364

351

2

2

4

23

5

2221

1720

1 28 25

2764

3739

323533

6343

4449

46

200m

1

2

1 2

SE NW NE SW

DFTAB and DFLSE

DFLSEconjugated

DAFS

DFLSE and

DAFS

Monday, May 27, 13

l

0

28

sampling lin

e

number

0

35

sampling line

number

5

15

25


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

10

8

6


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

4

20 30

0.005

5 20

0.01

2010

0.01

252223

10 15 25

10

2

145

N

313233

20

39434446

27

64

17

26

12

0.005

2

23

22

5

17

20

2764

2632

31 33

3943

44 46

200m

1

2

1 2

SE NW NE SW

DFTAB and DFLSE

DFLSEconjugated

DAFS

DFLSE and

DAFS

Monday, May 27, 13

m

52

0

28

sampling lin

e

number

0

31

sampling line

number

2

4

12


ppar

ent t

hrow

(m)

Stra

in10

3

2


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

20 30

0.001

5 20

0.002

0.01

710

6123

10 15 25

10

1

33394546

2717

4

150

N

6

8

14

5 2515

0.02

0.03

10

7

61

2317

27

33

39

46

45

200m

1

2

1 2

SE NW NE SW

DFTAB

Monday, May 27, 13

n

0

7

sampling lin

e

number0

31sampling line

number

2

4

12


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

10

6

4


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

20 30

0.01

1 4

0.02

1423

2 3 5

10

2

1617

8

6

8

14

5 2515

0.005

155

N

16

18

20

6

23

14

17

16

200m

12

1 2

SE NW NE SW

DFTAB

DFLSE

Monday, May 27, 13

o

0

15

sampling lin

e

number

2

4

12


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

0.002

6

0.004

2 4 8

10

6

8

10

160

N

0.006

161719243036

17

16

19

30

24

36

200m

SE NW

DFLSE

Monday, May 27, 13

p

53

0

15

sampling lin

e

number

2

4

12


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

0.005

6

0.01

2 4 8

10

6

8

16182430

170

N

14

16

24

30

18

200m

SE NW

DFLSE

Monday, May 27, 13

q

Figure 18. Left side contains maps displaying the faults affecting each coal seam contoured by their throw attribute. Right side shows plots of individual and aggregate fault throw, and fault related strain vs. distance. The initial and the last position of the sampling line are indicated in the map view. e-o contain two groups of plots, 1 and 2, corresponding to NW-SE striking faults (1) and NE-SW striking faults (2). DFTAB : Tabaco fault domain, DFLSE: Southern limb domain, DAFS: Samán fault antithetic domain, DFSS: Samán fault domain.

4.3 Restoration

Figure 19 shows the results of the restoration of the anticline using the flexural-slip technique. At

each restoration stage, the uppermost stratigraphic surface was unfolded to a datum (300 m)

while the underlying surfaces were carried as passive objects. The underlying layers were

sequentially unfolded as the restoration proceeded. Since the older beds have more control data,

the restoration was performed only in this part. The coal seams that were included in the

restoration are 130, 115, 105 and 100. Figure 19 shows the incremental restoration of 3 cross

sections through the anticline. When the restoration was done, the strain was captured in the

restored beds (Figure 19a). Strain maps from the unfolding will be explained in the next section.

The coal seams were restored incrementally through four unfolding stages. The total shortening

of the anticline is 18%. The shortening of the restoration of coal seam 130 is 6%, of coal seam

54

115 is 2%, of coal seam 105 is 7%, and of coal seam 100 is 3% (Figure 19). Shortening was

measured across the surface in the maximum shortening direction (127°) normal to the fold axis.

When coal seam 130 was restored, the main fold disappears almost completely. This suggests

that the fold was formed after the deposition of the the Cerrejón Formation. However after the

restoration of coal seam 130, it is still possible to observe some minor folds in coal seams 105

and 100 (Figure 19b left side). The restoration shows that: 1) flexural slip was not the only

deformation mechanism that operated in the anticline. Flexural slip is an important mechanism in

systems consisting of mechanically strong layers and beds of easy slip such as thinly bedded

sandstone-shale sequences (Lisle, 1999). In the older coal seams (95-105) this interbedding

between strong layers and incompetent beds is not observed (Figure 4), and for that reason the

slip between those older beds may not easily happen. 2) Small scale folding occurs in coal seams

100 and 105 located in a sedimentary package surrounded by shale, and claystone (Figure 4).

This material is very ductile and can flow relatively easy. Despite minor folds in coal seams 100,

105 and 115, after the restoration of coal seam 130, the regional dip is towards the west (Figure

19b right side). The same regional dip is observed after the restoration of coal seams 115 and 105

(Figure 19b left side).

100 m

N

A

A´

B

B’

C

C’

Monday, May 27, 13

a

55

Pres

ent D

ay

130

115

105

100

NW

SE

AA

´

130

115

105

100

115

105

100 10

5

100 100

Res

tora

tion

of 1

30

Res

tora

tion

of 1

15

Res

tora

tion

of 1

05

Res

tora

tion

of 1

00

105

Res

tora

tion

of 1

05

115

105

Res

tora

tion

of 1

15

130

115

105

Res

tora

tion

of 1

30

Pres

ent D

ay

130

115

105

NW

SE

BB

´

Pres

ent D

ayN

WSE

CC

´

130

115

130

115

115

Res

tora

tion

of 1

15

Res

tora

tion

of 1

30

200m

200m

200m

200m

200m

200m

200m

200m

200m

200m

200m

200m

Tues

day,

Jun

e 11

, 13

Figure 19. Restoration of the Tabaco anticline using the flexural-slip technique. The cross- b

56

sections have no vertical exaggeration. a) plan view of the horizon 130 with the position of the cross sections. The colors indicate maximum principal elongation e1 (which is explain in the next chapter) b) Left side: Restoration stages in cross section A-A’ showing the present-day geometry, the restoration of coal seam 130, restoration of coal seam 115, restoration of coal seam 105 and restoration of coal seam 100. Note that in the present day section some small change of stratigraphic thickness across the fold can be observed. In the middle of the figure: Restoration stages in cross section B-B’ showing the present-day geometry, restoration of coal seam 130, restoration of coal seam 115 and restoration of coal seam 105. Right side: Restoration stages in cross section C-C’ showing the present-day geometry, the restoration of coal seam 130 and restoration of coal seam 115.

4.3.1 Strain maps

When the restoration was done the strain was captured in the model beds between restoration

steps. The principal strain orientations were calculated using Move (Midland Valley). It is

calculated using the coordinate position from the strained coal seams relative to the position of

unstrained coal seams. The xyz position is given for each principal strain axes e1, e2 and e3.

Figure 20 shows the values of maximum principal elongation e1 for coal seams 130, 115, 105

and 100, which was captured between restoration steps. After the restoration of coal seam 130

the main fold disappears almost completely (Figure 19b), and for that reason the strain captured

in coal seams 130 and 115 (Figures 20a and b) is mainly associated with the bigger scale of

folding, while the strain captured in coal seams 105 and 100 (Figures 20c-d) is mainly associated

with small scale folding. A common characteristic in coal seams 130 and 115 is an area of high

strain values located in the SE limb (Figures 20a and b), which has the steeply dipping strata.

The shallow, W-dipping limb shows relative lower values of strain in coal seams 130 and 115

(Figures 20a and b). Additionally coal seams 130 and 115 show a localized area of high strain in

the SW limb, where faults striking NE-SW are located (arrows in Figures 20a-b).

Coal seams 100 and 105 show an area of high strain with orientation approximately E-W (arrows

in Figures 20c and d). Those areas of high strain in coal seams 100 and 105 may correspond with

the minor folds, which remain after the restoration of coal seam 130 (Figure 19b). Coal seam 105

shows higher values of e1 that the others coal seams. When the restoration was done, it was also

the coal seam with the highest values of shortening (7%). The cross-section A-A’ in figure 19b

57

shows that coal seam 105 is the one with more amount of minor folds, indicating a higher

shortening compared with the others coal seams.

100 m

N

a

130

100 m

N

b

115

105

100 m

N

c

100

100 m

N

d

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0

0.06

0.13

0.19

0

0.03

0.07

0.10


100 m

N

a

130

100 m

N

b

115

105

100 m

N

c

100

100 m

N

d

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0

0.06

0.13

0.19

0

0.03

0.07

0.10

Wednesday, June 12, 13Figure 20. Maps of maximum principal elongation e1. a) coal seam 130 b) coal seam 115 c)coal seam 105 and d) coal seam 100. The strain was captured between restoration steps.

58

5. Discussion

The 3D model shows a total of 67 faults distributed in 17 coal seams. The amount of faults

affecting the older coal seams are lower (in coal seams 95, 100, 102, and 105 the number of

faults are 4, 7, 6, and 7 respectively) that in intermedium coal seams (in coal seams 125 and 130

there are 29 faults). After coal seam 130, the number of faults decrease. The lower amount of

faults in the lower coal seams can be the result of the incompetence of the rocks surrounding

these coal seams (Figure 4). Furthermore, it seems like the faults are splitting upsection in the

anticline, with the lower beds having few fault branches while the intermedium beds have more

fault branches (Figures 14 and 18). Since the lithology of the upper coal seams is almost the

same as that of the intermedium coal seams, the number of faults in these coal seams (e.g. 160

and 170) can be the same as in the intermedium seams. However, because there are less data in

the upper beds, it is not possible to test this hypothesis.

In the 3D model, it was also possible to observe a series of reverse faults with an E-W direction

at the south nose of the plunging anticline, between coal seams 115 and 145 (Figure 14). A

possible origin for these faults is a N-S compressional event proposed by Kellogg (1984) in the

Sierra de Perijá. This event, which is post-middle Eocene, generated stylolites, folds and reverse

faults with an E-W direction. Kellogg (1984) suggested that this event may be caused by oblique

movement on the Oca fault system.

A conjugated pattern was described in the eastern limb of the anticline, between coal seams 120

to 145. Conjugated fractures are common in folded strata (Stearns, 1968; Cooper et al., 2006).

These conjugates are formed systematically with respect to the fold axis and bedding (Stearns,

1968; Bergbauer and Pollard, 2004) (Figure 21). The conjugated faults described in the Tabaco

anticline may have been generated when the strata of the anticline were folded.

59

Basin of central Australia. Their fold-related fracture-trajectory map shows extension fracture sets that varyin orientation with respect to the fold. These fracturescorrespond to the fracture sets described by Stearnsand Friedman (1972) (Figure 3).

Fractures in Folds Associated with Strata OverlyingDeep-Seated Thrusts

DeSitter (1956) documented normal faults parallel tofold hinges in several anticlines (Kettleman Hills, Cali-fornia; Quitman oil field, Texas; Sand Draw oil field,Wyoming; La Paz oil field, Maracaibo district, Vene-zuela) and attributed them to tension in the upper arcor crest of a doubly plunging anticline. Normal faultsroughly perpendicular to the fold hinges at the samelocations were attributed to tension resulting from 3-Dclosure (DeSitter, 1956). Engelder et al. (1997) docu-mented similar faults at Elk Basin anticline in the Big-horn Basin of Wyoming. This basement-cored, doubly

plunging, breached anticline has dips in excess of 30jon the forelimb and up to 23j on the backlimb. Theanticline strikes roughly north-northwest and is cutby several normal-oblique, northeast-striking, hinge-perpendicular faults. Fractures strike roughly parallel tothe hinge throughout the fold. Fractures striking roughlyperpendicular to the fold hinge are composed of twobasic types: (1) those with trace lengths extending sev-eral meters and (2) those that terminate at intersec-tions with hinge-parallel fractures.

Three joint sets have been describedwithin FrontierFormation sandstones at Oil Mountain, approximately30 mi (48 km) west of Casper, Wyoming (Henningset al., 1998, 2000).OilMountain is a northwest-striking,doubly plunging, breached anticline. It is unique in thiscategory because it is interpreted to have thrust faultsin the Mesozoic section that are related to deeper base-ment thrusts. A fracture set parallel to the fold hingeat Oil Mountain is interpreted as a preexisting regionalset due to its presence in Frontier Formation pavements

Figure 3. Stearns and Friedman (1972) modelof primary fracture sets associated with folding.In both sets, the intermediate principal stress(s2) is inferred to be normal to bedding, andthe maximum (s1) and minimum (s3) principalstresses are inferred to lie within the beddingplane. The inferred directions of maximum andminimum principal stresses are different foreach fracture set. The lower diagram is a planview of the fracture sets with conjugate shearfractures shown as dashed lines and extensionfractures as solid lines. The two fracture sets aredelineated by shading in the lower diagram,with upper-diagram fractures colored gray andmiddle-diagram fractures colored black. Con-jugate fractures are not shown on the left sideof the plan-view diagram to emphasize orienta-tion in the extension fractures. The two fracturesets are reprinted from Stearns and Friedman(1972) with permission from AAPG.

Cooper et al. 1907

Figure 21 Stearn and Friedman (1972) model, showing the fractures set associated with folding (Cooper et al., 2006).

Four different fault patterns in the contours of fault throw were observed (Figures 16 and 17): 1)

Low throw in the middle of the fault and high throw in the areas around, 2) highest throw at one

corner of the fault and not in the center, 3) the most common pattern, highest throw in the middle

of the fault, and 4) in conjugated faults the highest value of throw is located at the intersection of

the two fault planes. Those throw patterns were not only a useful technique for checking the

quality of the interpretation and construction of the 3D model, but they also help to understand

fault growth patterns and the interaction between faults.

The fault plane with an area of low throw in the middle of the fault can indicate: 1) that the area

of low throw is a tip point, which suggest two instead of one fault, 2) the linkage fault model

(Peacock and Sanderson, 1991; Cartwright et al., 1995; Kim et al., 2000), in which the faults

grew isolated at early stages and then linked to produce a larger fault, and 3) areas of high

displacement due to the intersection of two faults with different orientation (Kim and Sanderson,

2005). After a careful review of the interpretation, options 1 and 3 were discarded, so for the

Tabaco anticline, the most likely alternative is the linkage fault model.

The second pattern is a fault plane with the area of highest throw value in a corner of the fault

and not in the center. This suggests: 1) that the fault plane is not complete because there were not

enough data to cover it. 2) In the case of fault 4, there is a problem in the interpretation because it

is not a consistent pattern of fault displacement. Additionally, the fault-related strain value for

this fault was 0.2, higher than the upper limit of 0.1 suggested by Freeman et al. (2010). When

60

the faults-horizons intersections polygons were re-checked in the 3D model an anomalous high

value in the displacement of this fault was observed, so a re-interpretation of fault 4 was done.

The new values of throw and fault-related strain for fault 4 in coal seam 123 can be seen in

figure 22. The highest value of fault-related strain is 0.09 in this case, which is consistent with

the upper limit suggested by Freeman et al. (2010). With this result it is clear that the fault throw

pattern and fault-related strain values were a very useful tool to validity the fault interpretation.

2


App

aren

t thr

ow (m

)St

rain

25

0.1

5 10 30

6

4

8

SE NW

24

15 20

Monday, June 10, 13

Figure 22 Individual and aggregate fault throw, and fault-related strain vs. distance for coal seam 123 after the re-interpretation of fault 4.

The third pattern with high throw values in the middle of the fault shows a gradual variation in

throw along strike, which is the expected behavior of a single fault. The last pattern occurs in

conjugated faults. In these cases, the highest value of throw is located at the intersection of the

two fault planes.

61

The fault domain that have the highest values of strain is the DFTAB, showing strain values

(fault-related strain) between 0.5% for coal seam 155, to 9% in coal seam 123 (Figure 18i and

18o). The strike of the faults in this domain is mainly NE-SW, similar to the trend of the Perijá

mountains. This can indicate a propagation of the Perijá deformation towards the west. However

there is one fault in the DFTAB domain that does not have the NE-SW trend. Fault 59 in the

northern part of the DFTAB domain and in lower coal seams, strikes almost E-W (Figure 14,

coal seam 100-105). Two interpretations are possible for the strike of this fault. The first

interpretation is that this fault was generated in the N-S compressional event described above.

The other option is that this part of the anticline is affected by left lateral movement of the

Samán fault, which rotated fault 59 to its current position. This second interpretation is supported

by the shape of the axis of the anticline, which bends close to the area of the Samán fault (Figure

2).

For coal seam 130 the curvature values are showing a difference between the size of the basins

(dark red) and synformal saddles (dark yellow), in both limbs. In the western limb the basins are

bigger than those in the eastern limb (Figure 15). The eastern limb has more faults affecting this

area of the coal seam (Figure 14), so this situation does not allow the development of big basins

in the eastern limb. While the faults affecting the western limb are less but with a higher

displacement, making that the size of the basins and synformal saddles bigger in that part of the

anticline.

The Cerrejón formation is a pre-folding formation, because when the upper coal seam 130 was

restored, the anticline almost vanished. The total shortening of the Tabaco anticline calculated

with the flexural slip technique is 18%. The shortening in the restoration of coal seam 130 is 6%,

of coal seam 115 is 2%, of coal seam 105 is 7%, and of coal seam 100 is 3%. In the restoration

process, a regional dip towards the west was identified. This shows that the depocenter of the

basin at the onset of folding was to the west of the Tabaco anticline .

62

When the shortening calculated with flexural slip is compared with the fault-related strain, it

does not show significant difference (in most cases only 1%). The maximum fault-related strain

for coal seam 130 is 5% (Figure 18 k), for coal seam 115 is 3% (Figure 18 g), for coal seam 105

is 10 % (Figure 18 d), and for coal seam 100 is 2.5% (Figure 158b). Fault-related strain, can be

slightly different that the fold-related strain calculated with flexural slip, because the gradual

accumulation of regional strain leads to fault slip; therefore the fault-related strain is related to

local perturbations superimposed on the regional strain (Dee et al., 2007).

High strain values (e1, Figure 20a and b) are located in the SE limb associated with the steeply

dipping strata in coal seams 130 and 115. Coal seams 100 and 105 show an area of high strain

with orientation E-W (arrows in Figure 20c and d). The strain captured in coal seams 130 is

mainly associated with the bigger scale of folding, while the strain captured in coal seams 105

and 100 (Figures 20c-d) is mainly associated with small scale folding. The high values of strain

in coal seams 130 and 115 shows that the SE limb with steeply dipping strata accommodated the

highest amount of strain in the anticline.

5. 1 Summary of the main events affecting the Tabaco anticline in a regional context

In the Middle-to-Late Paleocene the deposition of the Cerrejón Formation started in the area

(Figure 23a). The depocenter was towards the west of the future position of the Tabaco anticline.

Even though some small thickness changes are identified in the Cerrejón Formation, it is a pre-

folding unit. By that time, the Santa Marta massif had some episodes of uplift (Cardona et al.,

2010).

In the Late Paleocene-Early Eocene, the deposition of the Tabaco Formation started in the basin.

Montes et al. (2010) interpreted this Formation as syntectonic. If so, the Tabaco anticline was

probably formed during this time. The Santa Marta massif continued its uplift (Cardona et al.,

2010). Bayona et al. (2007) and Kellogg (1984) suggested that the tectonic activity of the Perijá

63

range started in the Early-Middle Eocene. The vergence of the faults in the western part of the

Perijá range is towards the west, however the vergence of the Tabaco anticline is towards the

east. One possible explanation can be that the Tabaco anticline was formed by a backthrust of the

west vergent thrust belt of the Perijá range (but there is not evidence of this backthrust). However

in the western limb of the Tabaco anticline, a series of thrust (belonging to the DFTAB domain)

with the same strike and the same vergence as the Perijá thrust belt are observed. So an

alternative interpretation for the formation of the anticline is that it was generated as a

detachment fold, trigged by the uplift of the Santa Marta massif and using the incompetent

Cerrejón formation as a detachment (Figure 23b). In addition, the reverse faults in the western

limb of the anticline could be generated after the anticline was formed and were related with the

propagation of the Perijá mountain front towards the west. This second alternative can explain

the eastern vergence of the anticline and the reverse faults in its western limb (Figure 23c).

However with the information analyzed in this thesis, there is not evidence that the faults of the

western limb are posterior to the main fold event.

The conjugated faults were generated when the beds of the Cerrejón Formation were folded

(Figure 23b). This conjugated pattern include two orientation of thrust faults and can be

reflecting locally developed of bending or buckling (Stearns, 1968 and Bergbauer and Pollard,

2004), so it is related with the folding of the beds.

The Samán fault may be formed in an event posterior to the formation of the Tabaco anticline

and the generation of the faults of the DFTAB domain. This left lateral strike-slip fault generated

a series of small antithetic faults close to its area of influence. Additionally, it bent the axis of the

anticline and some the faults of the DFTAB domain (Figures 2 and 23d). Another event posterior

to the formation of the Tabaco anticline was the generation of the E-W faults generated by a

north-south compression event (Figure 23d).

64

Proto Santa Marta massif

Perijá range

Tabaco anticline

Ocafault

Samánfault


Tabaco anticline

Perijá range


Ku

Tpc

Tet

Tabaco anticline



a


Perijá range

Tabaco anticline

Ocafault

Samánfault


Tabaco anticline

Perijá range


Ku

Tpc

Tet

Tabaco anticline



b


Perijá range

Tabaco anticline

Ocafault

Samánfault


Tabaco anticline

Perijá range


Ku

Tpc

Tet

Tabaco anticline



c

65


Perijá range

Tabaco anticline

Ocafault

Samánfault


Tabaco anticline

Perijá range


Ku

Tpc

Tet

Tabaco anticline



d

Figure 23 Summary of the main events affecting the Tabaco anticline. a) Middle-to-Late Paleocene deposition of the Cerrejón Formation. b) Late Paleocene-Early Eocene generation of the Tabaco anticline as a detachment fold, Ku: Cretaceous undiff., Tpc: Cerrejón Formation, Tet: Tabaco Formation. c) Reverse faults in the western limb of the anticline are generated and are related with the propagation of the Perijá mountain front towards the west. Perijá range is interpreted here as thin-skin due to the structural cross section from Montes et al. (2010) and Kellogg (1984) d) The Samán strike-slip fault generated antithetic faults in the anticline and bends it. Faults striking E-W are also generated.

References

Allmendinger, R.W., Cardozo, N., Fisher, D., 2012. Structural Geology Algorithms. Cambridge

University press. 289 p.

Bayona, G., Lamus, F., Cardona, A., Jaramillo, C., Montes, C., and Tchegliakova, N., 2007.

Procesos orogénicos del Paleoceno para la Cuenca de Ranchería (Guajira, Colombia) definidos

por análisis de procedencia. Geol. Colomb., 32, p 21-46.

Bayona, G., Montes, C., Cardona, A., Jaramillo, C., Ojeda, G., Valencia, V., Ayala-Calvo, C.,

2011. Intraplate subsidence and basin filling adjacent to an oceanic arc-continent collision: a case

from the southern Caribbean-South America plate margin. Basin research, 23, p 403-422.

66

Beck, E., 1921. Geology and Oil Resources of Colombia, South America, Economic Geology,

16, p 463-465.

Bergbauer, S., 2002. The use of curvature for the analysis of folding and fracturing with

application to the Emigrant Gap Anticline, Wyoming. PhD thesis, Stanford University.

Bergbauer, S., and Pollard, 2004. A new conceptual fold-fracture model including prefolding

joints, based on the Emigrant Gap anticline, Wyoming. GSA Bulletin, 116, p 294-307

Cardona, A., U. Cordani., and McDonald, W., 2006. Tectonic correlations of pre-Mesozoic crust

from the northern termination of the Colombian Andes, Caribbean region. Journal of South

American Earth Sciences, 21, p 337–354.

Cardona, A. Valencia, V., Reiners, P., Duque, J., Montes, C., Nicolescu, S., Ojeda, G., Ruiz, J.,

2008. Cenozoic Exhumation of the Sierra Nevada De Santa Marta, Colombia: Implications on

the Interactions Between the Carribean and South American Plate. 2008 Joint Meeting of The

Geological Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, American Society of

Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies

with the Gulf Coast Section of SEPM.

Cardona, A., Valencia, V., Bayona, G., Duque, J., Ducea, M., Gehrels, G., Jaramillo, C., Montes,

C., Ojeda, G., Ruiz, J., 2010. Early-subduction-related orogeny in the northern Andes: Turonian

to Eocene magmatic and provenance record in the Santa Marta Massif and Rancheria Basin,

northern Colombia. Terra Nova, 0, p 1-9.

Cardozo, N. and Allmendinger, R.W., 2013. Spherical projections with OSXStereonet.

Computers and Geosciences, 51, p 193-205.

Cartwright, J.A., Trudgill, B.D., Mansfield, C.S., 1995. Fault growth by segment linkage: an

explanation for scatter in maximum displacement and trace length data from the Canyon- lands

Grabens of SE Utah. Journal of Structural Geology, 17, p 1319 – 1326.

67

Cooper, S., Goodwin, L., Lorenz, C., 2006. Fracture and fault patterns associated with basement-

cored anticlines: The example of Teapot Dome, Wyoming. AAPG Bulletin, 90, p 1903-1920.

Dee, S. J., Yielding, G., Freeman, B., Healy, D., Kusznir, N., Grant, N., and Ellis, P., 2007.

Elastic dislocation modelling for prediction of small-scale fault and fracture network

characteristics. In Lonergan L. et al. (Eds). Fractured reservoirs. Geological Society, Special

Publication, 270, p 139-155.

Duerto, L., Escalona, A., Mann, P., 2006. Deep Structure of the Mérida Andes and Sierra de

Perijá Mountain Fronts. AAPG Bulletin, 90, Maracaibo basin, Venezuela, p 505–528.

D’Errico, J., 2005. Surface Fitting using gridfit (http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/

fileexchange/8998), MATLAB Central File Exchange. Retrieved May 18, 2006.

Feo-Codecido, G., 1972. Contribución a la estratigrafía de la Cuenca Barinas-Apure. Mem. IV

Congr. Geol. Venez., MMH, Direc. Geol., Publ. Esp. N° 5, 11, p 773-782.

Fernandez, O., 2005. Obtaining a best fitting plane through 3D georeferenced data. Journal of

Structural Geology, 27, p 855-858.

Fisher, Q.J. and Jolley, S.J., 2007. Treatment of faults in production simulation models. In Jolley,

S.J., Barr, D., Walsh, J.J. and Knipe, R.J. (Eds). Structurally Complex Reservoirs. Geological

Society of London, Special Publication 292, p 219-233.

Fossen, H., 2012. Structural Geology. Cambridge University Press. 463 p.

Freeman, B., Boult P., Yielding G., Menpes, S., 2010. Using empirical geological rules to reduce

structural uncertainty in seismic interpretation of faults. Journal of Structural Geology, 32, p

1668-1676.

Griffiths, P., Jones, S., Salter, N., Schaefer, F., Osfield, R., Reiser, H., 2002. A new technique for

3D flexural-slip restoration. Journal of Structural Geology, 24, p 773-782.

68

http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/8998




Huggins, P., Watterson, J., Walsh, J. J. & Childs, C., 1995. Relay zone geometry and

displacement transfer between normal faults recorded in coal-mine plans. Journal of Structural

Geology, 17, p 1741-1755.

Jaramillo, C., Pardo, A., Rueda, M., Harrington, G., Bayona, G., Torres, V., Mora, G., 2007.

Palynology of the Upper Paleocene Cerrejon formation, Northern Colombia. Palynology, 31, p

153-189.

Kellogg, J. N., 1984. Cenozoic tectonic history of the Sierra de Perijá, Venezuela-Colombia, and

adjacent basins. In W. E. Bonini, Hargraves, R. B. and Shagam, R., ed., The Caribbean-South

American plate boundary and regional tectonics, v. Memoir 162, Geological Society of America,

p 239-261.

Kellogg, J.N., Bonini, W.E., 1982. Subduction of the Caribbean plate and basement uplifts in the

overriding South American plate. Tectonics, 1, p 251–276.

Kim, Y-S., Sanderson, D., 2005. The relationship between displacement and length of faults: a

review. Earth-Science Reviews, 68, p 317-334.

Lisle, R., 1999. Predicting patterns of strain from three-dimensional folds geometries: neutral

surface folds and forced folds. In Ameen, M., Cosgrove, J., eds., Forced Folds And Fractures:

The Geological Society Special Publication, 169, p 213-222

MacDonald, W., Doolan, B. and Cordani, U., 1971. Cretaceous-Early Tertiary metamorphic age

values from the South Caribbean. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 82, p 1381–1388.

Montes, C., Guzman, G., Bayona, G., Cardona, A., Valencia, V., Jaramillo, C., 2010. Clockwise

rotation of the Santa Marta massif and simultaneous Paleogene to Neogene deformation of the

Plato-San Jorge and Cesar-Ranchería basins. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 29, p

832-848.

Montes, C., Palencia, J., Ruiz, M.C., Zapata, S., in prep. Dissection of the Tabaco anticline:

Detailed record using DGPS.

69

http://www.fault-analysis-group.ucd.ie/Publications/32relayzone.html




Mynatt, I., Bergbauer, S., Pollard, D., 2007. Using differential geometry to describe 3-D folds.

Journal of Structural Geology, 29, p 1256-1266.

Palencia, A., 2007. Análisis estructural y geométrico del anticlinal de Tabaco en la mina del

Cerrejón, Guajira. Undergraduate Thesis, Universidad EAFIT, 108 pp.

Peacock, D.C.P., Sanderson, D.J., 1991. Displacement and segment linkage and relay ramps in

normal fault zones. Journal of Structural Geology, 13, p 721–733.

Pindell, J. L., Higgs, R., and Dewey, J. F., 1998. Cenozoic palinspastic reconstruction,

paleogeographic evolution and hydrocarbon setting of the northern margin of South America. In

Pindell, J. K., and Drake, C. L., eds., Paleogeographic evolution and Non-glacial Eustasy,

northern South America: SEPM Special Publication, 58, p 45-8.

Pollard, D. D. & Fletcher, R. C., 2005. Fundamentals of Structural Geology. Cambridge

University Press, 500 p.

Rippon, J.H., 1985. Contoured patterns of the throw and hade of normal faults in the Coal

Measures (Westphalian) of north-east Derbyshire. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological

Society, 45, p 147–161.

Ruiz, M.C., 2006. Cartografía estructural del flanco occidental del anticlinal del tajo tabaco uno

en la mina de Carbones del Cerrejón. Undergraduate Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Colombia,

Medellin, 78 pp.

Sánchez, C.A., 2008. Exploración geológica del pit Annex y las zonas circundantes en el

piedemonte de la Serranía del Perijá. Undergraduate Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Medellin,

48 pp.

Sánchez, C.J., and Mann, P., 2012. Thick-Skinned Style and Timing of Convergent Tectonics in

Northwestern South America and Implications for Petroleum Exploration. AAPG Annual

Convention and Exhibition, Long Beach, California.

70

Shagam, R., B. Kohn, P. Banks, L. Dasch, R. Vargas, G. Rodriguez, and Pimentel, N., 1984.

Tectonic implications of Cretaceous-Pliocene fission-track ages from rocks of the circum

Maracaibo basin region of western Venezuela and eastern Colombia, in W. Bonini, Hargraves, R.

and Shagam, R., ed., Caribbean- South American Plate Boundary and regional tectonics:

Boulder, Colorado. Geological Society of America, p 385-412.

Stearns, D.W., 1968. Certain aspects of fractures in naturally deformed rocks, in Riecker, R.E.,

ed., Rock mechanics seminar: Bedford, Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory, p 97–118.

Stearns, D. W., and Friedman, M., 1972. Reservoirs in fractured rock, in R. E. King, ed.,

Stratigraphic oil and gas fields— Classification, exploration methods, and case histories: AAPG

Memoir 16/Society of Exploration Geophysicists Special Publication, 10, p 82–106.

Trenkamp, R., Kellogg, J., Freymuller, J., Mora, H., 2002. Wide plate margin deformation,

southern Central America and northwestern South America, CASA GPS observations. Journal of

South American Earth Sciences, 15, p 157- 171.

Tschanz, C.M., Marvin, R.F., Cruz, J., 1974. Geologic evolution of the Sierra Nevada de Santa

Marta area, Colombia. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 85, p 273–284.

Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., 1987. Distributions of cumulative displacement and seismic slip on a

single normal fault surface. Journal of Structural Geology, 9, p 1039–1046.

Walsh, J. J., and Watterson, J., 1988. Dips of normal faults in British Coal Measures and other

sedimentary sequences. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 145, p 859-873.

71

http://www.fault-analysis-group.ucd.ie/Publications/05DipsFaults.html




Documents

Faculty of Science and Technology MASTER’S THESIS · 2016. 4. 24. · Cerrejón thrust. In this thesis, I make a 3D structural model of the Tabaco anticline using a high resolution