Geofluids (2007) 7, 227237 doi:10.1111/j.1468-8123.2007.00177.

Diverse origins and timing of formation of basinal brines

in the Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin
J. S. HANOR1 AND J. C. MCINTOSH2
1
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA; 2Department of Hydrology
and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

ABSTRACT
A review of five different field areas in the Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin (GOM) illustrates some of the
potentially diverse chemical and physical processes which have produced basinal brines. The elevated salinities of
most of the formation waters in the GOM are ultimately related to the presence of the Middle Jurassic Louann
Salt. Some of these brines likely inherited their salinity from evaporated Mesozoic seawater, while other saline flu-
ids have been produced by subsequent dissolution of salt, some of which is occurring today. The timing of the
generation of brines has thus not been restricted to the Middle Jurassic. The mechanisms of solute transport that
have introduced brines throughout much of the sedimentary section of the GOM are not entirely understood.
Free convection driven by spatial variations in formation water temperature and salinity is undoubtedly occurring
around some salt structures. However, the driving mechanisms for the broad, diffusive upward solute transport in
the northern Gulf rim of Arkansas and northern Louisiana are not known. In the Lower Cretaceous of Texas, fluid
flow was much more highly focused, and perhaps episodic. It is clear that many areas of the Gulf basin are
hydrologically connected and that large-scale fluid flow, solute transport, and dispersion have occurred. The
Na-Mg-Ca-Cl compositions of brines in the areas of the Gulf Coast sedimentary basin reviewed in this article are
products of diagenesis and do not reflect the composition of the evaporated marine waters present at the time of
sediment deposition. Large differences in Na, Ca, and Mg trends for waters hosted by Mesozoic versus Cenozoic
sediments may reflect differences in: (i) the sources of salinity (evaporated seawater for some of the Mesozoic
sediments, dissolution of salt for some of the Cenozoic sediments); (ii) sediment lithology (dominantly carbonates
for much of the Mesozoic sediments, and dominantly siliciclastics for the Cenozoic sediments); or (iii) residence
times of brines associated with these sediments (tens of millions of years versus perhaps days).

Keywords: basin, brines, Gulf of Mexico, salt

Received 11 November 2006; accepted 13 February 2007

Corresponding author: J. S. Hanor, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge, LA, USA.
Email: hanor@lsu.edu. Tel: 255-578-3418. Fax: 225-578-2302.

Geofluids (2007) 7, 227237

driving forces for solute transport, and the controls on the

INTRODUCTION
Understanding the origin and controls on the composition
of basinal brines is critical in evaluating their role in burial
diagenesis, as ore-forming fluids, as agents of crustal cyc-
ling, and as indicators of the pathways, mechanisms, and
rates of fluid flow and solute transport. Although a great
deal of work has been carried out within the last 25 years
documenting the chemistry of basinal brines (see review by
Kharaka & Hanor 2004) and great advances have been
made in basin-scale numerical modeling of fluid flow and
solute transport (Ingebritsen et al. 2006), there are still
uncertainties regarding the timing of brine formation, the
composition of basinal brines. It is generally thought that
the elevated salinity of these waters reflects infiltration of
saline evaporative surface waters and/or subsurface dissolu-
tion of evaporites. However, there is still discussion as to
whether the chemical composition of basinal brines reflects
conditions at the time they were formed, the connate
hypothesis, or whether compositions are controlled primar-
ily by late-stage diagenesis. The purpose of this brief review
is to look at some field examples from the Gulf of Mexico
sedimentary basin (GOM), which as a group illustrate
some of the potentially diverse chemical and physical pro-
cesses that produce basinal brines. Some of the descriptions

 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation  2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
228 J. S. HANOR & J. C. MCINTOSH
of physical setting included in this article have been modi-
fied from Hanor (2004). Five areas that span much of the
Mesozoic and Cenozoic section of the GOM basin are
included in this review. They are the Mesozoic section of
southern Arkansas and northern Louisiana, the Cretaceous
of south-central Texas, the Paleocene-Eocene of central
Louisiana, the Oligocene of the Texas Gulf Coast, and the
Miocene and younger section of south Louisiana and the
Louisiana continental shelf.
GEOLOGIC SETTING OF THE GOM BASIN
Mesozoic
The GOM basin began to form in late Middle Jurassic as a
result of lithospheric stretching and seafloor spreading
associated with the breakup of Pangea (Worrall & Snelson
1989; Salvador 1991). A widespread marine incursion in
the Middle Jurassic resulted in the deposition of thick mas-
ses of evaporites, known as the Louann Salt, over much of
the Gulf region (Figs 1 and 2). Nonmarine quartzose
sandstones, redbeds, and conglomerates of the Norphlet
Formation were deposited following the deposition of the
Louann Salt in portions of what is now Arkansas and nor-
thern Louisiana. The first major marine transgression
occurred in Late Jurassic, when the shallow water carbon-
ates of the Smackover Formation (see below) were depos-
ited. A major influx of clastics followed in the Upper
Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous. Much of the Upper Juras-
sic and Lower Cretaceous section contains red beds and
anhydrite. A regional depositional hiatus occurred
Journal compilation  2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Geofluids, 7, 227237
throughout the Middle Cretaceous followed by the depos-
ition of deeper marine chalks, muds, and shales in the
Upper Cretaceous.
Much of the Cretaceous in Texas overlies rocks of Paleo-
zoic and Triassic age, rather than the Jurassic. Many areas
of the Lower Cretaceous in Texas were marked by shallow-
water accumulation of limestones, dolomites, and evapor-
ites (Land & Prezbindowski 1981). These sediments were
buried by Late Cretaceous clays and chalks and by Tertiary
siliciclastics. The Lower Cretaceous shelf carbonates of the
Edwards Group of south-central Texas (see below) form a
very large and geologically complex aquifer bounded by
Paleozoic basement below and lower permeability Upper
Cretaceous clay and chalk above (Land & Prezbindowski
1981).
Cenozoic
The depositional style within the Gulf Basin changed dra-
matically at the beginning of the Cenozoic with the influx
of large masses of sands, silts, and muds from the north
and northwest. The Wilcox Group of PaleoceneEocene
age in central Louisiana consists of 6001500 m of fluvial-
deltaic to shallow-marine siliciclastic sediments, which
thicken basinward to the south (Galloway 1968). Over
much of Louisiana, the Wilcox is bounded both above and
below by thick transgressive mudstone units (Fig. 3). Dur-
ing the Oligocene, the major depocenters in the Gulf Basin
were located along what is now the Texas Gulf Coast. It
was during this time that the deltaic-marine clastics of the
Frio Formation were deposited (Land 1995; Galloway
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the two
cross sections (Figs 2 and 3) and of the study
areas referred to in the text.
 2007 The Authors
 Gulf of Mexico basinal brines 229

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic and salinity cross section A-A (Fig. 1) for southern Arkansas and northern Louisiana. There is a progressive increase in salinity with
depth from the base of fresh water to the top of bedded salt. Salinity data are from Hawkins et al. (1963). Modified from Hanor (2004).

Fig. 3. Lithostratigraphic cross section B-B (Fig. 1). The transition zone on the figure represents 50:50 interbedded sands and shales (mudstones). Modified
from Hanor & Sassen (1990).

et al. 2000). The location of the major depocenters in the

Gulf Basin shifted from Texas to South Louisiana during
the Lower Miocene (Galloway et al. 2000). These younger
siliciclastics were deposited primarily in a series of major
depocenters situated south of the Late Cretaceous contin-
ental shelf. In south Louisiana and the Louisiana shelf,
progradation has created a largely sand-dominated section,
approximately 3 km thick, which overlies a thick sequence
of mudstone-dominated marine sediments (Fig. 3). Fluids
in the mudstone-dominated section are typically overpres-
sured (Hanor & Sassen 1990). The total thickness of sedi-
ment in south Louisiana is estimated to be approximately
15 km (Salvador 1991).
Distribution of salt
The original depositional thickness of the Louann Salt is
estimated to have varied from a few hundred meters along
the Gulf rim to over a kilometer in the interior salt basins
and as much as several kilometers within the area of the
present TexasLouisiana continental slope (Salvador 1991).
In areas of thick accumulation of salt, which include a
number of interior salt basins, there has been local differ-
ential subsidence of salt relative to the surrounding, denser
clastic sediments. This differential movement has produced
diapirs and allochthonous sheets of salt which penetrate
shallow and much younger sediments (Worrall & Snelson

 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation  2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Geofluids, 7, 227237
230 J. S. HANOR & J. C. MCINTOSH
1989). However, in other areas of the Gulf Coast such as
the Gulf rim of Texas and Arkansas, the salt is still primar-
ily in its original, near-basal position within the section
(Fig. 2).
VARIATIONS IN SALINITY
Mesozoic section of Arkansas and Louisiana
A large compilation of brine analyses by Hawkins et al.
(1963) provides a nearly unique opportunity to establish
spatial variations in salinity throughout the entire Mesozoic
section of southern Arkansas and northern Louisiana
(Figs 2 and 4). Dickey (1966) was the first to note the
remarkably systematic and nearly linear increases in salinity
with depth in this portion of the Gulf Coast (Figs 2 and
4). Salinities here range from that of fresh water at near
surface depths to halite-saturated brines having salinities in
excess of 350 g l)1 at depths of approximately 3 km above
bedded salt at the base of the section. Similar relations
were documented by Carpenter et al. (1974) for central
Mississippi.
Hanor (1984) suggested that the systematic linear
increase in salinity over a 3-km depth interval represents an
ongoing, steady-state mass transport of dissolved NaCl from
Middle Jurassic evaporites at the base of the section to the
base of the shallow meteoric regime. Hanor further pro-
posed that the mass transport processes responsible for this
profile could include some combination of molecular diffu-
sion, Soret (thermally induced) diffusion, and mechanical
Journal compilation  2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Geofluids, 7, 227237
Fig. 4. Chlorinity versus depth, Union County,
southeastern Arkansas (Fig. 1). Data from
Hawkins et al. (1963). Note the remarkably lin-
ear increase in chloride with depth.
dispersion. However, subsequent numerical modeling of
this problem by Ranganathan & Hanor (1987) showed that
molecular and Soret diffusion are probably not rapid
enough to account for the observed profile in the length of
geologic time available to have produced it. We note that
sources of salinity in addition to the Louann probably
occurred during the times of deposition of the various red
bed and anhydrite units in the Upper Jurassic and Lower
Cretaceous.
Work by Sarkar et al. (1992) provided a possible dri-
ving mechanism for diffusive solute transport. They
showed, on the basis of theoretical grounds and previous
laboratory experiments, that where there is an increase in
salinity with depth in a dipping sedimentary sequence,
there will be perturbation of isohaline contours at the
interface between two sedimentary beds of differing
molecular diffusivity, a sediment property which is largely
a function of sediment porosity and tortuosity. The per-
turbation arises from the constraints of conservation of
mass, which require that isohaline contours cross sedi-
ment boundaries at right angles (Fig. 5). The magnitude
of this perturbation is sufficient, in theory, to induce gra-
vitational instability near the boundary and induce fluid
flow up the base of the bed having the higher molecular
diffusivity. Counter flow occurs downward along the top
of the bed. Convection and dispersion can thus occur if
there is a dip to sedimentary bedding even where there is
an overall increase in fluid density with depth (see also
the extensive discussion of salinity-induced fluid instabili-
ties by Phillips 1991).
 2007 The Authors

Fig. 5. Conceptual model for diffusion-driven advection based on the work
of Phillips (1991) and Sarkar et al. (1992).
Mesozoic and Cenozoic section of south-central Texas
Land & Prezbindowski (1981) analyzed a series of forma-
tion waters from the Edwards Group (Fig. 1), and found
that the chlorinities of these waters ranged from 14 to
189 g l)1, with an average of 84 g l)1. These values corres-
pond to salinities that range from approximately 20 to
300 g l)1, with an average salinity of 140 g l)1. Land and
Prezbindowski presented a detailed series of geochemical
and hydrologic arguments against these saline waters hav-
ing been formed by either basinward recharge of meteoric
water or by geochemical modification of Cretaceous
waters. Instead, they concluded that the brines in the
Edwards Group originated much deeper in an overpressured
portion of the basin and migrated both updip and up
faults. They noted that hydrocarbons produced from the
Edwards have a significant Jurassic component, thus indica-
ting a downdip source for those fluids. The most probable
source of the high salinity of these Cretaceous-hosted
waters is thus related to dissolution of Jurassic evaporites,
although both the timing of, and the driving forces for,
updip migration have not yet been established. It should
be noted that the Edwards study area of Land & Prezbin-
dowski (1981) is situated on the San Marcos arch, which
was a positive feature during the deposition of the Louann
Salt and was thus not a site of deposition of evaporites.
Therefore, there was a significant lateral component to the
direction of brine migration over the San Marcos arch.
Further studies show that the deep-seated Ca-rich waters
also migrated into the younger Oligocene Frio formation,
gulfward of the Cretaceous Edwards Group (Fig. 1) (Mor-
ton & Land 1987; Macpherson 1992).
We have plotted chloride concentration as a function of
depth for the Edwards and Frio waters (Fig. 6) to see if
there is a systematic increase with depth, similar to that
which exists in the Cretaceous and Jurassic section in
Arkansas (Fig. 4). The relationship between chlorinity and
depth is far more complex in the Edwards. The data break-
out into four groups by depth, corresponding to the four
 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation  2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Geofluids, 7, 227237
Gulf of Mexico basinal brines 231
0
Frio Formation (Oligocene)
Edwards Group (Cretaceous)
1000
2000
Depth (m)
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Cl (mg l1)
Fig. 6. Variation in dissolved chloride with depth for waters in the Lower
Cretaceous Edwards Group and the Oligocene Frio formation (Fig. 1). Data
from Land & Prezbindowski (1981) and Macpherson (1992). Note the wide
range in chloride at any given depth and the lack of a systematic variation
in chloride with depth in contrast to the Mesozoic section of southern
Arkansas and northern Louisiana (Figs 2 and 4).
major hydrocarbon trends sampled by Land & Prezbin-
dowski (1981). These are, from the shallowest to the dee-
pest, the Luling fault zone, the Atascosa trough, the
Karnes trough, and the Stuart City trend. Waters from
shallow hydrocarbon production in the Luling fault zone
have the lowest salinity. However, there is a wide range in
salinity within each of the other three producing trends
and no clear depth-related relationship. There are even
wide ranges in chlorinity within individual fields over nar-
row ranges in depth. For example, chloride in the Kenedy
field, Stuart City trend, varies from 44 to 190 g l)1 within
a depth interval of 128 m. The four hydrocarbon trends in
the Edwards may represent four physically separated areas
of focused fluid flow and mixing between end members of
differing salinity. The Frio waters also show a wide range
in chlorinity and no significant trend with depth (Fig. 6).
Cenozoic section: Louisiana Gulf Coast
In contrast to the northern Gulf rim, salinities in the
Cenozoic section of south Louisiana Gulf Coast and con-
tinental shelf do not systematically increase with depth.
Instead, the most saline waters occur within the sand-dom-
inated section between depths of 0.5 and 3 km and have
been produced by the dissolution of salt domes and salt
sheets at relatively shallow depths rather than by deeply
buried bedded salt (Fig. 7) (Bray & Hanor 1990; Hanor
& Sassen 1990). Funayama & Hanor (1995) proposed
that some of the saline water in the PaleoceneEocene Wil-
cox formation in central Louisiana may have been derived
from the dissolution of salt domes 100 km or more updip
to the north. In the Miocene and younger siliciclastic
232 J. S. HANOR & J. C. MCINTOSH

Fig. 7. Salinity cross section B-B (Fig. 1). The highest salinities in the Cenozoic section occur within sand-dominated lithofacies (Fig. 3). Modified from Hanor
& Sassen (1990).

section to the south, pore water salinities between depths

of 0.5 and 3 km typically range from 100 to 150 g l)1,
although values as high as 300 g l)1 have been found in
the immediate vicinity of some salt structures (Szalkowski
& Hanor 2003). In the underlying mudstone-dominated
overpressured section, porewater salinities often decrease
with depth back to original marine salinities of 35 g l)1 or
less, although higher salinities have been documented
(Kharaka et al. 1978; Szalkowski & Hanor 2003). Salinities
below a depth of 6 or 7 km are largely unknown because
of lack of data.
A field example: Bay Marchand
The Bay Marchand salt dome provides an excellent field
example of the localized formation of brine by the dissolu-
tion of Jurassic salt in Cenozoic siliciclastic sediments. The
dome is located in southernmost Lafourche Parish and the
Bay Marchand and South Timbalier Bay areas of the Lou-
isiana continental shelf in water depths of up to 30 m
(Fig. 1). The Bay Marchand dome is part of a deep-lying,
allochthonous salt ridge, which also includes the Caillou
Island and Timbalier salt domes (Frey & Grimes 1970).
Bruno & Hanor (2003) were able to distinguish at least
three hydrogeologic regimes on the southwest flank of the
dome on the basis of spatial variations in fluid pressure,
salinity, and temperature. The shallowest is a hydropres-
sured regime having fluids of normal marine salinity. The
deepest regime is characterized by overpressured fluids hav-
ing marine salinities and less. The middle regime, which
was the principal focus of the Bruno and Hanor study, is
characterized by hypersaline waters. The spatial variations
in salinity documented in this work are consistent with the
ongoing dissolution of the Bay Marchand dome at shallow
Fig. 8. Salinity cross section at the Bay Marchand allochthonous salt struc-
ture, offshore Louisiana (Fig. 1). Middle Jurassic salt has penetrated Mio-
cene and Pliocene siliciclastic sediments. An area near the top of the
structure is dissolving, and geologically-young brines form a plume, which
extends to the southeast of the salt dome. Modified from Bruno & Hanor
(2003).
depth and the development of at least two dense salinity
plumes that are moving laterally and down dip from the
side of the dome (Fig. 8). The shallowest plume, which is
located in a sandy Pliocene section, is moving along a
southeast-trending axis and is mixing vertically and laterally
with ambient formation waters.
Bruno & Hanor (2003) showed that there is a fluid
density inversion within the study area with dense salty,
cold fluids overlying less dense fresher, warmer fluids.
These variations in fluid density support the hypothesis
that fluid flow within the Pliocene and upper Miocene
section is density-driven. The maximum salinities observed
near salt are only about 100115 g l)1 and thus far less
than the approximately 350400 g l)1 salinities which
correspond to halite saturation. Although fluid flow rates
have not yet been determined here, the relatively low

 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation  2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Geofluids, 7, 227237

salinities suggest that fluid movement has been rapid
enough to prevent ambient pore waters near the saltsedi-
ment interface to accumulate higher concentrations of
dissolved salts.
MAJOR CATION COMPOSITION
There is a large body of published information on the
composition of basinal brines in the GOM, much of
which is referred to in the review by Kharaka & Hanor
(2004). Our focus here is on the controls on the major
cation composition and chloridebromide systematics of
some brines in the GOM. There has been a longstanding
problem of explaining elevated levels of Ca, which is typ-
ically highly enriched in the most saline of basinal brines.
Land (1992) addressed the question whether brine com-
positions reflect connate (born with) conditions inher-
ited at the time of formation of the brine or instead a
diagenetic overprint superimposed later in the history of
the brine. One concludes from Lands (1992, 1995) dis-
cussion that it is necessary on the basis of compositional
systematics, isotopic composition, and mass balance con-
straints to invoke diagenesis to explain present-day brine
chemistry. However, recent interest in the connate hypo-
thesis has been stimulated by the discovery that during
the Silurian-Ordovician and the Cretaceous, seawater was
calcium-rich and sulfate-poor (Lowenstein et al. 2003).
Evaporation of such waters should effectively remove sul-
fate from solution as gypsum and produce residual brines
enriched in Ca. In contrast, evaporation of calcium-poor
and sulfate-rich seawater, such as exists today and
throughout the Cenozoic, should produce residual brines
depleted in Ca.
In this review of the compositional systematics of some
brines in the GOM sedimentary basin, we have utilized
data sets for the areas discussed above. These include the
Upper Jurassic Smackover carbonates of southern Arkansas
(Moldovanyi & Walter 1992), the Mesozoic section in
Union Co., Arkansas (Hawkins et al. 1963), the Lower
Cretaceous Edwards Group of Texas (Land & Prezbin-
dowski 1981), the Oligocene Frio formation of Texas
(Macpherson 1992), Wilcox Group siliciclastics (Hawkins
et al. 1963), and Miocene and Plio-Pleistocene siliciclastic
sediments of the Louisiana continental shelf (Land et al.
1988; Land & Macpherson 1992). We have also compared
compositional trends in these waters with the calculated
evaporation trends for Cretaceous seawater (Timofeeff
et al. 2006) and the measured evaporation trend for mod-
ern seawater (McCaffrey et al. 1987) to determine whether
the compositional trends for GOM basinal waters reflect in
anyway evaporated marine waters. The Middle Jurassic
appears to be a time of transition from low-Ca seawater to
high-Ca seawater (Lowenstein et al. 2003), and the eva-
poration trend for that time would presumably plot
 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation  2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Geofluids, 7, 227237
Gulf of Mexico basinal brines 233
between the modern and Cretaceous seawater evaporation
curves.
Waters in all five areas show an increase in Na with
increasing Cl, but there are significant differences between
the Na versus Cl plots for the Cenozoic siliciclastic-hosted
waters and the Mesozoic, largely carbonate-hosted waters
(Fig. 9). The Cenozoic-hosted waters have higher Na/Cl
ratios than do the Mesozoic-hosted waters and plot slightly
below the trend predicted by the dissolution of halite and
above the two seawater evaporation trends. The Smack-
over, Edwards, and Frio waters plot broadly along a trend
having lower Na/Cl ratios than the evaporated seawater
trends. There is an increase in K with Cl (data not shown),
but differences in K/Cl ratio, which is highest in the
Edwards waters, intermediate in the Smackover waters, and
lowest in the offshore Louisiana waters.
Calcium increases with increasing Cl in all five areas, but
the Ca/Cl ratios are significantly higher in the Mesozoic-
hosted waters (Fig. 9). Calcium in the Cenozoic-hosted
waters is enriched relative to modern seawater evaporation
trends and, with the exception of the Frio waters, is deple-
ted relative to Jurassic and Cretaceous waters. Magnesium,
in contrast, is depleted in all of the waters relative to the
seawater evaporation trends (Fig. 9). The Ca/Mg ratios of
the Paleocene to Pleistocene-hosted waters are broadly
similar, and much lower than the Ca/Mg ratios of waters
in Jurassic to Oligocene-age reservoirs (Fig. 10). The Ca/
Mg ratios of all of the waters are significantly higher than
either Ca-poor evaporated modern seawater or Ca-rich
Cretaceous seawater.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Sources of salinity
The elevated salinities of most of the formation waters in
the GOM sedimentary basin are ultimately related to the
presence of the Middle Jurassic Louann Salt. Some of
these brines may have inherited their salinities from
recharge waters formed during seawater evaporation and
the deposition of the Louann. However, the elevated Br/
Cl ratios of some of the waters of the northernmost Gulf
rim, including the Smackover Formation (Fig. 9) may
reflect later dissolution of bittern salts containing high
concentrations of Br (Carpenter & Trout 1978; Hanor
1987; Moldovanyi & Walter 1992). Additional sources of
salinity in the northern Gulf rim include recharge waters
formed during the deposition of red beds and anhydrites
during the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous. Dissolu-
tion of halite is an important source of salinity in the
Cenozoic siliciclastic section of the Gulf basin. The pre-
sence of salinity plumes and salinity gradients in proximity
to salt are direct evidence for ongoing dissolution of salt.
The existence of the process of halite dissolution as a
234 J. S. HANOR & J. C. MCINTOSH

6000 110
Sodium 100 Bromide
5000 90
Plio-Pleistocene
80 Paleocene-Miocene
4000 Oligocene (Frio)
(mmol kg1)

70 Cretaceous (Edwards)
Jurassic (Smackover)
60
3000
50
40
2000
30

1000 20
10
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
1400 1400
Calcium Magnesium
1200 1200
Seawater Evaporation Trends:
1000 1000 Modern
Cretaceous
(mmol kg1)

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Chloride (mmol kg1) Chloride (mmol kg1)

Fig. 9. Compositional cross plots for Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin saline waters for the Upper Jurassic Smackover carbonates of southern Arkansas
(Moldovanyi & Walter 1992), the Mesozoic section of Union Co., Arkansas (Hawkins et al. 1963), the Lower Cretaceous Edwards Group of Texas (Land &
Prezbindowski 1981), the Oligocene Frio Formation of Texas (Macpherson 1992), Wilcox Group PaleoceneEocene siliciclastics of north and central Louisiana
(Hawkins et al. 1963), and Miocene and Plio-Pleistocene siliciclastic sediments of the Louisiana continental shelf (Land et al. 1988; Land & Macpherson
1992). The evaporation trends for modern seawater (McCaffrey et al. 1987) and Cretaceous seawater (Timofeeff et al. 2006) are shown in the dotted and
solid black lines, respectively.

source of salinity is supported by the low Br/Cl ratios of

these waters (Fig. 9).

Timing of generation of brines

Fig. 10. Plot of Ca versus Mg for Gulf Coast formation waters. See the
caption for Fig. 9 for the sources of data.
The timing of the generation of brines in the GOM has
not been restricted to the Middle Jurassic. The presence of
salinity gradients above bedded salt in the northern GOM
supports the hypothesis that dissolution of Middle Jurassic
salt is occurring today and may have occurred throughout
much of the post-Jurassic history of the GOM. The salinity
plumes around salt structures penetrating young, Cenozoic
sediments are most certainly the product of dissolution
that has occurred in much more recent geologic times
and represent processes which are actively occurring today.
The concept of even assigning an age to a basinal brine is
problematic given the dynamics of fluid flow and solute

 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation  2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Geofluids, 7, 227237

transport in many sedimentary basins (Hanor & McIntosh
2006).
Mechanisms of solute transport
The mechanisms of solute transport that have introduced
brines throughout much of the sedimentary section of the
GOM are not entirely understood. Field observations and
numerical modeling support the hypothesis that thermoha-
line, density-driven circulation induced by spatial variations
in salinity and temperature is occurring around allochtho-
nous salt structures (Evans et al. 1991; Bruno & Hanor
2003). The numerical modeling experiments of Evans
et al. (1991) suggest that when salt is surrounded by sedi-
ments containing pore waters of low salinity, density differ-
ences caused by differences in salinity are the primary
driving force for fluid flow. Salt has a high thermal con-
ductivity, and sediments and fluids in proximity to salt
commonly have elevated temperatures. Evans et al. found
that when salt is surrounded by sediments containing pore
fluids having salinities in excess of approximately 15 wt.%,
thermal effects on fluid density prevail, and free convection
is temperature-driven. Computed maximum rates of fluid
flow in the Evans et al. numerical simulations ranged from
0.052 to 0.175 m year)1. Although the rates of advective
transport have not been established with certainty in field
studies, the circulation is sufficiently vigorous that brine
has been introduced long distances laterally away from salt
(Figs 7 and 8).
Less well understood conceptually than brine formation
and transport around allochthonous salt are the rates and
mechanisms that have resulted in the diffuse transport of
solutes over a broad area above bedded salt in Arkansas
and Louisiana. The linear increases in chloride with depth
(Figs 2 and 4) have the appearance of diffusion profiles,
but the numerical calculations of Ranganathan & Hanor
(1987) suggest that Fickian diffusion is too slow a process
to have caused the observed, nearly linear, profiles. Thus, a
more dynamic process, analogous to eddy diffusion in the
open ocean, needs to be invoked (Sarkar et al. 1992).
In contrast to the diffuse transport of solutes above bed-
ded salt in the Mesozoic section of southern Arkansas and
northern Louisiana, the transport of brine into the Lower
Cretaceous and Oligocene sections of south central Texas
apparently was much more highly focused and perhaps
related to much shorter-lived events, such as the expulsion
of overpressured fluids (Land & Prezbindowski 1981). As
noted above, the area of the Edwards Group that Land &
Prezbindowski (1981) studied is not underlain by salt.
Therefore, a significant lateral component to fluid flow
must be invoked in this region of the Gulf basin.
It is clear that many areas of the Gulf basin are hydro-
logically very open. Fluids have not been trapped within
discrete geologic units, and significant fluid flow, solute
 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation  2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Geofluids, 7, 227237
Gulf of Mexico basinal brines 235
transport, and dispersion has occurred, which, along with
diagenetic reactions discussed below, has obscured any ori-
ginal marine or evaporated marine signature.
Controls on major cation composition
We agree with previous workers such as Land (1995) in
his study of fluids in the Frio that the Na-Mg-Ca-Cl com-
positions of brines in the areas of the Gulf Coast sedimen-
tary basin reviewed in this study are products of diagenesis
and do not reflect the composition of the connate marine
or evaporated marine waters present at the time of sedi-
ment deposition (Fig. 9). One of the more important dia-
genetic reactions that have occurred in the Gulf Coast
basins, probably ever since the deposition of the Louann,
has been the dissolution of salt, which has provided a con-
tinuing source of dissolved chloride. However, there are
still some open questions regarding exactly what diagenetic
reactions control the relative proportions of the major cati-
ons in these waters. Such reactions could include dolomiti-
zation, to explain the depletion in Mg shown by many of
these waters, and albitization of Ca-plagioclase, to explain
the enrichment in Ca and depletion in Na of many waters
(see review by Kharaka & Hanor 2004).
We note with interest the significant differences in Na
and Ca versus Cl trends for waters hosted by Mesozoic
and Cenozoic sediments (Figs 9 and 11) and the wide
range in Ca/Mg ratios (Fig. 10) of the group of waters we
have examined here. It is not known whether these varia-
tions reflect differences in: (i) the sources of salinity (evap-
orated seawater for some of the Mesozoic sediments,
dissolution of salt for some of the Cenozoic sediments);
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
(mol l1)
Sodium
2.5
2.0
1.5
Calcium
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Chloride (mol l1)
Fig. 11. Plot of Na and Ca versus Cl for Gulf Coast basinal brines. See the
caption for Fig. 9 for the sources of data. Fluids from Jurassic and Creta-
ceous-age strata are shown as open symbols, and fluids from Paleocene to
Pleistocene-age sediments are shown in closed symbols. The plots include
waters from the Frio formation. Exponential curve fits are overlain for each
data set (r2 values all >0.9).
236 J. S. HANOR & J. C. MCINTOSH
(ii) sediment lithology (dominantly carbonates for much of
the Mesozoic sediments, dominantly siliciclastics for the
Cenozoic sediments); or (iii) when brine was first intro-
duced into these sediments (tens of millions of years ago
versus today). Hanor (2002) proposed that the observed
progression from Na-Cl to Na-Ca-Cl to Ca-Na-Cl brines
with increasing salinity can be explained by rock buffering
involving metastable equilibria between the fluids and
ambient carbonate and silicate minerals. If that is the case,
it would appear that different buffering assemblages are
operating in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments consid-
ered here. The wide range in Ca/Mg ratios exhibited by
the fluids in the Frio (Fig. 10) is inconsistent with rock-
buffering. These are all problems which require additional
research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
J. McIntosh acknowledges support from the Morton K.
and Jane Blaustein Foundation. Hanor was supported in
part by NSF Grant ERA-0537555. This manuscript bene-
fited from helpful discussions with Stephen Osborn. We
also thank Tim Lowenstein and Iain Samson for their use-
ful comments on the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Bray RB, Hanor JS (1990) Spatial variations in subsurface pore
fluid properties in a portion of southeast Louisiana: implications
for regional fluid flow and solute transport. GCAGS Transac-
tions, 40, 5364.
Bruno RS, Hanor JS (2003) Large-scale fluid migration driven by
salt dissolution, Bay Marchand Dome, offshore Louisiana.
GCAGS Transactions, 53, 97107.
Carpenter AB, Trout ML (1978) Geochemistry of bromide-rich
brines of the Dead Sea and southern Arkansas. In: 13th Indus-
trial Minerals Form (eds Johnson KS, Russell JR). Oklahoma
Geological Survey Circular, 79, 7888.
Carpenter AB, Trout ML, Pickett EE (1974) Preliminary report
on the origin and chemical evolution of lead- and zinc-rich oil-
field brines in central Mississippi. Economic Geology, 69, 1191
1206.
Dickey PA (1966) Patterns of chemical composition of deep sub-
surface waters. AAPG Bulletin, 50, 24722478.
Evans DG, Nunn JA, Hanor JS (1991) Mechanisms driving
groundwater flow near salt domes. Geophysical Research Letters,
18, 927930.
Frey MG, Grimes WH (1970) Bay Marchand-Timbalier Bay-Caillou
Island salt complex, Louisiana. AAPG Memoir, 14, 277291.
Funayama M, Hanor JS (1995) Pore water salinity as a tool for
evaluating reservoir continuity and fluid migration pathways in
the Wilcox group of central Louisiana. GCAGS Transactions,
45, 195201.
Galloway WE (1968) Depositional systems of the lower Wilcox
Group, north-central Gulf Coast Basin. GCAGS Transactions,
39, 375385.
Galloway WE, Ganey-Curry P, Li X, Buffler RT (2000) Cenozoic
depositional evolution of the Gulf of Mexico Basin. AAPG
Bulletin, 84, 17431774.
Journal compilation  2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Geofluids, 7, 227237
Hanor JS (1984) Variation in the chemical composition of oil-field
brines with depth in northern Louisiana and southern Arkansas:
Implications for mechanisms and rates of mass transportation
and diagenetic reaction. GCAGS Transactions, 34, 5561.
Hanor JS (1987) Origin and migration of subsurface sedimentary
brines.SEPM Lecture Notes for Short Course, 21, Society for
Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, OK.
Hanor JS (2002) Reactive transport involving rock-buffered fluids
of varying salinity. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 65, 3721
3732.
Hanor JS (2004) The role of salt dissolution in the geologic,
hydrologic, and diagenetic evolution of the northern Gulf Coast
sedimentary basin. In: SaltSediment Interactions and Hydrocar-
bon Prospectivity: Concepts and Case Studies for the 21st Century
(ed. Post PJ), pp. 464501. 24th Annual Gulf Coast Section
SEPM Foundation Research Conference, Houston, TX.
Hanor JS, McIntosh JC (2006) Are secular variations in seawater
chemistry reflected in the compositions of basinal brines? Jour-
nal of Geochemical Exploration, 89, 153156.
Hanor JS, Sassen R (1990) Evidence for Large-Scale Vertical and
Lateral Migration of Formation Waters, Dissolved Salt, and
Crude Oil in the Louisiana Gulf Coast. pp. 293296. GCS-
SEPM Proceedings 9th Annual Research Conference, Houston,
TX.
Hawkins ME, Dietman WD, Seward JM (1963) Analysis of Brines
from Oil-Productive Formations in South Arkansas and North
Louisiana. U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 6282,
Washington, DC.
Ingebritsen SE, Sanford WE, Neuzil CE (2006) Groundwater in
Geologic Processes, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
Kharaka YK, Hanor JS (2004) Deep fluids in the continents: I.
sedimentary basins. Treatise on Geochemistry, 5, 499540.
Kharaka YK, Brown PM, Carothers WW (1978) Chemistry of
waters in the geopressured zone from coastal Louisiana impli-
cations for geothermal development. Geothermal Research
Council Transactions, 2, 371374.
Land LS (1992) Saline formation waters in sedimentary basins,
connate or diagenetic? Proceedings International Symposium on
WaterRock Interaction, 7, 865868.
Land LS (1995) Na-Ca-Cl saline formation waters, Frio Forma-
tion (Oligocene), south Texas, USA: products of diagenesis.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 59, 21632174.
Land LS, Macpherson GL (1992) Geochemistry of formation
water, Plio-Pleistocene reservoirs, offshore Louisiana. GCAGS
Transactions, 39, 421428.
Land LS, Prezbindowski DR (1981) The origin and evolution of
saline formation water, Lower Cretaceous carbonates, south-
central Texas, U.S.A. Journal of Hydrology, 54, 5174.
Land LS, Macpherson GL, Mack LE (1988) The geochemistry of
saline formation waters, Miocene offshore Louisiana. GCAGS
Transactions, 38, 305311.
Lowenstein TK, Hardie LA, Timofeeff MN, Demicco RV (2003)
Secular variation in seawater chemistry and the origin of calcium
chloride basinal brines. Geology, 31, 857860.
Macpherson GL (1992) Regional variations in formation water
chemistry: major and minor elements, Frio Formation fluids,
Texas. AAPG Bulletin, 76, 740757.
McCaffrey MA, Lazar B, Holland HD (1987) The evaporation
path of seawater and the coprecipitation of Br) and K+ with
halite. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 57, 928937.
Moldovanyi EP, Walter LM (1992) Regional trends in water
chemistry, Smackover Formation, southwest Arkansas: geochem-
ical and physical controls. AAPG Bulletin, 76, 864894.
 2007 The Authors

Morton RA, Land LS (1987) Regional variations in formation
water chemistry Frio formation (Oligocene), Texas Gulf Coast.
AAPG Bulletin, 71, 191206.
Phillips OM (1991) Flow and Reaction in Permeable Rocks.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ranganathan V, Hanor JS (1987) A numerical model for the for-
mation of saline waters due to diffusion of dissolved NaCl in
subsiding sedimentary basins with evaporates. Journal of Hydrol-
ogy, 92, 97120.
Salvador A (ed.) (1991) Origin and development of the Gulf of
Mexico basin. In: The Gulf of Mexico Basin, pp. 389444.
Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.
Sarkar A, Nunn JA, Hanor JS (1992) Diffusion induced flow in a
sloping aquifer with longitudinal salinity gradient. Eos, Transac-
tions of the American Geophysical Union, 73, 134.
 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation  2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Geofluids, 7, 227237
Gulf of Mexico basinal brines 237
Szalkowski DS, Hanor JS (2003) Spatial variations in the salinity
of produced waters from southwestern Louisiana. GCAGS
Transactions, 53, 798806.
Timofeeff MN, Lowenstein TK, Martins da Silva MA, Harris NB
(2006) Secular variation in the major-ion chemistry of seawater:
Evidence from fluid inclusions in Cretaceous halites. Geochimica
et Cosmochimica Acta, 70, 19771994.
Worrall DM, Snelson S (1989) Evolution of the northern Gulf of
Mexico, with emphasis of Cenozoic growth faulting and the role
of salt. In: The Geology of North America; An Overview (eds
Bally AW, Palmer AR), pp. 128156. Geological Society of
America, Boulder, CO.