Structural and tectonic evolution of western Cuba fold and thrust … · 2018. 11. 17. ·...

Structural and tectonic evolution of western Cuba fold

and thrust belt

Eduard Saura,1 Jaume Verges,1 Dennis Brown,1 Pujianto Lukito,2 Sofıa Soriano,2

Susana Torrescusa,2 Rolando Garcıa,3 Jorge R. Sanchez,3 Carlos Sosa,3

and Rafael Tenreyro3

Received 22 November 2007; revised 23 February 2008; accepted 21 March 2008; published 4 July 2008.

[1] We present balanced and restored cross sectionsacross the western Cuba fold and thrust belt toillustrate its structure and tectonic evolution, basedon the interpretation of multichannel seismic profiles,field data and balancing techniques. The NNW–SSEtrending Soroa cross section intersects, from south tonorth, (1) the Los Palacios Basin, (2) the Sierra delRosario antiformal stack, (3) the Bahıa Honda thrustunit, (4) the frontal �3-km-thick imbricated thrustsheets, and (5) the foredeep basin. At depth, a duplexthat links the Sierra del Rosario unit and the frontalimbricates is defined using the thickness of the coverthrust sheets of the imbricated North American margin.The minimum calculated shortening is of 130 km in aSSE or south direction to fit large-scale plate tectonicreconstructions. However, a more allochthonousalternative using thinner cover sequences is alsodiscussed, which restores the Bahıa Honda unit220 km to the south of its present position.Syntectonic deposits in combination with a forwardkinematic model provide a good constraint forthe tectonic evolution of the orogen. The internallydeformed Bahıa Honda unit overthrusted the NorthAmerica margin cover successions during Danianand Selandian times (�65.5–60 Ma), before thestacking of these cover rocks during Selandian andThanetian times (�60–56 Ma). The growth of alarge antiformal stack beneath the Sierra del Rosariooccurred at early middle Eocene (�56–45 Ma),generating about 4 km of structural relief between thepaleoisland of Cuba and the synorogenic seafloorbefore the final infill of the foredeep. Citation: Saura,

E., J. Verges, D. Brown, P. Lukito, S. Soriano, S. Torrescusa,

R. Garcıa, J. R. Sanchez, C. Sosa, and R. Tenreyro (2008),

Structural and tectonic evolution of western Cuba fold and thrust

belt, Tectonics, 27, TC4002, doi:10.1029/2007TC002237.

1. Introduction

[2] Several models have been proposed for the structuralarchitecture and evolution ofwesternCuba: (1) those based ontranspressional tectonics [Perez-Othon and Yarmoliuk, 1985;Millan, 2003] and (2) those based on thrust tectonics [Hatten,1957;Cubapetroleo and Simon-Petroleum-Technology, 1993;Pszczolkowski, 1994a; Bralower and Iturralde-Vinent, 1997;Gordon et al., 1997; Iturralde-Vinent, 1998; Otero Marreroand Tenreyro Perez, 1998; Kerr et al., 1999; Moretti et al.,2003]. Transpressional models are strongly conditioned bythe surficial expression of major left-lateral faults that can beidentified throughout Cuba. According to these models, thesefaults juxtapose tectonic units as the result of large, differen-tial, horizontal displacements along several lithospheric-scale faults [Perez-Othon and Yarmoliuk, 1985; Millan,2003; Schneider et al., 2004]. Thrust models, on the otherhand, interpret the geology of Cuba to be part of anaccretionary prism developed in front of the CaribbeanArc during the collision with the North American marginfrom Late Cretaceous to early Eocene times. Compres-sional models may either be thick-skinned in which thebasement is involved in most thrust sheets [Bralower andIturralde-Vinent, 1997; Iturralde-Vinent, 1998; Kerr et al.,1999], or thin-skinned, which interpret the thrust sheets to beformed only by cover rocks [Pszczolkowski, 1994b; Gordonet al., 1997; Otero Marrero and Tenreyro Perez, 1998].However, none of the models presented to date have beenvalidated by means of balanced and restored cross sections.[3] To address the problem of the tectonic evolution of

western Cuba, this paper presents the first balanced andrestored cross section constructed through the on-land Cubanfold and thrust belt using surface geology and borehole data,and extends offshore using commercial reflection seismicdata. Syntectonic sediments provide constraints on the timingof the deformation and thus the kinematic evolution of thearea, which is validated by a forward kinematic model. Theresults of this study provide insights into the tectonic evolu-tion and timing of the collision between the Caribbean Arcand the North American margin.

2. Geological Framework

2.1. Regional Setting

[4] The Cuban fold and thrust belt is part of the GreaterAntilles Island Arc, which also embraced the Hispaniola,Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. This island arc was a

TECTONICS, VOL. 27, TC4002, doi:10.1029/2007TC002237, 2008ClickHere

for

FullArticle

1Group of Dynamics of the Lithosphere (GDL), Institute of EarthSciences ‘‘Jaume Almera,’’ CSIC, Barcelona, Spain.

2RepsolYPF, Madrid, Spain.3Cubapetroleo, Havana, Cuba.

Copyright 2008 by the American Geophysical Union.0278-7407/08/2007TC002237$12.00

TC4002 1 of 22

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007TC002237

Figure 1

TC4002 SAURA ET AL.: TECTONIC EVOLUTION OF WESTERN CUBA

2 of 22

TC4002

continuous belt located between the North American andCaribbean plates (Figure 1b), which formed in front of theGreat Caribbean Arc [Burke, 1988] as it collided with theNorth American Continental margin from Late Cretaceousto early Eocene times [Gealey, 1980; Iturralde-Vinent,1988; Cubapetroleo and Simon-Petroleum-Technology,1993; Iturralde-Vinent, 1994; Iturralde-Vinent, 1996b]. Fol-lowing collision, left-lateral strike-slip faults (Figure 1a)fragmented the thrust belt [Rosencrantz, 1990; Gordon etal., 1997; Rojas-Agramonte et al., 2006] and the deforma-tion front migrated to the east. This shift in the tectonicregime coincides with the jump of the northern boundary ofthe Caribbean plate from the eastern margin of the Yucatanblock to its current position along the Cayman trough[Stanek et al., 2006], when the fold belt split apart andthe individual Greater Antilles islands formed [Jolly andLidiak, 2006; Pindell et al., 2006; Perez-Estaun et al.,2007]. The ages of the volcanic rocks and syntectonicsediments in western Cuba indicate that the volcanic activ-ity related to the Great Caribbean Arc in the emerged part ofCuba extended from Early Cretaceous (pre-Albian) to earlyEocene, with a nonvolcanic stage during the latest Creta-ceous [Donnelly and Rogers, 1980; Burke, 1988; Kerr et al.,1999; Garcıa-Casco et al., 2006; Proenza et al., 2006].However, some authors propose that Maastrichtian volcanicrocks may be present in the marine realm south of Cuba[Pindell et al., 2006]. In any case, there is still somecontroversy about how this process took place. Most modelspropose a Pacific origin for the Caribbean oceanic crust,whose eastward migration started either during the Aptian[Bouysse, 1988; Ross and Scotese, 1988; Draper andBarros, 1994; Snoke et al., 2001; Pindell et al., 2006] orthe Campanian [Duncan and Hargraves, 1984; Burke,1988; Kerr and Tarney, 2005] and is still active as a resultof mantle drag [Negredo et al., 2004]. Within these models,some propose a single continuous subduction since incep-tion [e.g., Malfait and Dinkleman, 1972; Pindell, 1994;Pindell et al., 2005; Stanek et al., 2006], while othersidentify several volcanic arcs [e.g., Stephan et al., 1990;Garcıa-Casco et al., 2006] or even a reverse subductionpolarity during most of the Cretaceous [Iturralde-Vinent,1998; Kerr et al., 1999; Cobiella-Reguera, 2005]. Finally,few models propose an inter-American origin for theCaribbean plate [Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, 1972; James,2006], which would imply that this unit has not undergonelarge displacements with respect to North and South Amer-ica, and thus without development of major subductionzones along its boundaries.[5] The current configuration of the Cuban fold and

thrust belt is characterized by several outcrop areas sepa-

rated by postorogenic sediments (Figure 1a), with an arcuateshape resulting from a change in the structural grain fromESE-WNW in central and eastern Cuba to WSW-ENE inwestern Cuba. In each outcrop area the Cretaceous NorthAmerican margin appears involved in the most externaldomains, while the internal parts are characterized byophiolitic melanges and the volcanic arc complex. Also,in the internal parts of the orogen, several tectonic windowsallow the metasediments of the lower plate to crop out(Figure 1b). Particular to western Cuba is the lack of theaxis of the volcanic arc and the presence of mostly non-metamorphic platform rocks in the Guaniguanico domain[Iturralde-Vinent, 1998], which is formed by the Sierra delRosario and Los Organos belts (Figure 1). However, anarrow band of low- to very low grade metamorphic rockswith restricted development of high-pressure metamorphismknown as the Cangre Belt crops out along the southernboundary of the Guaniguanico domain [Pszczolkowski,1994a]. These rocks reach blueschist facies [Iturralde-Vinent,1998] and their protoliths are rocks very similar to theoldest sediments of the Los Organos and Sierra delRosario belts [Somin and Millan, 1972; Pszczolkowski,1987]. The Cangre belt is interpreted to be an allochtho-nous unit, which overthrusts toward the NNW the LosOrganos domain [Rigassi-Studer, 1963; Piotrowska, 1978].The Escambray and Pinos terranes complete the metasedi-mentary domains recognized in Cuba (Figure 1a). Theseterranes have more complex internal structure and showmore intense metamorphism than the Cangre belt [e.g.,Garcıa-Casco et al., 2001; Stanek et al., 2006].[6] The currently deformed Cretaceous North American

margin was originally formed by two oblique segments:the Florida-Bahamas margin in the east, and the Yucatanmargin in the west. The Florida-Bahamas margin trendedWNW-ESE (Figure 1b). This is recorded in the availableseismic database, where the platform margin is clearlyrecognizable [Moretti et al., 2003], and in the outcrops ofthe Florida-Bahamas platform along eastern and centralCuba, where it appears involved in the deformation(Figure 1a). The geometry of the eastern margin of theYucatan platform is less constrained by the available data.However, taking into account that the northern part of theYucatan block has remained stable since Valanginiantimes [Pindell et al., 2006], and the current configurationof its northern margin [e.g., Bryant et al., 1991; Ewing,1991; French and Schenk, 2004], the northeastern marginshould be oriented NNW-SSE to N-S and deepening tothe NNE. On the contrary, little can be inferred from theMesozoic eastern margin of the Yucatan block, since it iscurrently defined by a NNE-SSW-oriented transform fault

Figure 1. Geological framework of Cuba. (a) Geological sketch map of Cuba, where the main tectonic units aredifferentiated. Instead of the traditional strike-slip faults, we have introduced a set of transtensional conjugated faults, whichare inferred after the analysis of geological maps, bathymetries, and satellite image. The deformation front and theCretaceous platform margin derive from seismic profiles analysis and literature. (b) Location of the island of Cuba withinthe regional framework of the Caribbean plate. The location of Figure 1a is indicated by the white frame. (c) Geologicalsketch map of west central Cuba (see location in Figure 1), indicating the most important structural units (modified afterGarcıa Delgado et al. [2005]). The location of the available boreholes, the map of Figure 5, the cross sections of Figure 3and Figure 7, and the southern segment of Figure 8 are indicated.


3 of 22

TC4002

that juxtaposes the Yucatan block to Eocene oceanic crust[Rosencrantz, 1990]. The original position of the oceanicdomains is even less constrained owing to their higherallochthonism. Within this oceanic domain, the mostimportant ophiolitic assembly is the ‘‘northern ophiolitebelt’’ [Iturralde-Vinent, 1988, 1996a, 1996c], which canbe recognized along the whole island from the BahıaHonda region in the west to the Baracoa region in the east(Figure 1b). The oldest elements of the northern ophiolitebelt are considered to be formed during Late Jurassic times[Somin and Millan, 1981; Iturralde-Vinent and Morales,1988; Iturralde-Vinent, 1994, 1996a; Llanes et al., 1998],which correlates with the breakup of Pangea in Meso-America [Pindell, 1985; Marton and Buffler, 1994;Pindell, 1994], and the youngest ophiolites have beendated as formed 52 ± 6 Ma [Iturralde-Vinent et al.,1996]. Within this time interval, the Upper Jurassic toLower Cretaceous ophiolites are considered to representthe formation of oceanic crust, while the Upper Cretaceousto Paleogene ones are considered to be the product of arc-related magmatism or isotopic resetting due to postforma-tion processes [Garcıa-Casco et al., 2006]. Furthermore,the ophiolites are often serpentinized and show high-pressure metamorphism [e.g., Somin and Millan, 1981;Garcıa-Casco et al., 2006, Cobiella-Reguera, 2005],whose older recorded age is Albian (106–102 Ma [Hattenet al., 1988]). This age is considered by most authors asindicative of already ongoing subduction at that time [e.g.,

Kerr et al., 1999; Cobiella-Reguera, 2005; Garcıa-Cascoet al., 2006; Stanek et al., 2006].

2.2. Stratigraphy

[7] The Soroa cross section orthogonally traverses themain tectonic domains of the area: the Los Palacios Basin,The Sierra del Rosario, the Bahıa Honda region and theforeland basin. Below, a general description of the mainstructural units along the cross section (Figure 1c) and theirstratigraphy is presented (Figure 2).[8] The Los Palacios Basin is located in the southern

boundary of the Soroa cross section (Figure 1c). It isbound to the north by the El Pinar Fault (Figure 1c),which has recorded a complex kinematic evolution sincelate Eocene times [Pardo, 1975; Piotrowska, 1978;Bresznyanszky and Iturralde-Vinent, 1983; Rosencrantz,1990; Echevarrıa-Rodrıguez et al., 1991; Cubapetroleoand Simon-Petroleum-Technology, 1993; Gordon et al.,1997; Caceres, 1998], and to the south by the Los PalaciosFault [Garcıa Delgado et al., 2005], inferred from geophys-ical data [Rodrıguez-Basante, 1999]. The Los Palacios Basincontains more than 3000m of sediments from Late Cretaceousto Pleistocene in age [Garcıa-Sanchez, 1978], and the natureof the basement below the sedimentary basin remainsunknown. The complete Tertiary infill of the basin has beensampled by the borehole Candelaria-1 [Sanchez-Arango etal., 1985; Fernandez-Rodrıguez et al., 1988] (Figure 2). Thelower part of the borehole intersects mainly volcanoclasticsediments of assorted composition and grain size, andesite

Figure 2. Synthetic lithostratigraphic columns of the structural units of western Cuba. The thicknessesof the Los Palacios Basin are derived from borehole Candelaria 1. The thicknesses of Sierra del Rosarioand Bahıa Honda region are derived from the literature and were used as the template for the constructionof the balanced and restored cross section. In the Bahıa Honda unit, the thicknesses are very variable, andonly the maximum values are indicated. The thicknesses and lithologies of the foreland basin are inferredafter seismic data and geological setting.


4 of 22

TC4002

and andesite-basalt tuffs and basalts. These volcanoclasticsequences range in age from Campanian to earliestEocene [Kusnetzov et al., 1977; Furrazola-Bermudez etal., 1978; Sanchez-Arango et al., 1985]. The contactbetween the Cretaceous and the Paleocene is poorlydefined, but the Paleocene sequence has in any case athickness of less than 100 m [Castro Castineira et al.,2003; Perez Estrada et al., 2003]. The Eocene andOligocene sequences are formed by approximately1600 m of shaly limestone, marl, sandstone and polimic-tic conglomerate. These are followed by 2000 m of reefallimestone and marl with interbedded shale defining theMiocene and Pliocene sequences. The post-Paleocenesedimentary infill of the Los Palacios Basin forms threemain shallowing-upward sequences, each one deposited ina shallower environment than the underlying one: theEocene sequence, the Oligocene sequence (with a maxi-mum paleowater depth of 600 m [Flores Nieves et al.,2003; Perez Estrada et al., 2003], and the Miocene-Pliocene sequence. The entire depositional sequence iscropping out along the northern boundary of the basin,thanks to the pinch-out of all the sequences in the samedirection (Figure 1c).[9] The Sierra del Rosario unit is located to the north

of the El Pinar Fault. The rocks cropping out in thisregion are considered to belong to the distal domains ofthe North American paleomargin, although it is not clearwhether they were attached to the Florida platform or tothe Yucatan peninsula [Iturralde-Vinent, 1994, 1998;Pszczolkowski, 1999; Pindell et al., 2006]. The LowerJurassic to Upper Cretaceous stratigraphic sequence dis-plays a deepening upward succession grading from con-tinental synrift deposits to turbiditic and pelagic deepwater sediments [Iturralde-Vinent, 1998; Moretti et al.,2003]. The oldest sediments of the Sierra del Rosarioregion correspond to the San Cayetano Formation [DeGolyer, 1918; Bermudez and Hoffstetter, 1959; Bermudez,1961]. The San Cayetano Formation is composed of sand-stone and shale (Figure 2) that was deposited during theMiddle Jurassic in intracontinental basins [Iturralde-Vinent,1998]. The San Cayetano Formation may reach a thick-ness of 3 km [Garcıa Delgado et al., 2005], although itis not present in most thrust sheets of the Soroa transect.The Oxfordian-Valanginian Artemisa Formation [Lewis,1932; Pszczolkowski, 1978] (Figure 2) overlies the SanCayetano Formation. The Artemisa Formation grades fromsandstone and shale to well-bedded limestone and finally tomassive limestone [Iturralde-Vinent, 1988] and has a maxi-mum thickness of 450 m [Furrazola-Bermudez et al., 1978,1985; Cubapetroleo and Simon-Petroleum-Technology,1993]. However, a thickness of 290 m has been calculatedfor this formation in the Soroa cross section. The ArtemisaFormation deepens upsequence, recording a major marinetransgression in the area [Iturralde-Vinent, 1998; Iturralde-Vinent and MacPhee, 1999]. Above the Artemisa Formationthe Polier Formation is to be found [Pszczolkowski, 1978].This formation consists of a carbonatic turbiditic sequencewhich was deposited during Late Berriassian�Aptian times[Pszczolkowski and Myczynski, 2003], and has a thickness

between 200 and 300 m [Furrazola-Bermudez et al.,1978; Cubapetroleo and Simon-Petroleum-Technology,1993; Linares-Cala, 2005]. The turbidites of the PolierFormation grade to the Santa Teresa Formation [Wassall,1953], a thick silicitic horizon also observed in central Cuba[Iturralde-Vinent, 1998]. The Santa Teresa Formationwas deposited during Aptian-Albian times [Furrazola-Bermudez et al., 1978; Aiello and Chiari, 1995]. This unithas a thickness between 100 and 150 m [Pszczolkowski andMyczynski, 2003] and was deposited in a deep waterenvironment. The Carmita Formation [Truitt, 1956a] over-lies the Santa Teresa radiolarites, separated by a transitionalcontact [Pszczolkowski and Myczynski, 2003]. It alsocontains pelagic limestone and radiolarian chert withinterbedded marl and shale of Cenomanian-Turonian age[Furrazola-Bermudez et al., 1978; Kantchev et al., 1978;Pszczolkowski, 2000; Pszczolkowski and Myczynski, 2003],and has a maximum thickness of 200 m [Pszczolkowski andMyczynski, 2003]. The Carmita Formation displays a shal-lowing upward sequence [Sosa-Meizoso et al., 2002], whichindicates the end of the regional deepening trend thatextended from the Middle Jurassic to the Cenomanian[Iturralde-Vinent, 1988]. The Polier, Santa Teresa andCarmita formations have been grouped in one single unit(Figure 2), Early Cretaceous in age, to balance and restorethe Soroa cross section with a calculated thickness of 800 m.After a sedimentary hiatus that extended in the Soroa transectfrom the Turonian to the Campanian [Iturralde-Vinent,1988], the Cacarajıcara Formation [Hatten, 1957] was un-conformably deposited above the previous stratigraphic units(Figure 2). The Cacarajıcara Formation is a calcareous,clastic, fining upward sequence that was traditionally con-sidered Maastrichtian in age [Hatten, 1957; Pszczolkowski,1978]. However, it has been lately interpreted to correspondto the K/T boundary and directly related to the impact eventin Chicxulub, Yucatan [Iturralde-Vinent, 1998; Tada et al.,2003]. This formation has a very variable thickness with anobserved maximum of 700 m [Tada et al., 2003].[10] The Paleocene to earliest Eocene syntectonic sedi-

ments of the Manacas Formation [Hatten, 1957] crop out inboth the footwall of the thrust system as well as in the thrustsheets, where they unconformably overlie all previousdeposits (Figure 2). The Manacas Formation, the youngeststratigraphic unit of the Sierra del Rosario domain, is mainlyolistotromic, especially in its upper part. The olistolites,which are mostly floating in a sandy matrix, become coarserupsequence and are sourced from both the North Americanmargin and the Caribbean Arc [Iturralde-Vinent, 1998]. Thethickness of the Manacas Formation varies along differentthrust sheets, although it is at least several hundred meters[Cobiella-Reguera, 2005]. In the Soroa transect, the lowerpart of the Manacas Formation provided an age of Danian-Selandian (Nannozone NP4/CP3), which is one of the oldestages for this formation in western Cuba.[11] North of the Sierra del Rosario, the Bahıa Honda-

Cajalbana unit crops out (Bahıa Honda unit in the text fromnow on), which is the westernmost extension of rocksrelated to the Caribbean Arc. It is formed by a thickCretaceous melange of volcanoclastic deposits containing


5 of 22

TC4002

ophiolitic material. The oldest rocks in the Bahıa-Hondaunit are the Encrucijada Formation [Richardson et al.,1932; Zelepuguin et al., 1982; Pszczolkowski, 1987] andthe Orozco Formation [Richardson et al., 1932; Zelepuguinet al., 1982; Pushcharovski, 1988]. These formations rangein age from Aptian to Campanian [Iturralde-Vinent,1996c] and are composed by basaltic sequences withinterbedded volcanoclastic sediments and tuff (Figure 2).The maximum thickness of these formations is of 1200 m[Furrazola-Bermudez et al., 1985]. The Cretaceoussequence of the Bahıa Honda unit is completed withthe hemipelagic sediments and volcanomictic turbiditesof the Via Blanca Formation [Bronnimann and Rigassi,1963] of Late Campanian–Maastrichtian age, with athickness around 500 m [Bronnimann and Rigassi,1963]. These sediments were deposited at an estimatedwater depth of between 600 and 2000 m [Takayama etal., 2000]. Finally, the calcareous, clastic layers of thePenalver Formation [Bronnimann and Rigassi, 1963]unconformably overlie the older formations with a max-imum thickness of 180 m [Takayama et al., 2000]. ThePenalver Formation correlates with the Cacarajıcara For-mation in the Sierra del Rosario unit [Pszczolkowski,1986], and therefore it is considered to correspond tothe K/T boundary [Takayama et al., 2000; Tada et al.,2003]. The ophiolitic blocks and olistolites observedalong the whole Cretaceous sequence consist mainly ofserpentinized harzburgites together with scarce gabbrosand diabases [Fonseca et al., 1984; Cobiella-Reguera,2005], and serpentinite matrix melanges bearing high-pressure blocks [Kerr et al., 1999; Garcıa-Casco et al.,2006]. In the text we will use the terms ophiolites andophiolitic complex to refer to these materials as has beentraditionally done in the Cuban literature, although we areaware of the limitations of the use of this term.[12] The Paleocene Madruga Group [Lewis, 1932] uncon-

formably overlies all of the older formations (Figure 2). Thispelagic detrital formation with common volcanic and carbo-natic clasts is finer grained than its equivalent in the Sierradel Rosario unit, the Manacas Formation, and much lessdeveloped, although their compositions are very similar. Thethickness of this formation varies between 200 and 300 m[Furrazola-Bermudez et al., 1985]. Above the MadrugaFormation, the Thanetian-Ypresian Capdevila Formation[Palmer, 1934] is the most extensive Paleogene Formationin the Bahıa Honda unit. It is a well bedded sequence ofsandstone, claystone and marly sandstone with minor inter-calations of conglomerate containing intraformational clasts,and has a maximum thickness of 600 m [Garcıa Delgado etal., 2005]. Lithologies derived from the Sierra del Rosariounit have also been recorded in some conglomeratic beds[Pszczolkowski and de Albear, 1982]. The Capdevila For-mation grades transitionally into the Universidad Group[Bermudez, 1937], a thin (<50 m [Garcıa Delgado et al.,2005]) chalky unit of Lutetian age [Furrazola-Bermudezet al., 1985; Garcıa Delgado et al., 2005]. Unconform-ably on top of the Universidad Group, the JabacoFormation [Bermudez, 1937] and the Guanajay Formation[Truitt, 1956b] complete the Paleogene sequence of the

Bahıa Honda unit (Figure 2). The Jabaco Formation is a35-m-thick sequence of marly limestone with rare inter-bedded conglomerate [Furrazola-Bermudez et al., 1985]of Priabonian-Chattian(?) age [Cutress, 1980; Torres Silvaet al., 2001] and the Guanajay Formation is mainlyformed by marl, limestone and polymictic conglomeratesof Chattian age [Furrazola-Bermudez et al., 1985; GarcıaDelgado et al., 2005] with a maximum thickness of 400 m[Furrazola-Bermudez et al., 1985]. The Neogene is onlyexposed along a thin fringe parallel to the shoreline, andlays unconformably above all previous Bahıa Hondastratigraphic units.[13] The northern boundary of the Soroa transect is

located offshore, including what is interpreted to be aflexural basin [Moretti et al., 2003]. This area is wellimaged by commercial reflection seismic data, althoughvery little is known about the lithostratigraphic sequence.The lithology and ages along this region are extrapolatedfrom ODP boreholes 535 and 540 [Buffler et al., 1984](Figure 1a) and the commercial borehole Yamagua-1, andcompleted by seaward directed onshore boreholes. However,the available sections miss the Late Cretaceous�Paleocenesequence, which implies a lack of constraint of this part ofthe sequence. Three main members have been differenti-ated according to their depositional setting. The lowermember (Figure 2) was deposited from Jurassic to MidCretaceous times at the shelf-basin transition of the marginof the North American plate [Moretti et al., 2003].According to these authors, the sequence is formed bysynrift clastics at the bottom, overlain by Upper Jurassic toCenomanian carbonate facies. The minimum thicknesscalculated for the lower member is of 3 km. It is boundat the top by the so-called Mid Cretaceous unconformity[Moretti et al., 2003]. The Mid Cretaceous unfoncormity isa regional feature resulting from current intensification andsediment starvation, which started after Late Cenomanianand continued at least up to the Maastrichtian [Moretti etal., 2003]. Above this unconformity, the intermediatemember extends from late Maastrichtian to early Eocene,and is mainly syntectonic as suggested by the interpreta-tion of the available seismic data (see below). The lithol-ogy of this part of the sequence is unknown. Finally, theupper part of the section, middle Eocene to Recent, isexpected to be a monotonous sequence of well-beddedchalks deposited without any major interruption.

3. Structure Along the Soroa Cross Section

[14] The Soroa cross section is located approximately60 km west of La Habana (Figures 1c and 3). The1:100,000 geological map published by the InstitutoGeologico y Paleontologico de Cuba [Garcıa Delgadoet al., 2005] combined with our own field data is themain data set used for the onshore part of the section.Reflection seismic data acquired in 1988 have been usedto interpret the structure of the Los Palacios Basin, andthe boreholes Candelaria 1 [Sanchez-Arango et al., 1985;Fernandez-Rodrıguez et al., 1988], Soroa 1 [Gravell andPalmer, 1942; Castro Castineira et al., 2003; Flores


6 of 22

TC4002

Nieves et al., 2003] and Pinar 2 [Sanchez-Arango et al.,1985; Blanco Bustamante et al., 2003] have been pro-jected onto the section and used to constrain the deepstructure. The offshore part of the cross section is basedon the interpretation of a reflection seismic profile pro-vided by RepsolYPF. The section is perpendicular to themean structural trend, and its location has been chosen totake maximum advantage of the available data set (seis-

mic profiles, boreholes and outcrops). The description ofthe cross section will be split into two parts (on land andoffshore), which will be described from south to north.

3.1. Soroa Cross Section on Land

[15] The Los Palacios Basin is an elongate basin formedbetween two major transtensional faults. The geometry ofthe basin infill is well constrained by the available boreholes

Figure 3. Onland half of the Soroa cross section. The available boreholes are indicated.

Figure 4. (a) Uninterpreted and (b) interpreted reflection seismic profile along the central part of theLos Palacios Basin (location in Figure 3). The migrated seismic profile has been depth converted and theages are constrained by the borehole Candelaria 1, indicated in the section. The features observed in thisseismic profile are consistent along several profiles east and west of the Soroa transect.


7 of 22

TC4002

and seismic lines, while its basement (pre-Late Cretaceous)is poorly imaged by the available data. A conspicuousfeature of the basin, well imaged by the lower reflectionsalong the seismic profile (Figure 4), is the division intotwo dip domains, defining an asymmetric-like syncline(Figures 3 and 4). The southern domain, south of km 4, isformed by a 4-km-thick sequence of subhorizontal, mainlysubparallel reflections, with local low-angle unconformities(Figure 4). The shallowest unconformity can be traced at adepth of 1.5 km, between kilometers 4.5 and 6.5, weresome reflections converge southward below a subhorizon-tal, strong reflection (A in Figure 4). From 2.5 km to 3 kmdepth, between kilometers 4.5 and 6, some south-dippingreflections are truncated at the top by a shallower dippingreflection (B in Figure 4). This truncating reflection isinterpreted to correspond to the base of the Miocene onthe basis of the Candelaria 1 borehole. From 4.5 km to5.5 km depth, between kilometers 5 and 8, a set ofreflections with frequent internal truncations and steeper

attitude appears (C in Figure 4). The top of these reflectionscan be traced to the Candelaria 1 borehole, where it is datedas the top of the Paleocene. Below 6.5 km depth, lesscontinuous reflections are interpreted to be Upper Creta-ceous strata. North of kilometer 5, the Los Palacios Basin ischaracterized by a set of north-converging, fanned, contin-uous reflections, which are subhorizontal at the surface butget steeper with increasing depth. From kilometers 0 toapproximately 3, at a depth between 3.5 and 4.5 km, acontinuous reflection dipping 20� toward the south can betraced (D in Figure 4). This reflection was intersected by theCandelaria 1 borehole, where it was identified as the top ofthe Cretaceous. South of the borehole, the Tertiary infill ofthe Los Palacios Basin onlaps on top of this surface betweenkilometers 1 and 3. Below the top of the Cretaceous thereflections are less continuous, but mostly parallel. Thefanning displayed by the sedimentary infill of the LosPalacios Basin can also be observed at the surface, wherethe different formations pinch out northward. As a conse-

Figure 5. Detailed geological map along the Soroa transect.


8 of 22

TC4002

Figure

6


9 of 22

TC4002

quence, the Paleocene Mariel and Capdevila Formationsand even the Late Cretaceous Via Blanca Formation (20 kmwest of the transect) crop out, adjacent to the El Pinar Fault[Garcıa Delgado et al., 2005] (Figures 3 and 1c). The ElPinar Fault has been interpreted in the cross section as asouth-dipping fault (approximately 50�), which branchesinto two at approximately 1.5 km of depth (Figure 3).Wherever the fault surface has been observed, two differentstages are evidenced by two sets of slickenlines and striae.The oldest kinematic indicators are close to horizontal,recording strike-slip motion along the fault. Postdating thisstage, steep SE-plunging slickensides record the seconddeformation stage, which consisted mainly of a dip-slipreactivation of the El Pinar Fault. The described geometryof the basin infill, with the deeper part away from the ElPinar Fault and southward diverging reflections, does not fitwith that expected for a basin associated with a simplenormal fault. This may be due to the strike-slip componentof the normal fault or to the effect of the buried PalaciosFault. However, evidence against and for each of thesealternatives have not been found.[16] The Sierra del Rosario tectonic unit is characterized

by a wide antiform cored by Mesozoic and Paleocene rocks.This antiform is defined by a gently south-dipping southernlimb and a moderately north-dipping northern limb, whichbecomes steeper northward and may eventually appearoverturned at its northern boundary (Figure 5). This anti-form is formed by several thrust sheets containing only theMesozoic cover and the Paleocene Manacas Formation(Figure 5), displaying slightly different stratigraphic succes-sions with frequent angular unconformities. The map traceand the strike of major structures are close to ENE-WSWin the northern limb, where the thrust sheets can be followedmore than 15 km along strike with a thickness below 1.5 km(Figure 1c). The structural grain is not clearly perceived atthe core of the antiform owing to the combination ofshallow dips and a rugged terrain. A complex pattern oftectonic windows allows outcrops of the Manacas Forma-tion, which is overthrusted by Upper Jurassic�LowerCretaceous limestone of the Artemisa and Polier Forma-tions, to be seen (Figure 5). However, the synrift shales andsandstones of the San Cayetano Formation have only beenobserved in one thrust sheet of the Soroa cross section witha thickness close to 20 m. The stratigraphic successioninvolved in the thrust sheets of the Sierra del Rosariotectonic unit together with their surficial attitude at thenorthern limb of the antiform suggest a thin skinned tectonicstyle for the Sierra del Rosario unit. In addition, most of thekinematic indicators measured along this domain show amean NNW direction of tectonic displacement (Figure 6),although occasionally they may show an opposite displace-ment direction. The above characteristics, together with the

north dipping attitude of most thrust sheets already recordedby several authors [Hatten, 1957; Pszczolkowski, 1994b;Gordon et al., 1997], allows us to define the whole Sierradel Rosario unit as an antiformal stack, where reversekinematic indicators are interpreted as a result of theflexural slip related to the growth of the structure.[17] The outcrops of the Bahıa Honda tectonic unit along

the transect are very scarce and usually strongly weathered.Nevertheless, wherever we obtained dip measurements theyare all consistent with an E–W structural trend, in agree-ment with the topographic grain. The internal geometry ofthe Bahıa Honda unit was studied along the Mariel transect,located approximately 25 km east of the Soroa cross section(Figures 1c and 7), where the exposures are better. Thissection is constrained by field data, together with 5 com-mercial boreholes (Figure 7) and several reflection seismicprofiles. The cross section intersects the Los PalaciosBasin and the Bahıa Honda unit at surface, and theformations of the Sierra del Rosario antiformal stack haveonly been observed in borehole data. The Bahıa Hondaunit is a 3-km-thick tectonic unit characterized by anintense deformation affecting its internal sequence. Thebottom of the thrust sheet is defined by interbeddedvolcanic rocks, serpentinites and volcanoclastic sedimentsof the Encrucijada and Orozco Formations, overlain by theUpper Cretaceous turbidites of the Via Blanca Formationwith frequent ophiolitic olistolites. This Cretaceous suc-cession appears to be strongly affected by thrusting andfolding, in contrast with the overlying K/T boundarybreccias and younger sediments, which are only gentlyfolded and thrusted (Figure 7). This suggests that thePaleogene sediments postdate most of the internal defor-mation of the Bahıa Honda thrust sheet. Furthermore, weinterpret the basal thrust to be unconformably overlain byEocene sediments at the closure of the Sierra del Rosarioantiformal stack (Figures 1c and 7), which indicates thatthe thrust became inactive before their deposition. Never-theless, the deformation affecting the Paleogene is moreintense southward, where the Bahıa Honda unit is thinner.We interpret this as a consequence of the proximity to theculmination of the Sierra del Rosario antiformal stack,whose growth may be responsible for the tightening ofprevious compressive structures.[18] The Sierra del Rosario formations have only been

observed in the footwall of the Bahıa Honda thrust sheet inthe surface, and there is no record of interlayered Sierra delRosario and Bahıa Honda domains in the available boreholedata. This is also the situation in the Sierra del Rosariodomain, where none of the Cretaceous volcanoclastic for-mations of the Bahıa Honda unit have been observed.Finally, the basal thrust of the Bahıa Honda unit mostlyoverlies the Manacas Formation, both in outcrops and

Figure 6. Examples of several north facing structures along the Sierra del Rosario. (a) Bedding parallel slickensideswithin Cenomanian north dipping layers indicate displacement toward the north of the hanging wall. (b) Thrust fault of thesouthern limb of the Sierra del Rosario antiformal stack, close to the El Pinar Fault, affecting the layers of the ArtemisaFormation. The hangingwall dips to the south while the footwall is tilted to the north. (c) Mesoscale, north-facing foldswithin north dipping Santa Teresa silicites. (d) Down-dipping thrust fault, displaying a flat over ramp geometry.


10 of 22

TC4002

boreholes. Taking into account the above features, weinterpret the Bahıa Honda unit along the Soroa cross sectionto be an allochthonous unit formed by a set of SSE-dippingimbricate thrust sheets, which rests on top of the Paleoceneolistostrome. The southern boundary of this unit is definedby a north directed and north dipping thrust. Its northernboundary is located offshore, beneath a thin Tertiary cover,where the basal thrust is interpreted to be shallowly dippingsouth. The whole thrust sheet defines thus an asymmetricsynform, with a steep southern limb and a shallow southdipping northern limb, overprinted by minor, gentle folds(Figure 3). The rock assemblage of the Bahıa Honda unit,characteristic of a forearc region, together with its internaldeformation lead us to interpret this unit as the accreted,frontal part of the forearc.

3.2. Soroa Cross Section Offshore

[19] The structure offshore is described along the seismicprofile CU133 (Figure 8), although the interpretation intro-duced below also benefits from a system of parallel seismicprofiles and a recent 3D survey acquired by RepsolYPF. Asintroduced in section 2.2, the age attribution is based onODPs 535 and 540 and the commercial borehole Yamagua-1.Three domains are clearly identifiable in the reflectionseismic profile (Figure 8a). At the northern boundary ofthe profile, between CDPs 0 and 2000 and below 4 s, asystem of parallel reflections can be traced along the wholedomain, which is interpreted to be the Mesozoic Florida-Bahamas margin [e.g., Moretti et al., 2003] (Figure 8a). Thesequence of the Florida margin starts with a relativelytransparent zone where weak reflections can be identified,which in spite of their scarce lateral continuity, have anevident plane-parallel attitude (A in Figure 8). A set ofbright reflections at the top of this sequence is interpreted tobe the top of the Kimmeridgian. Above it, a group ofcontinuous, parallel reflections that dip slightly southward

can be traced from CDPs 0 to 2000, only interruptedbetween CDPs 750 and 1000 by two conjugate normalfaults with very small offset (B in Figure 8). The Jurassic-Cretaceous transition should be found within this interval.South of CDP 2500, a sector poorly imaged by the data canbe recognized. This sector is roofed by a north-dippingreflection that almost reaches the seabed at the southernboundary of the seismic profile (Figure 8a). We interpretthis area to correspond to the frontal part of the Cuban foldand thrust belt. At the base of this sector, at approximately6 s TWT, a set of reflections can be followed southwardfrom CDP 2500 to CDP 3500 (B in Figure 8a), until theycurve upward as a result of a pull-up effect. According totheir reflection character (weak at the base and bright atthe top), we correlate these reflections with the shallowerPre-Kimmeridgian sequence of the Florida margin. FromCDP 2250 to approximately CDP 3000, between 5 and 6 sTWT, a set of weak, parallel reflections can be tracedparallel to the basal section (B in Figure 8a). Thissemitransparent section thins abruptly at CDP �2250,where a vertical offset between the Pre-Kimmeridgiansequences can be observed (note top of sections A andC in Figure 8a). We interpret this geometry as indicating aLate Jurassic – Early Cretaceous normal fault and thesection D to be the infill of its hanging wall. South of CDP3000, only scattered south-dipping reflections are imagedalong seismic line CU133 (E in Figure 8a). However, thesesouth-dipping reflections are common throughout the foldbelt and can be observed along different seismic lines. Wherethe resolution is better, they can be recognized to define asystem of imbricated thrust sheets duplicating the NorthAmerican margin, in accordance with the model proposedby Moretti et al. [2003]. If recognizable, these thrust sheetshave an approximate thickness between 2.5 and 3 km, and theinternal reflections may image either monotonous south-dipping panels or antiformal domains. Therefore, reflections

Figure 7. Mariel cross section showing the internal structure of the Bahıa Honda unit (location inFigure 1c).


11 of 22

TC4002

along juxtaposed thrust sheets may be either parallel ortruncating against each other, indicating both flat-over-flatand ramp-over-flat geometries.[20] Above the Cretaceous Florida margin and the Cuban

fold and thrust belt, a zone of coherent, continuous reflec-tions can be traced along the whole seismic profile(Figure 8a). These reflections are considered to image thesedimentary infill of the Cenozoic foreland basin. BetweenCDPs 0 and 2000, the reflections at the bottom of the basinare onlapping onto the Florida margin along a regionalunconformity. The deepest reflections in this domain appeartruncated at CDP �3000, while shallower reflections areonlapping southward onto the northern flank of the fold andthrust belt. Between CDPs �2250 and �2500, the lowertwo seconds of the Cenozoic horizons can be traced,depicting an antiform which is interpreted to correspondto the deformation front. The northern limb of this anticlineis characterized by the upsection decrease of the dip of the

reflections, which we interpret as imaging the growth strataassociated with this structure (F in Figure 8a). South of thedeformation front, from CDP �2750 to CDP �3250 twosmaller antiforms can also be traced, deforming the basalsection of the Cenozoic basin infill (Figure 8a). A featureoften observed in the available data set is the occurrenceof levels formed by bright, irregular, internally chaoticreflections above the front of the Cuban thrust belt (G inFigure 8a). These levels can be seen directly upon thethrust system, at the base of the basin or interlayered atany depth of the Cenozoic succession. We interpret themto correspond to olistostromic sediments, in the basis oftheir seismic character and published borehole and seismicdata [Domınguez Gomez et al., 2005]. Finally, north ofCDP 2250 the reflections within the Cenozoic basin aremainly subhorizontal, or even shallowly dipping north inthe lower part.

Figure 8. Offshore part of the Soroa cross section. (a) Reflection seismic profile CU133 offshore ofBahıa Honda. The dashed lines indicate the approximate boundaries between the main domains. Verticalscale in TWT. (b) Depth cross section derived from the interpretation of the seismic profile CU133.


12 of 22

TC4002

[21] Figure 8b shows the depth cross section resultingfrom the interpretation of the reflection seismic profile. Thedepth conversion has been done using three homogeneousvelocity intervals: water (1500 m/s), Cenozoic basin(2200 m/s) and pre-Paleocene sequence (4500 m/s). TheMesozoic sequence is deformed by several Cretaceousnormal faults which account for the steps displayed by thelayers attributed to the Jurassic. To the south, the fold andthrust belt is interpreted to be constituted at least by threeimbricated thrust sheets of approximately 2.7 km of thick-ness. However, the internal succession of the southernmostthrust sheet is not evident in the seismic profile, andtherefore only the bedding is indicated, without any ageattribution. The internal structure of the frontal thrust sheetis nicely imaged in the seismic profile. This thrust sheet isinterpreted to be detached along the Kimmeridgian layers,as suggested by the seismic data, and to incorporate thewhole Mesozoic sequence and the lowermost layers of theCenozoic sequence. The forelimb of the ramp anticline ofthis thrust sheet corresponds to the deformation front. Thegrowth sediments in front of it indicate that this was along-lived structure, which could be active at least up tolate Eocene times. However, the main growth stage corre-sponds to the lowermost part of the sequence, which fromborehole data is known to be pre-middle Eocene. Thecomposition of the lower section of the frontal thrustsheets is unknown, and the seismic facies cannot becorrelated with any of the Cenozoic basin formations(Figure 8a). We propose that this section corresponds tothe southern continuation of the Cretaceous Florida mar-gin, and that the difference in thickness is generated byLate Jurassic�Early Cretaceous normal faults. The inter-pretation proposed for the second thrust sheet to the southreproduces the thickness of the frontal one, but with thefrontal ramp anticline eroded away during Paleocene–earlyEocene times (Figure 8b) The lower Eocene sedimentsunconformably laying on top of this unit postdate theactivity of this unit. Finally, the smaller antiforms describedbetween CDPs 2750 and 3250 are located above two maininflexions of the prism envelope and do not seem to haveany continuation underneath this surface. Therefore, thesestructures have been interpreted to be caused by a passiveroof backthrust, detached along the fold belt envelope.Growth sediments along these anticlines indicate that theback thrust was initially coeval with the growth of thefrontal structure and subsequently related with a late reac-tivation of the second thrust sheet.

3.3. Balanced and Restored Cross Sections

[22] The combination of the onshore and offshore crosssections presented above leave a large area with no databelow the Sierra del Rosario and Bahıa Honda regions, andsouth of the offshore imbricate thrust system. To addressthis problem, balanced cross-section techniques have beenused to construct a best fit balanced cross section (Figure 9).The main assumptions in the section are (1) a thin-skinneddeformation style only involving cover rocks, based on thegeometry of the Sierra del Rosario thrust sheets, and thewell imaged frontal unit offshore, (2) the Mesozoic cover is

detached close to the top of the Kimmeridgian as indicatedby the outcrops in westernmost locations and suggested byseismic data, and (3) The Paleocene Manacas formationrepresents an effective detachment level, enhancing struc-tural decoupling between the deformed North Americanmargin and the overlying Bahıa Honda thrust sheet. This isbased on the kilometric continuity at surface of the basalthrust of the Bahıa Honda thrust sheet and the availableborehole data. We also favor the solutions that imply theminimum amount of shortening.[23] The balanced cross section was constructed by

extending the distal platform located at the front of theCuban fold and thrust belt using constant thickness tominimize the amount of shortening. The length of this distalplatform is constrained by the number of thrust sheetsneeded to infill the area between the proposed base of theBahıa Honda thrust and the inferred regional detachment atthe lower part of the folded and thrusted sedimentary cover.This basal detachment has been interpreted to be subhor-izontal (again to minimize shortening) and the resultingthrust system is a duplex composed of six thrust sheets.The roof thrust does not cut through the Bahıa Honda unit.The frontal part of the imbricated thrust system defines thefrontal paleoslope of the Cuban accretionary prism, whilewe interpret the trailing half to be partly responsible forthe uplift of the Bahıa Honda unit. However, the proposedthrust stacking does not account for the current uplift andoverturning observed along the Sierra del Rosario anti-formal stack. We therefore involve upper crustal crystallinebasement to generate a deep antiform that deforms thealready emplaced Bahıa Honda and Sierra del Rosariothrust systems.[24] Using the large-scale crosscutting relationships we

interpret that the Bahıa Honda unit was emplaced first ontop of gently deformed or undeformed platform sediments,which were subsequently involved in the deformation toform the main tectonic edifice of western Cuba. Finally, thebasement was involved creating a large antiform at the backof the thrust system. The growth of the antiform generateduplift and concomitant erosion, allowing the current outcropof the Sierra del Rosario unit and the isolation of the BahıaHonda thrust sheet. The Los Palacios Basin formed slightlylater than the basement antiformal stack. In our interpreta-tion, the El Pinar Fault may invert one of the older thrustplanes. The deep structure of Los Palacios Basin, below theLate Cretaceous rocks has not been addressed since theavailable data do not constrain the structure of this region,and the out-of-the-plane offset of the El Pinar Fault prevents2D balancing this part of the section. However, the outcropsof Paleocene and Upper Cretaceous sediments with a clearBahıa Honda unit affinity along the southern limb of the ElPinar Fault is an argument for this unit to be rooted south ofthe Sierra del Rosario antiformal stack, in the basement ofthe Los Palacios Basin.[25] The Soroa cross section has been restored to the K/T

boundary (Figure 9). The restored cross section shows theburied cover thrust sheets in lateral continuity between theFlorida platform in the north and the Sierra del Rosario inthe south. The proposed geometry also requires the Bahıa


13 of 22

TC4002

Honda thrust sheet to be restored to a southernmost positionthan the restored Sierra del Rosario thrust sheets. Thebalanced and restored cross sections imply a minimumdisplacement of 85 km to the NNW of the trailing pin lineof the North American margin (B in Figure 9), and aminimum of 130 km for the southernmost part of the BahıaHonda thrust sheet (C in Figure 9). These values arestrongly dependent on the geometry of the buried coverthrust sheets, which have been interpreted to have a constantthickness, extrapolated from the frontal thrust sheet. Thisconfiguration requires thick syntectonic deposition to bal-ance the difference in thickness between the Mesozoicmargin offshore and in the Sierra del Rosario thrust sheets.Finally, we do not dismiss the possibility that the deepbasement thrust sheets could correspond to inverted LateJurassic rift basins, as the large outcrops of the SanCayetano Formation to the west of the Soroa cross sectioncould indicate.

4. Discussion

4.1. Kinematic Evolution of the Western Cuba Foldand Thrust Belt

[26] To validate the balanced and restored cross sections aforward kinematic model has been carried out, to comparethe geological and modeled sections (Figure 10). Since we

interpret most of the strike-slip deformation in the studiedarea to be recorded by the El Pinar fault and the effects ofthis latter stage on the Sierra del Rosario thrust system tobe of minor importance, 2D modeling is an acceptableapproach and the quantitative results presented below needto be considered with the same restrictions as in purelycompressive fold and thrust belts.[27] The kinematic model was performed using the Fault

Parallel Flow algorithm from MVE’s software 2DMove1,since we believe it is the best approach to model theemplacement of a thrust pile. This algorithm may generatesignificant internal shear of the thrust sheets when thenumber of thrust sheets is large, although the obtainedintermediate and final geometries are consistent with theobserved in thrust systems elsewhere [e.g., Suppe, 1983;Banks and Warburton, 1986; Teixell, 1996]. The kinematicmodel is presented in 6 different steps, in which the initialone corresponds to the restored cross section at the K/Tboundary around 65.5 Ma. The subsequent stages of themodel have been constrained by crosscutting relationshipsbetween thrusts and well dated syntectonic deposits [e.g.,Jordan et al., 1988; DeCelles et al., 1991; Verges et al.,2002]. A synthetic regional section has been constructedjust before the K/T boundary to reproduce the most likelyconfiguration of the region with the Bahıa Honda unitinternally deformed by imbricate thrusting in front of the

Figure 9. Best fit (top) balanced and (bottom) restored cross sections constructed combining onshoreand offshore data and using balancing techniques.


14 of 22

TC4002

Figure 10. Successive stages of a kinematic forward model performed along the Soroa transect. (a�e)Compressive phase (Paleocene to middle Eocene). (f) Final stage of the transtensional phase, related tothe formation of the Los Palacios Basin (middle Eocene�Recent). Owing to 2D modeling limitations,only the normal component of the El Pinar Fault has been reproduced. Therefore the basement of the LosPalacios basin has been colored with green stripes, to illustrate the uncertainty about its nature. Theresulting forward model is compared with the balanced cross section.


15 of 22

TC4002

Great Caribbean arc (Figure 11). High-pressure metamor-phic ophiolitic bodies within the fore-arc sediments [Sominand Millan, 1981; Cobiella-Reguera, 2005; Garcıa-Cascoet al., 2006], have been interpreted as being carried down bysubduction and subsequently exhumed along a subductionchannel in front of the Caribbean arc, as has been describedin similar contexts [Hynes et al., 1996; Chemenda et al.,2001; Boutelier et al., 2004; Brown et al., 2006; Federico etal., 2007].[28] In the initial configuration of the forward model at

the K/T boundary, the isochronous Cacarajıcara andPenalver formations were unconformably deposited on topof the nondeformed Sierra del Rosario and the alreadydeformed Bahıa Honda units, respectively (Figure 10a).[29] In the first model step (Figure 10b), from lower to

middle Paleocene (Danian-Selandian from 65.5 to 60 Ma),the Bahıa Honda unit is thrusted on top of the nondeformedSierra del Rosario unit, which constituted the foredeep ofthe system, in which the olistosromic Manacas Formationwas deposited. Coevally, the lower Madruga Formation wasdeposited in piggyback basins on top of the imbricatedBahıa Honda unit. The Bahıa Honda unit was displaced tothe NW above the relatively thin syntectonic CacarajıcaraFormation that constitutes the main detachment betweenthis unit and the underlying Sierra del Rosario unit.[30] In the following two model steps (Figures 10c

and 10d), during middle and late Paleocene (Selandian-Thanetian, from 60 to 56 Ma), the Sierra del Rosariowas deformed by thrusting resulting in a duplex structurebelow the Bahıa Honda unit. The thrusting of the thinnestSierra del Rosario units resulted in the formation ofthe Sierra del Rosario antiformal stack. The thrustingof the thicker North American margin deposits resulted inthe stacking of units below the Bahıa Honda thrust sheetand thus increasing the thickness of the advancing tectonicprism. The olistostromic Manacas Formation continued toinfill the front of the advancing accretionary prism where-as the Capdevila Formation filled up the piggyback basinson top of the Bahıa Honda thrust sheets. At the end of thisperiod, the entire prism was almost constructed and thusshowing a significant paleotopography in its front withmore than 4 km between the highest areas and the adjacentfrontal offshore basin seabottom (Figure 10d). At the endof this stage and before the infill of the foreland basinoffshore there was probably submarine landsliding cover-

ing the frontal slope of the accretionary prism (olistostro-mic deposition observed in seismic lines and oil wells).[31] The fourth step (Figure 10e), from Thanetian to

Lutetian times (56–45 Ma), corresponds to the final thrust-ing episodes in the NW Cuban fold and thrust belt due tothe collision of the arc system with the relatively thickNorth American continental crust. Two slices of the base-ment rocks emplaced beneath the present Sierra del Rosarioproducing the overturning to the NW of the imbricatedSierra del Rosario thrust sheets. These basement imbricatesare not observed at surface and possibly form a tectonic pileusing the Kimmeridgian shales as the upper detachmentlevel. The emplacement of these deeper units produced asignificant uplift and tilting and probably concomitanterosion along the present Sierra del Rosario region. Duringthe same period, there was a relatively thick lower Eocenedeposition that filled up the foredeep basin in the front ofthe Cuban accretionary prism that was also recorded in thedistal parts of the foredeep, as imaged by the boreholeYamagua-1. These deposits largely concealed the accretion-ary prism structures but show growth strata geometriesrelated to the final tectonic activity of its frontal-most foldsand thrusts (see profile CU133 in Figure 8). The infill of theLos Palacios basin also started during this period of timerecorded by the upper part of the Capdevila Formation andthe Universidad Group. The timing of the shift from thin-skinned to thick-skinned tectonics is an outcome of thekinematic model. Using the displacements and timingmeasured for the frontal thrust sheets, which we considerto be the frontal expression of the buried thrust sheets, wetried different moments for their emplacement. The optionthat resulted in the closest structural relief to the onerepresented in the Soroa cross section suggested that thesethrust sheets should be emplaced during Late Thanetian–Lutetian times. An earlier emplacement resulted in exces-sive structural relief, while a later emplacement did notgenerate enough uplift. Furthermore, the Paleocene-Eocenetransition also corresponds to a shift in the sedimentarygeometries that may also indicate a major change in thethrust system.[32] About middle Eocene there was a major change in

the deformation style of the W Cuba fold region as aresponse to the major change along the entire northernCaribbean region. This change is represented in the fifthstep (Figure 10f), starting in the middle Eocene times ataround 45 Ma. During this period, the combination of the

Figure 11. Cartoon illustrating the evolution of the Cuban fold and thrust belt during Late Cretaceoustimes.


16 of 22

TC4002

arc-continent collision along Cuba and the continuouseastward migration of the Great Caribbean arc producedmajor sinistral strike slip faulting that cut the previouscompressive structure, especially in the hinterland of theCuba fold and thrust belt (Figure 12). Around this time, theNW edge of the Great Caribbean arc possibly continued itsnortheastern advancement to its final present position in NE

Cuba along the El Pinar Fault. Behind the arc, the LosPalacios basin developed to the south of the El PinarFault. The lack of major unconformities in the sedimen-tary infill of this basin as well as its continuous deposi-tion to recent times suggest a relatively slow andprolonged subsidence for most of its evolution (Figure 4).

Figure 12. (a) Restored Soroa cross section. The tectonic setting and the restored location of the currentstructural units is indicated. (b) Map view of the restored Soroa cross section. The solid line correspondsto a restoration parallel to the cross section, and the dashed line corresponds to an alternative assuminganticlockwise rotation during emplacement. The letters along the line correspond to the pin lines inFigure 12a. (c) Map view of the restored Soroa cross section within the context of northwesternCaribbean plate. The location of Figure 12b is indicated (modified after French and Schenk [2004]). Thepositions of the arc at 56 Ma and 46 Ma are derived from Pindell et al. [2005]. The position of thedeformation front at K/T boundary is based on the reconstructions proposed by the same authors at 72 Maand 56 Ma and assuming a constant displacement rate. Points 1, 2, and 3 correspond to the position of thetrailing edge of the restored Soroa cross section, in the three discussed alternatives (see text).


17 of 22

TC4002

[33] The final geometry of the presented evolutionarymodel fits reasonably well with the balanced geologicalsection (Figure 10f). In addition to the tectonic evolution,the model also presents significant conclusions on both therates of shortening as well as the paleotopography ofthe island through time. Shortening rates calculated from thebalanced and restored cross sections and the kinematicmodel are around 10 mm/year from the K/T boundary tothe middle Eocene times (65.5–45 Ma). These rates stronglydecrease at middle Eocene times when arc-continent colli-sion initiated with the involvement of basement thrustsheets in thrusting. The shortening rate during this finalstage of shortening was less than 3 mm/year (few millionyears around 45 Ma). This abrupt decrease in shorteningrates and corresponding thrust front advance is clearlyreflected in the depositional arrangement of the syntectonicsediments ahead of the accretionary prism at the currentoffshore of western Cuba. The relatively thin and rapidlyprograding syntectonic sediments of the Manacas Forma-tion opposed to the thick middle Eocene growth strata thatconcealed the almost final geometry of the front of theaccretionary prism. The calculated shortening rates for theperiod of fast front advancement from 65.5 to 45 Ma,before the arc-continent collision along the North Ameri-can margin are about half of present-day GPS calculatedrates of the Caribbean Plate relative to North America[Mann et al., 2002] and to South America [Perez et al.,2001].[34] Although it is not the aim of this study the kinematic

model also shows the likely evolution of the paleotopog-raphy of the region. The continuous accretion of newtectonic slices in the thrust system propitiated the continu-ous growth of the topography of the prism that was moremanifest during the arc-continent collision during middleEocene times. In the kinematic model, however, only thestructural relief between the foredeep seabottom and thehinterland of the prism is measurable because the potentialtopography above sea level strongly depends on theflexure of the North American Plate below the advancingaccretionary prism. This flexure has not been included inthe model because the lack of accurate paleobathymetriesto constrain it. The structural relief of the paleoisland ofCuba was significant since the Mid Paleocene andreached its maximum at Mid Eocene times with morethan 4 km. Since this period, the emergence of the islandabove sea level was sporadic and restricted to narrowislands, especially well-recorded during the Neogene[Iturralde-Vinent and MacPhee, 1999]. Pleistocene timeis the period at which most of the authors indicate thefinal emergence of Cuba [Iturralde-Vinent and MacPhee,1999; Pindell et al., 2005].

4.2. Plate Tectonics Implications

[35] Our tectonic model is fully consistent with theevolution of an accretionary prism developed in front ofan advancing arc (the Great Caribbean arc) above a NEretreating Middle Jurassic�Early Cretaceous oceanic slabthat was totally consumed at Mid Eocene times during thearc-continent collision along the North American margin,

involving the eastern edge of the Yucatan platform as wellas the Florida-Bahamas platform (Figure 12a).[36] The direction used to construct our balanced cross

section has been determined by kinematic indicators mea-sured in fault planes and the present-day structural grain ofmain structures both onshore and offshore of western Cuba.However, in order to locate the restoration of the geologicalcross section in a geographic reconstruction, we used acombination of field observation along thrust planes, indi-cating a NNW transport direction, with the large-scaledirections of advance of the Great Caribbean arc, whichwas mostly NNE. Accordingly, the reconstructed positionof the trailing pin line of our cross section is located 130 kmto the south of its current position, as imaged in Figure 12.The proposed restoration implies a progressive rotation,which would be the origin of the obliquity between theNorth American margin and the Caribbean Arc front, andwould help explaining the lenticular, eastward-thinninggeometry of some of the thrust units along western Cuba(Figure 1). Another implication of the balanced andrestored cross section is the continuity between theCretaceous North American margin observed in seismicdata offshore and the rift-related sediments of the sameage in Sierra del Rosario (Figure 12a), which wouldcorrespond to the distal facies of the margin. However,the restored Sierra del Rosario (Figures 12b and 12c)would lie at approximately the same distance from theFlorida-Bahamas and the Yucatan margins, suggestingthat the distal facies cropping out in this area could berelated to either or both domains. We therefore interpretthe entire western Cuba thrust belt as deformed NorthAmerican margin in the broad sense, involving the distalFlorida-Bahamas margin and the eastern and northeasternpart of the Yucatan margin. Within this framework, thewestern part of the Los Organos domain would have beenmostly derived from the Yucatan margin, whereas theeastern units of the Sierra del Rosario unit would havebeen derived from the Florida-Bahamas margin. Thelocation at the corner between both margins (Figure 12)could also account for a certain amount of lateral dis-placement as well as anticlockwise rotation of most of thethrust sheets during emplacement, either as a consequenceof an oblique collision against an irregular margin or asan inherited structural pattern which enhanced obliquethrusting. Previously performed paleomagnetic studies[Bazhenov et al., 1996; Alva Valdivia et al., 2001] presentdivergent results, which do not allow to confirm or rejectthis hypotheses. Bazhenov et al. [1996] identify a signif-icant counterclockwise rotation of the Bahıa Honda unit(>77�), and a postemplacement remagnetization of theSierra del Rosario rocks, which would not be in disagree-ment with the proposed model. Besides, Alva Valdivia etal. [2001] state that the magnetization of the Sierra delRosario rocks is primary and that the area has notundergone significant rotations since Jurassic times. How-ever, the dispersion of the in situ paleomagnetic data (a95 =41.9�) is compatible with the rotation entailed by thehypothesis that we discuss.


18 of 22

TC4002

[37] The balanced and restored sections constructed inthis paper assume the minimum amount of shortening. Thisis mostly achieved by using a relatively thick North Amer-ican margin cover system imbricated below NW Cuba aswell as by involving two several-kilometers-thick basementunits to produce the final antiformal stack beneath thepresent Sierra del Rosario. Our restored section, however,shows a restored position of the trailing edge of the accretedBahıa Honda forearc, which does not fit the most acceptedplate tectonic reconstructions for the region [e.g., Pindell etal., 2005]. These restorations locate the front of the GreatCaribbean arc at 56 Ma more than 80 km to the south ofthe trailing pin-line of our restoration, which correspondsto the K/T boundary, at 65.5 Ma (Figure 12a). In the viewof this mismatch, an alternative interpretation maximizingthe shortening has also been taken into account. Thispossibility would imply the involvement of a much thinnercover sequence in the proposed imbricate system, alikethe ones cropping out at Sierra del Rosario. This maxi-mized restoration is computed by areally balancing theNorth American margin imbricates using thrust sheetswith the similar thickness than the Sierra del Rosarioones. In this new scenario there are two possible optionsconsisting on only replacing the proposed imbricatesystem or on replacing both the imbricate system as wellthe basement thrust sheets. The restored position of thetrailing edge of the Bahıa Honda tectonic unit would thenbe located between 155 and 220 km to the SW asindicated in the Figure 12a. The option that best matchesthe existing models is the last one, although there is stilla significant mismatch (Figure 12).[38] The proposed reconstructions imply a more

allochthonous provenance for the cover rocks involvedin the imbricate system and Sierra del Rosario. If thisinterpretation is correct, the restored positions of thesecover slices would correspond to areas located along thedistal domains of the Yucatan margin. These domainswould have had a subparallel trend to the direction oftectonic transport in the NE oblique termination of theGreat Caribbean arc. During this tectonic transport, slicesof the distal domain along the Yucatan margin wouldhave been accreted to the front of the thrust systemforming relatively small lenticular thrust sheets asobserved in the geological maps of the Sierra del Rosario(Figure 1).

5. Conclusions

[39] The presented balanced and restored cross sectionsacross the western Cuba fold and thrust belt illustrate withmore precision the structure and tectonic evolution of bothonshore and offshore tectonic units along the Soroa transect.The NNW–SSE trending cross section is based on fielddata and interpretation of multichannel seismic profilesoffshore Cuba provided by RepsolYPF. The results of thecross section are further validated with a kinematic forwardmodel constrained by syntectonic deposits from the K/Tboundary to Eocene times.

[40] The balanced cross section crosses five principaltectonic domains from SSE to NNW: (1) the Los Palaciosbasin formed during the Tertiary, to the south of the El Pinartranstensional fault; (2) the Sierra del Rosario unit consti-tuted by relatively thin North American margin thrustedcover rocks piled up forming an antiformal stack; (3) theBahıa Honda unit displaying a characteristic forearc suc-cession, highly deformed and containing large blocks ofserpentinitic melanges; (4) the frontal imbricate systemoffshore constituted by thicker tectonic slices of the NorthAmerican margin, imbricated at the front of the Cuban foldand thrust belt; and (5) the 4-km-thick foredeep basindeposited during and after the end of the Cuba fold andthrust belt evolution.[41] The comparison between the balanced and restored

cross sections shows a minimum of 130 km of shortening. Italso shows that the trailing edge of the North Americanmargin cover successions at Sierra del Rosario must berestored back about 85 km. The trailing edge of thepreserved Bahıa Honda unit restores back to 130 km tothe SSE of its present position. However, these two pointsmust be restored in a roughly south direction to be inagreement with large-scale reconstructions.[42] The kinematic forward model shows the evolution of

the Cuba fold and thrust belt along the Soroa cross sectionfrom the K/T boundary to present. The age constraintssupplied by syntectonic sediments indicate that the accretedBahıa Honda forearc, which was originally located south ofthe North American margin, was emplaced on top of itduring Danian-Selandian times (�65.5 to 60 Ma), beforethe stacking of the latter during Selandian-Thanetian times(�60 to 56 Ma). The basement thrust sheets were emplacedduring the early middle Eocene and, subsequently, the LosPalacios Basin formed since late Eocene (�56 to 45 Ma).This evolution is in agreement with previous models sug-gesting that the study area formed part of the NW edge ofthe Great Caribbean arc migrating to the NE above aretreating subducting oceanic slab.[43] The current configuration of the western Cuba fold

and thrust belt is due to protracted accretion of the NorthAmerican margin in front of an advancing arc, followed bythe final closure of the oceanic realm and collision of the arcwith the continental North American margin. This collisiontook place at around middle Eocene times (�45 Ma). Therates of shortening for the first period are around 10 mm/a,whereas they drastically decrease during collision to about3 mm/a.[44] A more allochthonous interpretation consists of

replacing the intermediate relatively thick North Americanimbricate system, beneath the Bahıa Honda unit, withthinner successions (alike the Sierra del Rosario ones).This interpretation increases the amount of shortening andmoves the restored position of the trailing edge of thepreserved Bahıa Honda unit to the south. This pointwould be located between 155 km and 220 km dependingon the interpretation.[45] In this allochthonous interpretation, the Sierra del

Rosario intermediate imbricate succession must be restoredalong the distal parts of the eastern Yucatan margin from


19 of 22

TC4002

where they were accreted to the NW edge of the GreatCaribbean arc before middle Eocene.[46] At middle Eocene times, most of the present struc-

tural relief of the island was already formed. Before the finalinfill of the foredeep, from middle Eocene to present, thetectonic relief between the paleoisland of Cuba and thesynorogenic seafloor was greater than 4 km.

[47] Acknowledgments. This study is a contribution of the Group ofDynamics of the Lithosphere (GDL) within the framework of a collabora-tive project with RepsolYPF (Spain), Cupet (Cuba), Hydro (Norway), andONGC Videsh Limited (India). We thank of their people in the field fortheir support as well as for permitting us to publish these results. Additionalsupport was provided by Team Consolider-Ingenio 2010 grant CSD2006–00041. Modeling was carried out using MVE’s 2DMove1. This paper alsobenefitted from the comments of G. Draper and an anonymous reviewer.


20 of 22

TC4002

ReferencesAiello, I. W., and M. Chiari (1995), Cretaceous radi-

olarian cherts of western Cuba, C. N. R. Publ. 279,pp. 123 – 128, Cons. Naz. delle Ric., Florence,Italy.

Alva Valdivia, L. M., A. Goguitchaichvili, L. Ferrari,J. Rosas Elguera, J. Urrutia Fucugauchi, and J. J.Zamorano Orozco (2001), Paleomagnetic datafrom the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt: for tec-tonics and volcanic stratigraphy, Earth PlanetsSpace, 52(7), 467–478.

Banks, C. J., and J. Warburton (1986), ‘Passive-roof’duplex geometry in the frontal structures of theKirthar and Sulaiman mountain belts, Pakistan,J. Struct. Geol., 8(3 –4), 229–237, doi:10.1016/0191-8141(86)90045-3.

Bazhenov,M. L., A. Pszczolkowski, and S. V. Shipunova(1996), Reconnaissance paleomagnetic results fromwestern Cuba, Tectonophysics, 253, 65 – 81,doi:10.1016/0040-1951(95)00061-5.

Bermudez, P. J. (1937), Estudio micropaleontologico dedos formaciones eocenicas de las cercanıas de LaHabana, Cuba, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat., 2(3),153–180.

Bermudez, P. J. (1961), Las Formaciones Geologicasde Cuba, Geol. Cubana, vol. 1, 177 pp., Inst. Cu-bano Recursos Miner., Minist. Ind., Havana.

Bermudez, P. J., and R. Hoffstetter (1959), Cuba et IlesAdjacents, Lexique Stratigraphique International,vol. 5, Amerique Latine, Fasc. 2c, 140 pp., Cent.Natl. de la Rech. Sci., Paris.

Blanco Bustamante, S., R. Segura Soto, and O. PascualFernandez (2003), Condiciones de deposicion delBarremiano en el Sector septentrional de la UTESierra del Rosario y su interrelacion con la genera-cion de HC, paper presented at V Congreso de Geo-logıa y Mineria, Ing. Geol. e Hidrogeol., Havana.

Boutelier, D., A. Chemenda, and C. Jorand (2004),Continental subduction and exhumation of high-pressure rocks: Insights from thermo-mechanicallaboratory modelling, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.,222(1), 209–216, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.02.013.

Bouysse, P. (1988), Opening of the Grenada back-arcbasin and evolution of the Caribbean Plate dur-ing the Mesozoic and early Paleogene, Tectono-physics, 149, 121 – 143, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(88)90122-9.

Bralower, T., and M. A. Iturralde-Vinent (1997), Micro-paleontological dating of the collision between theNorth American Plate and the Greater Antilles Arc inwestern Cuba, Palaios, 12, 133–150, doi:10.2307/3515303.

Bresznyanszky, K., and M. A. Iturralde-Vinent (1983),Paleogeografıa del Paleogeno de Cuba Oriental, inContribucion a la Geologıa de CubaOriental, editedby E. Nagy, pp. 115 –126, Ed. Cient.-Tec., Havana.

Bronnimann, P., and D. Rigassi (1963), Contribution tothe geology and paleontology of the area of the Cityof La Habana, Cuba, and its surroundings, EclogaeGeol. Helv., 56, 1 – 480.

Brown, D., P. Spadea, V. Puchkov, J. Alvarez-Marron,R. Herrington, A. P.Willner, R. Hetzel, Y. Gorozhanina,and C. Juhlin (2006), Arc-continent collision in theSouthern Urals, Earth Sci. Rev., 79(3 –4), 261–287,doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2006.08.003.

Bryant, W. R., J. Lugo, C. Cordova, and A. Salvador(Eds.) (1991), Physiography and bathymetry, in The

Geology of North America, vol. J, The Gulf of Mex-ico Basin, pp. 31�52, Geol. Soc. of Am., Boulder,Colo.

Buffler, R. T., et al. (1984), Initial Reports of the Deep-Sea Drilling Project, Leg 77, 747 pp., Gov. PrintingOff., Washington, D. C.

Burke, K. (1988), Tectonic evolution of the Caribbean,Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 16, 201 – 230,doi:10.1146/annurev.ea.16.050188.001221.

Caceres, D. (1998), Diferentes fases deformacionales enla porcion mas meridional de Sierra de Los Organos,paper presented at Geomin 1998, Inst. de Geol. yPaleontol., Havana.

Castro Castineira, O., J. Rodrıguez-Loeches, O. LopezCorzo, J. Fernandez Carmona, L. Perez Estrada, andA. Nieves Flores (2003), Estudio petrofisico en lossedimentos de cuenca a cuestas (piggy-back) en elejemplo de Los Palacios, paper presented at V Con-greso de Geologıa y Mineria, Ing. Geol. e Hidro-geol., Havana.

Chemenda, A. I., D. Hurpin, J. C. Tang, J. F. Stephan,and G. Buffet (2001), Impact of arc-continent colli-sion on the conditions of burial and exhumation ofUHP/LT rocks: Experimental and numerical model-ling, Tectonophysics, 342, 137–161, doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(01)00160-3.

Cobiella-Reguera, J. L. (2005), Emplacement of Cubanophiolites, Geol. Acta, 3(3), 273–294.

Cubapetroleo and Simon-Petroleum-Technology (Ed.)(1993), The Geology and Hydrocarbon Potentialof the Republic of Cuba, 250 pp., Havana.

Cutress, B. M. (1980), Cretaceous and tertiary cidaroida(echinodermata: echinoidea) of the Caribbean area,Bull. Am. Paleontol., 77(309), 221 pp.

DeCelles, P. G., M. B. Gray, K. D. Ridgway, R. B. Cole,P. Srivastava, N. Pequera, and D. A. Pivnik (1991),Kinematic history of a foreland uplift from Paleo-cene synorogenic conglomerate, Beartooth Range,Wyoming and Montana, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 103,1458 – 1475, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1991)103<1458:KHOAFU>2.3.CO;2.

De Golyer, E. (1918), The geology of Cuban petroleumdeposits, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., 2, 133–167.

Domınguez Gomez, A. H., G. L. Arriaza, R. Socorro,S. Lopez, N. Sterling, M. Lastra, J. Alvarez, J. Rıos,H. Zambrana, and B. Sosa (2005), Nuevas estruc-turas petroleras reveladas a partir de la Sısmica 2Dal oeste de la region gasopetrolıfera Habana-Matanzas, Primera convencion cubana de cienciasde la tierra, paper presented at Geociencias 2005,Cent. Nac. de Inf. Geol., Havana.

Donnelly, T. W., and J. J. W. Rogers (1980), Igneousseries in island arcs. The northeastern Caribbeancompared with worldwide island-arc assemblages,Bull. Volcanol., 43, 347 – 382, doi:10.1007/BF02598038.

Draper, G., and J. A. Barros (1994), Caribbean Geol-ogy: An Introduction, edited by S. K. Donovan andT. A. Jackson, pp. 65–86, Univ. of W. Indies Publ.Assoc., Kingston.

Duncan, R. A., and R. B. Hargraves (1984), Plate tec-tonic evolution of the Caribbean region in the man-tle reference frame, in The Caribbean-SouthAmerican Plate Boundary and Regional Tectonics,edited by W. E. Bonini, R. B. Hargraves, andR. Shagam, Mem. Geol. Soc. of Am., 162, 81– 93.

Echevarrıa-Rodrıguez, G., G. Hernandez-Perez, J. O.Lopez-Quintero, J. G. Lopez-Rivera, R. Rodrıguez,J. Sanchez-Arango, R. Socorro-Trujillo, R.Tenreyro-Perez, and J. L. Yparraguirre-Pena(1991), Oil and gas exploration in Cuba, J. Petrol.Geol., 14, 259 – 274, doi:10.1111/j.1747-5457.1991.tb00311.x.

Ewing, T. E. (Ed.) (1991), Structural framework, in TheGeology of North America, vol. J, The Gulf of MexicoBasin, pp. 31�52, Geol. Soc. of Am., Boulder, Colo.

Federico, L., L. Crispini, M. Scambelluri, andG. Capponi (2007), Ophiolite melange zone recordsexhumation in a fossil subduction channel, Geol-ogy, 35(6), 499–502, doi:10.1130/G23190A.1.

Fernandez-Rodrıguez, G., J. Fernandez-Carmona, andS. Blanco-Bustamante (1988), Estudio bioestrati-grafico y ambientes de sedimentacion de los depos-itos cortados en el pozo Candelaria 1 de laprovincia de Pinar del Rıo, Ser. Geol., 2, 63– 77.

Flores Nieves, A., J. Fernandez Carmona, and L. PerezEstrada (2003), Principales discordancias del ter-ciario de la cuenca Los Palacios. Estudio petrofisicoen los sedimentos de cuenca a cuestas (piggy-back)en el ejemplo de Los Palacios, paper presented atV Congreso de Geologıa y Mineria, Ing. Geol. eHidrogeol., Havana.

Fonseca, E., V. M. Zelepuguin, and M. Heredia (1984),Particulars of the structure of ophiolites in Cuba,Cienc. Tierra Espacio, 9, 31– 45.

French, C. D., and J. Schenk (2004), Map showinggeology, oil and gas fields, and geologic provincesof the Caribbean region [CD-ROM], U.S. Geol.Surv. Open File Rep., OFR 97-470-K.

Furrazola-Bermudez, G., J. Sanchez-Arango, R. Garcıa-Sanchez, and V. A. Bassov (1978), Nuevo esquemade correlacion estratigrafica de las principales forma-ciones geologicas de Cuba,Min. Cuba, 4(3), 36– 53.

Furrazola-Bermudez, G., et al. (1985), Generalizacionestratigrafica de la region occidental de Cuba, report,230 pp., Cent. de Invest. Geol., Min. de Ind. Basica,Havana.

Garcıa-Casco, A., R. L. Torres-Roldan, G. Millan,P. Monie, and F. Haissen (2001), High-grademetamorphism and hydrous melting of metape-lites in the Pinos terrane (W Cuba): Evidencefor crustal thickening and extension in thenorthern Caribbean collisional belt, J. Meta-morph. Geol., 19, 699–715.

Garcıa-Casco, A., R. L. Torres-Roldan, M. Iturralde-Vinent, G. Millan, K. Nunez Cambra, C. Lazaro,and A. Rodrıguez Vega (2006), High pressure me-tamorphism of ophiolites in Cuba, Geol. Acta, 4(1),63 –88.

Garcıa Delgado, D. E., et al. (2005), Mapa geologicode la provincia de Pinar del Rio (Scale 1:100000),map, Inst. de Geol. y Paleontol., Havana.

Garcıa-Sanchez, R. (1978), Notas sobre la constituciongeologo-estructural de la Depresion Los Palacios,Min. Cuba, 4(3), 30–36.

Gealey, W. K. (1980), Ophiolite obduction mechanisms,in Ophiolites: Proceedings, International OphioliteSymposium 1979, edited byA. Panayiotou, pp. 243–247, Geol. Surv. of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Gordon, M. B., P. Mann, D. Caceres, and R. M. Flores(1997), Cenozoic tectonic history of the NorthAmerica–Caribbean plate boundary zone in wes-


21 of 22

TC4002

tern Cuba, J. Geophys. Res., 102(B5), 10,055 –10,082, doi:10.1029/96JB03177.

Gravell, D. W., and D. K. Palmer (1942), Stratigraphicreport of Soroa 1 well, geological memorandum,Oficina Nac. de Recursos Miner., Co. Minera deSoroa, Havana.

Hatten, C. W. (1957), Geology of the Central Sierra delos Organos, Pinar del Rio Province, Cuba, report,48 pp., Standard Cuban Oil Co., Havana.

Hatten, C. W., M. Somin, G. Millan, P. Renne, R. W.Kistler, and J. M. Mattinson (1988), Tectonostrati-graphic units of central Cuba, in Transactions 11thCaribbean Geological Conference, edited byL. Barker, pp. 1–13, Gov. of Barbados, Bridgetown.

Hynes, A., J. Arkani-Hamed, and R. Greiling (1996),Subduction of continental margins and the upliftof high-pressure metamorphic rocks, Earth Pla-net. Sci. Lett., 140(1 – 4), 13 – 25, doi:10.1016/0012-821X(96)00047-7.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A. (1988), Naturaleza Geologicade Cuba, 246 pp., Ed. Cient.-Tec., Havana.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A. (1994), Cuban geology: A newplate tectonic synthesis, J. Petrol. Geol., 17, 39 –70,doi:10.1111/j.1747-5457.1994.tb00113.x.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A. (1996a), Geologia de las ofio-litas de Cuba, in Ofiolitas y Arcos Volcanicos deCuba: IGCP Project 364 Special Contribution 1,edited by M. A. Iturralde-Vinent, pp. 83–120, Int.Geol. Programme, Miami, Fla.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A. (1996b), Introduction to Cubangeology and geophysics, in Ofiolitas y Arcos Volca-nicos de Cuba: IGCP Project 364 Special Contribu-

tion 1, edited by M. A. Iturralde-Vinent, pp. 3 –35,Int. Geol. Programme, Miami, Fla.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A., (Ed.) (1996c), Ofiolitas y Ar-

cos Volcanicos de Cuba: IGCP Project 364 SpecialContribution 1, 265 pp., Int. Geol. Programme,Miami, Fla.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A. (1998), Sinopsis de la Constitu-cion Geologica de Cuba, Acta Geol. Hisp., 33(1 –4),9 – 56.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A., and R. D. E. MacPhee (1999),Paleogeography of the Caribbean region: Implica-tions for Cenozoic biogeography, Bull. Am. Mus.Nat. Hist., 238, 1 –95.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A., and T. M. Morales (1988),Toleitas del Titoniano medio en la Sierra de Cama-jan, Camaguey. Posible datacion de la corteza ocea-nica, Rev. Tecnol., 18, 25–32.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A., G. Millan, L. Korkas, E. Nagy,and J. Pajon (1996), Geological interpretation of theCuban K-Ar data base, in Ofiolitas y Arcos Volcani-cos de Cuba: IGCP Project 364 Special Contribu-

tion 1, edited by M. A. Iturralde-Vinent, pp. 48 –69,Int. Geol. Programme, Miami, Fla.

James, K. H. (2006), Arguments for and against thePacific origin of the Caribbean Plate: Discussion,finding for an inter-American origin, Geol. Acta,4(1 – 2), 279 –302.

Jolly, W. T., and E. G. Lidiak (2006), Role of crustalmelting in petrogenesis of the Cretaceous WaterIsland Formation (Virgin Islands, Northeast AntillesIsland arc), Geol. Acta, 4(1 – 2), 7 – 33.

Jordan, T. E., P. B. Flemings, and J. A. Beers (1988),Dating thrust-fault activity by use of foreland-basinstrata, in New Perspectives in Basin Analysis, editedby K. L. Kleinspehn and C. Paola, pp. 307–330,Springer, New York.

Kantchev, J. J., J. Boyanov, N. Popov, R. Cabrera,A. Goranov, N. Jolkicev, M. Kanazirski, andM. Stancheva (1978), Geologıa de la provincia deLas Villas (resultados de las investigaciones geolo-gicas y levantamiento geologico a escala 1:250 000realizados durante el periodo 1969–1975), report,Inst. de Geol. y Paleontol., Acad. de Cienc. de Cuba,Oficina Nac. de Recursos Miner., Minist. de Ind.Basica, Havana.

Kerr, A. C., and J. Tarney (2005), Tectonic evolution ofthe Caribbean and northwestern South America: Thecase for accretion of two Late Cretaceous oceanicplateaus, Geology, 33(4), 269 – 272, doi:10.1130/G21109.1.

Kerr, A. C., M. A. Iturralde-Vinent, A. D. Saunders,T. L. Babbs, and J. Tarney (1999), A new platetectonic model of the Caribbean: Implicationsfrom a geochemical reconnaissance of Cuban Meso-zoic volcanic rocks, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 111(11),1581–1599.

Kusnetzov, V. I., V. A. Bassov, G. Furrazola-Bermudez,R. Garcıa-Sanchez, and J. Sanchez-Arango (1977),Resumen estratigrafico de los sedimentos mesozoi-cos y cenozoicos de Cuba,Min. Cuba, 3(4), 44–61.

Lewis, J. M. (1932), Geology of Cuba, Am. Assoc. Pet.Geol. Bull., 16, 533–555.

Linares-Cala, E. (2005), Comparacion entre las secuen-cias mesozoicas de aguas profundas y someras deCuba central y occidental. Significado para laexploracion petrolera, paper presented at V Con-greso de Geologıa y Minerıa, Ing. Geol. e Hidro-geol., Havana.

Llanes, A. L., D. E. Garcıa, and D. H. Meyerhoff(1998), Hallazgo de fauna jurasica (Tithoniano) enofiolitas de Cuba central, paper presented at IIICongreso Cubano de Geologıa y Minerıa 2, Soc.Cubana de Geol., Havana.

Malfait, B. T., and M. G. Dinkleman (1972), Circum-Caribbean tectonic and igneous activity and the evo-lution of the Caribbean plate, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.,83, 251 – 271, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1972)83[251:CTAIAA]2.0.CO;2.

Mann, P., E. Calais, J. C. Ruegg, C. DeMets, P. E.Jansma, and G. S. Mattioli (2002), Oblique colli-sion in the northeastern Caribbean from GPS mea-surements and geological observations, Tectonics,21(6), 1057, doi:10.1029/2001TC001304.

Marton, G., and R. T. Buffler (1994), Jurassic recon-struction of the Gulf of Mexico Basin, Int. Geol.Rev., 36, 545–586.

Meyerhoff, A. A., and H. A. Meyerhoff (1972), Con-tinental Drift, IV: The Caribbean Plate, J. Geol.,80(80), 34–60.

Millan, G. (2003), Algunas consideraciones sobre latectonica de Cuba occidental (Provincia de Pinardel Rio), paper presented at V Congreso de Geolo-gıa y Mineria, Ing. Geol. e Hidrogeol., Havana.

Moretti, I., R. Tenreyro, E. Linares, J. G. Lopez,J. Letouzey, C. Magnier, F. Gaumet, J. C. Lecomte,J. O. Lopez, and S. Zimine (2003), Petroleum sys-tem of the Cuban northwest offshore zone, in TheCircum-Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean: Hydro-carbon Habitats, Basin Formation, and Plate Tec-

tonics, edited by C. Bartolini, R. T. Buffler, andJ. Blickwede, AAPG Mem., 79, 675–696.

Negredo, A. M., I. Jimenez-Munt, and A. Villasenor(2004), Evidence for eastward mantle flow beneaththe Caribbean plate from neotectonic modeling,Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L06615, doi:10.1029/2003GL019315.

Otero Marrero, R., and R. Tenreyro Perez (1998), Sec-ciones geologico-geofısicas regionales de Cuba,Rev. Miner. Geol., XV(3), 17– 21.

Palmer, R. H. (1934), The geology of Havana, Cuba,and vicinity, J. Geol., 42(2), 123 –145.

Pardo, G. (1975), Geology of Cuba, in The Gulf ofMexico and the Caribbean, edited by A. E. Nairnand F. G. Stehli, pp. 553–615, Plenum, New York.

Perez, O. J., R. Bilham, R. Bendick, J. R. Velandia,N. Hernandez, C. Moncayo, M. Hoyer, andM. Kozuch (2001), Velocity field across thesouthern Caribbean plate boundary and estimatesof Caribbean/South-American plate motion usingGPS geodesy 1994 – 2000, Geophys. Res. Lett.,28(15), 2987–2990, doi:10.1029/2001GL013183.

Perez-Estaun, A., P. P. Hernaiz Huerta, E. Lopera,M. Joubert, and S. Group (2007), Geologıa de laRepublica Dominicana: De la construccion dearcos-isla a la colision arco-continente, Bol. Geol.Min., 118(2), 157–173.

Perez Estrada, L. M., J. F. Fernandez Carmona, A. FloresNieves, O. Lopez Corzo, and O. Castro Castineira(2003), Contribucion de los datos paleoambientalesa la evolucion geologica de la paleocuenca LosPalacios, paper presented at V Congreso de Geo-logıa y Mineria, Ing. Geol. e Hidrogeol., Havana.

Perez-Othon, J., and V. A. Yarmoliuk (1985), Geologicmap of Cuba, map, 1 p., Min. de la Ind. Basica,Cent. de Invest. Geol., Havana.

Pindell, J. L. (1985), Alleghenian reconstruction andthe subsequent evolution of the Gulf of Mexico,Bahamas and Proto-Caribbean Sea, Tectonics, 4,1 –39, doi:10.1029/TC004i001p00001.

Pindell, J. L. (1994), Evolution of theGulf ofMexico andthe Caribbean, in Caribbean Geology: An Introduc-tion, edited by S. K. Donovan and T. A. Jackson,pp. 13 – 39, Univ. of W. Indies Publ. Assoc.,Kingston.

Pindell, J., L. Kennan, W. Maresch, K.-P. Stanek, G.Draper, and R. Higgs (2005), Plate-kinematics andcrustal dynamics of circum-Caribbean arc-continentinteractions: Tectonic controls on basin develop-ment in Proto-Caribbean margins. South Americanplate interactions, Venezuela, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc.Am., 394, 7 – 52.

Pindell, J., L. Kennan, K. P. Stanek, W. V. Maresch,and G. Draper (2006), Foundations of Gulf ofMexico and Caribbean evolution: Eight controver-sies resolved, Geol. Acta, 4(1 – 2), 303–341.

Piotrowska, K. (1978), Nappe structure in the Sierra delos Organos, western Cuba, Acta Geol. Pol., 28(1),97 –170.

Proenza, J. A., R. Dıaz-Martınez, A. Iriondo, C.Marchesi, J. C. Melgarejo, F. Gervilla, C. J.Garrido, A. Rodrıguez Vega, R. Lozano-Santacruz,and J. A. Blanco-Moreno (2006), Primitive Cretac-eous Island-Arc volcanic rocks in eastern Cuba: TheTeneme Formation, Geol. Acta, 4(1), 103–121.

Pszczolkowski, A. (1978), Geosynclinal sequences ofthe Cordillera de Guaniguanico in western Cuba:Their lithostratigraphy, facies development andpaleogeography, Acta Geol. Pol., 28(1), 1 –96.

Pszczolkowski, A. (1986), Megacapas del Maestrich-tiano en Cuba occidental y central, Bull. Acad.Pol. Sci. Ser. Sci. Terre, 34, 81– 93.

Pszczolkowski, A. (1987), Contribucion a la geologıade la provincia de Pinar del Rio, 253 pp., Ed.Cient.-Tec., Havana.

Pszczolkowski, A. (1994a), Interrelationship of theterranes in western and central Cuba—Comment,Tectonophysics, 234, 339–344, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(94)90233-X.

Pszczolkowski, A. (1994b), Lithostratigraphy of Meso-zoic and Palaeogene rocks of Sierra del Rosario,western Cuba, in Geology of Western Cuba, editedby A. Pszczolkowski, Stud. Geol. Pol., 123,39 –66.

Pszczolkowski, A. (1999), The exposed passive marginof North America in western Cuba, in Sedimentary

Basins of theWorld, vol. 4,Caribbean Basins, editedby P. Mann, pp. 93 –121, Elsevier Sci., Amsterdam.

Pszczolkowski, A. (2000), New data on the Late Albianand Late Cenomanian nannoconid assemblagesfrom Cuba, Earth Sci., 48(2), 135–149.

Pszczolkowski, A., and J. F. de Albear (1982), Subzonaestructuro-facial de Bahıa Honda, Pinar del Rıo;tectonica y datos sobre la sedimentacion y paleo-geografıa del Cretacico y del Paleogeno, Cienc.Tierra Espacio, 5, 3 – 24.

Pszczolkowski, A., and R. Myczynski (2003), Strati-graphic constraints on the Late Jurassic – Cretac-eous paleotectonic interpretations of the Placetasbelt in Cuba, in The Circum-Gulf of Mexico and

the Caribbean: Hydrocarbon Habitats, Basin For-mation, and Plate Tectonics, edited by C. Bartolini,R. T. Buffler, and J. Blickwede, AAPG Mem., 79,545 –581.

Pushcharovski, Y. (1988), Mapa geologico de la Repub-lica de Cuba escala 1:250,000, edited by Y.Pushcharovski, map, Acad. of Sci. of Cuba andUSSR, Havana.

Richardson, A. F., V. D. Chawner, and R. Englemann(1932), Geology of the Bahia Honda region, geolo-gical memorandum, Oficina Nac. de RecursosMiner., Havana.

Rigassi-Studer, D. (1963), Sur la geologie de la Sierrade los Organos (Cuba), Arch. Sci. Soc. Phys. Hist.Nat., 16(2), 339–350.


22 of 22

TC4002

Rodrıguez-Basante, B. (1999), Interpretation of geophysi-cal datasets for geological and structural mapping inwestern Cuba, report, Intl. Trade Cent., Geneva.

Rojas-Agramonte, Y., F. Neubauer, A. V. Bojar, E. Hejl,R. Handler, and D. E. Garcia-Delgado (2006),Geology, age and tectonic evolution of the SierraMaestra Mountains, southeastern Cuba, Geol. Acta,4(1 – 2), 123 –150.

Rosencrantz, E. (1990), Structure and Tectonics of theYucatan Basin, Caribbean Sea, as determined fromseismic reflection studies, Tectonics, 9, 1037 –1059, doi:10.1029/TC009i005p01037.

Ross, M. I., and C. R. Scotese (1988), A hierarchicaltectonic model of the Gulf of Mexico and Carib-bean region, Tectonophysics, 155, 139 – 168,doi:10.1016/0040-1951(88)90263-6.

Sanchez-Arango, J., G. Fernandez-Rodrıguez, S.Blanco-Bustamante, and J. Fernandez-Carmona(1985), Sobre la posicion estratigrafica en Cuba dela biozona Globorotalia palmerae Bolli 1957 y suimportancia en la edad del sobrecorrimiento princi-pal en Cuba occidental, Ser. Geol., 1, 19 –31.

Schneider, J. D., P. Bosch-Monie, S. Guillot, J. M.Lardeaux, A. Garcıa –Casco, R. L. Torres-Roldan,and G. Millan Trujillo (2004), Origin and evolutionof the Escambray Massif (Central Cuba): An exam-ple of HP/LT rocks exhumed during intra-oceanicsubduction, J. Metamorph. Geol., 22, 227 – 247,doi:10.1111/j.1525-1314.2004.00510.x.

Snoke, A. W., D. W. Rowe, J. D. Yule, and G. Wadge(2001), Petrologic and structural history of Tobago,West Indies: A fragment of the accreted Mesozoicoceanic arc of the southern Caribbean, Spec. Pap.Geol. Soc. Am., 354, 1 – 54.

Somin, M. L., and G. Millan (1972), Generalidadessobre la geologia de los complejos metamorficosde Cuba, Bol. Actas Inst. Geol., 2, 5.

Somin, M. L., and G. Millan (1981), Geology of Meta-

morphic Complexes of Cuba, 220 pp., Nauka, Moscow.Sosa-Meizoso, C., J. G. Lopez-Rivera, O. Pascual, and

E. Teruel (2002), Aproximacion a un estudio inte-gral de la Formacion Carmita y su capacidad gen-eradora de hidrocarburos, paper presented atGeofısica 2002, CGGVeritas, Havana.

Stanek, K. P., W. V. Maresch, F. Grafe, C. Grevel, andA. Baumann (2006), Structure, tectonics and meta-morphic development of the Sancti Spiritus Dome(eastern Escambray massif, Central Cuba), Geol.Acta, 4(1 –2), 151–170.

Stephan, J. F., et al. (1990), Paleogeodynamic maps ofthe Caribbean: 14 steps from Lias to Present, Bull.Soc. Geol. Fr., 8, 915–919.

Suppe, J. (1983), Geometry and kinematics of faultbend folding, Am. J. Sci., 283, 648–721.

Tada, R., et al. (2003), K/T Boundary deposits in thePaleo-western Caribbean basin, in The Circum-Gulfof Mexico and the Caribbean; Hydrocarbon Habi-tats, Basin Formation, and Plate Tectonics, edited byC. Bartolini, R. T. Buffler, and J. Blickwede, AAPGMem., 79, 582–604.

Takayama, H., et al. (2000), Origin of the PenalverFormation in northwestern Cuba and its relation toK/T boundary impact event, Sediment. Geol., 135,295–320, doi:10.1016/S0037-0738(00)00079-8.

Teixell, A. (1996), The Anso transect of the southernPyrenees: Basement and cover thrust geometries,J. Geol. Soc., 153, 301 – 310, doi:10.1144/gsjgs.153.2.0301.

Torres Silva, A. I., C. Dıaz Otero, and D. GarcıaDelgado (2001), Bioestratigrafia de los depositosde aguas someras del Eoceno Medio-Superior deCuba Occidental, paper presented at Geomin 2001,Soc. Cubana de Geol., Havana.

Truitt, P. (1956a), Estratigrafıa del Preterciario de LasVillas y Noroeste de Camaguey, Geol. Memo. PT-

47, Cuban Gulf Oil Co., Havana.Truitt, P. B. (1956b), Geology of Pinar del Rio and Isla

de Pinos, Cuba, Geol. Memo. PT-48, Cuban GulfOil Co., Havana.

Verges, J., M. Marzo, and J. A. Munoz (2002),Growth strata in foreland settings, Sediment. Geol.,146, 1 –9, doi:10.1016/S0037-0738(01)00162-2.

Wassall, H. (1953), Reconnaissance of Santa Clara,Cuba, Calabazar-Camajuanı- Placetas area, Geol.Memo. PT-20, edited by P. Truitt and G. Pardo,Oficina Nac. de Recursos Miner., Havana.

Zelepuguin, V., E. Fonseca, and L. Diaz de Villavilla(1982), Asociaciones vulcanogenas de la provinciade Pinar del Rıo, Ser. Geol., 6, 45 –74.

��D. Brown, E. Saura, and J. Verges, Group of

Dynamics of the Lithosphere (GDL), Institute of EarthSciences ‘‘Jaume Almera,’’ CSIC, Sole i Sabaris, s/n,E-08028 Barcelona, Spain. ([email protected])

R. Garcıa, J. R. Sanchez, C. Sosa, and R. Tenreyro,Cubapetroleo, Oficios 154, La Habana, Cuba.

P. Lukito, S. Soriano, and S. Torrescusa, RepsolYPF,Paseo de la Castellana, 278-280, E-28046Madrid, Spain.

Structural and tectonic evolution of western Cuba fold and thrust … · 2018. 11. 17. ·...

Documents

Transcript of Structural and tectonic evolution of western Cuba fold and thrust … · 2018. 11. 17. ·...