Data Repository to Accompany Mid-Cretaceous to Paleocene North American Drainage Reorganization from Detrital Zircons

Transcription

1 GSA DATA REPOSITORY Blum and Pecha Data Repository to Accompany Mid-Cretaceous to Paleocene North American Drainage Reorganization from Detrital Zircons M. Blum ExxonMobil Upstream Research, Houston, TX M. Pecha University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ This document summarizes detrital-zircon sample collection, analysis, and interpretation, in support of the published paper. Results pertain to 2 separate projects. The first is focused on the Cretaceous Mannville Group, Alberta Oil Sands Areas, within the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. The second is focused on the Cretaceous (Cenomanian), Paleocene, Oligocene, and modern fluvial sediments of the US Gulf of Mexico coastal plain. DZ Sample Locations and Stratigraphic Context Alberta Oil Sands Samples were collected from fluvial sands within Mannville Group cores, within leases owned by Imperial Oil Ltd. Stratigraphic position was based on regional context and correlations, well logs, and proprietary 3D seismic data. Figure DR1 summarizes stratigraphy of the Mannville Group and locations of the Athabasca and Cold Lake Oil Sands areas, whereas Table DR1 summarizes locations and stratigraphic context for Mannville DZ samples within the Athabasca and Cold Lake Oil Sands areas. All samples were collected from a trend within the Mannville Group that is referred to as the Assiniboia paleovalley (Hayes et al., 2004), a bedrock valley where McMurray strata rest unconformably on Jurassic through Devonian bedrock. Figure DR1 Stratigraphic cross-section through the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin Mannville Group and correlatives within the foredeep farther west. Assiniboia paleovalley as labeled, whereas inset map shows location. Modified from Hayes et al. (1994).

2 Table DR1 - Mannville Group DZ samples. For map view of sample locations, see Figure 1 in the published paper. Samples discussed in this paper are highlighted in green. Project Sample Depositional Unit Project Area Latitude Longitude XOM-AOS 4 Upper McMurray Firebag XOM-AOS 5 Lower McMurray Firebag XOM-AOS 6 Lower Clearwater Cold Lake XOM-AOS 7 McMurray fluvial Cold Lake XOM-AOS 9 Upper Grand Rapids Cold Lake XOM-AOS 13 Middle Grand Rapids Cold Lake XOM-AOS 14 Lower Clearwater Cold Lake XOM-AOS 16 Middle Clearwater Cold Lake XOM-AOS 17 McMurray fluvial Cold Lake XOM-AOS 18 Upper Clearwater Cold Lake XOM-AOS 20 Lower Grand Rapids Cold Lake XOM-AOS 22 Lower McMurray Muskeg XOM-AOS 23 Middle McMurray Muskeg XOM-AOS 25 Upper McMurray Muskeg XOM-AOS 26 Upper McMurray Muskeg Results reported in the text are comprised of aggregate populations from multiple samples within the same stratigraphic unit, as defined below. 1. Cretaceous (Aptian) McMurray Formation (Fig. 3a): Firebag = XOM-AOS-4 and 5 Muskeg = XOM-AOS-22, 23, 25 and 26 Cold Lake = XOM-AOS-17 and 7 2. Cretaceous (Albian) Clearwater and Grand Rapids Formation (Fig. 3b and d): Cold Lake Clearwater = XOM-AOS-6, 14, 16, and 18 Cold Lake Grand Rapids = XOM-AOS-20, 13 and 9 DZ Sample Locations and Stratigraphic Context Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain DZ samples were collected from outcrops of the Cenomanian Tuscaloosa-Woodbine, Paleocene- Eocene Wilcox, and Oligocene Catahoula-Frio depositional episodes across the northern Gulf of Mexico margin (see Galloway, 2008 for stratigraphic context). These outcrop belts represent the remnants of old alluvial-deltaic plains, analogous to the Pleistocene alluvial-deltaic plains that comprise the modern Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain (Blum and Aslan, 2006). Most samples were collected from fluvial sandstones that cut across marine shales, thus representing basinward extension of fluvial systems after regional marine flooding. Samples were collected every km along the outcrop belt, so as to ensure sampling of major fluvial axes. Samples were also collected from modern sands in major rivers that contribute sediment to the northern GoM, so as to assess fidelity of this approach to reconstructing drainage areas that are independently known. Figure DR2 summarizes stratigraphy of the Gulf of Mexico basin, whereas Table DR2 and Figure DR3 summarize samples and locations from the Gulf of Mexico coastal plain.

3 Figure DR2 General stratigraphic framework for the northern Gulf of Mexico basin, illustrating clastic wedges sampled for detrital zircons (after Galloway, 2008). Figure DR3 Location of DZ samples on Gulf of Mexico coastal plain. Geologic map units from USGS online State Geological Map database. for 64, 67, 69, 70, 74, and 46.

4 Table DR2 - Gulf of Mexico coastal plain DZ samples. Samples discussed in this paper are highlighted in green for Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine and yellow for Paleocene Wilcox. Sample # Galloway (2008) Episode Local Name Latitude Longitude XOM-GOM 1 Oligocene Frio Waynesboro sandstone XOM-GOM 2 Oligocene Frio Waynesboro sandstone XOM-GOM 3 Oligocene Frio Waynesboro sandstone XOM-GOM 4 Oligocene Frio Waynesboro sandstone XOM-GOM 5 Oligocene Frio Waynesboro sandstone XOM-GOM 6 Oligocene Frio Waynesboro sandstone XOM-GOM 7 Oligocene Frio Waynesboro sandstone XOM-GOM 8 Oligocene Frio Waynesboro sandstone XOM-GOM 9 Oligocene Frio Waynesboro sandstone XOM-GOM 10 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 11 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 12 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 13 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 14 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 15 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Coker Fm XOM-GOM 16 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Coker Fm XOM-GOM 17 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 18 Tombigbee River modern sample XOM-GOM 19 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 20 Alabama River modern sample XOM-GOM 21 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Coker Fm XOM-GOM 22 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Coker Fm XOM-GOM 23 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Coker Fm XOM-GOM 24 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Coker Fm XOM-GOM 25 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 26 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 27 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 28 Tennessee River modern sample XOM-GOM 29 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Coker Fm XOM-GOM 30 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 31 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm XOM-GOM 32 Pearl River modern sample XOM-GOM 33 Mississippi River modern sample XOM-GOM 34 Oligocene Frio Catahoula sandstone XOM-GOM 35 Cumberland River modern sample XOM-GOM 36 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Tuscaloosa undif XOM-GOM 37 Tennessee River modern sample XOM-GOM 38 Ohio River modern sample XOM-GOM 39 Mississippi River modern sample XOM-GOM 40 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif

5 XOM-GOM 42 Mississippi River Pleistocene LGM Sikeston terrace XOM-GOM 43 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif XOM-GOM 44 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif XOM-GOM 45 Arkansas River modern sample XOM-GOM 46 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif XOM-GOM 47 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif XOM-GOM 48 Red River modern sample XOM-GOM 49 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Woodbine undif XOM-GOM 50 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Woodbine undif XOM-GOM 52 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Dexter Fm XOM-GOM 53 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Dexter Fm XOM-GOM 54 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Dexter Fm XOM-GOM 55 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Woodbine undif XOM-GOM 56 Rio Grande modern sample XOM-GOM 57 Nueces River modern sample XOM-GOM 58 Oligocene Frio Catahoula sandstone XOM-GOM 59 Oligocene Frio Catahoula sandstone XOM-GOM 60 Colorado River modern sample XOM-GOM 61 Oligocene Frio Catahoula sandstone XOM-GOM 62 Oligocene Frio Catahoula sandstone XOM-GOM 63 Oligocene Frio Catahoula sandstone XOM-GOM 64 Eocene Upper Wilcox Carrizo XOM-GOM 65 Eocene Upper Wilcox Carrizo XOM-GOM 66 Colorado River modern sample XOM-GOM 67 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Simsboro XOM-GOM 68 Brazos River modern sample XOM-GOM 69 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Simsboro XOM-GOM 70 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Simsboro XOM-GOM 71 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Simsboro XOM-GOM 72 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif XOM-GOM 73 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif XOM-GOM 74 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif XOM-GOM 75 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif XOM-GOM 76 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif XOM-GOM 77 Oligocene Frio Catahoula sandstone XOM-GOM 78 Oligocene Frio Catahoula sandstone XOM-GOM 79 Oligocene Frio Catahoula sandstone XOM-GOM 80 Oligocene Frio Catahoula sandstone XOM-GOM 81 Mississippi River modern sample XOM-GOM 82 Missouri River modern sample XOM-GOM 83 Platte River modern sample XOM-GOM 84 Mississippi River modern sample XOM-GOM 85 Apalachicola River modern sample

6 DZ results reported in the text are comprised of aggregate populations from multiple sample sites within a similar geographic area, as defined below. For Wilcox samples, aggregate populations are referred to with reference to modern river systems (Fig. DR4), which have been viewed as long-lived basin entry points (Galloway et al., 2011). 1. Cretaceous (Cenomanian) Tuscaloosa-Woodbine (Fig. 4a): Tuscaloosa = XOM-MDB-21, 22, 23,24, and 29 Woodbine = XOM-MDB-49, 50, 52, 53,54, and Paleocene Wilcox (Fig. 4b, c, d; Fig. DR4): Paleo-Tennessee = XOM-MDB-19, 10, 13, and 26 Paleo-Mississippi = XOM-MDB-27, 31, 43, and 44 Paleo-Arkansas = XOM-MDB-46, 47, and 76 Paleo-Brazos-Red = XOM-MDB-74, 72, and 71 Paleo-Colorado = XOM-MDB-70, 69, and 67 Paleo-Colorado-Guadalupe = XOM-MDB-65, and 64 Paleo-Rio Grande/Rio Bravo = GM-Z2, Z3, Z8, Z4, Z5 (see Mackey et al., 2012) Figure DR4 Long-lived (Cenozoic-scale) fluvial axes of the northern Gulf of Mexico coastal plain (after Galloway et al., 2011).

7 Analytical methods at the Arizona LaserChron Center Zircon crystals are extracted from samples by traditional methods of crushing and grinding, followed by separation with a Wilfley table, heavy liquids, and a Frantz magnetic separator. Samples are processed such that all zircons are retained in the final heavy mineral fraction. A large split of these grains (generally thousands of grains) is incorporated into a 1 epoxy mount together with fragments of our Sri Lanka standard zircon. The mounts are sanded down to a depth of ~20 microns, polished, imaged, and cleaned prior to isotopic analysis. U-Pb geochronology of zircons is conducted by laser ablation multicollector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-MC-ICPMS) at the Arizona LaserChron Center (Gehrels et al., 2006, 2008). The analyses involve ablation of zircon with a Photon Machines Analyte G2 excimer laser using a spot diameter of 30 microns. The ablated material is carried in helium into the plasma source of a Nu HR ICPMS, which is equipped with a flight tube of sufficient width that U, Th, and Pb isotopes are measured simultaneously. All measurements are made in static mode, using Faraday detectors with 3x10 11 ohm resistors for 238 U, 232 Th, 208 Pb- 206 Pb, and discrete dynode ion counters for 204 Pb and 202 Hg. Ion yields are ~0.8 mv per ppm. Each analysis consists of one 15-second integration on peaks with the laser off (for backgrounds), 15 onesecond integrations with the laser firing, and a 30 second delay to purge the previous sample and prepare for the next analysis. The ablation pit is ~15 microns in depth. For each analysis, the errors in determining 206 Pb/ 238 U and 206 Pb/ 204 Pb result in a measurement error of ~1-2% (at 2-sigma level) in the 206 Pb/ 238 U age. The errors in measurement of 206 Pb/ 207 Pb and 206 Pb/ 204 Pb also result in ~1-2% (at 2-sigma level) uncertainty in age for grains that are >1.0 Ga, but are substantially larger for younger grains due to low intensity of the 207 Pb signal. For most analyses, the cross-over in precision of 206 Pb/ 238 U and 206 Pb/ 207 Pb ages occurs at ~1.0 Ga. 204 Hg interference with 204 Pb is accounted for by measurement of 202 Hg during laser ablation and subtraction of 204 Hg according to the natural 202 Hg/ 204 Hg of Hg correction is not significant for most analyses because our Hg backgrounds are low (generally ~150 cps at mass 204). Common Pb correction is accomplished by using the Hg-corrected 204 Pb and assuming an initial Pb composition from Stacey and Kramers (1975). Uncertainties of 1.5 for 206 Pb/ 204 Pb and 0.3 for 207 Pb/ 204 Pb are applied to these compositional values based on the variation in Pb isotopic composition in modern crystal rocks. Inter-element fractionation of Pb/U is generally ~5%, whereas apparent fractionation of Pb isotopes is generally <0.2%. In-run analysis of fragments of a large zircon crystal (generally every fifth measurement) with known age of ± 3.2 Ma (2-sigma error) is used to correct for this fractionation. The uncertainty resulting from the calibration correction is generally 1-2% (2-sigma) for both 206 Pb/ 207 Pb and 206 Pb/ 238 U ages. Concentrations of U and Th are calibrated relative to our Sri Lanka zircon, which contains ~518 ppm of U and 68 ppm Th. Uncertainties are shown at the 1-sigma level, and include only measurement errors. Analyses that are >20% discordant (by comparison of 206 Pb/ 238 U and 206 Pb/ 207 Pb ages) or >5% reverse discordant are not considered further.

8 The resulting interpreted ages are plotted on Pb*/U concordia diagrams and relative ageprobability diagrams using the routines in Isoplot (Ludwig, 2008). The age-probability diagrams show each age and its uncertainty (for measurement error only) as a normal distribution, and sum all ages from a sample into a single curve. Composite age probability plots are made from an inhouse Excel program (see Analysis Tools for link) that normalizes each curve according to the number of constituent analyses, such that each curve contains the same area, and then stacks the probability curves. Analytical data are included in Table DR3 (separate file). Notes to accompany data table: 1. Analyses with >10% uncertainty (1-sigma) in 206Pb/238U age are not included. 2. Analyses with >10% uncertainty (1-sigma) in 206Pb/207Pb age are not included, unless 206Pb/238U age is <500 Ma. 3. Best age is determined from 206Pb/238U age for analyses with 206Pb/238U age <1000 Ma and from 206Pb/207Pb age for analyses with 206Pb/238Uage > 1000 Ma. 4. Concordance is based on 206Pb/238U age / 206Pb/207Pb age. Value is not reported for 206Pb/238U ages <500 Ma because of large uncertainty in 206Pb/207Pb age. 5. Analyses with 206Pb/238U age > 500 Ma and with >20% discordance (<80% concordance) are not included (in italics in Table DR3). 6. Analyses with 206Pb/238U age > 500 Ma and with >5% reverse discordance (<105% concordance) are not included (in italics in Table DR3). 7. All uncertainties are reported at the 1-sigma level, and include only measurement errors. 8. Systematic errors are as follows (at 2-sigma level): [sample 1: 2.5% (206Pb/238U) & 1.4% (206Pb/207Pb)] These values are reported on cells U1 and W1 of NUagecalc. 9. Analyses conducted by LA-MC-ICPMS, as described by Gehrels et al. (2008). 10. U concentration and U/Th are calibrated relative to Sri Lanka zircon standard and are accurate to ~20%. 11. Common Pb correction is from measured 204Pb with common Pb composition interpreted from Stacey and Kramers (1975). 12. Common Pb composition assigned uncertainties of 1.5 for 206Pb/204Pb, 0.3 for 207Pb/204Pb, and 2.0 for 208Pb/204Pb. 13. U/Pb and 206Pb/207Pb fractionation is calibrated relative to fragments of a large Sri Lanka zircon of ± 3.2 Ma (2-sigma). 14. U decay constants and composition as follows: 238U = x 10-10, 235U = x 10-10, 238U/235U = Weighted mean and concordia plots determined with Isoplot (Ludwig, 2008). Kyanite Abundance In addition to analyses of detrital zircon ages, we observed relative concentrations of kyanite in heavy mineral separates. These observations were compiled because kyanite has been relatively rare in samples processed at the University of Arizona Laserchron Center, but is a distinctive heavy mineral tracer from high-grade metamorphic terrains, like those of the Appalachians in the southeastern US (e.g. Merschat, 2009), and the Trans-Hudson in the western Canadian shield region (e.g. St-Onge et al., 2006).

9 Our observations consist of relative abundances. 0 = no kyanite; 1 = 1-2 kyanite grains, a typical sample; 2-3 = small kyanite population, but present beyond "typical sample"; 4-5 = moderate kyanite presence; 6-7 = abundant kyanite; 8-10 = heavy mineral separates dominated by kyanite. Table DR4 summarizes kyanite abundance from the Alberta Oil Sands, whereas Table DR5 summarizes the same for Cenomanian and Paleocene samples of the Gulf of Mexico. Table DR4 Relative abundances of kyanite in heavy mineral separates from the Aptian-Albian Mannville Group, Alberta Oil Sands. Project Sample Stratigraphic Unit Area Kyanite XOM-AOS 9 Upper Grand Rapids Cold Lake 0 XOM-AOS 12 Middle Grand Rapids Cold Lake 0 XOM-AOS 20 Lower Grand Rapids Cold Lake 0 XOM-AOS 18 Upper Clearwater Cold Lake 0 XOM-AOS 16 Middle Clearwater Cold Lake 0 XOM-AOS 6 Lower Clearwater Cold Lake 0 XOM-AOS 14 Lower Clearwater Cold Lake 1 XOM-AOS 4 Upper McMurray Firebag 5 XOM-AOS 5 Lower McMurray Firebag 4 XOM-AOS 22 Lower McMurray Muskeg 3 XOM-AOS 23 Middle McMurray Muskeg 3 XOM-AOS 25 Upper McMurray Muskeg 2 XOM-AOS 26 Upper McMurray Muskeg 4 XOM-AOS 7 McMurray fluvial Cold Lake 1 XOM-AOS 17 McMurray fluvial Cold Lake 0 Table DR5 Relative abundances of kyanite in heavy mineral separates from Gulf of Mexico Cenomanian Tuscaloosa-Woodbine and Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox fluvial deposits. Project Sample Galloway (2008) Episode Local Name Kyanite XOM-MDB 21 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Coker Fm. 8 XOM-MDB 22 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Coker Fm. 5 XOM-MDB 23 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Coker Fm. 1 XOM-MDB 24 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Coker Fm. 9 XOM-MDB 29 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Coker Fm. 6 XOM-MDB 36 Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa undif. 0 XOM-MDB 49 Cretaceous Woodbine Woodbine undif. 0 XOM-MDB 50 Cretaceous Woodbine Woodbine undif. 0 XOM-MDB 51 Cretaceous Woodbine Woodbine undif. 2 XOM-MDB 52 Cretaceous Woodbine Dexter Fm. 0 XOM-MDB 53 Cretaceous Woodbine Dexter Fm. 0

10 XOM-MDB 54 Cretaceous Woodbine Dexter Fm. 0 XOM-MDB 55 Cretaceous Woodbine Woodbine undif. 0 XOM-MDB 17 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm. 4 XOM-MDB 19 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm. 9 XOM-MDB 10 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm. 9 XOM-MDB 11 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm. 6 XOM-MDB 12 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm. 10 XOM-MDB 13 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm. 8 XOM-MDB 14 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm. 10 XOM-MDB 25 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm. 9 XOM-MDB 26 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm. 10 XOM-MDB 27 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm. 6 XOM-MDB 31 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Naheola Fm. 8 XOM-MDB 40 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif. 0 XOM-MDB 43 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif. 1 XOM-MDB 44 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif. 0 XOM-MDB 46 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif. 0 XOM-MDB 47 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif. 5 XOM-MDB 76 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif. 3 XOM-MDB 75 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif. 1 XOM-MDB 74 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif. 1 XOM-MDB 73 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif. 1 XOM-MDB 72 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Wilcox undif. 2 XOM-MDB 71 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Simsboro 0 XOM-MDB 70 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Simsboro 1 XOM-MDB 69 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Simsboro 0 XOM-MDB 67 Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Simsboro 1 XOM-MDB 65 Eocene Upper Wilcox Carrizo 2 XOM-MDB 64 Eocene Upper Wilcox Carrizo 0 Paleodrainage Interpretation from DZ Data Zircon ages for North American source terrains are increasingly well-known (Fig DR5), however, interpretation of DZ data is complicated by (a) the availability of zircons from specific time periods, so as to calculate depositional ages, (b) reworking of grains through numerous cycles of uplift, erosion, transport, deposition and burial, and exhumation, which plays a role in provenance interpretations, (c) rims and cores might yield different ages (inheritance), and (d) complications due to Pb loss. Generally, Mesozoic and younger deposits derived from the Appalachians have no source for zircons young enough to provide maximum depositional ages that are within 100 Myrs of true depositional ages. By contrast, Cretaceous and younger fluvial systems with source terrains in the western US have access to numerous sources for young zircons, such that maximum depositional age from DZs and true depositional age can converge.

11 Figure DR5. Map illustrating North American crustal and magmatic zircon source terrains. As used here, Archean shield source terrains imply zircons ultimately derived from the Superior, Wyoming-Hearne-Rae and Slave cratons = >2500 Ma, whereas Wopmay craton = Ma, Trans-Hudson and Penokean orogens = Ma, Yavapai-Mazatzal orogens = Ma, Mid-Continent anorogenic granite-rhyolite province = Ma, Grenville orogen = Ma, and Amarillo-Witchita = Ma. Appalachian is used here as a geographic region, the Appalachian-Ouachita cordillera, which includes Taconic, Acadian, Alleghanian, and Ouachita orogenic phases ( Ma), accreted Gondwanan terranes ( Ma), and Grenville signatures reworked from NeoProterozoic and Paleozoic rocks within the Appalachians and the adjacent Paleozoic foreland basin. Western Cordillera = Ma, and includes Permian through Cretaceous arc-related magmatism, as well as zircons derived from the late Cretaceous through Paleocene Laramide province. A-W = Amarillo-Witchita, whereas dashed line demarcates Laramide province. Adapted from Mackey et al. (2012), Gehrels et al. (2011), and Park et al. (2010).

12 The most important methodological caveat for interpretation of paleodrainage is the significance of recycled zircons, especially Archean and Proterozoic zircons that may have been transported multiple times across the continent. There is no question that reworking is an important component of the data presented here. The most obvious example is the ubiquitous Grenville signature found in Cretaceous through modern samples derived from the Appalachians in the southeastern US, and in Cretaceous samples derived from the deformed Appalachian-Ouachita foreland basin in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Grenville basement is not widely exposed in the southeastern US, but (a) Grenville basement is especially rich in zirconium, and hyper prolific with respect to zircons (Moecher and Samson, 2006), and (b) Grenville-age grains are well-known from Neo-Proterozoic metasedimentary rocks in the Appalachian fold and thrust belt, and foreland basin, and Late Paleozoic to modern fluvial sands derived from there (Eriksson et al., 2003; 2004; Becker et al., 2005; Park et al., 2010; see also modern GoM river samples in the data table). We consider the DZ signal of the Appalachian cordillera geomorphic region to include the primary Taconic, Acadian, and Alleghanian phases of the Appalachian orogeny ( Ma), and the Grenville signal ( Ma) within Meso-Proterozoic basement and metasedimentary rocks in the Appalachian fold and thrust belt. Our data also commonly includes DZ age spectra that fall into the general range of Ma. These ages are (a) characteristic of Neo-Proterozoic to Cambrian Iapetus rifting (ca ), which is exposed in the the New England states, the Blue Ridge of Virginia, and the Wichita Mountains of Oklahoma, (b) of Gondwanan affinity, derived from the Carolina and other terranes, or (c) characteristic of the Mt. Rogers volcanics (ca Ma) in the Carolinas and Georgia (Becker et al., 2005; Park et al., 2010). As noted by Thomas (2011), there are western US and Canadian sources for zircons in this age range from the general area of, and which are intruded by, the Mesozoic Idaho batholith (U-Pb ages of Ma and Ma; Lund et al., 2010). However, we note: (a) DZ ages of Ma are present in samples from the Appalachian foreland basin fill (Becker et al., 2005), and in Cenomanian samples from the GoM Tuscaloosa-Woodbine outcrop belt; (b) this small number of DZ ages occur in samples that have a significant Jurassic and Cretaceous signal from the Idaho batholith proper, and samples that do not; (c) the same can be said for DZ ages reported from Alberta (Leier and Gehrels, 2011), from Montana (Fuentes et al., 2011), and from the Big Horn Basin of Wyoming (May et al., 2013). We therefore consider the general age range from Ma to be consistent with, and more likely derived from, the Appalachian cordillera. Nevertheless, because of the widespread dispersal of DZs from the Appalachian cordillera to the west, we recognize that Appalachian-Grenville signatures in samples from the Alberta Oil Sands are not in themselves diagnostic of a direct Appalachian source, and could be reworked from the Western Interior as argued for the foredeep farther west (Leier and Gehrels, 2011; Fuentes et al., 2011; Raines et al., 2013). Instead, it is (a) the small numbers of zircons of Yavapai-Mazatzal and Cordilleran arc origin within lower Mannville strata that indicate minimal contributions from the south and southwest, and (b) the remarkable similarity between Alberta DZ populations and those of the GoM Cenomanian Woodbine outcrop trend that lead us towards a direct Appalachian-Ouachita and, more broadly, an eastern source. This latter relationship is best displayed using the K-S test, which tests for statistical similarity between DZ populations: in Table DR6, samples that are statistically distinct and indicate a different source have K-S values <0.05, and are in white boxes, whereas samples that are statistically

13 similar (K-S>0.05) are shown in yellow. Cold Lake McMurray samples are statistically indistinguishable from Woodbine samples in Texas and Oklahoma. Table DR6 K-S test, comparing McMurray samples from Cold Lake (samples AOS-17 and 7) with the Cenomanian Tuscaloosa-Woodbine trend of the GoM coastal plain. AOS-17 and 7 are statistically indistinct from all of the Woodbine samples (MDB-55, 54, 53, 52, 50, and 49). The reworking issue is also significant to the interpretation of GoM Paleocene Wilcox strata. For example, Cordilleran arc-derived zircons are common in Late Cretaceous strata of the Sevier foreland basin (Dickenson and Gehrels, 2008; May et al., 2013), and their presence in Wilcox strata from the Mississippi embayement and farther west can be interpreted as a reworked signal. However, the lack of strong Grenville signals in west-derived Wilcox strata is significant: Grenville grains are ubiquitous in Mississippian through Jurassic rocks of the western US (Riggs et al., 1996; Gleason et al., 2007; Dickenson and Gehrels, 2008; 2009; Gehrels et al., 2011; Leier and Gehrels, 2011; Fuentes et al., 2011; Raines et al., 2013; May et al., 2013; Soreghan and Soreghan, 2013), and would be abundant in Wilcox strata if they were derived from reworking of the Cordilleran foreland-basin succession. Indeed, Grenville signals are significant in our Wilcox samples from the Mississippi embayement and farther east, but not in samples farther to the west in Texas, nor are they significant in Wilcox DZ samples reported in Craddock et al. (2013) from the paleo-red River axis in western Louisiana, or from DZ samples reported by Mackey et al. (2012) from the paleo-rio Grande axis in southwest Texas: east-west changes in Wilcox DZ proportions are illustrated in Fig. DR6. We argue that arcderived populations are not simply reworked from the foreland-basin fill, but include a primary component that indicates drainage areas within or proximal to the arc itself.

14 Figure DR6. Alongstrike proportions of detrital-zircon populations in the Paleocene Wilcox outcrop belt, from Alabama to SW Texas. See Fig. DR3 for sample locations. Samples GM-3, 4, and 5, in bold, are from Mackey et al. (2012). Samples reported in Craddock and Kylander- Clark (2013) from western Louisiana are most similar to samples 69 and 70, and are statistically distinct from all samples except for 64, 67, 69, 70, 74, and 46. References Cited Blum, M.D., Aslan, A. (2006) Signatures of climate vs. sea-level change within incised valleyfill successions: Quaternary examples from the Texas Gulf Coast. Sedimentary Geology 190, Craddock, W.H., Kylander-Clark, A.R.C. (2013) U-Pb ages of detrital zircons from the Tertiary Mississippi River Delta in central Louisiana: insights into sediment provenance. Geosphere, v. 9. Dickinson, W. R., Gehrels, G. E. (2008) Sediment delivery to the Cordilleran foreland basin: insights from u-pb ages of detrital zircons in upper Jurassic and Cretaceous strata of the Colorado Plateau. Amer. J. Sci., v. 308, p Dickinson, W. R., Gehrels, G. E. (2009) U-Pb ages of detrital zircons in Jurassic eolian and associated sandstones of the Colorado Plateau: evidence for transcontinental dispersal and intraregional recycling of sediment. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. v. 121, p Eriksson, K. A. et al. (2003) Predominance of Grenvillian magmatism recorded in detrital zircons from modern Appalachian Rivers. J. Geol. v. 111, p Fuentes, F. et al. (2009) Jurassic onset of foreland basin deposition in northwestern Montana, USA: Implications for along-strike synchroneity of Cordilleran orogenic activity. Geology, v. 37, p

15 Galloway, W. E. et al. (2008) Depositional evolution of the Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin, in Hsü, KJ (ed.) Sedimentary basins of the world, Volume 5, The sedimentary basins of the United States and Canada. The Netherlands, Elsevier, p Galloway, W. E. et al. (2011) History of Cenozoic North American drainage basin evolution, sediment yield, and accumulation in the Gulf of Mexico basin. Geosphere; v. 7, p Gehrels, G.E., Valencia, V., Ruiz, J. (2008) Enhanced precision, accuracy, efficiency, and spatial resolution of U-Pb ages by laser ablation multicollector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 9, Q Gehrels, G.E., Valencia, V., Pullen, A. (2006) Detrital zircon geochronology by Laser-Ablation Multicollector ICPMS at the Arizona LaserChron Center, in Loszewski, T., and Huff, W., eds., Geochronology: Emerging Opportunities, Paleontology Society Short Course: Paleontology Society Papers, v. 11, 10 p. Gehrels, G. E. et al. (2011) Detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology of Paleozoic strata in the Grand Canyon, Arizona. Lithosphere, v. 3, p Gleason, J. G. et al. (2007) Laurentian sources for detrital zircon grains in turbidite and deltaic sandstones of the Pennsylvanian Haymond Formation, Marathon Assemblage, West Texas, U.S.A. J. Sed. Res. v, 77, p Hayes, B. J. R. et al. (1994) Cretaceous Mannville Group of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. In: Mossop, G and Shetsen, I (compilers) Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and Alberta Research Council. Last modified: May 16, Joeckel, R. M. et al. (2005) Paleogeography and fluvial-estuarine architecture of the Dakota Formation (Cretaceous, Albian), eastern Nebraska, USA. In Blum, M. D. et al. (eds.) Fluvial Sedimentology VII, IAS Special Publication 35, Leier, A. L., Gehrels, G. E. (2011) Continental-scale detrital zircon provenance signatures in Lower Cretaceous strata, western North America. Geology, v. 39, p Ludwig, K.R. (2008) Isoplot Berkeley Geochronology Center, Special Publication No. 4, 77 p. Lund, K. (2010) SHRIMP U-Pb dating of recurrent Cryogenian and Late Cambrian Early Ordovician alkalic magmatism in central Idaho: Implications for Rodinian rift tectonics. GSA Bulletin, v. 122, p Mackey, G. N. et al. (2012) Provenance of the Paleocene Eocene Wilcox Group, western Gulf of Mexico basin: Evidence for integrated drainage of the southern Laramide Rocky Mountains and Cordilleran arc. GSA Bulletin, v. 124, p May, S. R. et al. (2013) Detrital-zircon geochronology from the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming, USA: Implications for tectonostratigraphic evolution and paleogeography. GSA Bulletin v. 125, p Merriam, D. F. (1962) Geologic History of Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 162. Merschat, A. J. (2009) Assembling the Blue Ridge and Inner Piedmont: Insights into the nature and timing of terrane accretion in the southern Appalachian orogen from geologic mapping, stratigraphy, kinematic analysis, petrology, geochemistry, and modern geochronology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Knoxville, University of Tennessee, 455 p. Moecher, D.P., and Samson, S.D. (2006) Differential zircon fertility of source terranes and natural bias in the detrital zircon record: Implications for sedimentary provenance analysis: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 247, p

16 Park, H. et al. (2010) Application of foreland basin detrital-zircon geochronology to the reconstruction of the southern and central Appalachian orogen. J. Geology, v. 118, p Raines, M. K. et. al. (2013) Sediment dispersal in an evolving foreland: Detrital zircon geochronology from Upper Jurassic and lowermost Cretaceous strata, Alberta Basin, Canada. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. v. 125, p Riggs, N. R. et al. (1996) Detrital zircon link between headwaters and terminus of the Upper Triassic Chinle-Dockum paleoriver system. Science, v. 273, p Soreghan, G. S., Soreghan, M. J. (2013) Tracing clastic delivery to the Permian Delaware Basin, U.S.A.: implications 2930for paleogeography and circulation in westernmost Equatorial Pangea. J. Sed. Res. v, 83, p Stacey, J.S., and Kramers, J.D. (1975) Approximation of terrestrial lead isotope evolution by a two-stage model: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 26, p St-Onge, M., Searle, M.P., Wodicka, N. (2006) Trans-Hudson Orogen of North America and Himalaya-Karakoram-Tibetan Orogen of Asia: Structural and thermal characteristics of the lower and upper plates. Tectonics, v. 25, TC4006. Thomas, W.A. (2011) Detrital-zircon geochronology and sedimentary provenance. Lithosphere, v. 3, p