Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 Ž2000.

353–367
www.elsevier.nlrlocaterjappgeo

3-D gravity and magnetic interpretation for the

Haifa Bay area žIsrael/
M. Rybakov ) , V. Goldshmidt, L. Fleischer, Y. Ben-Gai
The Geophysical Institute of Israel (GII), P.O. Box 2286, Holon 58122, Israel
Received 22 September 1998; accepted 28 March 2000

Abstract

Recently observed features in the subsurface geology of the Haifa Bay area Žnorthern Israel. have been evaluated using
3-D forward gravity and magnetic modeling and inversion schemes. The interpretation is based on updated petrophysical
data of the Jurassic, Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary layers and volcanics. It has been shown that the Bouguer gravity
anomalies correspond mainly to thickness variations in the Senonian to Tertiary sediments. The gravity effect of these
sediments was calculated using their actual densities and structural setting as interpreted from seismic reflection data. This
effect was removed from the Bouguer gravity in order to study the pre-Senonian geological structures. The pattern of
residual gravity anomalies Žnamed ‘‘stripped gravity’’. is essentially different from the pattern of the Bouguer gravity. The
prominent Carmel gravity high, clearly seen on the Bouguer gravity map, completely vanishes on the ‘‘stripped’’ gravity
map. That suggests that this relatively positive anomaly is caused by the considerable thickness of the low-density young
sediments in the surrounding areas and does not correspond to high-density magmatic rocks or crystalline basement uplift as
previously suggested. The average densities of the Jurassic and Cretaceous volcanics are generally lower then those of the
background sedimentary rocks. Volcanics are the main cause for magnetic anomalies onshore and offshore northern Israel.
The magmatic root of the Asher volcanics is, most probably, located close to the Yagur fault. A large, deep-seated gabbroic
intrusion is assumed to be located under the Mediterranean abyssal plain in the NW part of the study area. The Atlit marine
gravity low appears to be caused by a thick Mesozoic and Tertiary sedimentary accumulation. The results presented should
be of considerable assistance in delineating some aspects of hydrocarbon exploration in the area. q 2000 Elsevier Science
B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Gravity; Magnetics; Subsurface structures; Magmatism; Northern Israel

1. Introduction This structure comprises a prominent NNE

The Carmel structure in northern Israel Ž Fig.
1. is an elongated, tilted block extending from
the onshore into the shelf of the Haifa Bay area.
)
Corresponding author. Tel.: q972-3-557-6050; fax:
q972-3-557-2925.
E-mail address: rybakov@gii.co.il ŽM. Rybakov..
trending folding system, traversed by several
NW trending faults. The folding is probably
part of the Late Cretaceous to Tertiary ‘‘Syrian
Arc’’ compressional phase Ž Picard and Kashai,
1958; Arad, 1965; Sass, 1980; Ginzburg et al.,
1975; Neev et al., 1976; Ron et al., 1984;
Rotstein et al., 1993; Ben-Gai and Ben-Avra-
ham, 1995.. The Carmel structure onshore is

0926-9851r00r$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 6 - 9 8 5 1 Ž 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 3 - 6
354 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367

Fig. 1. Magnetic anomalies of the Eastern Mediterranean. The anomalies named after the major features, i.e., Eratosthenes
ŽE., Carmel ŽC. and Hebron ŽH. are the largest anomalies of the region. The regional tectonic map is shown in the insert.

separated from the Qishon graben to the north
by the Yagur fault ŽFigs. 2, 4 and 6. with a
vertical displacement of more than 1000 m
ŽPicard and Kashai, 1958; Ginzburg et al., 1975;
Neev et al., 1976. .
Our present knowledge of the subsurface ge-
ology, both onshore and offshore, is based on
the deep oil wells ŽFig. 2. and on limited and
scattered seismic reflection data. The Triassic
and Jurassic sequences penetrated in the area
are, in general, carbonates with minor facies
changes. The Cretaceous strata are characterized
by an abrupt change from shallow platform
carbonates to open marine, shaly–marly slope
facies. The Upper Cretaceous and Cenozoic
rocks have been eroded from the elevated areas
of Mount Carmel and its offshore extension.
Thick Cenozoic sequences of chalks and marls
are only present in the Qishon graben and in the
Ramot Menashe–Hadera syncline located north
and south of the Carmel structure. The geologi-
cal data on both sides of the Yagur fault suggest
that it was non-existent until the mid-Cenozoic
and its onset probably coincides with the left-
lateral motion along the Dead Sea Transform
fault Žde Sitter, 1962; Freund, 1970; Ben-Gai
and Ben-Avraham, 1995..
Mount Carmel is characterized by intense
volcanic activity which began in the Early
Jurassic and continued during the Cretaceous
and Tertiary. The Liassic Asher volcanics of the
olivine basalt with some gabbroid magmatic
 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367 355

Fig. 2. Bathyorographical Žbottom, after Hall, 1993. and magnetic Žtop. maps of the Haifa Bay area. Insert: location map of
the referred wells corresponding to a bigger area.

intrusions are intercalated with the Triassic and
the Jurassic carbonates and exceed a thickness
of 2500 m in the Atlit-1 well ŽGvirtzman and
Steinitz, 1983; Dvorkin and Kohn, 1989.. Simi-
lar basaltic rocks, 200 m thick, were penetrated
in the Yagur-1 well, while the alternations of
tuffs with basaltic lava flows of 270 m were
encountered in the Deborah-2A well located 30
km east of the Carmel structure Ž Fig. 2. . The
Tayassir volcanics ŽMimran, 1972. overlie the
regional Base Cretaceous unconformity and are
widespread in northern Israel. These volcanics
consist of basaltic lava and tuffs, alternating
occasionally with sedimentary rocks, have been
penetrated in a number of wells. The youngest
volcanics, composed mainly of a series of tuffs,
are interbedded in the Cenomanian–Senonian
rocks and mapped on Mount Carmel and south
of it ŽSass, 1980; Arad, 1965..
The magnetic anomaly corresponding to the
Mount Carmel structure is one of the largest
magnetic anomalies in the Eastern Mediter-
ranean ŽFig. 1, Rybakov et al., 1994. . This
anomaly was the subject of many studies Ž Ginz-
burg, 1960; Domzalski, 1967, 1986; Folkman,
1976; Ben-Avraham and Hall, 1977; Ben-
Avraham and Ginzburg, 1986; Gvirtzman et al.,
1990.. Interpretations performed prior to the
356 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367
findings in the Atlit-1 well in 1981 suggested a
highly elevated crystalline basement while, af-
terwards, the concept of an Early Jurassic shield
volcano spreading over the area was adopted by
researchers. Garfunkel and Derin Ž 1984. sug-
gested that this volcanic phase belongs to an
early Mesozoic rifting of the Levant margin.
For the moment, a pile of Asher volcanics, 2500
m thick penetrated in the Atlit-1 well, is a
unique feature that bears on the evolution of the
complex east Mediterranean, so that even its
crustal composition is still in dispute.
As noted above, the evolution of the Carmel
structure is not fully understood. An extensional
tectonic regime, associated with widespread
volcanism, is suggested for the Early Mesozoic,
followed by the development of a shallow car-
bonate platform during Mesozoic and Early
Cenozoic times. Later on, in the Middle Ceno-
zoic, the left lateral Dead Sea transform fault
produced the modern faulted block of Mount
Carmel and the Qishon Graben.
Several questions relating to the cycled vol-
canic activity in the Carmel area could be for-
mulated as follows.
Ø Are there more intrusive bodies in the area?
Ø Was the Asher Volcano fed from a single
neck or from a zone of weakness?
Ø If such a zone of weakness is indeed present,
is it associated with the modern Yagur fault?
Two main problems may be defined with regard
to the technical aspects of previous interpreta-
tions: the three-dimensionality of the structures
was not accounted for and the densities of the
volcanics were overestimated. A new interpreta-
tion of the gravity and magnetic data, based on
3-D routines with updated density values and
magnetic vectors, has been performed and is
presented in this paper.
2. The data
The gravity and magnetic data used in this
study are part of the GII Ž Geophysical Institute
of Israel. database ŽRybakov et al., 1997.. The
magnetic data were composed of the aeromag-
netic measurements at a constant flight level of
about 1 km Žline spacing — 2 km. and marine
measurements. The marine magnetic data, con-
tinued upward to an elevation of 1 km, are in
agreement with the aeromagnetic data. This
magnetic data set was checked for erroneous
values, gridded and slightly smoothed using the
inverse distance method. The International Geo-
magnetic Reference Field ŽIGRF. was removed
and, therefore, the magnetic data used represent
magnetic anomalies, provided that the magnetic
core field was adequately removed. The result-
ing grid ŽFig. 2. was used for reduction to the
pole and upward magnetic continuation,
pseudo-gravity calculation and gravity–mag-
netic correlation. 3-D magnetic modeling and
inversion were also based on this grid.
All the graÕity data were reduced to a
Bouguer density of 2670 kgrm3. This value
was chosen using the Nettleton technique Ž Net-
tleton, 1971. applied to a number of typical
topographical sections. The terrain corrections
for all land gravity stations were calculated up
to a 20-km distance using a model with a 25-m
grid adopted from the Digital Terrain Model
ŽDTM. compiled by the Geological Survey of
Israel ŽHall, 1993. . The gravity data have a
reliability and accuracy that allows interpolation
to a 2-mGal contour interval. The data set was
gridded and gently smoothed using similar tech-
niques and parameters. This grid was used for
regional–residual gravity separation, horizontal
and vertical gravity derivatives calculation and
gravity–magnetic correlation. The 3-D gravity
modeling and resulting map compilation were
based on this grid.
3. Petrophysics
All the available density and magnetic rock
susceptibility data were collected and incorpo-
rated in a data bank Ž Rybakov et al., 1999. . Fig.
3 presents a generalized petrophysical model of
the Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks.
 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367 357

Fig. 3. Generalized petrophysical model of the Haifa Bay area as inferred from a number of deep boreholes ŽRybakov et al.,
1999., only four typical density logs are shown. The logging density variation Ž10 3 kgrm3 . is shown along the stratigraphic
units drilled by the boreholes. Magnetic susceptibility Ž K in 10y5 SI. is assessed only for volcanics.

The average magnetic susceptibility values
for all igneous rocks ŽEarly Jurassic Asher vol-
canics, Late Jurassic Deborah volcanics, Early
Cretaceous Tayassir volcanics and Late Creta-
ceous Carmel volcanics. are assumed to be
0.02–0.03 SI units ŽRybakov et al., 1999. . The
relation between remanent and induced magne-
tization, measured from samples of the Jurassic
volcanics, was defined as 0.03–0.3. This im-
plies that the magnetic anomalies caused by
such bodies depend mainly on induced magneti-
zation. The parameters of the induced magneti-
zation vector were computed using the IGRF
program.
The densities for the stratigraphic sequences
were calculated using borehole log density data.
Fig. 3 shows that the main density contrast
occurs between the least dense Ž about 2000–
358 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367
2100 kgrm3 . Senonian–Tertiary rocks and the
predominantly carbonate, older Mesozoic rocks.
The densest rocks Žup to 2850 kgrm3 . are
scattered anhydrite and dolomites of Late Trias-
sic occurring in the Deborah-2A well. The den-
sity of rocks older than the Triassic was esti-
mated at 2670 kgrm3, corresponding to the
Bouguer density. The Early Jurassic Asher vol-
canics have an average density of about 2550–
2600 kgrm3 ŽFig. 3.. This means that volcanic
rocks have a negative density contrast relative
to the Mesozoic carbonate sequence, which have
an average density of about 2750 kgrm3.
4. Analysis and interpretation of the gravity
and magnetic data
A generation of initial subsurface geological
model corresponding to the geophysical obser-
vations is an important interpretation stage. All
additional investigations mainly check and re-
fine the results revealed during this stage which
includes an analysis of both the potential fields
and their transformations in an attempt to em-
phasize the various frequency components of
the gravity and magnetic fields. A variety of
filtering techniques was employed in order to
enhance the data sets prior to interpretation
ŽCordell et al., 1992. : regional–residual gravity
separation; horizontal and vertical gravity and
magnetic derivatives; reduction to the pole and
upward magnetic continuation; pseudo-gravity
and gravity–magnetic correlation.
The Bouguer graÕity values in the area vary
from 40 to 110 mGal and they generally de-
crease to the southeast. The cause of the re-
gional gravity trend could be the transition from
oceanic crust of the Eastern Mediterranean to
the continental crust of the Arabian plate, which
may occur under the Levant margin Ž Makris and
Wang, 1994.. For interpretation purposes, the
regional–residual separation of the gravity
anomalies was conducted using the regional
trend that was calculated as a third order poly-
nomial surface. Removing this trend, the resid-
ual Bouguer gravity map has been compiled
ŽFig. 4. . The main features of this map are a
NW trending high with a magnitude of about 50
mGal and two wide lows. The gravity high
consists of three separate anomalies Ž Fig. 4. :
a. The southern anomaly, located south of
Mount Carmel, is about 20 km in length along
its NNW oriented axis; its southern boundary
coincides with the northern edge of the Tertiary
sedimentary embayment.
b. The central and most intense part of the
positive gravity ridge is steeply bounded on all
sides.
c. The northern part, oriented NNE and per-
pendicular to the central part, consists of a few
local highs. A small, but clearly observed, local
gravity low coincides with the Carmel high
elevation near Haifa. The wide gravity low in
the southwest has a magnitude of about y10
mGal. No significant gravity anomalies have
been observed in the northwest side of the study
area.
As mentioned above, the lateral changes in
the thickness of low-density young sediments
are the main reason for the residual anomalies
in the area. The thickness of the young sedi-
ments was deduced from seismic reflection data
as the difference between the sea floor and the
structural depth to the top Turonian ŽFig. 4..
These values were used to calculate and subtract
the gravity effect of the low-density sediments.
This stage of ‘‘gravity stripping’’ was per-
formed using the PFGRAV3D program devel-
oped by Blakely Ž Cordell et al., 1992. . This
program calculates the gravity effect using three
rectangular grids that define the source: the top
surface, the bottom surface and the density con-
trast. In this case the first surface corresponds to
the sea floor and the second to the top Turonian
carbonates ŽFig. 5.. The density contrast was
derived from density well logs Ž Fig. 3. . The
negative gravity effect of the low-density sedi-
ments ranging from y60 to y10 mGal was
removed from the observed gravity values. The
gravity effect of the Asher volcanics was calcu-
 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367 359

Fig. 4. Residual Bouguer anomalies of the Haifa Bay area Žcontour interval — 5 mGal.. Schematic structural map on top of
the Turonian carbonates Žcontour interval — 500 m.. Residual ‘‘stripped’’ gravity map of the study area Žcontour interval
— 5 mGal.. Densities of the young sediments and Asher volcanics were replaced by average Bouguer density.

lated using the GRAVPOLY program Ž Godson, The geometry of the volcanic bodies was
1983a.. taken from the 3-D magnetic interpretation de-
360 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367
Fig. 5. Stages of ‘‘gravity stripping.’’
scribed below. The density contrast was as-
sumed from density logs. The negative gravity
effect of the volcanic rocks, ranging from y0
to y15 mGal, was also removed from the
Bouguer gravity values. Replacing the actual
densities of the young sediments and volcanics
to an average Bouguer density Ž2670 kgrm3 .,
we cleaned the Bouguer gravity anomalies from
the influence of the above mentioned geological
bodies. The gravity anomalies obtained should
be named ‘‘stripped’’ gravity anomalies. Re-
moving the regional trend from the ‘‘stripped’’
gravity anomalies, we compiled the residual
‘‘stripped’’ gravity anomalies. The stages of the
‘‘gravity stripping’’ are illustrated in Fig. 5.
Inasmuch as the final results are strongly de-
pending on the accuracy of the calculated grav-
ity effect we estimated this parameter by using
realistic limitations of the top Turonian and
density data as well as the accuracy of the 3-D
gravity calculation. The total error does not
exceeding of 4 mGal.
The pattern of the residual ‘‘stripped’’ grav-
ity anomalies ŽFig. 4. is essentially different
from that of the residual Bouguer gravity. The
studied area consists of a number of local grav-
ity lows and highs that are not apparent on the
Bouguer data. The elongated positive anomaly,
with a magnitude of about of 15 mGal, is
extended NW to about 20 km from the Qishon
graben to the Haifa Bay area. The SW boundary
of this anomaly coincides with the present Yagur
fault, while its NE boundary appears to be a
newly discovered lineament. The high gravity
gradients are related to these boundaries. An
elongated negative gravity anomaly with magni-
tude of about y5 mGal, located SW of the
above-mentioned positive anomaly, is about 15
km long. Only the SE part of this anomaly is
seen inland as a small gravity low on the non-
stripped data ŽFig. 4. . A rounded gravity high
with a magnitude of about 5 mGal is located
between the Atlit-1 and Foxtrot-1 wells. The
Foxtrot-1 well is located in a complex gravity
 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367
saddle. A high gravity anomaly occupies the
NW corner of the study area. The magnitude of
this wide anomaly reaches about 25 mGal. A
wide gravity low is located in the SW corner of
the area with a magnitude of about y25 mGal.
A relatively small, elongated ŽN–S. positive
gravity anomaly with a magnitude of about 10
mGal, oriented southward, is delineated in the
near shore close to the Atlit-1 well.
Gravity features, possibly fault or structure
related, were drawn in the interpretation map
ŽFig. 6. using the residual gravity maps Ž Bouguer
and stripped. and horizontal gravity gradients.
Magnetic anomalies are a distortion of the
total geomagnetic field caused by local changes
in the rock magnetization. In contrast to the
gravity, the sedimentary strata are ‘‘transparent’’
and the magnetic anomalies are caused only by
basic magmatism. The parameters of the Earth’s
total field vector for the area of study Ž inclina-
tion s 458, declinations 38 and total field mag-
nitude about 43,500 nT. were calculated using a
program developed by the US National Space
Science Data Center. The theoretical magnetic
anomaly, caused by a body magnetized by this
normal geomagnetic field, contains the conju-
gated maximum and minimum, the latter lying
to the north. This signature is important for
geological understanding of a pattern of the
magnetic anomalies. The central part of the
studied area is occupied by a few magnetic
anomalies as shown in Fig. 2. The easternmost
intensive Carmel magnetic anomaly Ml Ž peak to
peak is about 240 nT., oriented WNW, is about
40 km long. The northern edge of this anomaly
is marked by a sharp magnetic gradient. Its
southern edge shows moderate gradients.
The next magnetic anomaly Ž M2. is located
offshore west of the Carmel anomaly. It is
elongated in shape and trends NNE, perpendicu-
lar to the strike of the main direction of the
Carmel anomaly. Its peak to peak reaches 210
nT. This anomaly, extending over 20 km, is
bounded to the south and north by steep hori-
zontal gradients. The peak to peak of the M3
361
anomaly reaches 120 nT. Its marginal gradients
are more moderate than those of the other
anomalies mentioned above. The magnetic
anomaly M4, shown in the northeastern corner
of the studied area, is only a small part of a high
magnetic anomaly located in the southern off-
shore of Lebanon Ž Fig. 1. . No magnetic anoma-
lies are present in the southwestern part of the
studied area.
High frequency magnetic anomalies, located
offshore, have been mapped by the marine mag-
netic survey. We speculate that these anomalies
were caused by shallow basic volcanics. The
location is marked on the interpretation map as
M5 ŽFig. 6.. These volcanic rocks probably
belong to the Cretaceous volcanic formation
that outcropped in Mount Carmel. The deep-
seated magmatics ŽM3. are marked in the north-
west part of the area using the pseudo-gravity
transformation.
The results obtained from potential field data
are inherently non-unique. The present interpre-
tation should also be considered a member of
the class of possible solutions that could pro-
duce magnetic and gravity patterns matching the
observations. The appraisal values of the den-
sity, magnetic susceptibility and the calculated
depths should be regarded as rough estimates.
In the first stage of the quantitative interpre-
tation scheme, magnetic data were interpreted
using the Werner deconvolution technique Ž the
USGS potential fields software package, Cordell
et al., 1992. . This 2-D program computes depths
associated with magnetic basement dikes or
faults using the input magnetic profile for the
depth solutions Ž dike model. and the horizontal
derivative of the input profile for depth solu-
tions Ž fault model.. In spite of the sprays of
solutions are widely recognized features Ž Fig.
7., these data appeared to be useful to compile
an initial iteration for the 3-D magnetic model-
ing. The modeling was carried out using the
MAGPOLY program Ž Godson, 1983b. which
calculates the magnetic effect of polygonal bod-
ies bounded by two horizontal planes and a
362 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367

number of intersecting vertical planes ŽTalwani, assemblage of polygonal prisms is calculated

1965; Plouff, 1976.. The magnetic effect of an for all grid locations and should be compared

Fig. 6. Gravity and magnetic interpretation map of the Haifa Bay area.
 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367 363

with the interpolated values. The following as-
sumptions were made for the quantitative inter-
pretation.
1. The total magnetization vector coincides with
the vector of the Earth’s total field.
2. Magnetic susceptibility is the same as the
sample measurements.
3. The anomalies examined are caused by the
magmatic bodies, which are similar to the
Asher shield volcano Ž Gvirtzman et al.,
1990..
The MAGPOLY program was combined with
interactive PC programs that permit digitization
of polygon corners as well as imaging of the
observed and calculated fields. The resulting
3-D model was obtained after some experimen-
tation. The modeling iterative process was
stopped when the main features of the calcu-
lated anomaly had been adjusted to the observed
one. Based on the 3-D modeling, it appears that
concealed magnetic bodies located inside as
well as outside the investigated area cause the
magnetic anomalies. The plane view of these
bodies is shown on Fig. 6. The best fit for the
magnetic anomalies that were observed in the
area was obtained using the parameters shown
in Figs. 6 and 7.
It is important to estimate the reliability of
the model suggested. The deeper parts of the

Fig. 7. 3-D modeling results for the Carmel magnetic anomaly. Crosses Ždike model. and triangles Žfault model. show the
2-D depth solutions obtained by using the Werner deconvolution technique.
364 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367
model give rise to the small anomalies
and, hence, limit the resolution. The plane
projections of the magnetic body are more
reliably defined than the upper and lower
limits. The relatively simple geometry obtained
can be altered using a more complicated
assemblage of polygonal prisms Ž as in a pyra-
mid. which could lead to bodies with smoother
slopes. The difference between the anomalies
of the simple and complicated models is negli-
gible.
The top of the simple model was determined,
after some experimentation, with an accuracy of
about 0.5 km for the Carmel magmatics and
about 1 km for the western bodies. The Asher
volcanics were penetrated by the Atlit-1 and
Yagur-1 wells at a depth of 2.9 km Žestimated
as 3.5 km. and 2.4 km Žestimated as 2 km.,
respectively. It should be noted that, by using
realistic limitations for the initial parameters of
the causative body, we could average the misfit
between the observed and calculated anomalies
to less than about 25%. The magnetic data for
the deepest body has been interpreted by using
2-D magnetic modeling ŽRybakov, 1991.. The
magnetic effects of a large magmatic body with
thick roots best fit the observed Carmel mag-
netic anomaly. This root is probably located
close to the Yagur fault ŽFig. 7. .
The difference between magnetic anomalies
caused by basic volcanic layers intercalated
within the sedimentary rocks and a solid mag-
matic body Žgabbro intrusion with a similar
geometry and depth extension. is small. The
assumption that a magnetic body is located
below the Phanerozoic strata at a depth of about
8-km was also checked. Modeling showed that
a magmatic body could produce a magnetic
anomaly of the same magnitude as the measured
one, if an unrealistic magnetic susceptibility of
about 0.15–0.2 SI units is used. However, even
in this case, the gradients of the observed and
calculated anomalies cannot be adjusted; there-
fore, we suggest that a crystalline basement
does not cause the magnetic anomalies in the
studied area.
The magnetic effect of the Early Cretaceous
Tayassir volcanics and the Late Cretaceous vol-
canics, which outcrop on Mount Carmel, was
calculated for various levels using 2-D model-
ing. The magnitude of the calculated anomalies
was less than 8–10 nT for the 1-km elevation;
therefore such bodies cannot be effectively ob-
served using the available magnetic data.
5. Discussion
Three main directions can be seen on the
interpretation map Ž Fig. 6.. The first, which
strikes NW, generally coincides with the Yagur
fault and the Carmel ridge and is probably
enhanced by young tectonic dislocations. The
second, oriented northward and parallel to the
coastline and the continental slope Ž Fig. 2. ,
reflects the thickness variations of the young
sediments. The third, oriented E–W and mainly
observed in the southern part of the study area,
probably corresponds to a density heterogeneity
in the Mesozoic sequence. An areal distribution
of the basic magmatics has a similar direction
corresponding to an ancient Ž probably Meso-
zoic. weakness megazone. Ginzburg Ž 1960.
suggested that the density contrast between the
Cenozoic and the Mesozoic sequences is one of
the main causes of gravity disturbances. The
compiled ‘‘stripped’’ gravity map shows, for
the first time, the pattern of gravity anomalies
after removal of this effect Ž Fig. 4. .
The peak-to-peak of the gravity anomalies in
the area decreased from about 90 mGal on the
Bouguer gravity map to about 60 mGal on the
‘‘stripped’’ gravity map. The maximum hori-
zontal gradients are also less for ‘‘stripped’’
gravity. For example, a strip of the highest Ž up
to 20 mGalrkm. gravity gradients oriented
northward and located on the Atlit offshore, is
virtually invisible on the ‘‘stripped’’ map. The
‘‘stripped’’ gravity map shows a simple pattern
and consists of fewer features than the Bouguer
map ŽFig. 4.. This reflects the deep position and
large size of the causative bodies. The promi-
 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367
nent, positive Carmel gravity anomaly, clearly
seen on the Bouguer gravity maps ŽFig. 4.,
completely vanishes on the ‘‘stripped’’ gravity
map, suggesting that this anomaly is produced
by the great thickness of the low density rocks
in the surrounding areas. In contrast, an elon-
gated positive gravity anomaly appears north of
the Yagur fault after replacing the low-density
sediments of the Qishon graben. In our opinion,
this positive anomaly most probably expresses
high-density gabbroic rocks of the magmatic
root of the Asher volcanics ŽFig. 7. .
A large positive, rounded anomaly, occupy-
ing the whole NW corner of the area Ž Fig. 4.
emerged after gravity stripping. Good correla-
tion of this anomaly with the magmatic body
interpreted from the magnetic data leads us to
suggest a deep-seated gabbroic intrusion here.
The top of the intrusion reaches a depth of
about 8-km, as estimated by the quantitative
interpretation of the magnetic data. It is impor-
tant to emphasize that a number of features
interpreted from ‘‘stripped’’ gravity and located
near previously delineated features, now show a
different attitude as demonstrated, for example,
by the Foxtrot-1 well. Its location coincides
with the maximum of the NW oriented positive
anomaly on the Bouguer map ŽFigs. 4 and 6.,
while a negative NE oriented anomaly appears
in the same location in the ‘‘stripped’’ gravity
map. We believe that this demonstrates different
tectonic configurations for the Tertiary and
Mesozoic formations.
A large rounded gravity low, occupying the
SW corner of the study area, is the only one that
did not vanish in the ‘‘stripped’’ gravity map.
We assume that this anomaly corresponds to the
subsurface geological structure, the Atlit em-
bayment, with a series of thick Mesozoic and
Tertiary sediments. This structure was probably
inherited from the Mesozoic through the Ter-
tiary.
The prominent geophysical features of the
area are the gravity and magnetic highs of the
Carmel area. These anomalies were interpreted
by Gvirtzman et al. Ž1990. as being caused by
365
an Early Jurassic shield volcano below Mount
Carmel. Our interpretation, presented in Figs. 6
and 7 is not very different apart from two
exceptions.
1. Analysis of the gravity and magnetic maps
clearly shows an inconsistency between the
gravity and magnetic anomalies in the plane
location and strike direction. The correlation
between the pseudo-gravity and the gravity
anomalies was computed and the results ob-
tained clearly suggest a lack of correlation be-
tween these data and confirm that the causes of
the gravity and magnetic anomalies are essen-
tially different.
2. The possible location of a magmatic root
under the Carmel ridge: the first hint for the
existence of such a root was obtained from
automatic inverse programs that showed a few
deep-seated magnetic heterogeneity located
north of the Yagur fault. An elongated positive
gravity anomaly, also appearing north of the
Yagur fault in the ‘‘stripped’’ gravity map ŽFig.
4., probably reflects the high-density gabbroic
root of the Asher volcanics. 2-D and 3-D mag-
netic modeling confirm the existence of such a
root at this location ŽFig. 7. .
6. Conclusions
The main results of the interpretation of the
updated gravity and magnetic data are as fol-
lows.
1. This study confirms, as previously sug-
gested by Gvirtzman et al. Ž 1990. , that the Early
Jurassic Asher shield volcano, consisting of
basaltic lava flows, is the causative body of the
Carmel magnetic anomaly onshore and off-
shore. This body oriented NNE is about 30 = 20
km in size and its top reaches a depth of 2 km
in the central part and 4 km in the northern part.
The thickness of the body is estimated at about
2–3 km.
2. The root of the volcano is located immedi-
ately north of the Yagur fault and not below
Mount Carmel as previously suggested.
366 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367
3. The rocks of the Asher volcanics have, in
general, relatively lower density values in com-
parison to the Mesozoic rocks. This implies that
this sequence cannot be the causative body for
the Carmel gravity high.
4. The second magmatic body, lying about 5
km west of the Foxtrot-1 well and oriented
N–S, is an elongated shape about 20 km long.
These deep-seated magmatics, reaching a depth
of about 4-km, are about 3.5 km thick. The
westernmost magmatic body, expressed on the
magnetic data, as well as a ‘‘stripped’’ gravity
high, probably correspond to a large Ž 15–20 km
in diameter., deep-seated Žabout 8 km deep.
gabbroic intrusion. Another shallow magmatic
body about 20 km long is suggested south of the
Foxtrot-1 well. The western and eastern bound-
aries of this magmatic event are not defined.
5. Magnetic susceptibility of 0.02–0.035 SI
units and an effective vector of magnetization
parallel to the Earth’s present magnetic field
were measured for the above mentioned mag-
matics. These bodies should be joined in a
common occurrence of deep-seated magmatic
events, which cover almost all the study area.
6. Most of the Bouguer gravity anomalies in
the area express the gravity influence of the low
density Senonian to Tertiary sediments. The
features of the gravity field, such as the gradi-
ents and elongated anomalies, can be divided
into three groups according to direction. The
first, NW oriented group, corresponds to the
direction of the Yagur fault and the Carmel
ridge and is expressed by the young tectonic
dislocations. The second group, oriented N–S
parallel to coastal line, corresponds mainly to
the thickness variations of the Tertiary sedi-
ments. The third group, oriented E–W, probably
corresponds to the density heterogeneity of the
Mesozoic sequence.
7. The gravity effects of the young sediments
and of the Asher volcanics were calculated and
removed from the observed gravity. The
‘‘stripped’’ gravity map reflects, in general, the
Mesozoic subsurface geology. The structural
pattern of shallow geological formations ŽTer-
tiary. does not coincide with the pattern of the
deeper ŽMesozoic. formations. The ‘‘stripped’’
map should be of considerable help in delineat-
ing some aspects for hydrocarbon exploration in
the area.
8. The Atlit marine embayment is suggested.
A thick series of Mesozoic and Tertiary forma-
tions appears to be deposited in this basin.
9. The present Yagur fault appears to be a
rejuvenation of an ancient weakness zone, based
on similar trend found on the ‘‘stripped’’ grav-
ity and magnetic maps. These anomalies are
interpreted to be caused by a deep-seated basic
intrusion of Early Jurassic age.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Earth Sciences
Administration of the Ministry of National In-
frastructures for their kind permission to use the
gravity, magnetic and well data from Israel and
for their support of this study. We also thank
Drs. G. Tsokas, A. Camacho and a third referee
for their valuable suggestions for improving the
original version of this paper. We are grateful to
the authors of the IGRF model and NASA,
USA, for their kind cooperation. We would like
to thank Drs. Y. Rotstein, M. Goldman and I.
Bruner for useful discussions as well as Mr. I.
Goldberg, Ms. R. Gapsou and Mr. O. Siman-Tov
for their assistance.
References
Arad, A., 1965. Geological outline of the Ramot Menashe
region Žnorthern Israel.. Isr. J. Earth Sci. 14, 18–32.
Ben-Avraham, Z., Hall, J.K., 1977. Geophysical survey of
Mount Carmel and its extension into the Eastern
Mediterranean. J. Geophys. Res. 82, 793–802.
Ben-Avraham, Z., Ginzburg, A., 1986. Magnetic anoma-
lies over the Central Levant continental margin. Mar.
Pet. Geol. 3, 220–223.
Ben-Gai, Y., Ben-Avraham, Z., 1995. Tectonic processes
in offshore northern Israel and the evolution of the
Carmel structure. Mar. Pet. Geol. 12 Ž5., 533–548.
 M. RybakoÕ et al.r Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (2000) 353–367
Cordell, L., Phillips, J.D., Godson, R.H., 1992. US Geo-
logical Survey Potential Field Geophysical Software,
Version 2.0. Department of the Interior, US Geological
Survey, Boston, MA.
De Sitter, L.U., 1962. Structural development of the Ara-
bian shield in Palestine. Geol. Mijnbouw 45, 116–124.
Domzalski, W., 1967. Aeromagnetic survey of Israel: in-
terpretation. IPRG Report SMAr482r67, 62 pp.
Domzalski, W., 1986. Review and Additional Interpreta-
tion of Selected Magnetic Data in Israel and Adjoining
Areas. Oil Exploration ŽInvestments. Ltd., 55 pp.
Dvorkin, A., Kohn, B.P., 1989. The Asher volcanics,
northern Israel. Isr. J. Earth Sci. 38, 105–123.
Folkman, Y., 1976. Magnetic and gravity investigation of
the crustal structure of Israel. PhD Dissertation. Tel-
Aviv University.
Freund, R., 1970. The geometry of faulting in the Galilee.
Isr. J. Earth Sci. 19, 117–140.
Garfunkel, Z., Derin, B., 1984. Permian–Early Mesozoic
tectonism and continental margin formation in Israel
and its implications for the history of the Eastern
Mediterranean. In: Dixon, J.E., Robertson, A.H.F.
ŽEds.., The Geological Evolution of the Eastern
Mediterranean. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 187–201.
Ginzburg, A., 1960. Geophysical studies in the central and
northern coastal plane and the western Emeq. PhD
Thesis. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Ginzburg, A., Cohen, S., Hay-Roe, H., Rosenzweig, A.,
1975. Geology of the Mediterranean shelf of Israel.
AAPG Bull. 59, 2142–2160.
Godson, R.H., 1983. GRAVPOLY: a modification of a
three-dimensional gravity modeling programs. Open-
File Report 83-346, US Geological Survey, 53 pp.
Godson, R.H., 1983. MAGPOLY: a modification of a
three-dimensional magnetic modeling programs. Open-
File Report 83-345. US Geological Survey, 62 pp.
Hall, J.K., 1993. The GSI Digital Terrain Model ŽDTM.
completed. In: Bogoch, R., Eshet, Y. ŽEds.., GSI Curr.
Res.. pp. 47–50, Jerusalem.
Gvirtzman, G., Steinitz, G., 1983. The Asher volcanics —
an early Jurassic event in northern Israel. GSI Curr.
Res., 28–33.
Gvirtzman, G., Klang, A., Rotstein, Y., 1990. Early Juras-
sic shield volcano below Mount Carmel: a new inter-
pretation of the magnetic and gravity anomalies and
implications for early Jurassic rifting. Isr. J. Earth Sci.
39, 149–159.
367
Makris, J., Wang, J., 1994. Bouguer gravity anomalies of
the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. In: Krasheninnikov,
V.A., Hall, J.K. ŽEds.., Geological Structures of the
Northeastern Mediterranean. pp. 87–99, Jerusalem.
Mimran, Y., 1972. The Tayassir volcanics and Lower
Cretaceous formation in the Shomron, central Israel.
GSI Bull. 58, 1–52.
Neev, D., Almagor, G., Arad, A., Ginzburg, A., Hall, J.,
1976. The geology of the southern Mediterranean Sea.
GSI, 68.
Nettleton, L.L., 1971. Elementary gravity and magnetic for
geologists and seismologists. SEG Monogr. Ser. 1, 121.
Picard, L., Kashai, E., 1958. On the lithostratigraphy and
tectonics of the Carmel. Bull. Res. Counc. Isr. 7G,
1–18.
Plouff, D., 1976. Gravity and magnetic fields of polygonal
prisms and application to magnetic terrain corrections.
Geophysics 41 Ž4., 727–741.
Ron, H., Freund, R., Garfunkel, Z., Nur, A., 1984. Block
rotation by strike slip faulting: structural and paleomag-
netic evidence. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 6256–6277.
Rotstein, Y., Bruner, I., Kafri, U., 1993. High resolution
seismic imaging of the Carmel fault and its implica-
tions to the structure of Mt. Carmel. Isr. J. Earth Sci.
42, 55–69.
Rybakov, M., 1991. Interactiverautomated crustal model-
ing using multiple data sets and multiple optimized
intuitiverautomated inversion techniques. In: Israel Ge-
ological Survey, Annual Meeting, Abstracts. p. 90.
Rybakov, M., Goldshmidt, V., Folkman, Y., Rotstein, Y.,
Ben-Avraham, Z., Hall, J., 1994. Magnetic anomaly
map of Israel, scale 1:500,000. IPRG and Survey of
Israel.
Rybakov, M., Goldshmidt, V., Rotstein, Y., 1997. A new
compilation of gravity and magnetic data from the
Levant and their preliminary interpretation. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 24 Ž1., 33–36.
Rybakov, M., Goldshmidt, V., Rotstein, Y., Fleischer, L.,
Goldberg, I., 1999. Petrophysical constraints on grav-
ityrmagnetic interpretation in Israel. Leading Edge 18
Ž2., 269–272.
Sass, E., 1980. Late Cretaceous volcanism in Mt. Carmel,
Israel. Isr. J. Earth Sci. 29, 8–24.
Talwani, M., 1965. Computation with help of a digital
computer of magnetic anomalies caused by bodies of
arbitrary shape. Geophysics 30 Ž5., 797–817.