Sei sulla pagina 1di 20

Chapter 21

An Analysis of the Implicit Assumptions of


the Methodology of Seismic Sequence
Stratigraphy
Julian A. Thome
ARCO Oil and Gas Company
Piano, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT
Much of the theory and practice of seismic sequence stratigraphy
has never been explicitly described. This report is an analysis of
the implicit assumptions behind the methodology of seismic
sequence stratigraphy. These assumptions are divided into four
groups: (1) seismic stratal geometry identification, (2) the depo-
sitional sequence model, (3) the inverse model used to make
sequence interpretations of seismic data, and (4) the global
correlation model used in construction of the Exxon cycle chart.
In a geologic area using a particular set of seismic data, some of
these assumptions will be valid and others will be questionable.
Focused research on the critical assumptions of the sequence
stratigraphic hypothesis should generate an advanced methodol-
ogy that provides increased-confidence seismic interpretations.

INTRODUCTION assumption, and (3) focus research on key issues critical


to sequence stratigraphy.
Little critical attention has been given to the fundamental Some of these assumptions will be valid and others
assumptions implicit in the methodology of seismic questionable in any particular geologic area. A qualitative
sequence stratigraphy. These assumptions allow sequence assessment of interpretation confidence can be provided
stratigraphy to be a predictive interpretation scheme: a by assessing the applicability of each assumption case by
best-educated guess about the distribution of sedimentary case. Any interpretation can be "tested": if most or all of
facies based on seismic data. the assumptions appear well founded, then confident
The intent of this report is to state the implicit assump- predictons can be made on the basis of the Vail (1987)
tions behind seismic sequence methodology. It is intended sequence stratigraphic methodology.
to (1) increase understanding of sequence stratigraphic Ongoing research should provide an advanced meth-
concepts, (2) illustrate the exploration importance of each odology of sequence analysis versatile enough to deal with

375
376 Thome

exploration problems case by case. By focusing research Step 2


on each of the assumptions of the sequence stratigraphic
hypothesis we can hope to come up with a new, advanced The second step of an idealized seismic stratigraphic
interpretive scheme that provides a better solution to analysis is highly interpretive. An attempt is made to
exploration problems. delineate surfaces of chronostratigraphic significance on
which the primary signals of onlap, downlap, toplap, and
truncation can be consistently correlated throughout the
THE INTERPRETIVE NATURE OF SEISMIC seismic grid. The interpretive nature of this step is implicit
SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY in the word consistent. Consistent in this context means
what the interpreter judges to be consistent.
Seismic sequence stratigraphic analysis is highly interpre- There are two elements of consistency: (1) that the
tive. Veterans of the field often claim that seismic sequence delineated surface should tie throughout the seismic grid,
recognition skills are sharpened through experience, that and (2) that the arrangement of primary signals (onlap,
theirs is an interpretation "art" (Vail, personal communi- downlap, etc.) along this surface should, in the judgment
cation, 1983). In this section, the methodology of seismic of the interpreter, be reasonable. A random arrangement
sequence analysis is reviewed to point out the dominant of these primary signals, for example, is clearly not
role of interpretation skills. consistent.
Vail (1987, p. 5) lists seven steps for seismic strati- This interpretation is, in essence, a classification of the
graphy interpretation, only the first is seismic sequence type of surface being observed. In current practice, these
analysis (Table 1). He writes: surfaces have been named (e.g., type 1 sequence bound-
ary). Fundamentally, though, other types of consistent
Look for places where two reflectors converge. surfaces may exist that have yet to be named. This simul-
Where reflectors converge there will be reflection taneous task of delineation and classification is listed as
terminations. Mark the reflection terminations the second level of interpretation in Table 1.
with arrows. Draw in the discontinuity surface The surface delineation technique works best when
between the onlapping and downlapping reflec- reflection terminations define a single horizon. When this
tors above, and the truncating and toplapping is not the case, the delineation of this horizon calls for a
reflectors below. greater degree of interpretation. Figure 1 shows two
schematic examples of sigmoidal progradation. In the first,
a single downlap "surface" may be hard to seismically
Stepl identify because of aggradation of the clinoform bottomset
beds. In the second, the aggradation of bottomsets is below
Thus, the first step is to identify the onlap, downlap, seismic resolution and a single surface can be delineated.
toplap, and truncation "signals" in the seismic data. These The surface classification technique works best when
reflection "signals" can, presumably, be identified and each surface can be uniquely delineated. Two or more
separated from any "noise" inherent in seismic processing. surfaces often seismically merge, however, making corre-
The interpretive nature of this step, however, is implicit lation difficult. Figure 2 is a schematic example in which
in the word "signal." Signal, in this context, is what the three seismically defined surfaces merge on the outer shelf
interpreter judges to be valid data and not noise (see Table 1). and slope. This merger makes correlation between the
onlap surface on the slope and the surfaces on the shelf
nonunique (on the basis of this single line).

TABLE 1. Seismic sequence stratigraphy interpreta-


tion tasks arranged in order of increasing level of
interpretation.

1. Identify onlap, downlap, toplap, erosional truncation


"signals" and separate from "noise."
2. Delineate and classify surfaces on which the above
features can be consistently correlated throughout
} downlap interval
the seismic grid.
3. Use these surfaces to break out a relative time his-
tory of deposition.
4. Infer a relative sea-level history during deposition.
downlap surlace
5. Integrate with other studies, such as seismic fades or
velocity analysis and well-log calibration. *L_
6 Infer the likely distribution of source, seal, and reser-
voir fades. FIGURE 1. Prograding clinoforms may downlap a
"downlap interval" rather than a true "downlap surface."
Implicit Assumptions of the Methodology of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy 377

Original seismic reflections

MFS

Interpreted Surfaces
MFS - maximum Hooding surface
TS - transgressive surface
SB - sequence boundary Downlap on inconsistent surfaces?

FIGURE 2. Schematic illustration showing that corre-


lation of surfaces is nonunique when surfaces merge
together.

FIGURE 3. Schematic illustration of a common inter-


pretation problem where marking every apparent termi-
nation produces a jumble.
Steps 3 and 4
These two levels of interpretation use these surfaces to
break out the history of deposition and to infer the record Original seismic reflections
of sea-level variations during deposition. The sea-level
history is a higher level of inference than the time-history ^
of deposition. In other words, a chronostratigraphic chart
can be made showing the position of sedimentation across _
the basin at each time without necessarily referring to sea
level. Downlap on inconsistent surfaces?

Reverse Order Interpretation -_


• ~ ~ »

One of the powerful aspects of the Vail sequence strati-


graphic interpretation scheme is that once the first two
levels of interpretation are completed, the third and fourth Interpreted as a transgressive backstepping pattern?
levels can be determined uniquely. Once an interpreter
delineates and classifies enough surfaces to completely
(within a given time interval) break out the seismic sec-
tion, the geological history for each unit of deposition is
uniquely determined. If, on the other hand, the interpreter
leaves gaps in his first and second level interpretations FIGURE 4. Schematic illustration of a common inter-
(e.g., several delineated surfaces are unclassified), then a pretation problem where the pattern defined by a set of
unique third and fourth level interpretation cannot be terminations can be easily overlooked.
given.
This necessity of completing each of the first four tasks
in Table 1 without gaps in interpretation often requires the
interpreter to start with a higher level of interpretation and Marking a seismic line with a jumble of red arrows can
work back to a lower level. In this case, the interpreter hinder interpretation. To avoid this, experienced interpre-
recognizes a second, third or fourth level pattern and ters often combine steps 1 and 2 in reverse order.
checks that the supporting lower level features are at least For example, one reverse order-approach is to not
consistent with this pattern. Several schematic examples mark terminations until several are found consistently
of this process will make this concept clear. along a bounding surface. This approach, unfortunately, is
Table 1 suggests that the identification of the primary not foolproof. Figure 4 shows a case where downlap
stratal geometries and the delineation and classification of terminations define a backstepping pattern. In this case,
bounding surfaces are separate and independent tasks. there is one termination against each reflection. The
This is not always the case. Figures 3 and 4 are hypothetical resulting pattern, if recognized by the interpreter, is a
schematic examples illustrating this situation. In Figure 3, consistent backstepping pattern. It is not hard to imagine
the original seismic reflections, though imperfectly that such a backstepping pattern might not be recognized,
imaged, seem to indicate the presence of many stratal unless the interpreter was actually looking for such a
geometry terminations. In the interpreted figure, these pattern. Combining steps 1 and 2 facilitates interpretation
terminations are marked, producing a jumble of arrows. because the stratal geometry is better defined.
378 Thorne

A second example of this reverse-order interpretation observed reflections


is in Figure 5. The observed reflections do not unambig-
uously define whether or not the top reflection is a
discontinuity surface. Identification of a toplap signal
probably could be resolved by determining whether a
surface defined by toplap at this location is a consistent
surface. In other words, this surface is traced further along
the line, or perhaps throughout the grid, to see if a toplap
surface makes sense in the context of the next level of
interpretation. Depending on this higher-level interpreta-
tion, the observations are recorded as a single "bursty"
reflection or as a series of top- and downlapping reflec-
tions.
A third example of reverse order interpretation is in
Figure 6. A single discontinuity surface (Figure 6A) ques-
tionably splits to form a scallopy incised feature and its
infill. This questionable level 2 (surface delineation)
interpretation can be evaluated by putting the observa-
tion in a higher interpretive context. As shown in Figure
6B, this hypothetical feature occurs in well-defined back- FIGURE 6. Schematic illustration of a common inter-
stepping transgressive deposits beneath well-defined pretation problem where a questionable incised feature is
prograding highstand deposits. The Vail interpretive evaluated by its apparent position in a transgressive sys-
scheme suggests that incised features do not form in this tem tract.
particular sequence location. The interpreter should
consider if the apparent incision is due to poor seismic data
quality or not.
ysis uses the assumptions of the sequence stratigraphic
Steps 5 and 6 hypothesis to advance an interpretation.

The fifth and sixth levels of interpretation (Table 1), in


which seismic sequence analysis is integrated with other IMPLICIT A S S U M P T I O N S O F SEISMIC
related studies to predict sedimentary fades, are not STRATAL G E O M E T R Y I D E N T I F I C A T I O N
discussed further in this report. Vail (1987) splits this stage
of analysis into six steps. Many of the papers in recent It is often assumed that the first step of interpretation is
seismic stratigraphic volumes also address this stage of a reproducible, objective, data-gathering procedure. Even
analysis (Schlee, 1984; Berg and Woolverton, 1985; Bally, at this stage, several implicit assumptions have been made
1987; James and Leckie, 1988). A well-developed, general- and are stated in Table 2 and are referred to as assump-
ized methodology for doing this type of further analysis tions Al through A4.
has not yet been developed.
The methodology of seismic sequence stratigraphy is
perceived by some to be largely a mechanistic exercise
suitable for automated analysis by computer. However, the TABLE 2. Implicit assumptions of seismic stratal
highly interpretive nature of seismic sequence strati- geometry identification. These assumptions are inferred
graphic analysis makes this task of automation difficult. and are not stated in any publication.
The following sections show how seismic sequence anal-
1. Problems with seismic imaging do not seriously
lower the stratal geometry "signal-to-noise" ratio.
2. Visual extrapolation of reflection trend surfaces
pro- vides an accurate and precise estimate of reflec-
tion termination locations.
3. The classification of any reflection termination into
the four primary types (downlap, onlap, toplap, and
truncation) can be done, with few exceptions,
unambiguously.
4. The use of higher levels of interpretation (based on
conceptual and numerical models of sequence
FIGURE 5. Schematic illustration of a common inter- geometries) to help identify a consistent stratal
pretation problem where the presence of toplap depends geometry signal allows a "best guess" interpretation
on whether one or several reflection horizons are to be made.
identified.
Implicit Assumptions of the Methodology of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy 379

Assumption Al: Problems with seismic imaging do not circled location, the observed reflection can no longer be
seriously lower the stratal geometry "signal-to-noise" traced by following seismic reflections. If this reflection
ratio. is extrapolated to toplap or truncate against the upper
surface, the stratigraphy can be interpreted as a single
The pitfalls of seismic interpretation due to poor highstand/lowstand sequence geometry. If this reflection
seismic imaging have been discussed by many (e.g., is extrapolated to the lower surface, the sequence geom-
McQuillin et al., 1979). Limitations on resolution of seismic etry is better interpreted as two successive lowstand
reflections and the geological detail derivable from them wedges.
have been discussed by Sheriff (1977, 1985), Neidell and
Poggiagliolmi (1977), and Meckel and Nath (1977) in the Assumption A3: The classification of any reflection termi-
context of seismic stratigraphic analysis. nation into the four primary types can be done, with few
As the stratal geometry signal-to-noise ratio drops, exceptions, unambiguously.
seismic interpreters may abandon the approach of marking
individual reflection terminations. An alternative Three types of potential problems in classifying any
approach is used to define stratal geometries based on reflection termination into the four primary types (down-
differences in the visually averaged dip of packages of lap, onlap, toplap and truncation) have been previously
poorly resolved reflections. recognized. Vail (1987) subdivides truncation into trunca-
The stratal geometry signal-to-noise ratio can be quite tion and apparent truncation to make a distinction between
sensitive to choices made in seismic acquisition and a true erosive unconformity and what seismically appears
processing. For example, the chosen vertical exaggeration to be one due to depositional thinning below a disconti-
of the displayed data can dramatically affect the interpre- nuity surface. Vail (1987) also uses the term baselap to
ter's ability to perceive subtle changes in reflection dip. describe a reflection termination that cannot be classified
Seismic sequence methodology is designed as an interpre- as downlap or onlap due to postdepositional tilting (Figure
tation tool for seismic data with its inherent resolution. For 8). Finally, the distinction between toplap and truncation
example, when a seismic interpreter refers to a downlap can be problematic (Figure 9).
surface as delineated by reflection terminations, it is The classification scheme for reflection terminations
understood that because of the low resolution of seismic introduces some uncertainty in seismic sequence analysis.
data, this seismic "surface" may represent a rock "inter- The implicit assumption is made that this uncertainty does
val." This distinction between a seismic "surface" and a not invalidate subsequent interpretations.
discrete stratigraphic surface has been noted by Exxon
seismic stratigraphers (Rudolph et al., 1989). Assumption A4: The use of higher levels of interpretation
to help identify a consistent stratal geometry signal allows
Assumption A2: Visual extrapolation of reflection trend a "best guess" interpretation to be made.
surfaces provides an accurate and precise estimate of
reflection termination locations. As discussed in the previous section, the identifica-
tion of primary stratal geometry signals often makes use
A certain amount of visual extrapolation is required
to approximate the position of reflection terminations due
to the inherent limits of seismic resolution. The uncer-
tainty of this extrapolation, in certain circumstances, can
lead to differences in interpretation. Figure 7 shows a Before Burial
schematic example of this interpretation question. At the

downlap

single sequence
interpretation
After Burial

prograding multiple
*LSW sequence interpretation

FIGURE 7. Schematic illustration of a common inter-


onlap?
pretation problem in which uncertainties in reflection FIGURE 8. Schematic illustration of reflection termi-
extrapolation lead to alternative sequence interpretations. nations that cannot be classified as downlap or onlap due
HSDs are highstand deposits. LSW is the lowstand wedge. to postdepositional tilting.
380 Thome

ACCOMMODATION AND THE


TOPOGRAPHIC EQUILIBRIUM SURFACE
The concept of sediment accommodation is fundamental
to an understanding of the sequence stratigraphic
hypothesis. Jervey (1988) used this concept to develop
sedimentation rules to numerically model sequence
geometries. Posamentier et al. (1988) used the Jervey
model results to provide a theoretical framework for the
Vail (1987) sequence depositional model.
Jervey (1988, p. 47) defines sediment accommodation as
"the space made available for potential sediment accumu-
lation." Simply stated, sediment has to be put somewhere.
Though this definition is intuitive, it is not sufficiently
rigorous for the purposes of this paper. Questions arise,
such as (1) Can one measure accommodation space? or (2)
What is potential accumulation?
FIGURE 9. An ideal progression from toplap to evi- A more rigorous definition of sediment accommoda-
dent truncation. It is difficult to determine if the interme- tion consistent with Jervey's previous definition can be
diate case represents toplap or truncation. based on the following thought experiment. Consider a
small hypothetical geographic area. Further, suppose that
at some point in this area's evolution, all tectonic subsi-
dence stops while all other external factors affecting the
basin remain the same. These external factors include (1)
of reverse interpretation in which higher levels of inter- no change in eustatic sea level, (2) constant rate of sed-
pretation (as defined in Table 1) are used to check the iment input coming from clastic transport from outside the
consistency of the interpreted primary signals. Though this basin, (3) constant climate, (4) constant oceanographic
procedure involves a certain amount of circular reasoning, conditions, (5) constant time-averaged level of earth-
the assumption is made that this methodology allows a best- quakes in the area, (6) no major paleogeographic changes,
educated guess interpretation. and (7) no biological evolutionary change. If these condi-
tions persisted long enough, eventually no net sedimen-
tation or erosion would occur anywhere in the area. At this
stage, steady-state conditions exist for each paleogeo-
graphic environment. For example, all the river systems are
SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY: THE graded, acting simply to move the sediment input coming
FORWARD AND INVERSE MODELS from clastic transport from outside the area to the river
mouths. The delta systems have achieved a balance
The terms inverse model and inverse scheme are used to between wave energy, tidal energy, and river sediment
describe analytical interpretation techniques. Sequence supply. The shelf surface is no longer aggrading or degrad-
stratigraphic analysis is an "inverse model" of seismic data. ing. At each point in the basin, sediment being transported
It is a model, because it results in a geological model of the in or locally produced is balanced by the sediment being
geologic history of sedimentation, subsidence, and sea transported away from that point. Topography, therefore,
level. It is an inverse model, because this time history is has reached a steady-state equilibrium surface.
inferred, or equivalently inverted, from the seismic observa- This thought experiment allows the following defini-
tions. tion: accommodation is the space between the existing
Any inverse model is based on a corresponding for- topographic surface and the topographic equilibrium surface
ward model. Vail (1987) conceptually outlines a forward that would be attained if no subsidence or uplift occurs and
model for sequence stratigraphy describing stratigraphic the existing conditions of (1) sea level, (2) rate of sediment
processes of stratal geometry generation. Jervey (1988) and input, (3) atmospheric and oceanographic climate, (4)
Helland-Hansen et al. (1988) have developed forward earthquake frequency, (5) paleogeography, and (6) biota1
model computer algorithms to simulate the salient features remain the same long enough to allow the rate of sediment
of the Vail (1987) model. These algorithms predict, for a flux out of the area to equal the rate of sediment flux into
given history of subsidence, sea level, and sediment the area.
supply, resultant sequence geometries based on simple It follows from this definition that changes in accom-
sedimentation "rules" for stratal geometry generation. modation can occur, most generally, by (1) a change in the
In Appendix A, the forward model of Jervey has been
adopted for simple pencil and straight-edge construction.
Listed are the materials, procedure, and rules of sedimen-
tation necessary to construct a nine time-step simulation
showing simulated transgressive deposits, early and late 1
The presence or absence of reef-builders, for example, has varied
highstand deposits, and base-of-slope fan and prograding through geologic time. This evolutionary change affects
complex lowstand deposits. topographic equilibrium.
Implicit Assumptions of the Methodology of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy 381

height of the existing topographic surface, (2) a change in IMPLICIT A S S U M P T I O N S O F THE


sea level, (3) subsidence or uplift, (4) a change in the rate FORWARD A N D INVERSE MODELS
of sediment input, (5) a change in the atmospheric, ocean-
ographic climate or earthquake frequency, (6) a significant Table 3 lists the implicit assumptions of seismic sequence
change in paleogeography, or (7) a significant evolutionary stratigraphic interpretation described by Vail (1987). These
change in faunal species affecting sedimentation. assumptions are not explicitly stated by Vail (1987). Rather,

TABLE 3. Implicit assumptions of the Vail (1987) seismic sequence stratigraphic forward, inverse, and global correla-
tion models. These assumptions are not explicitly stated by Vail (1987) but have been inferred by the author.

B: Patterns of sediment infill: the forward model

1. The arrangement of sediment source terrains, drainage, and subsidence depocenters creates a well-defined direc-
tionality to basin infill.
2. The topographic equilibrium surface controlling accommodation is approximately at sea level.
3. Stratal geometries are controlled by the rate of change of accommodation A(t).
4. The position of the fall line is approximately given by the location where the rate of tectonic subsidence equals the
rate of eustatic sea-level change.
5. General Principle: No deposition can occur until all accommodation to the sourceward has been filled.
Modified Principle: Accommodation is infilled by progradation (except in deep-marine sedimentation).
6. Bypass of foreset beds implies drainage incision of topset beds and vice versa.
Examples: Base-of-slope deposits imply that sea level has dropped below topsets. Foreset beds will not prograde
while topset beds are being incised.
7. Clastic deep-water sediments are primarily point-sourced by submarine canyons.
8. Submarine canyons originate when accommodation reaches its maximum rate of fall.
9. Variations in the volume of sediment density flows respond to changes in accommodation to produce three stages
of basin fill: (a) a basin floor fan, (b) a slope fan and (c) a prograding complex.
10. Variations in sediment supply do not in themselves cause significant changes in accommodation rate.

C: Interpretation principles: the inverse model

1. A seismic reflection, for all practical purposes, is a time line.


2. Sequence stratigraphic analysis is independent of spatial scale.
Example: Sequences created in 200 m of water versus 5000 m of water can be analyzed with the same technique.
3. Sequence stratigraphic analysis is independent of temporal scale.
Example: Sequences created by glacial cycles versus million-year cycles can be analyzed with the same technique.
4. Sedimentation geometries can be mapped onto a grid without prior knowledge of paleogeographic dip and strike
directions.
5. Sedimentation geometries can be interpreted as a response to a single harmonic sine curve function for rate of
accommodation change A(t).
6. Sedimentation can be put into a chronostratigraphic framework by assuming only one depocenter occurs at a time.
7. Sediment accumulation is characterized by large changes in accumulation rate over relatively short lateral distances.

D: Controls on accommodation: the global correlation model

1. The magnitude and timing of the accommodation function A(t) can be accurately estimated by sequence analysis of
observed stratigraphy.
2. The accommodation function A(t) determined by such analysis, for all practical purposes, is synchronous on a glo-
bal basis.
3. Globally synchronous variations of accommodation A(t) are controlled by the rate of change of eustatic sea level.
382 Thome

they are inferred using a simple rule: if all these assump- regional _ ^ local
tions are true, then by implication, an interpretation based
on the Vail (1987) technique is correct. The reverse of this
rule is not true. If some of these assumptions are not true,
this does not imply that all interpretations based on the
Vail (1987) technique are incorrect.
The implicit assumptions listed are separated into
three groups. In the first are assumptions of the forward
model describing patterns of sediment infill. In the second
are assumptions of the inverse model that allow an inter-
preter to work backward from the seismic data to an
inferred depositional history. In the last group are assump- FIGURE 10. Arrangement of sedimentary sources and
tions of the global correlation model for use of sequence sinks for a Gulf Coast growth fault.
analysis as a chronostratigraphic tool. Each of the 20
assumptions are referred to by letter code B1-B10, C1-C7,
and D1-D3.
growth-fault sequence models. Bowman (in preparation)
is developing conceptual and algorithmic sequence models
Assumption Bl: The arrangement of sediment source for foreland basins where the regional sediment source
terrains, drainage, and subsidence depocenters creates a and basin subsidence depocenter are on the same side of
well-defined directionality to basin infill. the basin.

Sequence stratigraphic interpretation depends on the Assumption B2: The topographic equilibrium surface
identification of seismic geometries as characteristically controlling accommodation is approximately at sea level.
strike versus dip features. For example, coastal onlap is
measured in the sourceward (landward) direction. One
As discussed, sediment accommodation can be a
assumption of current seismic stratigraphic methodology,
complicated function of many factors. Assumption B2
therefore, is that we can describe basin infill in terms of
suggests that the topographic equilibrium surface control-
well-defined directions of net sediment transport defining
ling accommodation is approximately at sea level (shown
strike and dip directions and sourceward and basinward
schematically in Figure 11). If we make this assumption,
directions. On a continental passive margin, such as the
then the fundamental control on accommodation is the
U.S. Atlantic margin, the stable cratonic or uplifting
change in relative sea level rather than other subsidiary
mountainous terrain of the interior is identified as the
factors. Moreover, patterns of sediment infill, as far as
landward sedimentary source, whereas the seaward oce-
sequence analysis is concerned, are predicted to be inde-
anic rift basin is identified as the site of sediment accu-
pendent of differences in the rate of sediment input or the
mulation—a basinward "sink." A section running from
climatic, oceanographic, or earthquake climate from area
landward to basinward, from "source" to "sink," is a dip
to area or from one sequence to the next.
section. A section that runs parallel to the sediment source
Assumption B2 is used by the Jervey (1988) forward
and down the axis of the subsidence is, conversely, a strike
model as described in Appendix A. In this model, sedi-
section.
ments are deposited in a wedge whose topsets are at sea
Such an ideal arrangement of sedimentary source level. Topset beds in a seaward direction roll over to form
terrains and subsidence depocenters is not always present foreset beds. In the Jervey (1988) numerical model, this
in nature. The trend of subsidence may not be parallel to rollover position is defined as sea level.
the trend of source terrains, or multiple sediment source Vail (personal communication, 1987) believes this roll-
terrains may exist in different directions. An example of over point can be, in actuality, in up to 5 m of water. In
a complicated arrangement of sedimentary sources and either case, the topographic equilibrium surface controlling
sinks is shown for a typical Gulf Coast down-to-the-basin topset deposition is approximately at sea level.
growth fault (Figure 10). Though the regional sourceward A variation on assumption B2 has been described by
and basinward directions are well defined, the presence Posamentier and Vail (1988), who make extensive reference
of a growth fault locally affects the distribution of sediment to the concepts of grade and base level. Though Posament-
sources and sinks. The basinward crest of the hanging-wall ier and Vail (1988, p. 133) also recognize that accommoda-
block can act as a sediment source opposite to the regional tion in subareal settings is a complex function of many
source. Moreover, the growth fault creates a local depocen- factors, they suggest that "variations of accommodation as
ter of increased subsidence on the same side as the
regional source.
Though the paleogeographic arrangement of sediment
sources and sinks is often complicated, seismic sequence Sediment Space Deposition
stratigraphic interpretation is based on the current state-
of-the-art conceptual simplification of a single source-sink
pair. Attempts are now being made to adopt sequence
methodology to more complicated arrangements of sedi-
mentary sources and sinks. Vail (1987) and Galloway (in FIGURE 11. The topographic equilibrium surface that
press), for example, present highly schematic preliminary controls accommodation is approximately at sea level.
Implicit Assumptions of the Methodology of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy 383

a function of sea-level change will be the only factor Much of seismic sequence stratigraphy is based on
common to all subareal settings at any given time." An analysis of patterns of coastal onlap that record the
idealized graded river, following the classic work of Davis successive positions of the fall line? Assumption B4 states
(1902) and Mackin (1948), in its lower reaches is approx- that the position of the fall line is approximately given
imately at base level, where base level is the long-term by the location where the rate of tectonic subsidence equals
average position of sea level. Heading upstream, the the rate of eustatic sea-level change. This location is called
elevation of such a graded river will slowly rise, forming the equilibrium point by Posamentier et al. (1988).
a concave-upward longitudinal profile. Posamentier et al. Pitman (1978) and Pitman and Golovchenko (1983)
(1988) suggest that the location of this profile shifts back were the first to introduce the concept of an equilibrium
and forth, depending on the position of the shoreline,2 position of the fall line. In their model, the fall line was
which, in turn, is determined by the position of sea level. assumed to be located at a fixed position from the shore-
The Posamentier et al. (1988) model of accommodation line. Posamentier et al. (1988) extended this concept to a
predicts the occurrence of fluvial aggradation during the more general case by using the concept of accommodation
first stages of sea-level fall. This aspect of the model has for a two-dimensional model of a passive margin. The
not, to date, been borne out by seismic stratigraphic Posamentier concept can be further generalized as follows:
interpreted sections. In fact, recent work (Butcher, 1989) At the equilibrium position, relative sea level is at a
has shown several problems with this aspect of the Pos- stillstand; thus, no new accommodation is being created
amentier et al. (1988) model. by the combined action of eustacy and subsidence. Other
Though the details of fluvial accommodation remain positions within the basin do not meet this equilibrium
to be worked out, the control of relative sea-level changes condition. Basinward positions, it is presumed by assump-
on accommodation as brought out by the Posamentier et tion Bl, are subsiding relatively faster while sourceward
al. (1988) and Jervey (1988) models remains fundamental positions are subsiding slower. Hence, the equilibrium
to seismic sequence stratigraphic interpretation. position defines two zones: (1) a zone of rising relative sea
level basinward of the equilibrium position and (2) a zone
Assumption B3: Stratal geometries are controlled by the of falling relative sea level sourceward of the equilibrium
rate of change of accommodation. position. Moreover, using assumption B3, the equilibrium
position also defines two zones: (1) a zone of increasing
An assumption to any sequence stratigraphic forward accommodation basinward of the equilibrium position and
model is that sedimentation geometries are controlled by (2) a zone of decreasing accommodation sourceward of the
the rate of change of accommodation A(t). Sequence equilibrium position. By assumption B4, then, the zone of
stratigraphic forward models use the geohistory of vari- decreasing accommodation undergoes no net deposition,
ables controlling accommodation to predict, conceptually net sedimentation occurs in the zone of increasing accom-
or algorithmically, sedimentation geometries. This is true modation, and the equilibrium position defines the fall
of the Jervey (1988) algorithmic model and the Vail (1987) line.
conceptual model, which use assumption B2 to determine Figure 12 shows a plot of the typical variation of
accommodation. sourceward uplift to basinward subsidence found at
Forward models that make assumption B3 are essen- passive margins. The equilibrium position in such a basin
tially stratigraphic models rather than sedimentological will shift sourceward for increasing rates of eustatic rise
models. In other words, the processes considered govern and basinward for increasing rates of eustatic fall. The
the accumulation of stratal packages on a large scale rather progressive thermal evolution of a passive margin, by
than formation of sedimentary structures and facies changing the magnitude and form of basin subsidence, will
characteristics on a small scale. also cause a gradual shift in the equilibrium position in the
Stratal geometries are assumed to reflect, primarily, sourceward direction (Watts, 1982).
the rate of change of accommodation, not simply accommo- Assumption B4 describes a sedimentological system
dation. This emphasis on rate of change has a pragmatic that is always in equilibrium. This assumption implies that
basis: that is, uniform deposition rates that characterize sedimentation responds immediately to the instantaneous
sedimentation under time-invariant accommodation do rate of change of accommodation at basin positions near
not create interpretable seismic geometric features. The the fall line. The fall line, moreover, is always located
importance of the rate of change is brought out in the next approximately at the equilibrium position.
assumption. The assumption that the fall line is always approx-
imately at the equilibrium position allows the Vail (1987)
Assumption B4: The position of the fall line is approxi- model to infer time correlations between sedimentary
mately given by the location where the rate of tectonic response and accommodation. For example, the assumed
subsidence equals the rate of eustatic sea-level change. immediate response of the fall line implies that coastal onlap
responds to accommodation change A(t) with little or no
time distortion (see assumption Dl for a further discussion
of this concept). Second, this assumption allows Vail (1977)
2
to distinguish type 1 versus type 2 unconformities on the
Posamentier (in press) uses the term bayline as opposed to
shoreline to refer to the most seaward point of the stream profile.
The shoreline and bayline are coincident, by his definitions, if
no bay or lagoon is present. This terminology is not adopted in
3
this report. The fall line is the sourceward terminus of net deposition.
384 Thorne

equilibrium posMion equilibrium position equilibrium position of eustatic fall two to five times that of subsidence at the
of shoreline for a of shoreline for a of shoreline for a
rapid sea-level rise stillstand of sea level rapid sea-level fall shelf edge, requires the equilibrium position to remain
basinward of the shelf edge for several million years.
^+—sourceward r Distance * basinward — The question of immediate response has no simple
answer. An answer that is appropriate for one temporal
and spatial scale may not be appropriate for another. For
o, £° I"*''" i mi»i 7FW i, f ^ m . ^ .iiu MiUii;j HJIIJJ I example, consider two spatial scales of topset/foreset
™ <= ^ j ? £/ , A^'L^ ^ t' ' 'i s v
geometries, the first a prograding shoreface strand plane,
the second a prograding continental shelf. A type 1 uncon-
-g XJJ* ^ * formity can form quickly across the top of a prograding
CO ' .J..,. .it ^ , v.. .
strand plane since the depositional shoreline break (where
FIGURE 12. The equilibrium position for rapid eus-
topsets roll over into foresets) is always in shallow water.
tatic rise versus rapid eustatic fall shifts sourceward ver-
It seems reasonable to expect a sudden, short-lived
sus basinward for passive margins because of the typical
decrease of relative sea level to cause bypass or erosion
variation of sourceward uplift to basinward subsidence
of the topset beds. To form a type 1 unconformity across
found in such basins.
a prograding continental shelf edge, however, requires
erosive processes to become effective on the outer shelf
that may, at highstand time, be in over 100 m of water.
basis of the relative rates of subsidence and eustatic sea-
level fall at the depositional shelf edge.4 If the rate of eustatic Assumption B5: No deposition can occur until all accom-
sea-level fall is greater than the rate of subsidence at the modation to the sourceward has been filled.
shelf edge, then the shelf edge lies in the zone of falling
relative sea level sourceward of the equilibrium position. Accommodation defines the limits of potential sedi-
Hence, using assumption B4, the fall line lies basinward, mentation. Given these limits, however, additional
sediments onlap the slope, and a type 1 unconformity must assumptions are necessary to predict how accommodation
extend out to the depositional shelf edge. space is filled. The simplest of these assumptions is that
Though assumption B4 is couched in rigorous terms, deposition cannot occur in an area of potential sedimen-
keep in mind that as with all assumptions in Table 3, this tation until all accommodation to the sourceward has been
assumption is not intended to be true in all circumstances. previously filled. Figure 13A presents a schematic diagram
For example, consider the case of a basin in which all of this concept. The predicted pattern as shown is a
subsidence has stopped. The concept of an equilibrium sediment depocenter that moves progressively away from
position no longer has meaning. The fall line position in the source.
such a basin probably would shift with the shoreline As can be seen in Figure 13A, an unrealistic infill
position. The shoreline position, however, would no longer pattern is produced with vertical bedding planes. To
be determined by the rate of eustatic change but by the correct this problem, the principle of accommodation infill
absolute height of eustatic sea level (imagine raising and can be restated: accommodation is infilled by progradation
lowering the water level in a bathtub). This example raises (except in deep-marine sedimentation). Figure 13B shows
an interesting question: What are the relative contribu- a schematic illustration of this modified version of the
tions of the absolute magnitude versus the rate of change general principle of accommodation infill.
of eustatic sea level to shoreline and fall line movement
for various realistic geologic conditions?
An equally important question concerns the assumed
A
immediate response to changes in accommodation. One
can ask, for example, if a sudden, short-lived shift of the Sediment Space Deposition
equilibrium position basinward of the shelf edge because
of a sudden, short-lived change in the rate of eustatic
change or subsidence will produce a type 1 unconformity?
Pitman and Golovchenko (1983) attempted to answer this
question using a simple numerical model of shelves
analogous to the present-day U.S. Atlantic margin in which
it was assumed that type 1 unconformities can only form
by subaerial exposure out to the shelf edge. They con- B
cluded that a major type 1 unconformity, formed by rates Sediment Space Deposition

4
(Vail 1987) now uses the term depositional shoreline break instead
of the term depositional shelf edge. This confusion of terms arises
FIGURE 13. (A) Schematic diagram illustrating the
because the model is intended to describe various spatial scales
of topset/f oreset geometry. A change in slope from topset to foreset general principle that no deposition can occur until all
beds occurs at the continental shelf edge (large scale) and on a accommodation to the sourceward has been filled.
strandplain or deltaic shoreface (small scale). Vail (personal (B) A modification of the general principle of assump-
communication, 1988) has suggested the use of the scale- tion 5A showing that accommodation is infilled by
independent term offlap break. progradation.
Implicit Assumptions of the Methodology of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy 385

At first glance, assumption B5 may not seem to of the three defining criteria for a type 1 sequence
account for aggradational or retrogradational styles boundary.)
(architecture) of sediment infill. As shown in Figure 14, this One implication of assumption B6 is that foreset beds
is not the case. A combination of progradational and will not prograde while topset beds are being incised. For
aggradational patterns is created, in 14A, by five small example, a prograding continental margin, in a construc-
discrete steps in accommodation. The space created by tional phase, progrades by the addition of slope deposi-
each step is infilled by a progradational pattern. The tion. This contrasts with a destructional phase of margin
overall geometry of the five units is aggradational. As the development in which a drop in relative sea level incises
accommodation function becomes more continuous (Fig- the coastal/delta-plain river system and, by assumption B6,
ure 14B), the progradational character of the resultant in which there is bypass or erosion of the slope.
sedimentary architecture is below seismic resolution and
the style of sediment fill appears aggradational. Assumption B7: Clastic deep-water sediments are primar-
Assumption B5 is important in Vail's (1987) placement ily point-sourced by submarine canyons.
of most slope and basin deposits in the lowstand system
tract. Slope or basin deposits, it is argued using assump- The Vail (1987) model describes the lowstand system tract
tion B5, cannot occur if there is available accommodation primarily as a canyon-fan system. Several other erosive
on the shelf or landward generally available during high- shelf and slope features can also be important sources for
stand time. deep-water sediments, including shelf terraces and slope
The maximum flooding surface is explained using channels (Mountain, 1987). High-resolution seismic studies
assumption B5. Vail (1987) interprets the condensed of the Pleistocene Mississippi fan, for example, appear to
horizon of this surface as a zone of sediment starvation. show each of these features (Bouma et al., 1985; Berryhill
Using assumption B5, he argues that this starvation is due et al., 1987). Unfortunately, current understanding of the
to the fact that, at maximum flooding time, accommoda- sedimentology of terraces and channels is poor. Current
tion is available in the sourceward direction. research questions, for example, include:

Assumption B6: Bypass of foreset beds implies drainage • Are the various erosive elements (canyons, channels,
incision of topset beds and vice versa. terraces) coeval or do they reflect a progressive evo-
lution of the shelf-slope system?
An idealized type 1 sequence boundary is defined by
(1) incision into topset beds, (2) onlap of overlying strata • Are deep-water basin sediments sourced by each of
well out into the basin, and (3) downlap or bidirectional these erosive elements characteristically different?
downlap by base of slope or basin deposits. The latter two
of these features imply that, during sequence boundary • Are deep-water basin sediments sourced by each of
formation, the slope or incised slope acts as a zone of these erosive elements equally prospective?
sediment bypass.
Assumption B6 provides a genetic relationship
In view of our current poor understanding of shelf
between these three defining elements by making a nec-
terraces and slope channels, the Vail (1987) model has
essary condition for slope (foreset) bypass—drainage
chosen to conceptualize deep-water sedimentation using
incision of the topset beds. The use of assumption B6
the better-known canyon-fan deposit ional system.
makes the three defining features independently diagnos-
tic of a type 1 sequence boundary. (However, personal
Assumption B8: Submarine canyons originate when
experience with various seismic interpreters shows that
accommodation reaches its maximum rate of fall.
each interpreter differs as to the emphasis placed on each
An important component of the Vail (1987) hypothesis
is that the origin of submarine canyons can be genetically
linked to subareal exposure caused by relative sea-level
fall. Many hypotheses have been advanced for the causes
of submarine canyons. Shepard (1981) suggests that
canyons are of composite origin. He argues, however, that
the history of many canyons indicates a period in which
subaerial erosion was an important precursor. Along these
lines, Shanmugam and Moiola (1982) suggest that the
timing of 12 major submarine and canyon deposits roughly
correspond to type 1 unconformities of the Vail and
Hardenbol (1979) sea-level curve.

Assumption B9: Variations in the volume of sediment


density flows respond to changes in accommodation to
Time
produce three stages of basin fill.
FIGURE 14. Schematic diagram showing that aggra-
dational sediments are created when accommodation is The Vail (1987) depositional model includes descrip-
created in (A) small discreet steps or (B) continuously. tive terms for numerous features of lowstand deep-basin
386 Thome

fill. Terms such as lowstand basin-floor fan, lowstand slope fan, It has long been recognized that sedimentary loads are
lowstand wedge prograding complex, top basin-floor fan surface, isostatically compensated by flexural bending of the
and top slope-fan surface are used to describe characteristic lithosphere (e.g., Gunn, 1944). This flexural bending
geometries of basin fill in Figure 15. beneath the weight of a sediment load produces new
Vail (1987) appears to provide descriptive rather than accommodation as a response to the filling of previous
a genetic terminology for lowstand deep-basin infill. This accommodation in a regional zone around the load.
contrasts with earlier generations of terminology. For Though the equations do not bear repeating here (see
example, the term levee-channel complex has been abandoned Turcotte and Schubert, 1982), a small flexural uplift is
in Vail (1987). However, the genetic term fan is still used additionally produced at a distance from the load propor-
rather than a more descriptive word such as mound. The tional to the flexural wavelength of the lithosphere. Watts
use of the term fan is consistent with assumption B7, and Thorne (1984), for example, show the importance of
which requires deep-water sediments to be primarily flexural compensation in creating the subsidence respon-
point-sourced by submarine canyons. sible for the sediment wedge landward of the hinge zone
The genetic elements of the lowstand system tract of the Atlantic margin.
model of Vail (1987) are derived from the work of Mutti It is unclear under what circumstances this feedback
(1985). In this work, a conceptual model is introduced, between sedimentation and accommodation can cause
suggesting that variations in the volume of sediment fundamentally different sequence geometries than pre-
density flows respond to changes in accommodation in dicted by the Vail (1987) model. During relatively constant
such a way as to produce three stages of basin fill: (1) a sedimentation, flexural and tectonic subsidence sum to
channel-detached sand lobe formed by large-volume produce net subsidence. Relative sea level is then a com-
turbidity currents, (2) a channel-attached sand lobe formed bination of net subsidence and eustacy.
by medium-volume turbidity currents, and (3) a channel- However, under conditions of fluctuating amounts of
levee complex formed by small-volume turbidity currents. sedimentation, flexural subsidence will cause a corre-
The Vail (1987) model assumes (assumption B9) that the sponding variation in accommodation. For example, a
three successive stages of the Mutti (1985) model corre- significant change in accommodation is created by the
spond to the geometric elements of (1) a basin-floor fan, large pulse of sedimentation producing rapid progradation
(2) a slope fan, and (3) a prograding complex. of the Gulf of Mexico northern margin during Wilcox time
The Mutti (1985) model is highly speculative. Mutti is (Nunn, 1985).
currently attempting to document his three-stage model Another important feedback between sediment sup-
using large-scale areal photography (personal communica- ply and accommodation occurs on unstable margins due
tion, 1987). Much of his field evidence to date, however, to the movement of salt diapirs and growth faults. Move-
rests in the possible interpretation that short-term sea- ment of these features is affected by the rates of margin
level variations cause observed small-scale vertical cyclic- progradation and slope sedimentation rate controlling the
ity of turbidite sediments at the scale of meters and tens stress and overpressure regime of the continental slope
of meters (Mutti, 1985). In this work, thin-bedded versus (Hardin and Hardin, 1961; Bishop, 1978; Humphris, 1978).
thick-bedded turbidite cycles are taken as evidence of
eustatic control.
Assumption CI: A seismic reflection, for all practical
purposes, is a time line.
Assumption BIO: Variations in sediment supply do not in
themselves cause significant changes in accommodation
The most widely recognized assumption of seismic
rate.
stratigraphic interpretation is that a seismic reflection, in
most cases, is a time line (Vail et al., 1977; Bally, 1987). This
Sedimentation, in the Vail (1987) sequence strati-
assumption (1) allows the geometry of depositional stratal
graphic forward model, fills in the space created by eus-
surfaces to be inferred from corresponding reflection
tatic sea-level rise and tectonic subsidence. Sedimentation
patterns and (2) provides a chronostratigraphic tool for
never creates its own space: it simply fills space created
correlation.
by relative sea-level change.
Using an example from the San Juan basin, Vail et al.
(1977) demonstrated that continuous reflections can pass
through facies changes with only a change in reflection
character. In this case, reflections as well as E-log corre-
lations have a parallel geometry, whereas facies changes
show a patchy distribution. Vail et al. (1977) make the
reasonable assumption that the parallel geometry reflects
original depositional bedding.
Figure 16A shows schematically the physical origin of
reflectors that pass through facies changes. In this exam-
basin floor fan
ple, the stratigraphic unit, defined by the seismic traces,
FIGURE 15. Geometric elements of the Vail (1987) is lithologically distinct from overlying and underlying
lowstand system tract model. Abbreviations are as fol- units at each trace, although facies change within the unit.
lows: bf—basin floor fan, tbfs—top basin floor fan surface, Stratal boundaries, in this example, separate distinct
sf—slope fan, tsfs—top slope fan surface, and lsw—low- lithological units, though the specific nature of this con-
stand wedge, also referred to as the prograding complex. trast changes from point to point.
Implicit Assumptions of the Methodology of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy 387

A. Reflections follow time lines not facies boundaries seems to imply that the technique is intended for the
analysis of depositional packages of smaller scale. The
work of Greenlee et al. (1988) on the U.S. Atlantic Margin,
for example, applies seismic stratigraphic analysis to a
series of prograding mid-Miocene clinoforms of —200 m
relief, but the major continental shelf break of this margin
is not analyzed.
Much of this confusion results from the fact that many
aspects of the seismic stratigraphic technique are indepen-
dent of spatial scale. The analysis of patterns of onlap,
downlap, toplap, and truncation or the recognition of
topset, foreset, and bottomset beds does not depend on
spatial scale (Figure 17).
B. Reflections follow stratal boundaries but not time lines Although these purely geometric aspects are indepen-
dent of spatial scale, it is not clear whether other aspects
of the technique are also independent of scale. Inferences
of physical processes, for example, require that the scale
of the problem be defined. In using assumption C2, it is
implied that these differences do not invalidate resultant
seismic stratigraphic interpretations.

Assumption C3: Sequence stratigraphic analysis is inde-


pendent of temporal scale.

Corresponding to the assumed spatial independence


FIGURE 16. Schematic illustrating the physical origin
of sequence stratigraphic analysis, it is also assumed that
of reflectors that pass through facies changes. In (A), the
this technique is independent of temporal scale. The
stratigraphic unit defined by the seismic traces is litholog-
seismic expression of relative sea-level cycles ranging in
ically distinct from overlying and underlying units at each
length from 100,000 years to 10 Ma have been interpreted
trace, even though facies change within the unit. In (B), a
with the same methodology. Exxon researchers have
series of en echelon, linear, sand bodies creates a continu-
studied the ~100,000 year cycles of the Gulf of Mexico
ous reflector that is time transgressive.
Pleistocene (Beard et al, 1982), the ~1 m.y. cycles of the
Miocene of the U.S. Atlantic margin (Greenlee et al, 1988),
and the ~10 m.y. Mesozoic cycles of the Texas Gulf Coast
A subtle variation on this theme, in which reflectors and west Africa (Todd and Mitchum, 1977).
follow stratal boundaries but not time lines, is presented
in Figure 16B. In this example, a series of en echelon, linear,
sand bodies creates a continuous reflector that skips from shoreface
E x a m pr l e s

one sand to the next. The depositional geometry of these High Resolution Seismic of
Modern Shelf Sedimentation
sands shows they are not deposited simultaneously and, Cretaceous Western Interior
hence, this reflector is not a time line.
Surprisingly, little critical attention has been focused
on assumption CI. Davis (1979), in two reservoir scale
studies, demonstrated that time lines and reflector horiz- Cretaceous North Slope
ons can deviate and crosscut. Mayer et al. (1986), however, Miocene US Atlantic Margin
Paleogene North See
showed that seismic reflections of the Neogene sediments
of the central equatorial Pacific follow time lines to within
biostratigraphic resolution.

Assumption C2: Sequence stratigraphic analysis is inde-


pendent of spatial scale.
West African Margin
Paleogene US Atlantic Margin
The spatial scale to which sequence stratigraphic
techniques are applied is a subject of confusion. Vail et al.
(1977, figure 9, p. 73) show schematically the depositional
patterns during highstand and lowstand of sea level. The
relief on prograding highstand clinoforms in this figure is
2000 m, with the depth of the shelf edge at 200 m. Seismic
examples from offshore western Africa (Vail et al., 1977, p.
137) also imply that the sequence methodology can be FIGURE 17. Examples of sequence stratigraphic anal-
applied to high-relief slopes at continental shelf margins. ysis at various spatial scales. The same basic pattern has
Vail (1987), however, has replaced the term depositional shelf been identified where foreset relief is over 2000 m or
edge with the term depositional shoreline break. This new term under 20 m.
388 Thome

Assumption C4: Sedimentation geometries can be mapped cycles occurring on the rising limb of a supercycle versus
onto a grid without prior knowledge of paleogeographic cycles occurring on the falling limb of a supercycle.
dip and strike directions. Assumption C5 implies that separate depositional models
for these two cases are not necessary for correct
Sequence stratigraphic interpretation depends interpretation.
strongly on a sense of regional direction: for example, The Vail (1987) model has been conceptualized in
seismic geometries are identified as characteristically terms of a sinosoidial variation of accommodation A(t) and
strike versus dip features; coastal onlap is measured in the its time derivative A(t). There is strong evidence, however,
basinward (seaward) or sourceward (landward) direction. that glaciations form slowly and end rapidly (Hays et al.,
One of the assumptions of seismic stratigraphic interpre- 1976; Imbrie, 1982), and, thus, a sawtooth (Figure 18B)
tation, therefore, is that direction can be determined by rather than a sinosoidial variation of accommodation may
mapping sedimentation geometries on a seismic grid. It is be a more appropriate model for glacial sea-level cycles.
assumed, for example, that in this process depositional dip Assumption C5 implies that a separate depositional model
lines will not be misinterpreted as showing characteristic for sawtooth as opposed to sinosoidial variations in
strike-oriented features. accommodation is unnecessary and that the features
This process of determining direction is complicated created by either case are sufficiently analogous that
by two factors: (1) seismic lines are often shot oblique to fundamentally different interpretation concepts are not
either depositional strike or dip and (2) depositional strike needed.
and dip directions vary with geologic time and in space A major modification of assumption C5 is used by
across the seismic grid. British Petroleum's seismic sequence stratigraphy group.
This group recognizes that major pulses of tectonic basin
Assumption C5: Sedimentation geometries can be inter- formation create "megasequence" boundaries characteris-
preted as a response to a single harmonic sine curve tically different from sequence boundaries created by
function for rate of accommodation change A(t). cyclic changes in accommodation such as eustatic cycles
(Hubbard et al., 1985a, b). A major pulse or change in sub-
Vail et al. (1977) recognized that sea-level (accommo- sidence, such as a rifting phase, a sudden transition from
dation) changes form a hierarchy of cycles: that superim- fault to flexural control of basin subsidence, or a major
posed on one long-term rise and fall of sea level can be pulse of foreland thrusting that causes a sedimentary dis-
many shorter period rise-and-fall subcycles (Figure 18). continuity, is called a megasequence boundary. These
The multiharmonic nature of the accommodation function boundaries can be distinguished from sequence bound-
A(t) and its time derivative A(t) are not explicitly dealt with aries caused by cyclic processes for which the sinosoidial
by the Vail (1987) interpretation method. The characteristic sequence model of Vail (1987) is appropriate.
genetic and descriptive elements of any cycle are inter-
preted independently of cycle position. For example,
separate depositional models have not been developed for Assumption C6: Sedimentation can be put into a chrono-
stratigraphic framework by assuming only one depocenter
occurs at a time.

A third level of sequence interpretation is to break out


a relative time history of deposition based on delineated
discontinuity surfaces. Although these surfaces (by
assumption CI) have chronostratigraphic significance, a
unique "solution" for the time history of deposition is
Sawtooth glacial curve
commonly not possible. As shown in Figure 19, a unique
solution can be found if it is assumed that only one
sedimentation depocenter occurs at a time.

Multiharmonic curve c Assumption C7: Sediment accumulation is characterized


by large changes in accumulation rate over relatively short
lateral distances.

As previously discussed, the delineation of discontinuity


FIGURE 18. Three examples of accommodation with "surfaces" can be problematic with sufficient aggradation
time showing (A) a simple sine function variation, (B) of bottomset beds. Figure 20 shows an additional example
sawtooth variation, and (C) a multiharmonic function of this problem. In this example, an apparent onlap surface
showing three orders of superimposed cycles. The Vail is produced by a thick-thin-thick pattern of sediment
(1987) model has been developed for the first single- accumulation.
harmonic case only. It is assumed that sequence geome- The examples in Figures 1 and 20 are characterized by
tries created by multiharmonic or sawtooth variations of gradual variations in accumulation rate across the section.
accommodation can be interpreted by simple analogy to The Vail (1987) methodology in its emphasis on delineating
idealized geometries created by a single sine curve varia- downlap and onlap surfaces rather than intervals assumes,
tion in accommodation. therefore, that sediment accumulation is characterized by
Implicit Assumptions of the Methodology of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy 389

accommodation A(t) are controlled by the rate of change


Preferred Depos tional History of eustatic sea level.

^v:
Four measures of accommodation are given on the
Exxon cycle chart. The first, the global onlap chart, plots
relative landward to basinward positions of the fall line,

\\p\v which, by assumption B4, is directly related to accommo-


dation. Second, sequence boundaries are identified as type
1 or type 2 unconformities. As discussed previously (see
^""^--SLlS^v assumption B4), a type 1 sequence boundary implies (by
assumptions B1-B8) a greater rate of accommodation
decrease than a type 2. Third, the timing of condensed
horizons within each sequence is indicated. As discussed
Two Depocenter Depositional History in the section on assumption B5, these horizons are
interpreted to occur at the greatest rate of accommodation
increase.
The final measure of accommodation, the eustatic sea-
level curve, is largely derived from the first three measures:
coastal onlap, sequence type, and condensed horizon
position. This derivation, however, makes the additional
assumption that the changes in accommodation docu-
mented by these three measures, after correcting for the
effects of local subsidence, represent the effects of eustacy
FIGURE 19. Two possible time histories of deposi- (assumption D3).
tion. The lower possibility can be eliminated if it is The stratigraphic literature since 1977, citing the Exxon
assumed that only one depocenter can occur at a time. The sea-level cycle charts, is prodigious (an ARCO library
circled numbers show the relative sequence of deposition. author citation search of P. Vail contains 983 citations
between 1977 and 1988). Various stratigraphic techniques
have been used to test the applicability of the global sea-
level cycle chart including (1) transgressive-regressive
apparent onlap facies analysis, (2) paleowaterdepth analysis, (3) age-dating
of unconformity surfaces, (4) age dating of condensed
horizons or hiatal surfaces, (5) correlation of stratigraphic
discontinuities with the 5 18 0 or 513C isotopic record, (6)
cross-comparison of global versus locally defined cycle
charts, (7) comparison of the timing of globally or locally
defined sequence boundaries and condensed horizons with
concurrent tectonic or paleoceanographic events, (8)
comparison with sea-level curves derived from age and
extent of continental flooding, (9) tectonic subsidence
analysis, (lO)-'timing and magnitude of highstands and
FIGURE 20. An apparent onlap surface is created by a lowstands from carbonate platform, coral reef terrace, and
thick-thin-thick pattern of sediment accumulation. This wave-cut terrace analysis, and (11) numerical stratigraphic
gradual change in accumulation rate across the section modeling (see Kendall and Lerche, 1989, for a short review
produces an onlap interval rather than a true onlap of some of these techniques).
surface. Many complicating factors make a verdict on the
reliability of the Exxon cycle chart and eustatic curve based
on this evidence difficult to reach. A complete analysis of
these techniques, however, is beyond the scope of this
large changes in accumulation rate over relatively short
paper. A critical analysis of some of these techniques is
lateral distances.
given by Burton et al. (1987), Miller and Kent (1987), and
Thome and Watts (1984). Burton et al. (1987) argue that
though the timing of sea-level changes may be possible
to determine, the absolute magnitude of such changes
IMPLICIT A S S U M P T I O N S O F T H E GLOBAL cannot be determined because local tectonic subsidence
CORRELATION M O D E L rates can never be independently measured. Miller and
Kent (1987) and Thome and Watts (1984), on the other hand,
The Exxon sea-level cycle chart (version 3.1B, Bally, 1987) address the stratigraphic and seismic resolution problems
uses assumptions Dl, D2, and D3. It is assumed that (1) in determining the timing of sequence stratigraphic cycles.
the magnitude and timing of the accommodation function The accommodation function should vary within a
A(t) can be accurately estimated by sequence analysis of basin and from basin to basin because of local variations
observed stratigraphy; (2) the accommodation function in tectonic subsidence. The Exxon global cycle chart,
A(t), determined by such analysis, is synchronous on a therefore, should ideally be constructed from a global
global basis; and (3) globally synchronous variations of average in which variations due to subsidence have been
390 Thorne

accounted for by tectonic subsidence analysis. Though this ative sea-level history for the area, and stratigraphic cor-
is ideally the best approach, practical considerations have relation to the global cycle chart. As this paper has pointed
limited the use of tectonic subsidence analysis to a few out, this interpretation is based on four assumptions (Table
"calibration" studies (e.g., Hardenbol et aL, 1981; Greenlee 2) of seismic stratal geometry identification and 20
et aL, 1988). Furthermore Burton et aL (1987) state that assumptions (Table 3) of the forward, inverse, and global
local tectonic subsidence rates can rarely, if ever, be correlation model of Vail (1987).
independently determined. The inherent limits of biostrati- In any particular geologic area, using any particular
graphic and seismic resolution make the conclusive set of seismic data, some of these 24 assumptions may be
demonstration of the worldwide synchroneity of third- and valid and others may be questionable. Table 4, for example,
higher-order eustatic cycles difficult if not impossible presents a series of possible questions that can be asked
(Miller and Kent, 1987). in any particular study area to test the appropriateness
These considerations lead to the adoption of assump- of the Table 2 and Table 3 model assumptions. This list
tions D2 and D3. The evidence presented in Vail (1987) is not meant to be inclusive but to serve as an example
and previous work does not prove assumptions Dl through checklist.
D3, but for practical purposes, the evidence is consistent Analyzing seismic interpretations using the "assump-
with these assumptions. tion checklist" can provide a qualitative assessment of level
Two examples serve to illustrate the practical approach of confidence. To assess level of confidence, each of the
taken by Vail and his associates. It can be argued that questions in Table 4 is asked in turn. If the answer is no
sequence-bounding unconformities cannot be globally to all questions, then the interpretation has a high level
classified as either type 1 or type 2 because this classifica- of confidence. An answer of yes or maybe to any of these
tion depends on subsidence that varies from basin to basin questions raises a possible consideration that can lower
(Parkinson and Summerhayes, 1985). Theoretically, this the confidence of interpretations based on the Vail (1987)
observation is correct. However, the distribution of type methodology.
1 versus type 2 unconformities appears to be global (Vail, A true quantitative assumption checklist requires
personal communication, 1988). The global distribution of weighting factors on each assumption that measure the
sequence boundary types is, therefore, noted on the cycle relative importance of each assumption. Unfortunately,
chart with the understanding that exceptions can occur. very little is known about the sensitivity of interpreted
Theoretically, onlap curves should not be averaged fades distribution based on the Vail (1987) methodology
until fully corrected for tectonic subsidence variations. to the model assumptions as given in Table 2 and Table
Furthermore, the causal mechanism of sequence bound- 3. Many "calibration," combined-seismic/well-log/outcrop
aries is inferred from model assumptions B3 and B4, which studies are needed to improve this situation. An alternative
use the concept of immediate response to accommodation approach is to use numerical stratigraphic modeling to
change. These model assumptions imply that basin provide an initial assessment of the sensitivity of seismic
stratigraphy is sensitive to rates of basin subsidence, which sequence stratigraphic methodology to model assumptions.
implies that sequence boundaries should not globally cor- Furthermore, continued focused research on the
relate. Practically, however, if uncorrected onlap curves critical assumptions of the sequence stratigraphic
from around the world generally show a particular event hypothesis should generate an advanced methodology that
synchronous within biostratigraphic resolution, then the provides increased-confidence seismic interpretations in
occurrence of a synchronous eustatic event is notated on areas of exploration interest. The 24 implicit assumptions
the global cycle chart. Because of the uncertainty caused of the Vail (1987) model outlined in this report are not
by possible tectonic influence on each onlap curve, and required by advanced generations of seismic stratigraphic
the uncertainties in biostratigraphic correlation, this event methodology. With continued focused research, the
is not necessarily proven by the onlap curves, as subsequent interpretive scheme of Vail (1987) can be modified to
analysis may bear out. The global onlap cycle chart is issued, account for the variability found in exploration areas
therefore, with the understanding that each notated cycle around the world.
is subject to change (Haq et aL, 1987).
In generaL then, the Exxon cycle chart and global CONCLUSIONS
eustatic sea-level curve, as the evolution from Vail (1977) to
Vail (1987) shows, are works perpetually in progress. The 1. The Vail (1987) seismic sequence stratigraphic hypothe-
most current version of the chart, for example, is labelled sis, as analyzed in this study, is based upon a minimum
"version 3.1B" (Haq et aL, 1987). Through continued appli- of 24 implicit assumptions. These assumptions allow
cation and cross-comparison of the 10 techniques listed a unique interpretation to be made of depositional
above as well as continued seismic sequence analysis, history based on seismic sequence stratigraphic
modifications of the global cycle chart are to be expected. analysis that allows predictions to be made of the
distribution of sedimentary facies useful for strati-
graphic trap exploration.
EXPLORATION APPLICATION
2. The sensitivity of these predictions to each of these
Seismic sequence stratigraphy provides an interpretation implicit assumptions is poorly known.
of the geologic history of an area including information
on direction of sediment sources, inferred paleoenviron- 3. Continued use of seismic sequence stratigraphy
ment for each unit, history of deposition, an inferred rel- methodology, with a critical assessment of these
Implicit Assumptions of the Methodology of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy 391

TABLE 4. Example assumption checklist for the Vail (1987) seismic sequence stratigraphic stratal geometry identifica-
tion, forward, and inverse, and global correlation models.

A: Example assumption checklist for seismic stratal geometry identification

1. Is the stratal geometry "signal-to-noise" ratio too low to allow interpretation?


2. Are the locations of reflection termination poorly resolvable, given the quality of the seismic data?
3. Has postdepositional tilting or structure made the distinction between downlap and onlap meaningless? Has an
inconsistent distinction between toplap and truncation been made? Does an interpreted truncation surface show
little signs of relief created by erosion?
4. Is there an overreliance on higher levels of interpretation based on conceptual and numerical models of sequence
geometries in the delineation of stratal geometry signals? Is there a danger that interpretations are "model driven"?

B: Example assumption checklist for use of the Vail (1987) forward model

1. Is the arrangement of sediment source terrains and subsidence depocenters complicated? For example, the trend of
subsidence may not be parallel to the trend of source terrains, multiple sediment sources terrains may exist in differ-
ent directions, or the source and sinks of sedimentation may be too close to each other to define a sourceward and
basinward direction.
2. Are shallow water conditions unlikely to extend out to the topset/foreset rollover? Are significant changes in sedi-
mentation rate, sediment type, wave climate, etc. likely to produce changes in accommodation that affect sequence
geometry?
3. Are basin subsidence rates very low so that the magnitude of accommodation becomes more important then the
rate of change of accommodation? Are basin subsidence rates very high so that the rate of change of sediment sup-
ply becomes more important then the rate of change of accommodation?
4. Are accommodation cycles too fast to allow the fall line to move to the location where the rate of tectonic subsi-
dence equals the rate of eustatic sea-level change?
5. Is a significant amount of sedimentation due to in-situ production? Are conditions inappropriate to create a topset,
foreset, or bottomset morphology at the appropriate scale of study?
6. Are other processes controlling slope bypass other than drainage incision? Are the three defining elements of a
sequence boundary (incision into topset beds, onlap of overlying strata and downlap or bidirectional downlap by
base-of-slope or basin deposits) difficult to correlate on the seismic data?
7. Do other erosive slope features exist besides canyons? Do geologic conditions in the study area suggest that the
area may not be canyon-prone?
8. Are other geologic scenarios for canyon formation (e.g., transgressive reworking of a lowstand shelf edge delta or
catastrophic failure of the slope due to mass failure) particularly appropriate for the study area?
9. Do observed geometries of deep-basin fill poorly fit the idealized Vail-Mutti model?
10. Have variations in sediment supply caused significant changes in accommodation rate due to flexural subsidence?
Is there any indication of a flexural bulge? Has sediment loading triggered salt or growth fault movement?
C: Example assumption checklist for use of the Vail (1987) inverse model

1. Are seismic reflectors locally parallel to bedding but regionally not correlatable in time?
2. Is the predicted facies distribution based on the sequence geometry inappropriate for the spatial scale of the studied
deposits? Have misleading analogies been drawn between characteristic deposits at differing spatial scales?
3. Is the predicted facies distribution based on the sequence geometry inappropriate for the temporal scale of the stud-
ied deposits? Have misleading analogies been drawn between characteristic deposits at differing temporal scales?
4. Are paleogeographic dip and strike directions difficult to determine by characteristic sequence geometries? Do
these directions vary locally within the grid?
5. Have characteristically different sequence geometries been created by a sawtooth or multiharmonic sea-level curve?
Can tectonically created megasequence boundaries be separated from the cyclicly created sequence boundaries?
6. Are reinterpretations of depositional history possible if it is assumed that more than one depocenter can occur at
one time? Are sedimentation processes likely in the particular study area that may cause multiple depocenters (e.g.,
multiple sediment supply sources, local subsidence depocenters)?
7. Is sediment accumulation characterized by relatively small changes in accumulation rate over large lateral distances
causing poor delineation of downlap and onlap surfaces?
392 Thome

assumptions in mind, can provide (a) some measure- Cloetingh, S., H. McQueen, and K. Lambeck, 1985, On a
ment of confidence in resultant interpretations and (b) tectonic mechanism for regional sea level variations:
an advanced and more versatile sequence stratigraphic Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 75, p. 157-166.
methodology. Davis, T. L., 1979, Seismic-stratigraphic facies models, in R.
Walker, ed., Facies models: Geoscience Canada, Reprint
4. Numerical stratigraphic modeling may provide (a) a Series 1, p. 201-211.
first assessment of assumption sensitivity and (b) new Davis, W. M., 1902, Base-level, grade, and peneplain: Journal
concepts for sequence stratigraphy methodology. of Geology, v. 10, p. 77-111.
Embry, A. F., in press, A tectonic origin for depositional
sequences in extensional basins—Implications for basin
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS modeling, in T. A. Cross, ed., Quantitative dynamic
stratigraphy: Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
I thank my colleagues G. Baum, B. Bennett, C. Bowland, Gallagher, J., Jr., and E R. Tauvers, 1988, Tectonosynthem
A. Brown, D. Caraway, T. Carr, M. Cucci, M. Gresko, R. analysis of northwestern South America: ARCO Oil and
Hanford, S. Hertig, J. Hewlett, J. Hugg, R. Loucks, C. Ossian, Gas Company, Exploration Research Letters, n. 11, p. 4.
J. Pacht, S. Phillips, B. Robinson, R. Slatt, R. Suchecki, D. Galloway, W. E., in press, Genetic depositional sequences
Swift, and T. Twyman for discussions relating to concepts in basin analysis—part 1: Sequence architecture and
in sequence stratigraphy. B. Bennett, M. Cucci, W. Dula, genesis: AAPG Bulletin.
R. Loucks, J. Richardson, and T. Twyman provided helpful Greenlee, S. M., F. W. Schroeder, and P. R. Vail, 1988, Seismic
written reviews. stratigraphic and geohistory analysis of Tertiary strati-
graphy from the continental shelf off New Jersey:
Calculation of eustatic fluctuations from stratigraphic
REFERENCES CITED data, in R. E. Sheridan and J. A. Grow, eds., The Atlantic
continental margin, U.S.: The Geology of North America
Bally, A. W., 1987, ed., Atlas of seismic stratigraphy, v. 1: Volume 1-2, p. 437-444.
AAPG Studies in Geology 27,125 p. Gunn, R., 1944, A quantitative study of the lithosphere and
Beard, J. H., J. B. Sangree, and L. A. Smith, 1982, Quaternary gravity anomalies along the Atlantic coast: J. Franklin
chronology, paleoclimate, depositional sequences, and Inst., v. 237, p. 139-152.
eustatic cycles: AAPG Bulletin, v. 66, p. 158-169. Hallam, A., in press, A reevaluation of Jurassic eustasy in
Berg, O. R., and D. G. Woolverton, eds., 1985, Seismic light of new data and the revised Exxon curve, in J. C.
stratigraphy II: An integrated approach: AAPG Memoir Wagoner, ed., Sea-level change: An integrated approach:
39, 276 p. SEPM Special Publication, v. 42.
BerryhilL H. L., ]. R. Suter, and N. S. Hardin, 1987, Late Haq, B. U, J. Hardenbol, and P. R. Vail, 1987, Chronology
Quaternary facies and structure, northern Gulf of of fluctuating sea levels since the Triassic: Science, v.
Mexico: Interpretations from seismic data: AAPG Stu- 235, p. 1156-1166.
dies in Geology 23, 289 p. Hardenbol, J., P. R. Vail, and J. Ferrer, 1981, Interpreting
Bessis, F., 1986, Some remarks on the study of subsidence paleoenvironments, subsidence history, and sea-level
of sedimentary basins: Application to the Gulf of Lion changes on passive margins from seismic biostrati-
margin (western Mediterranean): Marine and Petroleum graphy: Oceanologica Acta Supplement, v. 4, p. 33-44.
Geology, v. 3, p. 37-63. Hardin, F. R., and G. C. Hardin, Jr., 1961, Contemporaneous
Bishop, R. S., 1978, Mechanism for emplacement of pierce- normal faults of Gulf Coast and their relation to flex-
ment diapirs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 62, p. 1561-1583. ures: AAPG Bulletin, v. 45, p. 238-248.
Bouma, A. H., C. E. Stelting, and J. M. Coleman, 1985, Hays, J. D., J. Imbrie, and N. J. Shackleton, 1976, Variations
Mississippi fan, Gulf of Mexico, in A. H. Bouma, W. R. in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the ice ages: Science,
Normark, and N. E. Barnes, eds., Submarine fans and v. 194, p. 2212-2232.
related turbidite systems: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. Helland-Hansen, W, C. G. St. C. Kendall, I. Lerche, and K.
143-150. Nakayama, 1988, A simulation of continental basin
Bowman, S., in preparation, Age and magnitude of Cre- margin sedimentation in response to crustal move-
taceous eustatic and tectonic stratigraphic cycles and ments, eustatic sea level change, and sediment accumu-
their role in understanding basin dynamics: Ph.D. lation rates: Mathematical Geology, v. 20, p. 777-802.
thesis, Rice University, Houston, Texas. Hubbard, R. J., 1988, Age and significance of sequence
Burton, R., C. G. St. C. Kendall, and I. Lerche, 1987, Out boundaries on Jurassic and Early Cretaceous rifted
of our depth: On the impossibility of fathoming eustasy continental margins: AAPG Bulletin, v. 72, p. 49-72.
from the stratigraphic record: Earth-Science Reviews, v. Hubbard, R. J., J. Pape, and D. G. Roberts, 1985a, Deposi-
24, p. 237-277. tional sequence mapping as a technique to establish
Butcher, S. W., 1989. The nickpoint concept and its impli- tectonic and stratigraphic framework and evaluate
cations regarding onlap to the stratigraphic record, in hydrocarbon potential on a passive continental margin,
T. A. Cross, ed., Quantitative dynamic stratigraphy: in O. R. Berg and D. G. Woolverton, eds., Seismic strati-
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, p. 375-385. graphy II: An integrated approach: AAPG Memoir 39,
Christie-Blick, N., G. S. Mountain, K. G. Miller, in press, p. 79-91.
Seismic stratigraphic record of sea-level change, in Sea Hubbard, R. J., J. Pape, and D. G. Roberts, 1985b, Deposi-
level change: National Academy Studies in Geophysics. tional sequence mapping to illustrate the evolution of
Implicit Assumptions of the Methodology of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy 393

a passive continental margin, in O. R. Berg and D. G. Nunn, J. A, 1985, State of stress in the northern Gulf Coast:
Woolverton, eds., Seismic stratigraphy II: An integrated Geology, v. 13, p. 429-432.
approach: AAPG Memoir 39, p. 93-115. Parkinson, N., and C. Summerhayes, 1985, Synchronous
Humphris, C. C, Jr., 1978, Salt movement on continental global sequence boundaries: AAPG Bulletin, v. 69, p.
slope, northern Gulf of Mexico: AAPG Bulletin, v. 62, p. 685-687.
69-85. Payton, C. E., ed., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy—Application
Imbrie, J., 1982, Astronomical theory of the Pleistocene ice to hydrocarbon exploration: AAPG Memoir 26, 516 p.
ages: A brief historical review: Icarus, v. 50, p. 408-422. Pitman, W. C, III, 1978, Relationship between eustasy and
James, D. P., and D. A. Leckie, eds., 1988, Sequences, stratigraphic sequences of passive margins: GSA Bulle-
stratigraphy, sedimentology: Surface and subsurface: tin, v. 89, p. 1389-1403.
Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 15, Pitman, W. C, III, and X. Golovchenko, 1983, The effect of
586 p. sea-level change on the shelfedge and slope of passive
Jervey, M. T., 1988, Quantitative geological modelling of margins: SEPM Special Publication 33, p. 41-58.
siliciclastic rock sequences and their seismic expression, Posamentier, H. W., and P. R. Vail, 1988, Eustatic controls
in C. Wilgus, B. Hastings, H. Posamentier, J. Van Wag- on clastic deposition II—Sequence and systems tract
oner, C. Ross, C. Kendal, eds., Sea-level changes—An models, in C. K. Wilgus, B. S. Hastings, C. G. St. C.
integrated approach: SEPM Special Publication 42, p. Kendall, H. W. Posamentier, C. A. Ross, and J. C. Van
47-70. Wagoner, eds., Sea-level changes—An integrated
Karner, G. D., 1986, Effects of lithospheric in-plate stress approach: SEPM Special Publication 42, p. 124-154.
on sedimentary basin stratigraphy: Tectonics, v. 5, p. Posamentier, H. W, M. T. Jervey, and P. R. Vail, 1988,
573-588. Eustatic controls on clastic deposition I—Conceptual
Kendall, C. G. St. C., and I. Lerche, 1989, The rise and fall framework, in C. Wilgus, B. Hastings, H. Posamentier,
of eustasy, in C. Wilgus, B. Hastings, H. Posamentier, J. Van Wagoner, C. Ross, C. Kendal, eds., Sea-level
J. Van Wagoner, C. Ross, C. Kendal, eds., Sea level changes—An integrated approach: SEPM Special Pub-
changes—An integrated approach: SEPM Special Pub- lication 42, p. 109-124.
lication 42, p. 3-17. Rudolph, K. W., W. Sclager, K. T. Biddle, 1989, Seismic
Mackin, J. H., 1948, Concept of the graded river: GSA models of a carbonate-to-basin transition, Picco di
Bulletin, v. 59, p. 463-512. Vallandro, Dolomite Alps, northern Italy: Geology, v. 17,
Mayer, L. A., T. H. Shipley, and E. L. Winterer, 1986, p. 453-456.
Equatorial Pacific seismic reflectors as indicators of Schuum, S. A., 1976, Episodic erosion: A modification of the
global oceanographic events: Science, v. 233, p. 761-764. geomorphic cycle, in W. N. Melhorn and R. C. Flemal,
McQuillin, R., M. Bacon, and W. Barclay, 1979, An introduc- eds., Theories of landform development: State Univer-
tion to seismic interpretation: Houston, Gulf Publish- sity of New York, Binghamton, New York, Publications
ing, 199 p. in Geomorphology, p. 69-86.
Meckel, L. D., Jr., and A. K. Nath, Geologic considerations Schlee, J. S., ed., 1984, Interregional unconformities and
for stratigraphic modeling and interpretation, in C. E. hydrocarbon accumulation: AAPG Memoir 36,184 p.
Payton, ed., Seismic stratigraphy—Application to Shanmugam, G., and R. J. Moiola, 1982, Prediction of deep-
hydrocarbon exploration: AAPG Memoir 26, p. 417-438. sea reservoir facies: Transactions of the Gulf Coast
Miall, A. D., 1986, Eustatic sea level changes interpreted Associations of Geological Societies, v. 32, p. 275-281.
from seismic stratigraphy: A critique of the methodol- Shepard, F. P., 1981, Submarine canyons: Multiple causes
ogy with particular reference to the North Sea Jurassic and long-term persistence: AAPG Bulletin, v. 65, p.
record: AAPG Bulletin, v. 70, p. 131-137. 1062-1077.
Miller, K. G., and D. V. Kent, 1987, Testing Cenozoic eustatic Sheriff, R. E., 1977, Limitations on resolution of seismic
changes: The critical role of stratigraphic resolution, in reflections and geological detail derivable from them,
C. A. Ross and D. Haman, eds., Timing and deposit ional in C. E. Payton, ed., Seismic stratigraphy—Application
history of eustatic sequences: Constraints on seismic to hydrocarbon exploration: AAPG Memoir 26, p. 3-14.
stratigraphy: Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Sheriff, R. E., 1985, Aspects of seismic resolution, in O. R.
Research, Special Publication 24, p. 51-56. Berg and D. G. Woolverton, eds., Seismic stratigraphy
Mountain, G., 1987, Cenozoic margin construction and II: An integrated approach: AAPG Memoir 39, p. 1-12.
destruction offshore New Jersey, in C. A. Ross and D. Summerhayes, C. P., 1986, Sea-level curves based on
Haman, eds.. Timing and depositional history of eus- seismic stratigraphy: Their chronostratigraphic signifi-
tatic sequences: Constraints on seismic stratigraphy: cance: Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology,
Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Spe- v. 57, p. 27-42.
cial Publication 24, p. 51-56. Swift, D. J. P, and J. A. Thorne, 1985, Sequence stratigraphy
Mutti, E., 1985, Turbidite systems and their relations to in foreland basins: Inferences from the Cretaceous
depositional sequences, in G. G. Zuffa, ed.. Provenance Western Interior: 17th Annual Offshore Technology
of arenites: D. Reidel Publishing Company, p. 65-93. Conference, Paper OTC 4846, p. 47-54.
Neidell, N. S., and E. Poggiagliolmi, 1977, Stratigraphic Swift, D. J. P., P. M. Hudelson, R. L. Brenner, and P. Thomp-
modeling and interpretation—Geophysical principles son, 1987, Shelf construction in a foreland basin: Storm
and techniques, in C. E. Payton, ed., Seismic strati- beds, shelf sandbodies, and shelf-slope depositional
graphy—Application to hydrocarbon exploration: sequences in the Upper Cretaceous Mesaverde Group,
AAPG Memoir 26, p. 389-416. Book Cliffs, Utah: Sedimentology, v. 34, p. 423-457.
394 Thome

Thome, J. A., and A. B. Watts, 1984, Seismic reflectors and Vail, P. R., and J. Hardenbol, 1979, Sea-level changes during
unconformities at passive continental margins: Nature, the Tertiary: Oceanus, v. 22, p. 71-79.
v. 311, p. 365-368. Vail, P. R., et al., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global
Todd, R. G., and R. M. Mitchum, Jr., 1977, Seismic strati- changes of sea level (a series of papers), in C. E. Payton,
graphy and global changes of sea level, part 8: Identi- ed., Seismic stratigraphy—Application to hydrocarbon
fication of Upper Triassic, Jurassic and Lower Creta- exploration: AAPG Memoir 26, p. 49-212.
ceous seismic sequences in Gulf of Mexico and offshore Van Wagoner, J., R. Mitchum, Jr., H. Posamentier, and P. Vail,
west Africa, in C. E. Payton, ed., Seismic Stratigraphy— 1987, Seismic stratigraphy interpretation using se-
Application to hydrocarbon exploration: AAPG Memoir quence stratigraphy, part 2: Key definitions of sequence
26, p. 49-212. stratigraphy, in A. W. Bally, ed., Atlas of seismic strati-
Turcotte, D. L., and G. Schubert, 1982, Geodynamics: graphy, v. 1: AAPG Studies in Geology 27, p. 11-14.
Applications of continuum physics to geologic prob- Watts, A. B., 1982, Tectonic subsidence, flexure, and global
lems: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 450 p. changes of sea level: Nature, v. 297, p. 469-474.
Vail, P. R., 1987, Seismic stratigraphy interpretation using Watts, A. B., and J. A. Thorne, 1984, Tectonics, global
sequence stratigraphy, part 1: Seismic stratigraphy changes in sea level and their relationship to strati-
interpretation procedure, in A. W. Bally, ed., Atlas of graphical sequences at the U.S. Atlantic continental
seismic stratigraphy, vol. 1: AAPG Studies in Geology margin: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 1, p. 319-339.
27, p. 1-10.

Potrebbero piacerti anche