A new geochemical–
To explain the origin of the sequence stratigraphic
sequence stratigraphic
model for the Mahakam
Delta and Makassar
slope, Kalimantan,
Indonesia: Discussion
Tobias H. D. Payenberg* and Andrew D. Miall**
INTRODUCTION
The article by Peters et al. (2000) presents a new
geochemical–sequence stratigraphic model for the
middle Miocene and younger rocks in the Kutei basin,
east Kalimantan, Indonesia. Peters et al.’s (2000) re-
interpretation of the lowstand systems tract containing
transported terrigenous source rocks helps to explain
the recent offshore discoveries in the Makassar Strait.
The work is primarily based on the geochemical finger-
prints of oil condensates fitted into a sequence strati-
graphic model modified from a previous version by
Snedden et al. (1996). It is this sequence stratigraphic
framework with which we take issue in this article. The
model lacks supportive data, it uses an outdated global
cycle chart, and it implies eustatic origin of the middle
Miocene and younger sequences in the Kutei basin. We
realize that the sequence stratigraphic model is not the
primary objective of Peters et al. (2000); however, the
stratigraphic framework is an integral part of the geo-
chemical–sequence stratigraphic model, and the model
can only be as good as its stratigraphic framework.
Copyright 䉷2001. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights
reserved.
*Department of Geology, University of Toronto, 22 Russell Street, Toronto, Ontario,
M5S 3B1 Canada; tobi@geology.utoronto.ca.
**Department of Geology, University of Toronto, 22 Russell Street, Toronto, Ontario,
M5S 3B1, Canada; miall@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca.
This article benefited from suggestions by AAPG associate editor John Lorenz. We
acknowledge ongoing research support through an NSERC grant to Andrew Miall
and a University of Toronto Fellowship to Tobi Payenberg.
Manuscript received February 22, 2000; revised manuscript received November 27,
2000; final acceptance December 19, 2000.
1098 AAPG Bulletin, v. 85, no. 6 (June 2001), pp. 1098–1101
LACK OF DATA
model, Peters et al. (2000) state: “Standard sequence
stratigraphic analysis allowed identification of se-
quence bounding unconformities and maximum flood-
ing surfaces. Seismic facies within sequences were cal-
ibrated with available well (lithology) control. The
sequences were dated using paleontological picks in
well ties and compared to available coastal onlap charts
(e.g., Haq et al., 1987)” (Peters et al., 2000, p. 18).
Although seismic interpretation is now a standard tool
in stratigraphic analysis, the assignment of absolute
ages as described in this quotation is not, or should not
be. The reader is left in the dark regarding what kind
of paleontological data was used in the study. Also, no
indication is given of the precision of the paleontolog-
ical data set.
The common practice of employing the global cy-
cle chart of Haq et al. (1987) as a template for cor-
relation and as a means for the identification of
eustatically controlled sequence boundaries has been
criticized elsewhere (Miall, 1992, 1994) on the basis
(1) that the data justifying the construction of the origi-
nal chart have never been published and its validity is
therefore unproven, and (2) that the accuracy and pre-
cision of chronostratigraphic techniques do not permit
rigorous dating and global correlation of sequence
boundaries (see also Ricken, 1991; Johnson, 1992).
Therefore, the proposition of the eustatic dominance
of global stratigraphy remains unproven.
In their figure 2, Peters et al. (2000) highlight sev-
eral sequence boundaries they claim to have identified
in their data set (Figure 1). None of these surfaces cor-
respond to a biozone boundary or to a log top. Unless
Mobil has refined the paleontological data set, and sub-
divided each biozone, a correlation of the sequence
boundaries with the global cycle chart is highly error
prone. For example, in the case of the N16 biozone,
which spans about 2.5 m.y., this error could be up to
2.5 m.y., depending on the position of the sequence
boundary.
WHICH CYCLE ON WHICH CYCLE CHART?
To date sequence boundaries, Peters et al. (2000) com-
pare their data to the global cycle chart of Haq et al.
(1987). Snedden et al. (1996) previously noted, how-
ever, that the 9.0 Ma sequence boundary “has no coun-
terpart on the global chart, suggesting local variations
Figure 1. Sequence boundaries and ages used by Peters et al. (2000) and original global cycle chart data from Haq et al. (1987)
and Vanderberghe and Hardenbol (1998). Although Peters et al. (2000) claim to be using the Haq et al. (1987) chart, one sequence
boundary was added (9.0 Ma), one omitted (4.2 Ma), and one age was changed from 2.9 Ma to 3.0 Ma. The latest global cycle chart
from Vanderberghe and Hardenbol (1998) shows 16 sequence boundaries that have mostly different ages compared to the 12 from
Haq et al. (1987). If Peters et al. (2000) used the newest cycle chart, their timing of the sequence boundaries would change substantially.

in relative sea level may be responsible” (Snedden et
al., 1996, p. 285). Peters et al. (2000) do not mention
that the 4.2 Ma sequence boundary from Haq et al.
(1987) is not present in their data set, and they also
have changed Haq et al.’s. (1987) 2.9 Ma boundary to
3.0 Ma (Figure 1). If eustasy were responsible for the
formation of the sequences in the Kutei basin, then all
observed sequence boundaries would be synchronous
globally and present in the geological record. This is
not the case presented by Peters et al. (2000).
Also unclear is why, if Peters et al. (2000) attribute
sequence boundaries to eustatic control, they used the
Haq et al. (1987) global cycle chart instead of Van-
derberghe and Hardenbol’s (1998) new cycle chart de-
rived from several European basins (de Graciansky et
al., 1998). Figure 1 shows the new cycle chart along-
side the Haq et al. (1987) and Peters et al. (2000)
charts. In addition to more sequence boundaries on the
new chart, most of the dates have also been changed
(Figure 1). Because Vanderberghe and Hardenbol

Payenberg and Miall 1099

(1998) propose a glacio-eustatic mechanism for the
Neogene sequences, the same number of sequence
boundaries having exactly the same dates should show
in the data presented by Peters et al. (2000).
EUSTATIC ORIGIN
Dating of sequence boundaries using the global cycle
chart (Haq et al., 1987) necessarily implies a eustatic
origin of the stratigraphic sequences. Despite their
brief tectonic review, Peters et al. (2000) fail to rec-
ognize the importance of tectonism in the Kutei basin.
The Kutei basin is a tectonically very active basin that
has extraordinary subsidence rates. It accumulated 14
km of sediments in some parts of the basin during the
Tertiary (Chambers and Daley, 1995). Since the mid-
dle Miocene alone, it has accumulated more than 4 km
of fluvial, deltaic, and shelf deposits in deltaic cycles
(Magnier et al., 1975). Paleocurrent analysis of middle
Miocene rocks in the Mutiara area by Payenberg
(1998) showed distributary channels diverging around
growing anticlinal structures. Stratigraphic thinning
also occurred across these anticlines, indicating the im-
portance of tectonism during this time of deposition
(see figure 1 in Peters et al. [2000] for location).
Peters et al. (2000) state that the offshore Ma-
hakam Delta comprises two different tectonic phases:
middle Miocene rocks experienced compressional fold-
ing and thrusting, whereas upper Miocene and Plio-
cene rocks are deposited in an extensional regime (Al-
len and Chambers, 1998). The two distinct tectonic
regimes are separated by a sequence boundary, which
“is a significant angular unconformity” (Peters et al.,
2000). Regional compressional stress during the mid-
dle Miocene increased from west to east and inverted
earlier extensional faults (Allen and Chambers, 1998),
leading to shallower, less tight anticlines and thrusted
anticlines toward the east. During this compressional
time, the Mahakam River was incising into the growing
anticlinal structures belonging to the Samarinda anti-
clinorium. As the compressional stress moved from
west to east, the Mahakam River also locked into the
anticlines progressively from the west to the east (Allen
and Chambers, 1998; Payenberg, 1998). At the end of
the middle Miocene, the sedimentation in the present-
day onshore part of the Mahakam Delta ceased, ex-
posing the rocks to the north and south of the Ma-
hakam River (Payenberg, 1998). Only to the east of
the Sanga-Sanga anticline has sedimentation continued
intermittently until today. The prominent angular un-
1100 Discussions and Replies
conformity dated as the 10.5 Ma unconformity by Pe-
ters et al. (2000) is thus tectonic in origin and cannot
be associated with the eustatic sea level drop inferred
from the cycle chart, let alone dated using it.
CONCLUSIONS
The new geochemical–sequence stratigraphic model
uses a precision of the stratigraphic model that is not
supported by data and thus cannot be verified. The
biozone boundaries and log tops presented do not
correspond to any of the sequence boundaries, cast-
ing doubt on the precision of those sequence bound-
aries. An outdated cycle chart was used, and the new
chart shows more sequence boundaries of different
ages. Most important, active, syndepositional tecton-
ism was downplayed in the stratigraphic framework
and eustasy inferred for the origin of the stratigraphic
sequences observed in the Neogene of the Kutei
basin.
The assignment of absolute ages to sequence
boundaries without supportive data is a practice that
should be abandoned. Extrapolation of a stratigraphic
synthesis based on this approach to other areas of the
basin that have more precise data can lead to mis-
interpretations. Because the cycle chart implies solely
eustatic origins for sequence boundaries, its use in
tectonically active basins should be abandoned. In the
Kutei basin, more evidence exists for a tectonic origin
of the sequences than for a eustatic origin, despite
the Neogene being a time of active glacio-eustasy.
REFERENCES CITED
Allen, G. P., and J. L. C. Chambers, 1998, Sedimentation in the
modern and Miocene Mahakam Delta: Jakarta, Indonesian Pe-
troleum Association, 236 p.
Chambers, J. L. C., and T. E. Daley, 1995, A tectonic model for
the onshore Kutei basin, east Kalimantan, based upon an in-
tegrated geological and geophysical interpretation: Jakarta,
Proceedings of the Indonesian Petroleum Association, v. 24,
p. 115–130.
de Graciansky, P.-C., J. Hardenbol, T. Jacquin, and P. R. Vail, eds.,
1998, Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy of Euro-
pean basins: SEPM Special Publication 60, 786 p.
Haq, B. U., J. Hardenbol, and P. R. Vail, 1987, Chronology of fluc-
tuating sea levels since the Triassic (250 million years ago to
present): Science, v. 235, p. 1156–1167.
Johnson, J. G., 1992, Belief and reality in biostratigraphic zonation:
Newsletters in Stratigraphy, v. 26, p. 41–48.
Magnier, P., T. Oki, and L. Kartaadiputra, 1975, The Mahakam
Delta, Kalimantan, Indonesia: Proceedings of the 9th World
Petroleum Congress, v. 2, p. 239–250.
Miall, A. D., 1992, The Exxon global cycle chart: an event for every
occasion?: Geology, v. 20, p. 787–790.
Miall, A. D., 1994, Sequence stratigraphy and chronostratigraphy:
problems of definition and precision in correlation, and their
implications for global eustasy: Geoscience Canada, v. 21,
p. 1–26.
Payenberg, T. H. D., 1998, Paleocurrents and reservoir architecture
of the middle Miocene channel deposits in Mutiara field, Kutei
basin, east Kalimantan, Indonesia: M.Sc. thesis, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 235 p.
Peters, K. E., J. W. Snedden, A. Sulaeman, J. F. Sarg, and R. J.
Enrico, 2000, A new geochemical–sequence stratigraphic
model for the Mahakam Delta and Makassar slope, Kaliman-
tan, Indonesia: AAPG Bulletin v. 84, p. 12–44.
Ricken, W., 1991, Time span assessment—an overview, in G. Ein-
sele, W. Ricken, and A. Seilacher, eds., Cycles and events in
stratigraphy: Berlin, Springer-Verlag, p. 773–794.
Snedden, J. W., J. F. Sarg, M. J. Clutson, M. Maas, T. E. Okon,
M. H. Carter, B. S. Smith, T. H. Kolich, and M. Y. Mansor,
1996, Using sequence stratigraphic methods in high-sediment
supply deltas: examples from the ancient Mahakam and Ra-
jang-Lupar deltas: Jakarta, Proceedings of the Indonesian Pe-
troleum Association, v. 25, no. 1, p. 281–296.
Vanderberghe, N.. and J. Hardenbol, 1998, Introduction to the
Neogene, in P.-C. de Graciansky, J. Hardenbol, T. Jacquin,
and P. R. Vail, eds., Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratig-
raphy of European basins: SEPM Special Publication 60,
p. 83–85.
Payenberg and Miall 1101
A new geochemical–
sequence stratigraphic
model for the Mahakam
Delta and Makassar
slope, Kalimantan,
Indonesia: Reply
John W. Snedden*, J. F. (Rick) Sarg**,
and Kenneth E. Peters**
INTRODUCTION
We appreciate the opportunity to address the sequence
stratigraphic issues raised in the discussion by Payen-
berg and Miall. Although stratigraphy was a small part
of the new geochemical model presented in Peters et
al. (2000), we agree that it is an important framework
element in study of source rocks, hydrocarbon kitch-
ens, and basin history of the Kutei petroleum province.
Payenberg and Miall identify three points of dis-
agreement: supportive data, outdated global cycle
chart, and eustatic origin of middle Miocene and
younger sequences. In fact, their argument concerning
supportive data pertains to the precision of biostrati-
graphic age assignments and global cycle assignments
discussed in the second point. For consistency, how-
ever, we will address their concerns in the same order.
SUPPORTIVE DATA
Payenberg and Miall argue that Peters et al. (2000)
lacks supportive data for the stratigraphic framework
of the Mahakam Delta. The concerns extend to a pre-
vious article by Snedden et al. (1996).
Copyright 䉷2001. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights
reserved.
*ExxonMobil Exploration Company, P.O. Box 4778, Houston, Texas, 77210;
john.w.snedden@exxon.sprint.com.
**ExxonMobil Exploration Company, P.O. Box 4778, Houston, Texas, 77210;
sarg@email.mobil.com; ken_peters@email.mobil.com.
Manuscript received December 19, 2000; final acceptance January 11, 2001.
1102 AAPG Bulletin, v. 85, no. 6 (June 2001), pp. 1102–1105
The focus of Peters et al. (2000) is organic geo-
chemistry and the new model that reasonably explains
a series of recent discoveries on the outer Mahakam
shelf and slope. For editorial reasons, only limited
space was available to discuss the stratigraphic meth-
odology and background on the stratigraphic analysis
that itself spanned two years of investigation, involving
500 ft of core, 4000 km of two-dimensional (2-D) seis-
mic data, logs and cuttings from 40-plus wells, and pa-
leontological and isotopic dating. Proprietary data in a
two-volume company report could not be entirely
shared with the readers of the Peters et al. (2000) or
Snedden et al. (1996) articles because of continuing
exploration efforts by Mobil and now ExxonMobil and
its partners in the Mahakam slope and adjacent Ma-
kassar Straits. More information has been approved for
release, however, beginning with recent AAPG presen-
tations and expanded abstracts (Snedden and Sarg,
1998a, b; 2000). We intend to publish further docu-
mentation of our framework as proprietary controls are
relaxed.
Our framework is a clear improvement on previ-
ous publications that stressed lithostratigraphic picks
(e.g., Sujatmiko and Irawan, 1984) or had limited ties
to the Mahakam Delta slope/Makassar Straits region
(e.g., Duval et al., 1992). Miscorrelation of the pre–
middle Miocene section as shown in Burrus et al.
(1992) had significant impact on the calculated source
maturation trends. Our stratigraphic correlations, il-
lustrated by a seismic section in Peters et al. (2000),
continue to be confirmed by new drilling.
Payenberg and Miall point out that many of the
sequence boundaries do not coincide with biozone
boundaries and thus have uncertain ages. The biozones
shown for reference are planktonic foram biochrono-
zones; however, a more refined subdivision was made
using a combination of nannofossils, dinoflagellates,
and strontium-isotopic dating. Thus, a stratigraphic as-
signment of a particular sequence boundary can be
made with precision within the biozones shown for
reference.
The argument made by Payenberg and Miall con-
cerning imprecision of biostratigraphic methods and
the uncertainty of global synchronicity dates back to
Miall (1991). Much progress has been made in the last
ten years toward improving age resolution using a va-
riety of biostratigraphic and isotopic dating techniques,
especially in the Neogene (de Graciansky et al., 1998).
In the Gulf of Mexico Basin, for example, age resolu-
tion approaching 100–200 k.y. has been achieved
(Wornardt et al., 1998).
WHICH CYCLE ON WHICH CHART
Payenberg and Miall point out the inconsistency be-
tween the Mahakam stratigraphy of Peters et al. (2000)
and the Haq et al. (1987) chart. Specifically, they list
recognition of a possible new sequence boundary at 9.0
Ma and lack of a sequence boundary at 4.2 Ma in Sned-
den et al. (1996). Most practitioners of sequence strati-
graphic techniques understand that the Haq et al.
(1987) chart was a composite of many different basins
and that any single basin will not display all 119 se-
quence boundaries (213 in the Triassic to Holocene
chronostratigraphy of de Graciansky et al. [1998]).
Experienced seismic interpreters also know that
conventional 2-D seismic data has resolution limits.
Where a sequence falls below one-quarter to one-half
wavelength of the dominant seismic frequency, it is
generally not observed (Sheriff, 1977). This may be
one explanation for the “missing” 4.2 Ma sequence in
the Mahakam stratigraphy. The new 9.0 sequence may
actually be a fourth-order or high-frequency sequence,
following the definition of Mitchum and Van Wagoner
(1991). The fact that our framework differs somewhat
from Haq et al. (1987) indicates that we are not force-
fitting the Mahakam stratigraphy to the Haq et al.
(1987) coastal onlap chart.
Payenberg and Miall are unclear as to why we did
not use the new European basins chronostratigraphy
(de Graciansky et al., 1998). Unfortunately, this new
set of chronostratigraphic charts was not available to
us at the time of the submission of our article in 1998.
Although the publication date of the European basins
system is 1998, the actual SEPM volume was not in
wide release until 1999, following submission of our
manuscript.
As Payenberg and Miall illustrate in their figure 1,
use of the new chronostratigraphic charts changes tim-
ing of the sequence boundaries emphasized in the
stratigraphic framework of Peters et al. (2000). This is
due, however, to a recalibration of all biostratigraphic,
isotope stratigraphic, and sequence stratigraphic en-
tries to the new Gradstein et al. (1995) and Berggren
et al. (1995) time scales in the European basins chrono-
stratigraphy (de Graciansky et al., 1998). The sequence
boundaries of Peters et al. (2000) have not changed
their biozone position. Thus, relative timing and strati-
graphic position of the sequences and sequence bound-
aries remain unchanged.
In fact, one of the key products from the new
European basins chronostratigraphy is the elimination
of absolute age dates for sequences and sequence-
boundary names. For example, instead of the 10.5
Ma sequence boundary, one should refer to the Ser-
ravallian 4 (Ser 4) sequence boundary (Figure 1).
Payenberg and Miall unduly focus on absolute ages
for sequence boundaries in their figure 1, which are
prone to change with evolution of the Mesozoic and
Cenozoic time scales. Use of the newly calibrated
European basins chronostratigraphy should eliminate
this problem. The sequence boundaries are keyed to
biozone position and thus to the chronologic scale,
not directly to the time scale as implied by Payenberg
Figure 1. Translation chart for
sequences and sequence
boundaries used in Peters et al.
(2000) and new European ba-
sins chronostratigraphy of de
Graciansky et al. (1998).
Changes in the ages of the se-
quence boundaries are primar-
ily due to a change in the geo-
chronologic scale, not biozone
position. Use of European ba-
sins nomenclature (e.g., Ser 1)
for sequences and sequence
boundary names is an obvious
improvement over absolute
ages, which are prone to
change with evolution of the
time scales.
Snedden et al. 1103
and Miall. Figure 1 shows our translation of the ear-
lier published Mahakam stratigraphic cycles to this
new chronostratigraphy.
EUSTATIC ORIGIN OF STRATIGRAPHIC
SEQUENCES
Payenberg and Miall point out that Peters et al.
(2000) ignore tectonics as a factor in formation of
the stratigraphic sequences in the Kutei basin. Ap-
parently Payenberg and Miall did fully appreciate our
explanation of how tectonic processes forced deltaic
depocenters and shelf margin positions to shift within
and between sequences. Our interpretation of the
tectonic styles in our study area is based on a large
set of regional seismic lines and extends much farther
seaward of the area discussed by Chambers and
Daley (1995). Furthermore, we have presented arti-
cles elsewhere suggesting that the Mahakam strati-
graphic sequences are strongly influenced by synse-
dimentary tectonics (Snedden and Sarg, 1998a,
2000).
Payenberg and Miall also suggest that the Mio-
cene and younger stratigraphy cannot be related to
or is unlikely to be influenced by eustatic processes.
This opinion ignores the well-established fact that the
Miocene and younger time frame is clearly an ice-
house period in earth history. Large ice sheets existed
in Antarctica as far back as the Oligocene (Abreu and
Anderson, 1998). Large, globally correlative glacio-
eustatic fluctuations clearly occurred during the Mio-
cene period in discussion (e.g., Miller et al., 1996).
These relatively high-frequency eustatic changes
worked in combination with tectonic forces related
to plate collision and formation of the central Borneo
Highlands (early Miocene) and later uplift of the
Meratus Mountains closer to the Kutei basin (middle
Miocene). The observed results are pronounced an-
gular truncations seen in Sarawak (Langhian 2 [Lan
2] sequence boundary) and offshore Mahakam (Ser
4 sequence boundary). Our comparison of the two
basins (discussed in Snedden and Sarg [1998a,
2000]) demonstrates the utility of sequence strati-
graphic techniques in high sedimentation, tectoni-
cally active basins such as Sarawak and Kutei.
Finally, we should point out that rigorous anal-
ysis, drilling, and sequence dating continues to con-
firm the causal link between coastal plain and slope
sequence boundaries formed during global sea level
falls (e.g., Miller et al., 1996; Eberli, 2000).
1104 Discussions and Replies
CONCLUSIONS
The inquiry by Payenberg and Miall has allowed us to
further elaborate the stratigraphy of the offshore Kutei
basin, beyond what was discussed in the geochemically
focused article by Peters et al. (2000). Updating the
previous stratigraphy using the new global chronostra-
tigraphy is also another benefit of this discussion and
reply (Figure 1). Of course, we do not agree with their
rather bleak assessment of the supportive data, cycle
chart issues, and implied eustatic origin of the strati-
graphic sequences in our study area. Many improve-
ments in stratigraphic resolution, global chronostratig-
raphy, and the sequence stratigraphic approach itself
have been made since concerns were raised by Miall
(1991). The validity of the global stratigraphic frame-
work continues to be supported by rigorous analysis of
outcrops and deep-sea cores (Miller et al., 1996;
Thiede and Myhre, 1996; Franseen et al., 1998; Eberli,
2000).
We expect, and look forward to, further discus-
sions of global chronostratigraphy and sequence stra-
tigraphy with these authors in the future.
REFERENCES CITED
Abreu, V. S., and J. B. Anderson, 1998, Glacial eustasy during the
Cenozoic: sequence stratigraphic implications: AAPG, v. 82,
p. 1385–1400.
Berggren, W. A., D. V. Kent, C. C. Swisher, and M.-P. Aubry, 1995,
A revised Cenozoic geochronology and chronostratigraphy, in
W. A. Berggren, D. V. Kent, and J. Hardenbol, eds., Geochro-
nology, time scales, and global stratigraphic correlations: SEPM
Special Publication 54, p. 129–212.
Burrus, J. E., E. Brosse, G. C. de Janvry, Y. Grosjean, and J. L. Oudin,
1992, Basin modeling in the Mahakam Delta based upon the
integrated 2D Temispack: Proceedings of the Indonesian Petro-
leum Association Twenty-First Annual Convention, v. 1, p. 23–
43.
Chambers, J. L. C., and T. E. Daley, 1995, A tectonic model for the
onshore Kutei basin, east Kalimantan, based upon an integrated
geological and geophysical interpretation: Proceedings of the
Indonesian Petroleum Association Twenty-Fourth Annual Con-
vention, v. 1, p. 111–117.
de Graciansky, P.-C., J. Hardenbol, T. Jacquin, and P. R. Vail, 1998,
Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy of European ba-
sins: SEPM Special Publication 60, 786 p.
Duval, B. C., C. de Janvry, and B. Loiret, 1992, Detailed geoscience
reinterpretation of Indonesia’s Mahakam Delta scores: Oil &
Gas Journal, v. 90, no. 22, p. 67–72.
Eberli, G. P., 2000, The record of Neogene sea-level changes in the
prograding carbonates along the Bahamas Transect—Leg 166
synthesis, in P. K. Swart, G. P. Eberli, M J. Malone, and J. F.
Sarg, eds., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, scientific
results: v. 166, p. 167–176.
Franseen, E. K., R. H. Goldstein, and M. R. Farr, 1998, Quantitative
controls on location and architecture of carbonate depositional
 sequences: upper Miocene, Cabo De Gata region, SE Spain:
Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 68, p. 283–298.
Gradstein, F. M., F. P. Agterberg, J. G. Ogg, J. Hardenbol, P. van
Veen, J. Thierry, and Z. Huang, 1995, A Triassic, Jurassic, and
Cretaceous time scale, in W. A. Berggren, D. V. Kent, and J.
Hardenbol, eds., Geochronology, time scales, and global strati-
graphic correlations: SEPM Special Publication 54, p. 129–212.
Haq, B. U., J. Hardenbol, and P. R. Vail, 1987, The chronology of
fluctuating sea level since the Triassic: Science, v. 235, p. 1156–
1167.
Miall, A. D., 1991, Stratigraphic sequences and their chronostrati-
graphic correlation: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 61,
p. 497–505.
Miller, K. G., G. S. Mountain, Leg 150 Shipboard Party, and Mem-
bers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain Drilling Project, 1996,
Drilling and dating New Jersey Oligocene–Miocene sequences:
ice volume, global sea level, and Exxon records: Science, v. 271,
p. 1092–1095.
Mitchum, R. M., and J. C. Van Wagoner, 1991, High-frequency
sequences and their stacking patterns: sequence-stratigraphic
evidence of high-frequency eustatic cycles: Sedimentary Geol-
ogy, v. 70, p. 131–160.
Peters, K. E., J. W. Snedden, A. Sulaeman, J. F. Sarg, and R. J. Enrico,
2000, A new geochemical–sequence stratigraphic model for the
Mahakam Delta and Makassar slope, Kalimantan, Indonesia:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 84, p. 12–44.
Sheriff, R. E., 1977, Limitations on resolution of seismic reflections
and geologic detail derivable from them, in C. E. Payton, ed.,
Seismic stratigraphy—applications to hydrocarbon exploration:
AAPG Memoir 26, p. 3–14.
Snedden, J. W., and J. F. Sarg, 1998a, Large scale synsedimentary
tectonic control upon stratigraphic sequences in two petroleum
provinces of Borneo (abs.): AAPG Annual Convention Ex-
tended Abstracts, v. 2, p. A615.
Snedden, J. W., and J. F. Sarg, 1998b, Reducing reservoir and source
rock risk in deepwater plays: examples from Southeast Asia
(abs.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 82, no. 10, p. 1968.
Snedden, J. W., and J. F. Sarg, 2000, Synsedimentary tectonic control
upon Miocene stratigraphic sequences in two petroleum prov-
inces of Borneo (abs.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 84, p. 1494.
Snedden, J. W., J. F. Sarg, M. J. Clutson, M. Maas, T. E. Okon, M. H.
Carter, B. S., Smith, T. H. Kolich, and M. Y. Mansor, 1996,
Using sequence stratigraphic methods in high-sediment supply
deltas: examples from the ancient Mahakam and Rajang-Lupar
deltas: Proceedings of the Indonesian Petroleum Association
Twenty-Fifth Silver Anniversary Convention, v. 1, p. 281–295.
Sujatmiko, S. A., A. Salim, and B. S. Irawan, 1984, Geology of the
Tunu gas field: Jakarta, Proceedings of the Indonesia Petroleum
Association Thirteenth Annual Convention, v. 1, p. 341–363.
Thiede, J., and A. M. Myhre, 1996, The paleogeographic history of
the North Atlantic–Arctic gateways: synthesis of the Leg 151
drilling results, in J. Thiede, A. M. Myhre, J. V. Firth, G. L.
Johnson, and W. F. Ruddiman, eds., Proceedings of the Ocean
Drilling Program, scientific results, North Atlantic–Arctic gate-
ways: v. 151B, p. 645–658.
Wornardt Jr., W. W., B. Shaffer, and P. R. Vail, 1998, Revision of
the late Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene sequence cycles:
Houston Geological Society Bulletin, v. 41, p. 30–31.
Snedden et al. 1105