Classification, Lithologic Calibration, and Stratigraphic Succession of Seismic Facies of Intraslope Basins, Deep-Water Gulf of Mexico

Structural Evolution at the Northeast North German Basin Margin: From Initial Triassic Salt Movement to Late Cretaceous‐Cenozoic Remobilization

“…This study focuses on structural and stratigraphic interpretation of a regional reflection seismic profile (BGR16-254) running from the Bay of Mecklenburg toward Rügen Island across the NGB margin into the (Prather et al, 1998;Sangree & Widmier, 1979), including amplitude, frequency, continuity, bounding relationships, reflector characteristics, and provides a seismic section example of profile BGR16-254. Exact onset of the hiatus remains unknown.…”

The influence of a slope break on turbidite deposits: An experimental investigation

“…Nonetheless, variations in flow properties, like flow thickness and grain size, affect the value of the bypass-slope criterion and will contribute to the stratigraphic evolution of the system, as for example described for the evolution of channel systems . The Brazos-Trinity Turbidite System, offshore Gulf of Mexico, is an above-grade ponded-slope system (Badalini et al, 2000;Prather et al, 1998Prather et al, , 2017Prather et al, , 2012bWinker, 1996). The Brazos-Trinity Turbidite System consists of four intra-slope basins, which are connected by a channel system (Prather et al, 2012b).…”

Mass‐transport complexes (MTCs) document subsidence patterns in a northern Gulf of Mexico salt minibasin

“…stratified vs. chaotic), we identify two main seismic facies in Minibasin 5 ( Figure 5). Depositional elements and processes are F I G U R E 6 Correlation charts for the study area showing well logs (GR, Sonic and ATR), interpreted lithology, well-correlated seismic section, key horizons and geological age of each episodes further interpreted based on lithology data provided by AT-8 #1 ST, together with analogue information provided by seismic reflection-and well-based analysis of similar depositional systems in adjacent areas (e.g., Madof et al, 2009;Madof et al, 2017;Perov & Bhattacharya, 2011;Posamentier & Kolla, 2003;Prather et al, 1998;Roesink, Weimer, & Bouroullec, 2004;Sincavage, Weimer, & Bouroullec, 2004;Wu et al, 2019). Stratified seismic facies are characterized by good reflection continuity, and we further subdivide them based on reflection amplitude and geometry (SFs1, SFs2 and SFs3; Figure 5).…”

“…Despite being volumetrically important, and although they can represent stratigraphic markers for a range of basin-related processes, MTCs are not explicitly accounted for in stratigraphic models for the salt-influenced slopes. Instead, turbidity current-fed systems dominate in these models, presumably due to their association with reservoir-prone channels and lobes, with the stratigraphic architecture and evolution of minibasins being primarily described by the fill-and-spill model (Booth, Dean, DuVernay, & Styzen, 2003;Madof et al, 2009;Mallarino, Beaubouef, Droxler, Abreu, & Labeyrie, 2006;Prather, Booth, Steffens, & Craig, 1998;Prather, Pirmez, Winker, Deptuck, & Mohrig, 2012;Winker & Booth, 2000). According to this model, underfilled minibasins initially trap or 'pond' sediments before being overfilled; at this point, when no more accommodation is available, sediment is bypassed to more distal depocentres (Beaubouef & Friedmann, 2000;Booth et al, 2003;Booth, DuVernay, Pfeiffer, & Styzen, 2000).…”

“…According to this model, underfilled minibasins initially trap or 'pond' sediments before being overfilled; at this point, when no more accommodation is available, sediment is bypassed to more distal depocentres (Beaubouef & Friedmann, 2000;Booth et al, 2003;Booth, DuVernay, Pfeiffer, & Styzen, 2000). Underlying this model are two major assumptions: (a) accommodation in the minibasin is controlled by a steadystate, longitudinal bathymetric profile and (b) the minibasin gradient does not vary spatially and temporally during its evolution (Mallarino et al, 2006;Prather et al, 1998;Winker & Booth, 2000). However, Madof et al (2009) and Madof, Christie-Blick, Anders, and Febo (2017) argue that these assumptions are unrealistic, given that minibasins can be extremely dynamic, with their geometry, subsidence rate and accommodation changing in response to variations in sediment accumulation rate and input direction, and the rate and location of salt expulsion from beneath their subsiding depocentres.…”