Towards the standardization of sequence stratigraphy

TLDR: In this paper, a model-independent framework of genetic units and bounding surfaces for sequence stratigraphy has been proposed, based on the interplay of accommodation and sedimentation (i.e., forced regressive, lowstand and highstand normal regressive), which are bounded by sequence stratigraphic surfaces.

About: This article is published in Earth-Science Reviews.The article was published on 2009-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 1255 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Stratigraphic section & Sequence stratigraphy.

Figures

Figure 4. Nomenclature of systems tracts and timing of sequence boundaries for the existing sequence stratigraphic models (from Catuneanu, 2006). Abbreviations: LST — lowstand systems tract; TST — transgressive systems tract; HST — highstand systems tract; FSST — falling-stage systems tract; RST — regressive systems tract; T–R — transgressive–regressive; CC * — correlative conformity sensu Posamentier and Allen (1999); CC ** — correlative conformity sensu Hunt and Tucker (1992); MFS — maximum flooding surface; MRS — maximum regressive surface. References for the proponents of the various sequence models are provided in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Sequence stratigraphic models (from Catuneanu, 2006; modified after Donovan, 2001).

Figure 12. Vertical stacking of parasequence sets (from Van Wagoner et al., 1990).

Figure 29. Sequence stratigraphic interpretation of the swaley cross-stratified sandstone of the Kakwa Member (Cardium Formation), and adjacent units (modified after Plint, 1988). A. Sedimentary facies. As constrained by outcrop and core studies, the contact between the fluvial and the underlying shoreface facies is unconformable in wells (1), (2), (3) and (4), and conformable in well (5). B. Sequence stratigraphic interpretation. Correlative conformities are difficult to detect on well logs, within regressive successions of coarsening-upward shallow-marine facies. Correlative conformities are easier to detect on seismic lines, where stacking patterns such as offlap can be observed (e.g., Figure 7). Note the downstepping of the subaerial unconformity during forced regression; the thinning of sharp-based shoreface deposits toward the basin margin; and the aggradation recorded by the lowstand normal regressive strata. In this example, gradationally-based shoreface deposits indicate normal regression (highstand to the left; lowstand to the right), whereas sharpbased shoreface deposits are diagnostic for forced regression. This criterion allows the separation between normal and forced regressive deposits even in the absence of seismic data. Abbreviations: FR — forced regressive; HNR — highstand normal regressive; LNR — lowstand normal regressive.

Figure 30. Dominant types of gravity-flow deposits that form the submarine fan complex in a deep-water setting (modified from Posamentier and Kolla, 2003; Catuneanu, 2006): (1) mudflow deposits, dominated by lobes; (2) high-density turbidites, dominated by frontal splays; (3) low-density turbidites, dominated by leveed channels. The sequence stratigraphic interpretation of the submarine fan complex is more challenging where correlation with the coastal and shallow-water settings cannot be established. However, the predictable change in sediment supply to the deep-water setting during the various stages of the base-level cycle allows for the construction of a sequence stratigraphic framework. See text for more details. Abbreviations: HNR — highstand normal regressive deposits; FR — forced regressive deposits; LNR — lowstand normal regressive deposits; T — transgressive deposits; CC* — correlative conformity sensu Posamentier and Allen (1999); CC** — correlative conformity sensu Hunt and Tucker (1992); MRS — maximum regressive surface; MFS — maximum flooding surface. See Figure 31 for a case study.

Figure 17. Sequence stratigraphic surfaces as a function of depositional setting. Each surface that exists in a depositional setting may be mappable or cryptic, depending on the types of data that are available for analysis and the way in which accommodation and sedimentation interacted at the time of formation. Abbreviations: FR — forced regression; CC — correlative conformities: *sensu Posamentier and Allen (1999), **sensu Hunt and Tucker (1992); SU — subaerial unconformity; RSME — regressive surface of marine erosion; MRS — maximum regressive surface; TRS — transgressive ravinement surface; MFS — maximum flooding surface; (1) — submarine fan complex; (2) — if overlain by nonmarine facies.

Full text

University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Papers in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Department
of
1-2009
Towards the Standardization of Sequence Stratigraphy Towards the Standardization of Sequence Stratigraphy
Octavian Catuneanu
University of Alberta
, octavian@ualberta.ca
V. Abreu
ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Houston, Texas
J. P. Bhattacharya
University of Houston
M. D. Blum
Louisiana State University
R. W. Dalrymple
Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
See next page for additional authors
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/geosciencefacpub
Part of the Earth Sciences Commons
Catuneanu, Octavian; Abreu, V.; Bhattacharya, J. P.; Blum, M. D.; Dalrymple, R. W.; Eriksson, P. G.; Fielding,
Christopher R.; Fisher, W. L.; Galloway, W. E.; Gibling, M. R.; Giles, K. A.; Holbrook, J. M.; Jordan, R.; Kendall,
C. G. St.C.; Macurda, B.; Martinsen, O. J.; Miall, A. D.; Neal, J. E.; Nummedal, D.; Pomar, L.; Posamentier, H.
W.; Pratt, B. R.; Sarg, J. F.; Shanley, K. W.; Steel, R. J.; Strasser, A.; Tucker, M. E.; and Winker, C., "Towards
the Standardization of Sequence Stratigraphy" (2009).
Papers in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
.
238.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/geosciencefacpub/238
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Department of at
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in the Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

Authors Authors
Octavian Catuneanu, V. Abreu, J. P. Bhattacharya, M. D. Blum, R. W. Dalrymple, P. G. Eriksson, Christopher
R. Fielding, W. L. Fisher, W. E. Galloway, M. R. Gibling, K. A. Giles, J. M. Holbrook, R. Jordan, C. G. St.C.
Kendall, B. Macurda, O. J. Martinsen, A. D. Miall, J. E. Neal, D. Nummedal, L. Pomar, H. W. Posamentier, B.
R. Pratt, J. F. Sarg, K. W. Shanley, R. J. Steel, A. Strasser, M. E. Tucker, and C. Winker
This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/
geosciencefacpub/238

Published in Earth-Science Reviews 92:1–2 (January 2009), pp. 1–33; doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.10.003
Copyright © 2009 Elsevier B.V. Used by permission.
Submitted April 13, 2008; accepted October 13, 2008; published online October 21, 2008.
Towards the Standardization of Sequence Stratigraphy
O. Catuneanu,
1
V. Abreu,
2
J. P. Bhattacharya,
3
M. D. Blum,
4
R. W. Dalrymple,
5
P. G. Eriksson,
6
C. R. Fielding,
7
W. L. Fisher,
8
W. E. Galloway,
9
M. R. Gibling,
10
K. A. Giles,
11
J.M. Holbrook,
12
R. Jordan,
13
C. G. St.C. Kendall,
14
B. Macurda,
15
O. J. Martinsen,
16
A. D. Miall,
17
J. E. Neal,
2
D. Nummedal,
18
L. Pomar,
19
H. W. Posamentier,
20
B. R. Pratt,
21
J. F. Sarg,
22
K. W. Shanley,
23
R. J. Steel,
8
A. Strasser,
24
M. E. Tucker,
25
and C. Winker
26
1. Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, 1-26 Earth Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E3, Canada
2. ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Houston, Texas 77060, USA
3. Geosciences Department, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204-5007, USA
4. Department of Geology and Geophysics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA
5. Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada
6. Department of Geology, University of Pretoria, 0002 Pretoria, South Africa
7. Department of Geosciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0340, USA
8. Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
9. Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78758-4445, USA
10. Department of Earth Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4J1, Canada
11. Institute of Tectonic Studies, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30001, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003, USA
12. Department of Geology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Texas 76019-0049, USA
13. Jordan Geology, Centreville, Delaware, USA
14. Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA
15. The Energists, 10260 Westheimer, Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77042, USA
16. StatoilHydro Technology and New Energy, PO Box 7200, 5020 Bergen, Norway
17. Department of Geology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3B1, Canada
18. Colorado Energy Research Institute, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado 80401, USA
19.Department of Earth Sciences, Universitat de les Illes Balears, E-07071 Palma de Mallorca, Spain
20. Chevron Energy Technology Company, Houston, Texas, USA
21. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5E2, Canada
22. Colorado Energy Research Institute, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado 80401, USA
23. Stone Energy LLC, 1801 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80202, USA
24. Department of Geosciences, University of Fribourg, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland
25. Department of Earth Sciences, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
26. Shell International E&P Inc, 3737 Bellaire Blvd, P.O. Box 481, Houston, Texas 77001-0481, USA
Corresponding author — O. Catuneanu, octavian@ualberta.ca
Abstract
Sequence stratigraphy emphasizes facies relationships and stratal architecture within a chronological framework. Despite its
wide use, sequence stratigraphy has yet to be included in any stratigraphic code or guide. This lack of standardization reects the
existence of competing approaches (or models) and confusing or even conicting terminology. Standardization of sequence stra-
tigraphy requires the denition of the fundamental model-independent concepts, units, bounding surfaces and workow that
outline the foundation of the method. A standardized scheme needs to be sufciently broad to encompass all possible choices of
approach, rather than being limited to a single approach or model.
A sequence stratigraphic framework includes genetic units that result from the interplay of accommodation and sedimentation
(i.e., forced regressive, lowstand and highstand normal regressive, and transgressive), which are bounded by “sequence strati-
graphic” surfaces. Each genetic unit is dened by specic stratal stacking patterns and bounding surfaces, and consists of a tract
of correlatable depositional systems (i.e., a “systems tract”). The mappability of systems tracts and sequence stratigraphic surfaces
depends on depositional setting and the types of data available for analysis. It is this high degree of variability in the precise ex-
pression of sequence stratigraphic units and bounding surfaces that requires the adoption of a methodology that is sufciently
exible that it can accommodate the range of likely expressions. The integration of outcrop, core, well-log and seismic data affords
the optimal approach to the application of sequence stratigraphy. Missing insights from one set of data or another may limit the
“resolution” of the sequence stratigraphic interpretation.
1

2 c a tu ne an u et a l . in e a r t h - s c i e n c e r ev i e w s 92 (2009)
1. Introduction: Background and rationale
Sequence stratigraphy is considered by many as one of the
latest conceptual revolutions in the broad eld of sedimentary
geology (Miall, 1995), revamping the methodology of strati-
graphic analysis. Applications of sequence stratigraphy cover a
tremendous range, from deciphering the Earth’s geological re-
cord of local to global changes in paleogeography and the con-
trols governing sedimentary processes, to improving the success
of petroleum exploration and production. Multiple data sets are
integrated for this purpose, and insights from several disciplines
are required (Figure 1).
Sequence stratigraphy is uniquely focused on analyzing
changes in facies and geometric character of strata and identi-
cation of key surfaces to determine the chronological order of
basin lling and erosional events. Stratal stacking patterns re-
spond to the interplay of changes in rates of sedimentation and
base level, and reect combinations of depositional trends that
include progradation, retrogradation, aggradation and down-
cutting. Each stratal stacking pattern denes a particular genetic
type of deposit (i.e., “transgressive,” “normal regressive” and
“forced regressive”; Hunt and Tucker, 1992; Posamentier and
Morris, 2000; Figure 2), with a distinct geometry and facies pres-
ervation style. These deposits are generic from an environmental
perspective (i.e., they can be identied in different depositional
settings), and may include tracts of several age-equivalent depo-
sitional systems (i.e., systems tracts).
Sequence stratigraphy can be an effective tool for correlation
on both local and regional scales. The method is now commonly
utilized as the modern approach to integrated stratigraphic anal-
ysis, combining insights from all other types of stratigraphic as
well as several non-stratigraphic disciplines (Figure 1). However,
it remains the only stratigraphic method that has no standard-
ized stratigraphic code. Efforts have been made by both the North
A standardized workow of sequence stratigraphic analysis requires the identication of all genetic units and bounding sur-
faces that can be delineated objectively, at the selected scale of observation, within a stratigraphic section. Construction of this
model-independent framework of genetic units and bounding surfaces ensures the success of the sequence stratigraphic method.
Beyond this, the interpreter may make model-dependent choices with respect to which set of sequence stratigraphic surfaces
should be elevated in importance and be selected as sequence boundaries. In practice, the succession often dictates which set of
surfaces are best expressed and hold the greatest utility at dening sequence boundaries and quasi-chronostratigraphic units. The
nomenclature of systems tracts and sequence stratigraphic surfaces is also model-dependent to some extent, but a standard set of
terms is recommended to facilitate communication between all practitioners.
Keywords: sequence stratigraphy, stratal stacking patterns, accommodation, sediment supply, shoreline trajectory, methodology,
nomenclature
Contents
1. Introduction: background and rationale ....................................................................................... 2
2. Data sets and objectivity of data ..................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Data integration ......................................................................................................................5
2.2. Limitations of seismic data .................................................................................................. 6
2.3. Limitations of outcrop, core, and well-log data ............................................................... 7
2.4. Objectivity of data and inherent interpretations .............................................................. 8
3. Model-independent platform of sequence stratigraphy ..............................................................9
3.1. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Base level and accommodation .......................................................................................... 10
3.3. Reference curve of base-level changes ............................................................................. 11
3.4. Events of the base-level cycle ............................................................................................ 12
3.5. Genetic types of deposit: normal regressive, forced regressive, transgressive. ......... 14
4. Model-dependent aspects of sequence stratigraphy ................................................................. 15
4.1. Depositional sequences ...................................................................................................... 17
4.2. Genetic stratigraphic sequences .........................................................................................17
4.3. Transgressive–regressive sequences ................................................................................ 18
5. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 18
5.1. Standard workow ............................................................................................................. 18
5.2. Denition of sequence stratigraphy ................................................................................. 19
5.3. Denition of a ‘sequence’ ................................................................................................... 19
5.4. Parasequences ...................................................................................................................... 19
5.5. Genetic types of deposit: systems tracts .......................................................................... 19
5.6. Sequence stratigraphic surfaces ........................................................................................ 20
5.7. Concept of hierarchy .......................................................................................................... 21
6. Discussion: variability of the sequence stratigraphic model .................................................... 22
6.1. Nonmarine settings ............................................................................................................. 22
6.2. Coastal to shallow-water siliciclastic settings .................................................................. 24
6.3. Deep-water settings ............................................................................................................ 26
6.4. Carbonate settings ............................................................................................................... 26
7. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 29
References .............................................................................................................................................. 29

t o w a r d s t h e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n o f s e q u e n c e s tr a t i g r a p hy 3
American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature (NACSN)
and the International Subcommission on Stratigraphic Classica-
tion (ISSC) with respect to standardizing the method of sequence
stratigraphy in the North American Stratigraphic Code (herein re-
ferred to as the Code) and the International Stratigraphic Guide
(herein referred to as the Guide) respectively. The ISSC Work-
ing Group on Sequence Stratigraphy submitted its nal report
in 1999, without reaching a consensus regarding sequence strati-
graphic nomenclature and methodology. At the same time, the
long-standing NACSN committee on allostratigraphy and se-
quence stratigraphy tabled its efforts in 2002, concluding that it
was premature to recognize formal sequence stratigraphic units
in the Code.
The process of standardization is hampered mainly because
consensus needs to be reached between “schools” that promote
rather different approaches (or models) with respect to how the
sequence stratigraphic method should be applied to the rock re-
cord (Figures 3 & 4). The need for standardization, however,
is evident from the present state of procedural and nomencla-
tural confusion within sequence stratigraphy (Figures 3 & 4).
Figure 1. Sequence stratigraphy in the context of interdisciplinary research.
Figure 2. Genetic types of deposits: normal regressive, forced regressive, transgressive. Zigzag lines indicate lateral changes of facies within the same
sedimentary bodies (e.g., individual prograding lobes). The diagram shows the possible types of shoreline trajectory during changes (rise or fall) in base
level. During a stillstand of base level (not shown), the shoreline may undergo sediment-driven progradation (normal regression, where the topset is re-
placed by toplap), erosional transgression, or no movement at all. However, due to the complexity of independent variables that interplay to control
base-level changes, it is unlikely to maintain stillstand conditions for any extended period of time.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Towards the standardization of sequence stratigraphy" ?

In this paper, the authors define a set of stratal stacking patterns and bounding surfaces for a given set of stratigraphic units, i.e., forced regressive, lowstand and highstand normal regressive and transgressive. 

Q2. What are the main mechanisms that control the base level of fluvial systems?

Over geologic time scales, base-level changes are controlled primarily by allogenic mechanisms, including tectonism and sea-level change (eustasy). 

Q3. What is the key to the definition of a core workflow for the sequence stratigraphic method?

The separation between model-independent and model-dependent aspects of sequence stratigraphy provides the key to the inclusion of se-quence stratigraphic units and surfaces in stratigraphic codes and guides, and to the definition of a core workflow for the sequence stratigraphic method. 

Q4. What are the types of terminations used to identify sequence stratigraphic surfaces?

Four stratal terminations can be used to identify sequence stratigraphic surfaces, two occurring above a surface (onlap and downlap), and two occurring below a surface (truncation and toplap). 

Q5. What is the significance of a seismic clinoform?

A seismic clinoform may represent a single sequence stratigraphic surface, such as a maximum regressive surface or a correlative conformity, within a large-scale stratigraphic framework. 

Q6. Why is the need for type sections less stringent than in other stratigraphic disciplines?

The need for type sections in sequence stratigraphy is less stringent than in the case of other stratigraphic disciplines, because of the change in stratigraphic character of sequences and systems tracts across their areas of occurrence. 

Q7. Why is the timing of the regressive surfaces independent of sediment supply?

Because their timing is independent of sediment supply, the criteria employed for mapping “correlative conformities” are not based on changes from coarsening- to fining-upward or vice versa but rather on changes in stratal stacking patterns that are best observed on seismic lines. 

Q8. What are the three main influences on the way the changes in accommodation are expressed or preserved?

The geomorphic, tectonic and dynamic settings have a strong influence on the way in which the changes in accommodation are expressed or preserved. 

Q9. What are the main reasons why sequence stratigraphy is subject to uncertainty?

A number of fundamental applications of sequence stratigraphy are subject to uncertainty if seismic data are not used, since lapout relationships, best observed on seismic profiles, are a key to the physical recognition of sequence stratigraphic surfaces. 

Q10. What is the way to resolve the higher frequency sequence stratigraphic framework?

In local reservoir studies where interpretation is commonly required below the vertical seismic resolution, the higher frequency sequence stratigraphic framework may be resolved by using core and/or well logs. 

Q11. What is the relationship between base level and the downstream portion of the graded fluvial profile?

The marine base level and the downstream portion of the graded fluvial profile often have a processresponse relationship in which the graded fluvial profile is anchored by and responds to fluctuations in the marine base level (Posamentier and Allen, 1999; Catuneanu, 2006). 

Q12. What is the definition of a surface that forms by means of wave scouring?

Regressive surface of marine erosion (Plint, 1988): a subaqueous erosional surface that forms by means of wave scouring in regressive, wave-dominated lower shoreface to inner shelf settings. 

Q13. What is the realistic interpretation of the correlation of parasequences?

In the absence of time control, which is commonly the norm at this high-frequency level, the correlation of parasequences may be performed in different ways (Figure 9B), and the choice of the most realistic interpretation is based entirely on a facies model of deltaic progradation (Figure 9C). 

Q14. What are the three types of deposits that are linked to the change in shoreline trajectory?

The common element between all case studies, however, is the fact that every sequencewhose framework is linked to changes in shoreline trajectory consists of one or more of the same genetic types of deposit, namely normal regressive (lowstand and highstand), forced regressive, and transgressive. 

Q15. Where does the sequence stratigraphic method become more difficult to apply?

Away from coastal to shallow-water settings, the sequence stratigraphic method may become more difficult to apply within nonmarine and deep-water environments, where fewer types of sequence stratigraphic surfaces may form (Figure 17). 

Q16. What is the definition of a surface that marks a change in shoreline trajectory?

Maximum regressive surface (Helland-Hansen and Martinsen, 1996): a surface that marks a change in shoreline trajectory from lowstand normal regression to transgression. 

Q17. What is the effect of the strike diachroneity of sequence stratigraphic surfaces?

As shown by flume work (Heller et al., 2001), the strike diachroneity of sequence stratigraphic surfaces tends to be more evident during slow changes in base level.