T96 Stratigraphic Standards: Where Have They Gone, What Should They Do, Where Should They Go?

Monday, 1 November 2010
8:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Room 607

STILL STRIVING TO ATTAIN FORMALIZED "SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHIC" NIRVANA

Paper number: T96-12
Program: Technical Sessions
Time: 10:45 AM – 11:00 AM

Authors

Abstract

Like the legendary Tower of Babel, the land of unconformity/discontinuity-bounded stratigraphic units has devolved into a world of incomprehensible tongues, where few sects can still truly understand the other. Truth be told, little consensus now exists as to what are sequence boundaries, disconformities, or even discontinuities. Furthermore, years of sectarian warfare have made it difficult for many proponents to see the limitations of their own methodologies, appreciate the utility of other methodologies, or truly comprehend the real reasons to formalize sequence stratigraphy.

In reality, no single sequence methodology is the ultimate panacea or should hold sole title to the “sequence” mantle. Depositional setting and fit for purpose actually dictates the best “sequence” methodology for a given time or place. So what can be done to escape the discontinuity-bounded Tower of Babel and attain formalized Sequence Stratigraphic Nirvana? Find consensus, look for a paradigm shift, and move forward. While there may be little agreement as to which type of surface is the best sequence boundary, or if a given surface is an unconformity, there is general consensus that the different surfaces utilized in the various “sequence” methodologies are all mappable. In fact, one could argue that the true essence of sequence stratigraphy is not simply identifying unconformities or discontinuities, but mapping a variety of stratal surfaces. Thus a paradigm shift from unconformity/discontinuity-bounded stratigraphic units to surface-bounded stratigraphic units may provide the flexible framework for the various sequence methodologies to coexist, prosper, and each attain formalized Nirvana.