Overview

INTRODUCTION

Since their initial publication by Wilgus et al. (1988), the

concepts of sequence stratigraphy have become widely accepted and applied by the geological community to a broad
range of data bases, including conventional and high-resolution
seismic data, wireline logs, outcrops, cores, and paleontologic
and geochemical data. Much has been written recently about
sequence stratigraphy, and numerous papers in the recent literature have applied these concepts or a variation of them (e.g.,
Einsele et al., 1991; MacDonald, 1991; Posamentier et al.,
1993; Dalrymple et al., 1994; Johnson, 1994; Weimer and Posamentier, 1994; Saito et al., 1995; Van Wagoner and Bertram,
1995). The sequence stratigraphic approach has been applied
to rocks ranging in age from Proterozoic (Christie-Blick et al.,
1988) to modern (Posamentier et al., 1992a). Recent reviews
of sequence stratigraphic concepts have been published by
Christie-Blick and Driscoll (1995), Emery and Myers (1996),
and Miall (1995). In particular, Emery and Myers (1996) provide a comprehensive review of sequence stratigraphic concepts and their application in various depositional environments, with a strong emphasis on the latter. In this text we will
focus more on the-fundamentals of sequence stratigraphy in
order to provide a clear understanding of the basic building
blocks of this type of analysis. We have taken this approach so
that readers can then develop sequence stratigraphic models
specifically adapted to their geological conditions rather than
memorize and apply static "models" or templates. We believe
that this approach will result in a better andmore efficient application of sequence stratigraphy.
The initial publications discussing these concepts have defined sequence stratigraphy as being the study of "rock relationships within a time-stratigraphic framework of repetitive,
genetically related strata bounded by surfaces of erosion or
nondeposition, or their correlative conformities" (Posamentier
et al., 1988; Van Wagoner et al., 1988). In more practical terms,
sequence stratigraphy involves the analysis of cyclic sedimentation patterns that are present in stratigraphic successions, as
they develop in response to variations in sediment supply and
mace available for sediment to accumulate.
Along with this general acceptance of the concepts of sequence stratigraphy, there also has been a commensurate proliferation of jargon and terminology. Regrettably, this has
served as somewhat of a diversion regarding application of
these concepts. One of the goals of this volume is to re-focus
on the original concepts and principles underlying sequence
stratigraphy and downplay differences in terminology and approach. In particular, we wish to emphasize what can be considered as stratigraphic "first principles7' on which sequence
stratigraphy is based and to illustrate how they can be practically applied in different geologic settings. To this end, we have
listed in Table 1.1 what we consider to be "first urinci~les"of
stratigraphy in general and sequence stratigraphy in particular.

Our approach to the application of these concepts is to emphasize that the so called "sequence stratigraphic model" is not
a "model" in the strict sense. Contrary to what may have been
suggested in earlier papers, the sequence stratigraphic "model"
cannot be faithfully portrayed by any single block diagram or
set of block diagrams such as those published by Haq et al.
(1987) (their fig. 1) or Posamentier et al. (1988) (their figs. 16). Rather, as we will show, the sequence stratigraphic "model"
has numerous variations in response to local geologic factors
that exert varying degrees of control on sedimentary facies and
stratal architecture. As pointed out by Kreisa (personal communication, 1994) the countless variations of stratigraphic relationships embodied in the rock record are generated by parameters that are infinitely variable in time as well as space.
For example, subsidence rates, sediment flux, basin energy, biogenic activity, etc., all vary across a continuum of values, leading to an endless array of combinations and permutations that
together produce the rock record. Any specific geologic model,
therefore, represents an attempt to pigeonhole this variability
so as to capture the more influential factors, to recognize patterns, and ultimately to better understand and predict natural
systems. Consequently, given the inherent shortcomings of
models in general, we prefer to view the "sequence stratigraphic
model" as consisting of a set of first principles, which, when
properly understood and applied, enable the analysis, understanding, and prediction of spatial and temporal distribution of
lithology and stratal patterns within a basin. Thus, the user of

TABLE1.1.-LIST

OF SOME KEY GEOLOGICAL "FIRST PRINCIPLES"

RELEVANT
TO SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY.

All natural systems tend toward a state of equilibrium in which there is the most
efficient use of energy. This state of equilibrium can be expressed as a graded or
steady-state profile in alluvial, shelfal, or deep-water settings, and sea level in nearshore marine settings.
Fluid and sediment gravity flows tend to move from high to low elevations, i.e., water
flows downhill, tending to follow topographic or bathymetric lows.
Walther's Law: the same succession that is present vertically also is present
horizontally unless there is a break in sedimentafion.
Sedimentation patterns reflect the ratio between the rate of sediment supply and the
rate of change of accommodation (i.e., space available for sediment to accumulate).
The significant bulk of siliciclastic sediments is derived from hinterland areas and is
delivered to sedimentary basins by river systems.
Flow velocity is directly proportional to slope magnitude.
Flow discharge (subaerial or subaqueous) is equal to flow velocity times crosssectional area.
Sediment grain size and flux is directly proportional to stream power, i.e., flow
velocity and discharge.
Fine-grained sediment (e.g., silt and clay) generally is transported in suspension
whereas coarser sediment (e.g., sand sized and greater) generally is transported as bed
load or in suspension.
As environmental energy decreases, coarse-grained sediments are deposited first.
The larger a fluvial drainage basin, the less flashy the fluvial dischar~e.

Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy: Concepts and Applications, SEPM Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology No. 7
Copyright 0 1999, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), ISBN 1-56576-070-0

HENRY W. POSAMENTIER AND GEORGE P. ALLEN

this approach must evaluate the various input parameters that

control sedimentation patterns (Fig. 1.1) and, through the application of sound geologic reasoning, develop a sequence
stratigraphic "story" for the unique circumstances of his basin.
As will be repeatedly stressed in this text, the preferred approach for the-application of sequence stratigraphic conceptsis
that of a tool rather than a template (Posamentier and Allen,
1993a).
The early literature on sequence stratigraphy focused largely
on the application of the global eustatic cycle chart (Haq et al.,
1987). This emphasis resulted in the perception that the primary
goal of sequence stratigraphy was to construct age models for
a given stratigraphic succession. This approach involved the
correlation of local stratigraphic successions with the global
eustatic cycle chart using available biostratigraphic data as well
as analysis of physical stratigraphy (i.e., coastal onlap geometry) (Haq et al., 1987, 1988). More recently, the emphasis has
shifted to analysis and prediction of temporal and spatial stratigraphic relationships based on the interpretation of cyclicity in
the rock record and an understanding of sedimentary processes.
It is our contention that this latter application involving the
prediction of lithology and stratal architecture arguably constitutes the most significant utilization of sequence stratigraphy
concepts. Therefore, the emphasis in this text will be on the
prediction of stratigraphic relationships and not on the application of global sea-level charts. This application of sequence
stratigraphy basically involves analyzing the interaction between sediment supply and the space available for that sediment
to fill. That available space is referred to as sediment accommodation (Jervey, 1988). Accommodation is a function of several factors, including eustasy, tectonics, sediment compaction,
physiographic setting (see discussion in Chapter 2). Accommodation can exist in any geologic setting ranging from alluvial
to eolian to deep marine.
During the past several years, there also has been an overemphasis on sea level as the dominant control on stratal archi-

tecture. We will emphasize that other factors such as tectonism

and sediment supply are as important as, and in certain instances more important than sea level in determining patterns
of sediment accumulation. We believe, therefore, that the validity of sequence stratigraphy does not depend on whether eustasy or tectonics is the dominant factor in determining sediment
accommodation, or whether the "global" eustatic sea-level
curve and its applications within a sequence stratigraphic context is valid. With regard to the primary factors controlling sediment accommodation, we will emphasize that there is no one
dominant factor, but an interplay of numerous factors, e.g., eustasy, tectonism, basin physiography, sediment flux, and sediment compaction, whose relative importance can vary in different parts of a basin. As will be discussed later, we will
downplay the question of whether sediments are responding
primarily to sea-surface movement (i.e., eustasy) or to sea-floor
movement (i.e., total subsidence as a function of such factors
as tectonism, thermal subsidence, and sediment compaction)
and focus instead on the integration of these movements, focusing on relative sea level instead. This emphasis on relative
sea level implies that within any one basin, changes in accommodation and stratal patterns vary locally with varying rates of
tectonic subsidence, sediment supply, etc. Therefore it must always be borne in mind that sequence stratigraphic concepts do
not imply that stratal patterns within coeval geologic sections
will be identical everywhere.
The application of sequence stratigraphic concepts has been
demonstrated to be especially useful for oil and gas exploration.
This is true in particular for lithologic prediction in mature basins where the primary concern has shifted from the search for
structural traps to structural/stratigraphic traps, or even purely
stratigraphic traps (Bowen et al., 1993). With its strong emphasis on the timing of depositional events, the sequence stratigraphic "approach" has brought into sharp focus temporal as
well as spatial stratigraphic relationships and has significantly
FIG.1.1.-Interrelationships of key parameters associated with basin-fill architecture.

Stratigraphic Architecture

Eustasy

Subsldencel

Cl~rnate
Sediment
Crustal Compaction
Cool~ng

S u b s t r a t e Vegetation
Provenance and

Sed~mentary
FIUV1al
T e c t o n ~ c s Processes
D~scharge

Tectonfcs
Cilmate

Stream
Ptracy

Paleogeography

Env~ronrnental
Energy

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW

improved understanding of timing and location of reservoir,

source, and seal facies. In addition, sequence stratigraphy can
provide invaluable insights to the development of new play
concepts such as incised-valley fills (e.g., Weimer, 1984; Reinson et al., 1988; Van Wagoner et al., 1990; Allen and Posamentier, 1993; Bowen et al., 1993; Dalrymple et al., 1994) and
lowstand deltas and shorefaces (e.g., Plint, 1988; Posamentier
and Chamberlain, 1989, 1993; Posamentier et al., 1992a; Plint
et al., 1987; Walker and Plint, 1992; Bergman and Walker,
1995).
Sequence stratigraphic concepts also can be useful in frontier
areas, where they can help to establish viable geologic models
(e.g., Brink et al., 1993; Muntingh and Brown, 1993). Having
said this, we must warn that the accuracy of sequence stratigraphic interpretations (as for any geologic interpretations) is
directly proportional to the amount of data available. Consequently, the less data that are available (a situation common in
frontier basins), the greater the uncertainty of the interpretation.
Consequently, predictions in frontier settings will tend to be
relatively more model-driven than data-driven. In spite of this,
it is our belief that even where data from a basin are sparse, the
sequence stratigraphic approach will enable the formulation of
the most realistic, plausible, and predictive model.
Sequence stratigraphy lends itself readily to quantitative
modeling (Tetzlaff and Harbaugh, 1989; Cross, 1990; Miall,
1995). The interactions between parameters that govern stratigraphic evolution can be very complex, with intricate feedback
loops. Modeling of these independent and dependent variables
is essential for the purpose of testing sensitivities to the variations of these parameters working in concert. Numerous studies
have attempted to model the stratigraphic response to variations
of controlling parameters such as sedimentflux, eustasy, and
total subsidence (Helland-Hansen et al., 1988; Jervey, 1988;
Syvitski, 1989; Lawrence et al., 1990; Steckler et al., 1993;
Ross et al., 1995; Milana, 1998). Although models are becoming progressively more sophisticated and moving into new areas such as fuzzy logic (Nordlund, 1996), most models are still
incapable of realistically modeling in three dimensions, and
modeling in varying complex physiographic settings. Nonetheless, it is likely that this rapidly evolving area of research will
quickly fill these gaps and provide us with invaluable insights.
The following sections describe briefly the historical development of sequence stratigraphy, followed by a discussion of
the nature of cyclic sedimentary successions and the definition
of sequences.
DEVELOPMENT OF SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY

Modern sequence stratigraphic concepts can be traced to the

work of the European stratigraphers who in the late 19th century subdivided sedimentary rocks into discrete units separated
by surfaces representing abrupt changes or breaks in sedimentation. These rock successions were formally defined as unconformity-bounded stages. At about the same time, Suess (1904)
introduced and expounded on the concepts of eustasy and
global controls on unconformities.
Subsequently, Wheeler (1958, 1959), Weller (1960), and
Sloss (1962, 1963), recognized the significance and utility of
correlating time-synchronous surfaces across geological sections and further refined these concepts. Their application of

chronostratigraphy to stratigraphic analysis in many instances

yielded better insights than those available from the more conventional lithostratigraphic approach prevalent among stratigraphers at that time (Fig. 1.2). Many of the notions that these
workers developed can readily be recast into what we now refer
to as sequence stratigraphy.
The approach Wheeler, Weller, and Sloss championed did
not take root with the geologic community to the extent that
modem sequence stratigraphy has, because they were missing
one critical ingredient that did not become available until the
late 1960s and 1970s. This ingredient was high-quality, multichannel seismic reflection data. With these data geologists
could obtain continuous physical stratigraphic images of the
subsurface that allowed them to minimize some of the major
leaps of faith previously required of stratigraphic correlations.
With the advent of high-quality multi-channel seismic reflection data, the discipline of seismic stratigraphy came into
its own. Generally speaking, seismic stratigraphy involves the
stratigraphic interpretation of seismic data. In the landmark
publication AAPG Memoir 26, Peter Vail and his colleagues at
Exxon Production Research Co. (Vail et al., 1977) observed that
detailed stratigraphic information could be interpreted from
seismic data. In fact, relatively sophisticated stratigraphic insights could be gleaned from such data. The fundamental assumption upon which Vail and his colleagues based their work

FORMATION C

Member Bl
1-19

FORMATION B
Member 62

FORMATION A

B) CHRONOSTRATlGRAPHY
GR

LOWSTAND SYSTEMS TRACT

UNCOMFORMITY B

HIGHSTAND SYSTEMS TRACT

MAXIMUM FLOODING SURFACE

*1

TRANSGRESSIVE SURFACE
UNCOMFORMITY A
I

HIGHSTAND SYSTEMS TRACT

TRANSGRESSIVE SYSTEMS TRACT

LOWSTAND SYSTEMS TRACT

FIG. 1.2.-Schematic illustration of the different approaches of "classical"

stratigraphy, i.e., A) lithostratigraphy, and B) sequence stratigraphy or chronostratigraphy. Lithostratigraphy defines rock units on the basis of physical characteristics of rocks, whereas sequence stratigraphy defines rock units based on
chronostratigraphy and focuses on the significance of surfaces separating major
sedimentary successions.

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW

Environmental Interpretation
Shale, Ironstone Nodules

Sea-Level Curve
Shoreline Offshore

Prodelta

Scattered Fossils
Marine Fossil:
Calcareo(aSShale
Black Fissile Shale, Few Fossil:
Underclay
Limestone, No Marine Fossils
Sandv Shale. Plants
Sandstone, Plant Debris
Unconformity at Base

20

Offshore Marine
Nearshore

-.

,<.'

,"..- .

FIG.1.3.-Example of typical ideal cyclothem from the Pennsylvanian of Illinois, USA. Solid line indicates the original interpretation of Udden (1912), the
dotted-line alternative interpretation proposed by Heckel (1984), and the dashedline alternative interpretation proposed
by Riegel (from Riegel, 1991, reproduced
with permission from Springer-Verlag).

Delta Plain

Delta Front and

Fluvial Channels

8Q+

GR (API)

Fining Upward

FIG.1.4.-Examples of cyclic sedimentation patterns at various scales. Wells

illustrated are from fluvial and coastal to shelf settings. The well on the left
illustrates the smallest-scale cycles, formed by regression with associated progradation, and transgression with associated retrogradation of individual deltaic
lobes or shoreline deposits. These units, bounded by flooding surfaces, have
been referred to as "parasequences" (Van Wagoner et al., 1988). The two wells
on the right illustrate larger-scale cycles, which result from longer-period eustatic and/or tectonic cycles.

I
I
\

A flooding surface, most recently defined by Kamola and Van

Wagoner (1995), is a surface that separates older from younger
rock and is marked by deeper-water strata resting on shallowerwater strata. Kamola and Van Wagoner (1995) further point out
that flooding surfaces can form in lacustrine as well as marine
environments. It is not clear from their definition, however,
whether this surface forms as a result merely of deepening of
water depth or actual flooding of a previously emergent surface.
We prefer restricting the usage of this term so as to be consistent
with the common definition of the word "flooding", that is, "an
overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry", or "an
inundation" (Webster's I1 New Riverside Dictionary, 1984).
Consequently, using this rationale, the presence of a flooding
surface suggests that the section below had been subaerially
exposed. Whether evidence for subaerial exposure is present,
however, is a function of how effective transgressive erosive
scour was in stripping off root traces, paleosols, and any other
evidence for subaerial exposure.
We suggest the more generic term drowning surface to refer
to a depositional surface across which is observed an abrupt
deepening. Thus, all flooding surfaces are drowning surfaces,
but not all drowning surfaces are flooding surfaces. Until it can
be determined that actual "flooding" had occurred, the term
drowning surface is preferred. In general, flooding surfaces cap
regressive successions landward of the seawardmost location
of the shoreline. The drowning surface is the seaward extension
of the flooding surface and, in fact, constitutes the correlative
surface on the shelf.
The term transgressive surface is commonly used interchangeably with flooding surface. The distinction between
these terms lies in the word transgressive, which refers to the
direction of shoreline movement (i.e., landward), andjooding,
which refers only to the process of inundation. In our discussion, the term transgressive suqace will be reserved for a surface marking the onset of a significant and extended period of
transgression within a succession. We recognize that the usage
of the term "significant" can be ambiguous, but in practical
terms the criterion will depend upon the importance of the
transgressive event within the section being studied. For ex-

HENRY W. POSAMENTZER AND GEORGE P. ALLEN

Sequence Boundary

FIG. 1.S.Schematic dip profile illustrating the key sequence stratigraphic

surfaces-sequence boundaries, and maximum flooding surfaces, and their stratigraphic expression. These surfaces serve
to subdivide stratigraphic sections into
sequences and systems tracts.

Maximum Flooding Surface

---If

Sequence Boundary '

ample, a surface that separates a regressive succession from a

section characterized by overall transgression would be considered as significant.
Another important type of surface is the maximum~ooding
surface within a given succession. A "maximum flooding" surface refers to the surface of deposition at the time the shoreline
is at its maximum landward position (i.e., the time of maximum
transgression). These surfaces can be generally traced landward
from the sea floor (or by analogy, the lake floor) into coastal
lagoons and bays and onto the alluvial plain. As will be discussed later, this surface is generally readily identifiable within
cyclic sedimentary successions and can potentially form very
good stratigraphic markers for regional correlations (Galloway,
1989a).
As mentioned earlier, the initial publications on seismic stratigraphy and later sequence stratigraphy selected unconformities and their correlative surfaces to subdivide sediment cycles
into depositional sequences (Vail et al., 1977); such cyclic
stratigraphic units were given the name "sequences". This usage was consistent with that proposed by Sloss (1962) (although
Sloss' sequences were commonly significantly larger in scale,
and did not include the notion of the correlative conformity)
and excluded regressive-transgressive successions that do not
contain unconformities, such as those formed by variations in
sediment supply (e.g., delta-lobe switches), or, as will be discussed later, by changes in the rate of relative sea-level rise.
In this book, we will adopt the definition of an unconformity
as a regional surface of nondeposition that separates younger
from older strata and represents a significant time gap; the surface can be either erosional or nonerosional. Two notions are
important in this definition: 1) the notion of a "significant" time
gap, (i.e., potentially measurable by some geochronologictool),
and 2) that all the sediments above the unconformity are
younger than all the sediments below. In shelf environments,
the presence of an unconformity implies conditions of regional
nondeposition, commonly associated with sea-level fall and
subaerial exposure of the sea floor (Posarnentier et al., 1988;
Van Wagoner et al., 1988) (see discussion in Chapter 2). This,
of course, does not mean that submarine unconforhities cannot
develop as well. In fact, submarine unconformities can develop
coevally with subaerial unconformities in response to shifted
oceanic currents and bottom-water
that sometimes accompany changes of sea level (Haq, 1993). However,
in this text, the discussion will focus on subaerially formed
unconformities. These unconformities generally grade seaward
into conformable surfaces (see discussion in Chapter 2).
Various authors have argued that other types of surfaces may
be more appropriate to subdivide sequences (e.g., Galloway,
1989a; Hunt and Tucker, 1992; Martinsen, 1993; Martinsen et

Basin

al., 1993; Embry, 1995). In general, the most widely used

alternatives to unconformities as sequence boundaries are maximum flooding surfaces (Galloway, 1989a) or transgressive surfaces (Embry, 1995). Maximum flooding surfaces are commonly associated with condensed sections (i.e., a sedimentary
facies deposited in areas of very low sedimentation rates, commonly observed on the mid- to outer shelf, and beyond). In
many instances, these surfaces are more easily recognizable
than unconformities (see discussion in Chapter 3) and have
been used to subdivide stratigraphic successions into "depositional episodes" (Frazier, 1974), or "genetic sequences" (Galloway, 1989a). M@rket al. (1989) and Embry (1995) have used
transgressive surfaces to subdivide successions into "T-R cycles" (i.e., transgressive and regressive cycles, defined by Johnson et al. (1985) as "sedimentary rocks deposited during the
time between one deepening event and the beginning of the
next"). In many instances, however, these surfaces can be cryptic and hence difficult to recognize in subsurface data.
We believe that unconformities are more appropriate surfaces
to bound sequences than are maximum flooding surfaces or
transgressive surfaces. The rationale for bounding a sequence
with unconformities (the so-called "Exxon" approach) rather
than maximum flooding surfaces (the so-called "Galloway" approach) or transgressive surfaces (the so-called T-R cycles) is
both philosophical as well as practical. The term sequence is
defined as "a following of one thing after another" or "a related
or continuous series" (Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary,
1984). From this definition, it seems reasonable that the term
sequence should be reserved for sedimentary successions characterized by relatively continuous sedimentation. In a stratigraphic suicession p;nctuated by unconformities, maximum
flooding surfaces, and transgressive surfaces, the most notable
breaks in sedimentation are observed at unconformities, which
by definition represent signijicant gaps of sedimentation. For
this reason, Sloss (1963) defined his regional sequences by regional unconformity surfaces rather than maximum flooding
surfaces or transgressive surfaces (Fig. 1.6). Maximum flooding
surfaces, although often readily identifiable in the rock record,
are associated with condensed sections, which represent periods
of very slow rates of sedimentation but usually contain no significant sedimentation gaps. Likewise, transgressive surfaces
mark the onset of transgression after a period of shoreline regression and also are not generally associated with significant
sedimentation gaps. Bounding a sequence by either transgressive surfaces or maximum flooding surfaces can result in sequences containing significant unconformities as part of what
is meant to be a relative continuum of sedimentation.
Furthermore, from the perspective of oil and gas exploration
and exploitation, the choice of unconformities as sequence-

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW
FIG. 1.6.-Stratigraphic architecture of
Cordilleran Mississippian to Triassic sequences, illustrating unconformitybounded units in depth and in time (from
Wheeler, 1958, reprinted with permission
of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists).

ROCK- STRATIGRAPHY

Generalized Cordilleran Mississippian - Triassic Sequences

TIME - STRATIGRAPHY

EROSION SURFACE (expressed as time-stratagraphictruncation)

I

EROSIONAL VACUITY (removal during hiatal interval)

>

LACUNA (nondeposition and erosion)

HOLOSTROME C (restored complete deposition)

(Detail from above showing the relationship

relationship between a lacuna an erosial
vacuity and a hiatus)

bounding surfaces is also desirable because, as will be discussed

in Chapter 3, these surfaces commonly are associated with sand
(i.e., reservoir) deposition. In contrast, condensed sections and
maximum flooding surfaces are characteristically shale-prone
and lacking in sandstone reservoirs.
Although we advocate unconformities and their correlative
surfaces as the sequence bounding surfaces, as will be discussed
in more detail below (Chapter 3), we also recognize the importance and utility of correlating flooding surfaces and maximum flooding surfaces. In fact, the practical approach for sequence stratigraphic analysis that we recommend (see
discussion in Chapter 5) is to first identify flooding surfaces and
maximum flooding surfaces, surfaces that are generally relatively easy to identify and correlate. Once the stratigraphic succession has been subdivided in this way, the most plausible
candidates for sequence boundaries, which by definition must
lie between condensed sections, can and should be identified
and correlated.

EXPLORATION SIGNIFICANCE

There is little question that sequence stratigraphy has been

of great importance to the petroleum exploration industry. Prediction of the spatial and temporal distribution of reservoir, seal,
and source facies has been improved by use of the sequence
stratigraphic approach. Enhanced understanding of reservoir
compartmentalization and continuity has been an outgrowth of
development of these concepts, and in some instances new and
different exploration plays have been developed in consequence
of sequence stratigraphic analyses. In this text, we have intentionally chosen not to enumerate the specific aspects of the
sequence stratigraphic approach that are relevant to either exploration or exploitation in light of the fact that berzefifs carz be
derived front nearly all aspects of the sequence stratigraphic
approach. We leave it to the readers to relate the concepts discussed here to their ongoing geological analyses and recognize
the applicability to their work, whether they are in the business

HENRY W. POSAMENTIER AND GEORGE P. ALLEN

of petroleum exploration or some other aspect of geological

investigation.
APPROACH

The fundamental approach in this text will be to offer a practical method for the application of sequence stratigraphic concepts, based on a review of basic stratigraphic concepts illustrated with appropriate examples. We will strive to avoid
potential blind alleys such as detailed discussions on terminology, or whether the "Exxon" or "Galloway" approach must be
used, and discussions regarding which schematic illustration
best captures the "sequence stratigraphic model". Our approach
will strive to be flexible and pragmatic, and we will emphasize
the notion that if a proposed geological scenario is reasonable,
and if it does not violate any stratigraphic first principles, then
it can be acceptable. We subscribe also to the notion of Occam's
razor, which suggests that the simplest of competing theories
be preferred to the more complex. Finally, although we may
favor one geologic approach over another, we recognize that if
a proposed geological solution is reasonable, then it is of little
concern whether it is consistent with one previously published
approach or another. This pragmatic approach will be our guiding philosophy in this text.
The emphasis of this text will be on fluvial, marginal marine,
and shelf siliciclastic depositional settings. We believe that sequence stratigraphic principles are better understood and have
been applied with greater success in these settings than in deepwater systems. This is due to several factors. First, sufficiently
precise paleontological data relating deep-water with coeval
shallow-water deposits are usually lacking. Thus, the precise
relationships between unconforrnities on the shelf and sediments in deep-water environments are not always clear. Secondly, the lack of continuity in subsurface or outcrop data precludes the analysis of detailed time and facies relationships
between deep-water and shelf environments.

In addition to a lack of continuous data between deep-water

and coastal deposits, the process sedimentology of deep-water
deposits is not as well understood as it is for nonmarine and
nearshore marine deposits. Hence, although there is also usually
a data gap between shelf and coastal, and fluvial deposits, at
least there is a better theoretical understanding of their relationship because of the greater accessibility for their study in
modern environments. Modern deep-water systems, in contrast,
are much more difficult to study first hand, because of their
relative inaccessibility. Moreover, most deep-water systems are
currently the sites of pelagic and hemipelagic sedimentation,
and receive very little siliciclastic sediment.
Eolian depositional environments will not be considered in
this text. The linkage between this environment and coastal
marine environments is tenuous and at present not well understood. Several authors, however, have begun to evaluate eolian
strata in a sequence stratigraphic context (e.g., Talbot, 1985;
Kocurek, 1988; Havholm, 1991; Kocurek and Havholm, 1993;
Havholm et al., 1993).
This text is subdivided into seven chapters. Because of the
interconnectedness of the various topics, there will invariably
exist some overlap in the discussions. Although we have attempted to minimize redundancies, there nonetheless remains
some repetition, which we deemed necessary to reinforce particular concepts or arguments. Thus, for example, some of the
ideas necessary for the development of the general sequence
stratigraphic model, discussed in Chapter 2, must be revisited
in subsequent sections. We hope that such repetition will serve
to emphasize and reinforce key ideas.
The following chapter presents a discussion of the stratal
patterns that would be formed in an idealized sequence. Although this scheme can be thought of as a "model" (i.e., applicable as a template to interpret geological data), our aim is to
present it as an idealized response to variations in controlling
parameters and as such must be utilized in a flexible manner so
as to take into account local conditions.