See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260225551

Controls on synrift turbidite deposition on the hanging wall of the South

Viking Graben, North Sea rift system, offshore Norway

Article  in  AAPG Bulletin · September 2011

DOI: 10.1306/01031110037

CITATIONS READS

9 949

4 authors, including:

Christopher A-L Jackson Eirik Larsen

Imperial College London Earth Science Analytics AS
307 PUBLICATIONS   3,903 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   180 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sand Injection Research View project

Multi-rift View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher A-L Jackson on 18 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Controls on synrift turbidite AUTHORS
Christopher A.-L. Jackson  Department
deposition on the hanging wall of of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial
College, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7
the South Viking Graben, North 2BP, England, United Kingdom;
c.jackson@imperial.ac.uk
Sea rift system, offshore Norway Christopher A.-L. Jackson is currently the Statoil
senior lecturer in basin analysis at Imperial
Christopher A.-L. Jackson, Eirik Larsen, College. He obtained a B.Sc. degree and Ph.D.
Sigmund Hanslien, and Anne-Elise Tjemsland from the University of Manchester. During
2002–2004, he held a position as a geologist
in the research center at Statoil. His current
research interests are in the tectonostrati-
ABSTRACT graphic evolution of rifts and the application of
three-dimensional seismic reflection data to a
Three-dimensional seismic, wireline-log, core, and biostrati- range of structural and stratigraphic issues.
graphic data from the South Viking Graben, North Sea rift
Eirik Larsen  Statoil, Forusbeen 50, N-4035
system, are integrated to investigate the controls on the tem-
Stavanger, Norway; present address: Rock-
poral and spatial development of an Upper Jurassic synrift source ASA, Olav Kyrresgt. 22, Postboks 994,
turbidite system deposited on the hanging-wall dipslope of a N5808, Bergen, Norway;
salt-influenced half graben. Turbidite deposition was coeval eirik.larsen@rocksource.com
with the initiation and upslope (paleo-landward) migration of Eirik Larsen is exploration manager for Norway
activity across a gravity-driven normal fault array. Three main and United Kingdom in Rocksource ASA (since
synrift stratal units are identified, and these are mapped using 2009). He holds a candidate of science degree
seismic and well data. The lowermost unit (upper Oxfordian) (1999) in petroleum geology and a doctor of
science degree (2003) in sedimentology and
comprises thick amalgamated turbidites, which are restricted
sequence stratigraphy, both from the University
to the hanging wall of the earliest, most basinward, growth of Bergen, Norway. He has previously worked
fault. The middle unit (Kimmeridgian) is more areally exten- as a geoscientist in Statoil ASA, with focus on
sive than the underlying system, draping the now inactive North Sea exploration, and as a postdoctoral
basinward growth fault and extending upslope into the hanging researcher at the University of Bergen, focusing
wall of a newly activated landward growth fault. The upper- on sediment transport and stratigraphic archi-
tecture from shallow-marine to deep-marine
most unit (lower to middle Volgian) is more sheetlike and was
environments.
deposited when activity across all growth faults had mostly
ceased and slope topography had been almost fully healed. Sigmund Hanslien  Statoil, Forusbeen 50,
This study demonstrates that hanging-wall dipslopes within N-4035 Stavanger, Norway; present address:
Det Norske Oljeselskap ASA, Næringslivets Hus,
rifts can be characterized by volumetrically significant, sand-
Haakon VIIs gt. 8, Stavanger 4005, Norway;
rich, gravity flow-dominated depositional systems, and that the sigmund.hanslien@detnorske.com
reservoir architecture of such deposits can be strongly controlled
Sigmund Hanslien received his M.Sc. degree
by syndepositional growth faulting. In addition, this study pro- in 1976 in petroleum geology from the Norwe-
vides insights into the response of turbidites to tectonically gian University of Science and Technology in
driven changes in bathymetry, which may be applicable in a Trondheim, Norway. First joining Exxon in 1976
range of basin settings. and later Statoil in 1992, he has been involved
in exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons
in Norway and internationally in a variety of
technical and managerial positions. He joined
Det Norske Oljeselskap in 2006 and is currently
Copyright ©2011. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
heading the New Ventures Department.
Manuscript received March 12, 2010; provisional acceptance July 28, 2010; revised manuscript received
October 28, 2010; final acceptance January 3, 2011.
DOI:10.1306/01031110037

AAPG Bulletin, v. 95, no. 9 (September 2011), pp. 1557–1587 1557

 Anne-Elise Tjemsland  Statoil, Forusbeen
50, N-4035 Stavanger, Norway;
aetj@statoil.com
Anne Elise Tjemsland received a degree in bi-
ology from the University of Bergen and has been
employed in Statoil since 1983. She has been
involved in biostratigraphic analysis, geologic
modeling, and reservoir development. She
currently works as a biostratigrapher, focusing
on the Middle to Upper Jurassic succession in
the South Viking Graben, offshore Norway.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank journal reviewers Mark Tomasso and
Roger Bloch for their critical but constructive
comments that helped significantly improve
the manuscript. We thank Karla Kane, Rachel
Kieft, Gary Hampson, Anna-Sofia Gregerson,
Unni Stalsberg Sjursen, Elisebeth Bjerkebeck,
and Helge Sognnes for discussions during the
course of this study, and StatoilHydro ASA for
providing financial support. The views expressed
in this article are of the authors and do not
necessarily represent those of StatoilHydro ASA
or partners within the PL303 licence.
The AAPG Editor thanks the following reviewers
for their work on this paper: Roger B. Bloch and
Mark Tomasso.
1558 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope
INTRODUCTION
Outcrop (Gawthorpe et al., 1990; Gawthorpe and Hurst, 1993;
Dorsey et al., 1995; 1997; Gupta et al., 1999; Cowie et al.,
2000, 2007; Young et al., 2002; Mortimer et al., 2005), sub-
surface (Turner et al., 1987; Davies et al., 2000; Dawers and
Underhill, 2000; McLeod et al., 2002; Bruhn and Vagle, 2005),
and numerical modeling (Hardy and Gawthorpe, 2004) studies
indicate that the growth of basin-bounding normal faults and
folds strongly influences the sedimentologic and stratigraphic
evolution of synrift depositional systems (see also conceptual
models by Gawthorpe et al., 1994; Gawthorpe and Leeder,
2000). This is particularly true for systems located in the im-
mediate hanging wall of basin-bounding normal fault zones;
systems such as these have been the focus of the majority of the
studies cited above. In contrast, relatively few studies have
focused on the tectonostratigraphic evolution of synrift sys-
tems developed downdip of the footwall crest on the so-called
hanging-wall “dipslope” (Ravnås and Steel, 1997; Nøttvedt et
al., 2000). This partly reflects poor preservation of these de-
posits in this relatively low-subsidence, low-accommodation
setting (Gawthorpe et al., 1994); this contrasts markedly with
their footwall-derived equivalents that become buried beneath
younger deposits in the immediate hanging wall of the basin-
bounding fault as a consequence of ongoing rift-related sub-
sidence. In addition, boreholes in extensional basins tend to be
located toward the crests of rotated footwall blocks in locations
updip of synrift hanging-wall deposits. It is at least partly be-
cause of these preservation and data set issues that tectonos-
tratigraphic models for extensional basins suggest that hang-
ing-wall depositional systems are relatively simple and are
characterized by shallow-marine systems that fringe uplifted
footwall highs. These systems may pass downdip into volu-
metrically insignificant deep-water depositional systems
(Leeder and Gawthorpe, 1987; Prosser, 1993; Gawthorpe and
Leeder, 2000).
STUDY AIMS
This study has three primary aims: (1) to characterize the
sedimentology and stratigraphic architecture of synrift turbi-
dite systems on the hanging wall of a rift-related half graben;
(2) to identify the key controls on synrift turbidite deposition;
(3) on the basis of the case study presented here and others, to
consider the more general question of whether the scarcity of
documented examples of hanging-wall depositional systems
reflects the poor development or poor preservation of such
systems. A secondary aim of this study is to assess
the economic significance of hanging-wall deposi-
tional systems in extensional basins. The study area
is located in the South Viking Graben of the North
Sea rift system, and the stratigraphic interval of in-
terest lies within the Upper Jurassic (Oxfordian–
Volgian) synrift succession. The study uses two types
of data: first, three-dimensional (3-D) seismic data
that, although of insufficient vertical resolution to
directly image individual depositional elements, are
used to map the major stratal units within which
they are developed and to relate these to the de-
velopment of coeval synrift structures; and second,
well-derived data (i.e., wireline, core, and biostrati-
graphic data), which together allow the sedimen-
tology and stratigraphic architecture of the synrift
deposits to be described and related to the evolving
structural template. The structural setting of the
study area is somewhat unusual because the pres-
ence of a salt-rich intrastratal detachment within
the basin led to gravity-driven extensional faulting
on the hanging wall during rifting (see Thomas and
Coward, 1996; Jackson and Larsen, 2008, 2009).
This faulting provided intraslope accommodation
within which hanging-wall systems were deposited
and, crucially, preserved. In addition, postrift in-
version led to gentle folding and uplift of the
hanging-wall depocenters; these folds represent
structural traps that were targeted by the wells that
now provide a critical part of the data set used here
(Thomas and Coward, 1996; Jackson and Larsen,
2008).
TECTONOSTRATIGRAPHIC EVOLUTION OF
THE SOUTH VIKING GRABEN
Early Permian–Late Triassic
The South Viking Graben formed in response to
several periods of crustal extension during the Me-
sozoic. Throughout this time, the basin was con-
trolled along its western margin by the graben
boundary fault zone (GBFZ) (sensu Cherry, 1993)
(Figure 1). The earliest period of fault-controlled
subsidence is generally considered to have occurred
in the Permian (Glennie, 1984, 1995; Coward,
1995; Gabrielsen et al., 1995). At that time, the
basin formed a broadly north-south–trending ma-
rine embayment situated along the northern mar-
gin of the North Permian salt basin (Glennie, 1990;
Ziegler, 1990; Hodgson et al., 1992; Glennie et al.,
2003). Within this embayment, a series of evaporite-
dominated units were deposited (the Zechstein
Supergroup; Figure 2), with anhydrite- and halite-
rich (basinal) facies in the axis of the basin, passing
laterally into clastic- and carbonate-rich (marginal)
facies toward the basin margins (Pegrum and Ljones,
1984; Thomas and Coward, 1996). During the
Triassic, rifting continued and continental condi-
tions prevailed, with a clastic-dominated succes-
sion being deposited at this time (Smith Bank and
Skagerrak formations; Figure 2) (Pegrum and Ljones,
1984; Fisher and Mudge, 1990, 1998; Frostick et al.,
1992; Goldsmith et al., 2003).
Early Jurassic–Early Cretaceous
Since the formation of the mid-North Sea dome
during the latest Early Jurassic, uplift and erosion of
the South Viking Graben has occurred (Ziegler,
1990; Underhill and Partington, 1993, 1994). As a
result, time-equivalent units are absent over much
of the South Viking Graben, and Middle Jurassic
strata unconformably overlie eroded Triassic strata
(Figure 2).
During the Middle Jurassic, subsidence of
the mid-North Sea Dome and reactivation of the
GBFZ resulted in rapid subsidence within the South
Viking Graben. The present geometry of the basin
is dominated by structures associated with this late
Middle to Late Jurassic rift event instead of the
earlier Permian–Triassic rift event (Harris and Fowler,
1987; Ziegler, 1990; Cockings et al., 1992; Coward,
1995; Thomas and Coward, 1996). The South Viking
Graben forms a north-south– to north-northeast–
south-southwest–trending gently (5–7°) westward-
dipping half graben that is bound to the west by the
GBFZ and to the east by the Utsira high (Figure 1).
At present, the GBFZ strikes north to north-north-
east, has a planar to slightly listric geometry in cross
section, and has more than 4 km of displacement
(Harris and Fowler, 1987; Thomas and Coward,
1995; Fletcher, 2003a, b). Jurassic activity on the
Jackson et al. 1559
1560 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope
 Figure 2. (A) Simplified
stratigraphic column illus-
trating the Upper Paleozoic
to Mesozoic stratigraphy
of the South Viking Graben.
The structural and/or strat-
igraphic significance of
various units is indicated.
MCU = mid-Cimmerian
unconformity (Underhill
and Partington, 1993, 1994).
(B) Details for the late
Middle and Upper Jurassic
stages. “J” nomenclature
for the maximum flooding
surfaces (MFS) corresponds
to that established by
Partington et al. (1993). The
stratigraphic position and
approximate ages of seismic
reflection events mapped in
this study are indicated, as
are the mapped stratal units
(SU). Other key stratal sur-
faces that are constrained
by biostratigraphic data and
only identifiable in wells
are also indicated. Lwr =
lower; Mid = middle; Upr =
upper; E = early; M = mid-
dle; L = late. (C) Seismic
section across 15/3-1S indi-
cating the main mapped
reflection events. See
Figure 1 for location of the
well. Note the poor seismic
expression of sandstones
in SU4.

GBFZ initiated in the Callovian, with the main Fletcher, 2003a, b). Within the study area, tilting
phase of extension and subsidence occurring during of the hanging wall during extension resulted in thin-
the Oxfordian to middle Volgian (Cockings et al., skinned, gravity-driven extension of units above
1992; McClure and Brown, 1992; Cherry, 1993; the Zechstein Supergroup, which was principally

Figure 1. (A) Simplified map illustrating the structural setting of and structural terminology for the South Viking Graben. Only main
extensional faults related to the Late Jurassic rift event are shown for clarity. The inset map shows the geographic location of the study
area. The locations of the study area and detailed structural map shown in (B), and the geoseismic section shown in (C) are indicated.
Modified from Thomas and Coward (1996). (B) Detailed structural map (at top Hugin Formation; see Figure 2) of the study area in-
dicating the distribution of wells and locations of seismic sections shown in Figure 3. (C) Simplified geoseismic section across the South
Viking Graben illustrating the main structural features and their spatial relationships. See (A) for location of section. The main structures
considered here are the Gudrun (GF) fault and the southern (BFS), central (BFC), and northern (BFN) segments of the Brynhild fault. The
East Brae (EBA) and Gudrun (GA) anticlines are postrift inversion-related structures.

Jackson et al. 1561

Figure 3. Seismic cross sections and corresponding geoseismic sections across the northern (A) and central (B) parts of the study area.
These figures illustrate the geometry and spatial relationships between the Gudrun and Brynhild faults and the associated folds. The
mapped stratal units are indicated (SU; see Figure 2) (Jackson and Larsen, 2008, 2009). Abbreviations for the key structures are the same
as in Figure 1. Locations of sections are shown in Figure 1B. Seismic data are displayed with a downward increase in acoustic impedance
represented by a trough (black) and a downward decrease in acoustic impedance represented by a peak (red).

accommodated by two normal faults (the Gudrun
and Brynhild faults; Thomas and Coward, 1996;
Jackson and Larsen, 2008, 2009) (Figures 1C, 3).
Coupled with regional fault-controlled sub-
sidence, a eustatic sea level rise during the Mid-
dle and Late Jurassic resulted in deposition of an
upward-deepening synrift succession, with delta-
plain (Sleipner Formation; Bathonian) and shallow-
marine (Hugin Formation; lower Callovian) depos-
its passing upward into shelf (Heather Formation;
lower Callovian–upper Oxfordian) and deep-marine
(Draupne Formation; lower Oxfordian–middle Vol-
gian) deposits (Figure 2). The Utsira high, which
forms the eastern margin of the South Viking Gra-
ben, was the source area for the Draupne Formation
turbidite system studied here (Figure 4). This inter-
pretation is based on two types of data: first, regional
well data, which indicate that the Draupne Forma-
tion to the northwest of the study area within the
axis of the South Viking Graben is more “distal” in
character when compared with the time-equivalent
deposits studied here (Fraser et al., 2003), implying
that the principal proximal-to-distal facies trend on
the hanging wall is east to west; and second, propri-
etary provenance data, which indicate that Draupne
Formation sandstones have a first-cycle granitic sig-
nal, suggesting that the granite-cored Utsira High
to the east and not the Fladen Ground Spur to the
west was the main sediment source area (U. Sjursen,
2008, personal communication). In addition, paleo-
geographic reconstructions indicate that a shallow-
marine shoreline system fringed the western mar-
gin of the Utsira high during the Late Jurassic and
that this system fed sand-rich turbidite systems on
the hanging wall (Figure 4) (Fraser et al., 2003).
DATA SET AND METHODOLOGY
Seismic
The 3-D poststack time-migrated seismic data set
used for this study covers 370 km2 (143 mi2) and
has an inline (northwest-southeast) and crossline

1562 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope


Figure 4. Paleogeographic setting of the study area during the
Late Jurassic. This represents a composite map that includes
observations modified from the late Oxfordian and early Kim-
meridgian time slices of Fraser et al. (2003) (their sequence “B1,”
which represents the interval between the Glosense [J54a] and
Baylei [J62] key flooding surface). Note the development of a
shoreline system (a) fringing the western margin of the Utsira
high, which is inferred to feed turbidite depositional systems (b =
slope channels; c = slope fans) downdip on the hanging-wall
dipslope. See text for full discussion.
(northeast-southwest) spacing of 12.5 m (41 ft).
The seismic data have a vertical (depth) axis mea-
sured in milliseconds two-way traveltime (ms TWTT)
and a record length of 5500 ms TWTT. Frequency
analysis of these seismic data indicates that the ver-
tical resolution within the interval of interest is 30
to 40 m (98 to 131 ft). Where quoted, values such
as fault throw are measured in ms TWTT and are
converted to meters based on interval velocity data
from wells within the study area. Seismic data are
displayed such that a downward increase in acoustic
impedance is represented by a trough (black) and a
downward decrease in acoustic impedance is rep-
resented by a peak (red in Figure 3 and white in
Figure 2).
Wells
Six wells were available for this study (Elf 15/3-1S,
Elf 15/3-3, Elf 15/3-4, Elf 15/3-5, Den Norske Stats
Oljeselskap 15/3-7, and Statoil 15/3-8; Figures 1, 5).
They contained core (a total of 61 m [200 ft] split
between 15/3-1S and 15/3-3), standard wireline-log
(GR = gamma ray; DT = sonic; RHOB = density),
and biostratigraphic data (see below). Where core
data were not available, final well reports and cut-
tings descriptions from the original well site analysis
were used to constrain lithologies within the in-
terval of interest. Four of the wells (15/3-1S, 15/3-3,
15/3-7, and 15/3-8) are located in the northwest of
the study area, adjacent to the Gudrun fault, and in
a relatively distal location with respect to the de-
positional system of interest. The other two wells
(15/3-4 and 15/3-5) are located to the southeast,
toward the basin margin, in a relatively proximal
location with respect to the depositional system of
interest (Figures 1, 5A). Because all wells are
vertical (or near vertical; Figures 1C, 3) and seismic
data indicate that strata are approximately hor-
izontal or only very gentle dipping (<5°) at the well
locations, stratal thicknesses quoted in the text re-
present true stratigraphic thicknesses.
Eleven age-constrained key stratal surfaces are
identified within the Upper Jurassic interval of in-
terest (Figure 2). Four of these define major changes
in lithology and are characterized by marked and
abrupt changes in acoustic impedance. Accordingly,
these surfaces manifest on seismic data as high-
continuity seismic reflections that can be mapped
over most of the study area. The lowermost horizon
bounds the base of the Upper Jurassic synrift suc-
cession (top Sleipner Formation; top stratal unit 1
[SU1] of Jackson and Larsen, 2009), whereas the
overlying horizon bounds the top of the earliest
synrift unit (top Hugin Formation; top SU2 of
Jackson and Larsen, 2009). The upper two horizons
(top Heather Formation; top SU3 of Jackson and
Larsen, 2009; and top Draupne Formation; top SU4
of Jackson and Larsen, 2009) (Figure 2) bound the
Jackson et al. 1563
1564 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope
late synrift interval of interest: the Late Oxfordian
to middle Volgian part of the Draupne Formation
(SU4 of Jackson and Larsen, 2009). Within this
part of the Draupne Formation, biostratigraphic
data allow five additional key stratal surfaces to be
identified within wells; this allows subdivision of
the formation into six subunits that are correlated
between wells. These six subunits can be grouped
into three main stratal units that are sufficiently
thick to be mapped on seismic data (i.e., SU4a–c,
which represent subunits of SU4) (Figure 2).
Methodology
This integrated study used several different geo-
physical (seismic) and stratigraphic (wireline log,
core, biostratigraphy) methods that included (1) core
logging of wells at 1:50 scale to identify sedimentary
facies; (2) interpretation of sedimentary facies in
uncored well sections based on the wireline-log ex-
pression of these facies in cored wells; (3) biostrati-
graphic analysis to determine the occurrence and
age of key stratal surfaces; (4) stratigraphic correla-
tion of key stratal surfaces and the units they bound
between wells; (5) seismic mapping of key struc-
tures; and (6) tying of seismic to well data, mapping
of the main seismic horizons, and construction of
time-thickness maps (isochrons) to determine the
structural controls on thickness patterns and facies
distributions in the synrift units of interest.
THE UPPER JURASSIC HANGING-WALL
FAULT ARRAY
Structural Style
A brief summary of the Middle to Late Jurassic
evolution of the Gudrun and Brynhild faults and
their associated structures is presented here; refer
to Jackson and Larsen (2009) for further details.
The Gudrun fault strikes northeast and is 17 km
(11 mi) long. On time-migrated data, the fault
appears planar in cross section and dips steeply
toward the northwest (Figure 3). The fault has a
maximum throw of 272 ms (445 m [1460 ft])
and tips out downward into the upper part of the
Zechstein Supergroup and upward into the middle
part of the Draupne Formation (i.e., beneath SU4b;
Figure 3B). The fault-parallel anticline (the Gu-
drun anticline) in the hanging wall of the Gudrun
fault developed during latest Jurassic–Early Cre-
taceous postrift inversion and is not a rift-related
structure (Figures 1C, 3B) (Thomas and Coward,
1996; Jackson and Larsen, 2008).
The Brynhild fault lies 5 km (3 mi) to the
southeast of the Gudrun fault, farther up the hanging
wall. Only a part of the structure is located within
the seismic data set used in this study (Figure 5A).
Within the study area, the Brynhild fault is at
least 15 km (9 mi) long, and it can be divided into
two segments: a southern segment, which strikes
north-northeast and dips toward the west-northwest
(Brynhild fault south), and a northern segment,
which strikes northeast and dips toward the north-
west (Brynhild fault central) (Figure 5A). An ad-
ditional northwest-southeast–striking segment is
known to exist to the north of the study area (Bryn-
hild fault north; Jackson and Larsen, 2008). On
time-migrated data, both segments of the Brynhild
fault are listric in cross section, shallowing down-
ward into the upper part of the Zechstein Super-
group and steepening upward into, and tipping
out within, the upper part of the Draupne Forma-
tion (within SU4c; Figure 3). The Brynhild fault
central and south segments have maximum throws
of 495 ms (730–890 m [2395–2920 ft]) and 50 ms
(75–90 m [246–295 ft]), respectively. In the hanging

Figure 5. Seismic-derived structure and thickness (isochron) maps used in this study. (A) Time-structure map of the top of SU2 (top
Hugin Formation; see Figure 2A, B) illustrating the main gravity-driven Upper Jurassic rift-related faults and associated folds. The lo-
cations of wells used in this study are shown. BFC = Brynhild fault central; BFS = Brynhild fault south; GF = Gudrun fault. (B) Isochron
map of SU3 (Heather Formation; upper lower Callovian–upper Oxfordian). (C) Isochron map of SU4 (lower Draupne Formation; upper
Oxfordian–middle Volgian). Sequential map view reconstructions are shown for each time interval illustrating the inferred fault activity
(see Jackson and Larsen, 2009 for details). Abbreviations for the key structures are the same as in Figures 1 and 3. Locations of cross
sections shown in Figure 3 are indicated. See text for full discussion.

Jackson et al. 1565

Figure 6. Detailed stratigraphic logs through (A) the
upper part of SU4b (middle Kimmeridgian–upper
Kimmeridgian) (4262–4307.90 m [13,983–14,134 ft];
15/3-3). See text for full discussion. The locations of
photographs shown in other figures are indicated;
(B) the lower part of SU4c (lower Volgian) (4141.7–
4150 m [13,588–13,615 ft]; 15/3-1S; and (C) the
upper part of SU4c (middle Volgian) (4083–4090.5 m
[13,396–13,420 ft]; 15/3-1S). The locations of
photographs shown in other figures are indicated.
The key to sedimentary structures is given in (A).
See Figures 1A, 5, and 7 for well locations. RKB =
rotary kelly bushing.

1566 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope

 wall of each segment, an anticline and a syncline are
developed, and their axes trend parallel to the local
strike of the adjacent fault segments (Figures 3,
5A). These folds are symmetrical and open and
have gently dipping (<10°) limbs: the anticline ac-
commodates hanging-wall rollover into the listric
fault segments, whereas the syncline is interpreted
to form in response to normal drag on the fault
plane. The folds die out along strike, correspond-
ing to along-strike decreases in throw on the as-
sociated fault segments (Figure 5A). The fault-
parallel folds are deformed by several normal faults
that strike parallel to northeast-southwest and are
either synthetic (i.e., northwest dipping) or anti-
thetic (i.e., southeast dipping) to the main structures
(Figures 3A, 5A). The faults, which have as much
as 200 ms (295–360 m [968–1181 ft]) of throw,
accommodated extensional strain associated with
hanging-wall rollover into the listric Brynhild fault
(Jackson and Larsen, 2009). Most of the faults tip
out upward into SU3 or within the lowermost part
of SU4a, indicating cessation of activity before de-
position of the Draupne Formation (Figures 3B, 5C).

Origin and Temporal Evolution

Based on the geometries described above, both

Thomas and Coward (1996) and Jackson and Larsen
(2009) interpret that activity on the Gudrun and
Brynhild faults commenced in response to the
initiation of activity on the GBFZ, west to west-
northwest tilting of the hanging-wall dipslope and
gravity-induced gliding and extensional faulting of
Triassic to lower Middle Jurassic units above the
Zechstein Supergroup. Based on seismic isochron
mapping and stratigraphic correlations, Jackson
and Larsen (2009) provided additional temporal
and spatial constraints on the evolution of the fault
array and demonstrated that (1) activity on the fault
array commenced in the late Callovian; (2) individ-
ual fault segments grew via lateral tip propagation
instead of via hard linkage with other isolated faults;
(3) activity across the fault array was diachronous,
with the locus of active faulting migrating south-
eastward and up the hanging wall (i.e., landward)
through time; and (4) the fault population became
Figure 6. Continued. inactive in the middle Volgian (Figure 5).

Jackson et al. 1567

1568
Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope

Figure 7. Stratigraphic correlation of the Upper Jurassic succession between the six studied wells. Key biostratigraphically constrained stratal time lines are shown as are the inferred
correlative surfaces bounding major sandstone-dominated units (e.g., base and top of sandstones in SU4a and SU4b). The Gudrun and Brynhild faults and associated structures are
schematically indicated. Areas where stratigraphic geometries are based on seismic observations (e.g., the immediate hanging wall of Brynhild fault) are indicated. Cored intervals are
shown by black boxes to the left of the wells. Note that biostratigraphic sample points were not available for 15/3-8 to this study, although the location of key stratal surfaces (based on
biostratigraphic analysis) were provided. The key to the wells shown in the inset map is shown on Figure 1.
Figure 8. Core photographs illustrating bedding textures within gravity-flow deposits. (A) Basin floor mudstones and low-density
turbidites (facies 1, indicated by double-headed white arrows) sharply overlain (contact indicated by white dashed lines) by a high-density
gravity-flow sandstone (facies 2) with a basal granular lag (4307.52 m [14,132.28 ft]; 15/3-3). (B) Planar parallel to wavy laminated (Tb
division of Bouma, 1962) and massive bedding (Ta of Bouma, 1962) in high-density turbidite deposits (facies 2) (4299.70 m [14,106.6 ft];
15/3-3). (C) Dish structures (indicated with white arrows) within a high-density turbidite (facies 2) (4264.20 m [13,990.2 ft]; 15/3-3).
(D) Folding and extensional faulting (indicated) in basin-floor mudstones and low-density turbidites (facies 1) (4086 m [13,406 ft];
15/3-1S). This unit is sharply overlain (contact indicated by white dashed line) by a muddy debrite (facies 3). (E) Irregular top (white
dashed line) to a laminated (white arrows) high-density turbidite (facies 2) overlain by a muddy debrite (facies 3) containing sandstone
clasts (4087.50 m [13,410 ft]; 15/3-1S). See Figure 6 for location of the photographs.

UPPER JURASSIC SYNRIFT SEDIMENTOLOGY Facies 1: Laminated Silty Mudstone

Based on grain size, nature of bedding contacts, sed- Description

imentary structures, degree of sorting, matrix and
clast content, and bioturbation intensity, three
main facies are identified in the Draupne Formation
(Figures 6, 7); these are interpreted in the context
of time-equivalent deposits identified elsewhere
within the South Viking Graben (e.g., Cherry, 1993;
Ravnås and Steel, 1997; Brather, 2003; Fletcher,
2003a, b; Haughton et al., 2003) and generic deep-
marine facies models (e.g., Mulder and Alexander,
2001; Posamentier and Walker, 2006). Facies stack-
ing patterns, lateral facies relationships, and the
scale (i.e., lateral extent and vertical thickness) of
sedimentary bodies are used to interpret architec-
tural elements (sensu Clark and Pickering, 1996).
Facies 1 consists of thinly laminated silty mudstones
(Figure 8A, D) that occur in units that are typically
less than 0.1 to 1.5 m (0.3 to 5 ft) thick but may
be in excess of 10 m (33 ft) thick. Current ripple-
laminated siltstones and very fine sandstones, as
much as 0.5 m (1.6 ft) thick, occur within these silty
mudstones (Figure 8A, D). Recumbent folds and
low-displacement (0.2–1 cm [0.08–0.39 in.]) listric
faults suggest soft-sediment deformation of facies 1
(Figure 8D). Fractured bivalves and belemnites are
rarely identified, although the preservation of fine
lamina indicates that bioturbation is absent. The
mudstones are commonly enriched in lignite (coal)
and micropyrite. On electrical logs, facies 1 has high

Jackson et al. 1569

Figure 9. Core photographs illustrating the clast types within sand-rich gravity-flow deposits (facies 2). (A) Rounded pebbles (arrowed)
and small mudstone clasts within a basal lag (4268.88 m [14,005.51 ft]; 15/3-3). (B) Small angular mudstone clasts toward the top of
a high-density turbidite (facies 2). This bed is sharply overlain (lower dashed line) by a thin mud-rich debrite (facies 3), which is in
turn erosively overlain (upper dashed line) by a sand-rich turbidite with a mudstone clast rich basal lag (4294.98 m [14,091.14 ft]; 15/3-3).
(C) Large (>10 cm) subrounded to subangular and tabular mudstone clasts. Note armoring of central clast by large quartz granules
(arrowed) (4292.24 m [14,082.15 ft]; 15/3-3). (D) Armored mudstone clasts (arrowed) associated with floating granule size clasts
(4290.90 m [14,077.76 ft]; 15/3-3). See Figure 6 for location of the photographs.

GR, moderate to high DT, and moderate to high
RHOB values.
Where thickly developed (>10 m [33 ft]), fa-
cies 1 typically forms laterally extensive, broadly
tabular units that occur between turbidite-dominated
packages (facies 2) (Figure 7). Importantly, the ob-
servation that biostratigraphic time lines within
thick packages of facies 1 can be correlated between
wells suggests that the upper surfaces of these units
are not extensively eroded, even at the base of thick
turbidite-dominated packages (e.g., the upper lower
Kimmeridgian flooding surface below sands in SU4b
and the upper Kimmeridgian flooding surface be-
low sands in SU4c; Figure 7).
Interpretation
Facies 1 is interpreted to reflect deposition within
a low-energy marine environment by either sus-
pension fallout of hemipelagic mud or from fine-
grained material introduced into the basin by sed-
iment gravity flows (cf. “turbiditic mudstones” of
Talling et al., 2004). The lack of bioturbation and
the presence of pyrite within the mudstones sug-
gest stressed environmental conditions, possibly
caused by the frequency of gravity flows into the
basin and/or anoxic conditions. Thin current ripple-
laminated siltstones and very fine sandstones inter-
bedded with the mudstones are interpreted as low-
density turbidites. The presence of disseminated
coal fragments suggests derivation of clastic mate-
rial from erosion of the coal-bearing Hugin For-
mation on the western margin of the Utsira high
(Figure 4). Soft-sediment deformation within fa-
cies 1 may have been triggered by activity on one
of the nearby faults, loading by overlying gravity-
flow deposits, and/or slope oversteepening caused

1570 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope

by hanging-wall rotation. Where facies 1 is only
thinly developed (i.e., <1 m [<3.3 ft] thick), it is
interpreted to represent hemipelagic deposition dur-
ing a relatively brief pause in turbidite deposition.
In contrast, when thickly developed (i.e., >10 m
[>33 ft]) between major turbidite-dominated pack-
ages, facies 1 is interpreted to document relatively
protracted periods of diminished sediment supply
to at least this part of the hanging wall. These mud-
stone units could, therefore, indicate periods of
lobe switching that are related to avulsion and or
abandonment of updip feeder channels.
Facies 2: Structureless
Medium-Grained Sandstone
Description
Facies 2 is composed of medium- to coarse-grained,
poorly to moderately sorted sandstones (Figures 6;
8A–C, E) that occur in 0.05- to 4-m (0.16- to 13-ft)-
thick sharp-based and sharp-topped beds, which
sometimes form amalgamated units that are more
than 30 m (98 ft) thick (e.g., 4288.70–4284.44 m
[14,071–14,057 ft] in 15/3-3; Figures 6, 9). Where
discrete beds of facies 2 are identified, they have
sharp and slightly erosive (as much as 1-cm [0.39-in.]
relief) bases, which may be loaded (Figures 6; 8A,
C). The basal 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in.) of beds typ-
ically displays normally graded lags of subangular
to sub-rounded quartz pebbles and/or mudstone
clasts (Figures 6, 8A). Beds sometimes fine upward
abruptly in their middle or upper parts (Figure 6).
Internally, facies 2 is typically structureless (Figure 6),
although planar (Figure 6B), low-angle planar trough
cross-bedding, dish structures, consolidation lami-
nae (Figure 8C), and dewatering pipes are occa-
sionally identified. Mudstone clasts are common
within facies 2. They are as much as 8 cm (3 in.) in
diameter and are commonly “armored” by rounded
quartz granules, which themselves are as much as
0.5 cm (2 in.) in diameter (Figure 9C, D). Mud-
stone clasts are either tabular (e.g., 4275.2 and
4271.35 m [14,026–14,014 ft]; Figure 6A; clasts
between 4083 and 4085 m [13,396 to 13,402 ft];
Figure 6C) or are subrounded to subangular, and
they commonly form part of a basal lag where
discrete beds can be identified (e.g., 4266.6 m
[13,999 ft]; Figure 6A). The upper 2 to 5 cm (0.8
to 2 in.) of some beds are rich in mudstone clasts
(e.g., 4295.2 m [14,092 ft]; Figure 6A), and un-
graded clast-rich horizons also occur with an ap-
parent random distribution in the middle of in-
dividual beds; these clast-rich horizons may be
mantling subtle intrabed erosion surfaces (e.g.,
4268.18 m [14,003.22 ft]; Figure 6A; and 4087.85 m
[13,411.58 ft]; Figure 6C). Bioturbation and body
fossils are absent in facies 2. On wireline-log data,
facies 2 is typically expressed by low GR, low to
moderate DT, and low to high RHOB values.
Facies 2 typically occurs in sheetlike units that
lack prominent basal erosion as implied by the
preservation of underlying biostratigraphically
constrained key stratal surfaces in facies 1 mud-
stones (e.g., bases of SU4a and SU4b; Figure 7).
Alternatively, facies 2 may occur at the base of
fining- and thinning-upward units or it may cap
coarsening- and thickening-upward units (e.g.,
SU4c; Figures 6B, C; 7).
Interpretation
Facies 2 is interpreted to be the product of sub-
marine sediment gravity flows, and its massive
character implies rapid deposition either en masse
by hyperconcentrated flows (sensu Mulder and
Alexander, 2001) or by progressive aggradation
from fully to moderately turbulent flows (Kneller
and Branney, 1995). However, based on the iden-
tification of units that gradually or abruptly fine
upward or have some degree of lamination or cross-
bedding, facies 2 is interpreted as the product of
progressively waning turbulent gravity flows. Based
on the predominantly coarse grain size, the associ-
ated deposits may be classified as high-density tur-
bidites (sensu Lowe, 1982). Soft-sediment deform-
ation indicates postdepositional dewatering possibly
because of rapid deposition and/or postdepositional
activity on nearby faults. Mudstone clasts that are
concentrated at bed bases or mantle intraunit or
intrabed erosion surfaces may represent rip-up clasts
that were eroded from the muddy sea floor by
gravity flows (Johansson and Stow, 1995). The
origin of mudstone clasts located toward bed tops
is more contentious (see discussion by Johansson
and Stow, 1995), although Haughton et al. (2003)
Jackson et al. 1571
suggest that bed-top clasts may indicate hydro-
dynamic partitioning of these clasts toward the rear
of the flow and eventual settling toward the top of
the bed. The significance of mudstone clasts for the
overall basinal setting of the study area is consid-
ered further below.
The lack of prominent erosion at the base of
thick (>30 m) turbidite packages implies that the
flows that deposited these units were not strongly
channelized. Amalgamated, nonchannelized tur-
bidite deposits of comparable thickness to those
identified within the study area have been docu-
mented in medial to distal depositional environ-
ments in numerous sedimentary basins in a range
of tectonic settings; these units are particularly
common at the channel-lobe transition and out-
crop data indicate that thick-bedded units are less
amalgamated laterally away from the primary de-
positional axis (e.g., Draupne Formation, offshore
Norway; Fraser et al., 2003; Haughton et al., 2003;
Annot Sandstone Formation, France; e.g., Sinclair,
2000; Mount Messenger Formation, New Zealand;
e.g., Arnot et al., 2007; Brushy Canyon Formation,
U.S.A.; e.g., Beaubouef et al., 1999; Shew, 2007;
Ross Formation, Ireland; e.g., Pyles, 2008; Karoo,
South Africa; e.g., Hodgson et al., 2006; Prélat et al.,
2009). This overall environmental interpretation
(i.e., channel-lobe transition) is broadly similar to
that proposed for the succession studied here (see
below), and the fining- and thinning-upward and
coarsening- and thickening-upward units (e.g., SU4c;
Figure 7) may be interpreted as the deposits of the
backstepping or forestepping, respectively, of non-
channelized sheetlike depositional bodies. Abun-
dant mudstone clasts in facies 2 suggests, however,
that the flows that fed sediment to these sheetlike
bodies may have been more erosional and possibly
more strongly channelized updip to the east (see
below and feature labeled B on Figure 4).
Facies 3: Clast-Rich Sandy Mudstone or
Muddy Sandstone
Description
Facies 3 consists of clast-rich sandy mudstone or
muddy sandstone in beds 5 to 10 cm (2–4 in.)
1572 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope
Figure 10. Debris-flow deposited facies (facies 3) in the Draupne
Formation. (A) Muddy debrite with sand-speckled matrix (arrowed)
(from 4301.15 m [14,111.38 ft] in SU4b in well 15/3-3) and (B) sandy
debrite containing quartz granules (arrowed) sharply overlain
(dashed line) by a high-density turbidite (facies 2) (from 4300.2 m
[14,108.27 ft] in SU4b in 15/3-3). See Figure 6A for location of the
photographs.
thick (Figure 10), which are most abundant in
SU4c (Figure 6C) but are also observed in SU4a
(Figure 6A). Facies 3 typically has a sharp slightly
erosive base and a sharp planar upper surface
(Figure 6C). Two distinct subfacies are identified
within facies 3; the first subfacies has an ungraded
mudstone matrix that contains floating quartz
granules and mudstone clasts of various sizes
(Figure 10A); the second subfacies has an un-
graded mud-rich sandstone matrix and is rich in
very coarse (up to granule grade) floating quartz
grains (Figure 10B), angular mudstone clasts as
much as 0.5 cm (0.2 in.) in diameter, and clasts of
medium-grained sandstone. Clasts within both of
these subfacies are ungraded. Facies 3 is commonly
at or below the resolution limits (i.e., several tens
of centimeters) of typical wireline-log tools; sand-
rich and mud-rich variants may, however, be ex-
pected to have sand-rich (i.e., low GR, low to
moderate DT, and low to high RHOB values) or
mud-rich (i.e., high GR, moderate to high DT, and
moderate to high RHOB values) wireline-log ex-
pressions, respectively.
Figure 11. Simplified chronostratigraphic diagram based on biostratigraphic and sedimentologic data from the six studied wells. The
time scale shown uses the framework of Partington et al. (1993). The main sandstone bodies within SU4a–c are indicated as are the
locations and durations of identified unconformities (cross-hatched areas). The locations of the Gudrun and Brynhild faults are sche-
matically indicated. Sediment supply is from the right (i.e., southeast; see Figure 5). See text for a full discussion.

Interpretation divided into muddy debrite (i.e., mud-rich matrix)

The ungraded matrix, coupled with the ungraded
nature of contained clasts, suggests that facies 3
was deposited en masse and that grain-size segre-
gation and differential settling were prevented.
Based on comparisons with deposits documented
in other submarine sedimentary successions and its
vertical and lateral relationship to other submarine
deposits (e.g., facies 1 and 2; see above), facies 3 is
interpreted as a debrite, deposited by a flow that was
either laminar or weakly turbulent (e.g., Costa and
Williams, 1984; Iverson, 1997; Stow and Johansson,
2000; Mulder and Alexander, 2001). Depending on
the dominant matrix component, this facies is sub-
or sandy debrite (i.e., sand-rich matrix).
SYNRIFT STRATAL ARCHITECTURE AND
TURBIDITY CURRENT RESPONSE TO
SYNDEPOSITIONAL FAULTING
Previous studies, based on low-resolution strati-
graphic correlations, have indicated that the evolu-
tion of the gravity-driven fault array on the hanging
wall of the South Viking Graben controlled bulk
thickness variations within the Draupne Forma-
tion (Jackson and Larsen, 2008, 2009). However,

Jackson et al. 1573

Figure 12. Compilation of data and paleogeographic reconstructions for the main stratal units within the Draupne Formation; (A) SU4a-
upper Oxfordian (156 Ma) to top Oxfordian (154.2 Ma); (B) SU4b-lower Kimmeridgian (154.2 Ma) to top Kimmeridgian (151.5 Ma); and
(C) SU4c-lower Volgian (151.5 Ma) to lower middle Volgian (147.8 Ma). Time-thickness (isochron) maps (i) are used to infer the basin
geometry illustrated in map-view (ii). A paleogeographic map (iii) and accompanying cross section (iv) are shown for each time interval.
Solid lines in (ii) indicate active structures; dashed lines in (ii) and (iii) indicate structures that became active before the time slice being
illustrated. White areas are salt-cored structural highs where Lower Cretaceous units directly overlie upper Middle Jurassic deposits (i.e.,
SU2; Figure 2). The Upper Jurassic is absent and/or very thin in these areas. Abbreviations for structures are the same as in Figure 1.

detailed well correlations and 3-D seismic map- depositional patterns and the resultant facies vari-
ping of stratigraphic packages are required to fully ability within the Draupne Formation (cf. Jackson
understand the control this normal fault array had on and Larsen, 2008, 2009).

1574 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope

Figure 12. Continued.
To achieve these aims, the Draupne Forma-
tion is subdivided into three age-constrained stratal
units on the basis of biostratigraphic data (SU4a–c;
Figures 2, 3, 7, 11). These units are locally thick
enough (locally >150 m [>492 ft]) to be mapped on
seismic data (Figure 12). The identification of three
additional key stratal surfaces within the Draupne
Formation allows correlation of higher order strati-
graphic packages between wells (i.e., intra-SU4a–c
surfaces; Figures 2, 7); these units are too thin to
be mapped on seismic data. Biostratigraphic data
also allow construction of a chronostratigraphic
chart that clearly illustrates the temporal and spatial
relationships between mudstone- and sandstone-
dominated components of the Draupne Formation,
as well as the distribution and duration of intra-
synrift unconformities (Figure 11).
The descriptions and interpretations of each
stratal unit (SU4a–c) provided below are arranged
as follows: (1) reconstruction of the syndepositional
structures and basin geometry (Figure 12Aii–iii,
Bii–iii, Cii–iii); (2) description of bulk thickness
patterns and facies partitioning with respect to
the reconstructed syndepositional structural setting
(Figure 7); and (3) integration of structural and
stratigraphic data to produce paleogeographic maps
for the given period (Figure 12Aiii, Biii, Ciii). These
reconstructions are integrated with the regional
structural template, which is characterized through-
out the period of interest (Oxfordian and Volgian)
by subsidence in the axis of the south Viking Graben
and rotation of the hanging-wall dipslope caused
by a slip on the GBFZ (Figures 1C, 4) (Fraser et al.,
2003). In addition, although paleogeographic re-
constructions indicate an overall easterly source for
the Upper Jurassic synrift sandstones (i.e., Figure 5),
data from within the study area provide insights
into possible local sediment transport pathways.
An isochron of the lower part of the Draupne
Formation (SU4; Figure 2B) indicates that a north-
south–trending fault-bounded structural low ex-
isted in the southeast of the study area at that time
(labeled X in Figure 5C). This structural low was 2
to 3 km (1.2–1.8 mi) wide, and it appears to link
northward with another more subtle structural low
developed between two salt-cored structural highs
(feature labeled Y on Figure 5C). This linked series
of syndepositional structural lows is interpreted to
have collectively formed the most likely sediment
supply fairway into the intra-hanging-wall basins
considered here.
Finally, note that because of relatively limited
well coverage and the inability of the seismic data to
directly image individual depositional elements, the
Jackson et al. 1575
spatial extent of synrift sand bodies is uncertain; this
uncertainty is communicated in the reconstructions
presented in Figure 12.
Stratal Unit 4a: Upper Oxfordian (156 Ma)–Top
Oxfordian (154.2 Ma)
Syndepositional Structural Development and
Basin Geometry
Previous studies have indicated that the Gudrun
fault had its main period of activity during depo-
sition of SU4a and that the structure formed the
southeastern margin of the main South Viking Gra-
ben depocenter at that time (Figures 3; 12Ai–iii)
(Jackson and Larsen, 2009). As a result, SU4a is
mostly restricted to the hanging wall of the Gudrun
fault and thickens downdip to the northwest into
the axis of the South Viking Graben (Figures 3, 7;
12Ai–iii). The northern part of the Brynhild fault
south segment and the southern part of the Bryn-
hild fault central segment were also active at that
time (Jackson and Larsen, 2009). These faults de-
fined the updip southeastern margins of two roll-
over-related basins that were superimposed on the
overall northwest-dipping hanging wall (Figures 3A;
12Aii). The semiconfined nature of these basins is
directly related to the listric geometry of the Bryn-
hild fault, and they contrast markedly with the
gently northwest-dipping, more open depocenter
developed in the hanging wall of the planar Gudrun
fault (Figures 3; 12Ai-ii).
Stratigraphic Architecture
The SU4a is bound below and above by flooding
surfaces that can be correlated over a large part of
the study area (Figure 7). In the hanging wall of the
Gudrun fault, a surface, which is late Oxfordian in
age (155 Ma), allows subdivision of SU4a into two
subunits. The lower subunit comprises a 30-m
(98-ft) thick coarsening-upward package of thin
(as much as 5 m [16 ft] thick) poorly amalgamated
turbidites (facies 2) that are interbedded with slope
mudstones (facies 1) and/or mud-rich debrites (fa-
cies 3) (Figure 7). This turbidite-dominated unit is
capped by a 30-m (98-ft) thick mudstone interval,
which is bound above by the upper Oxfordian
1576 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope
surface. The base of the upper subunit commences
with a 28-m (92-ft)-thick mudstone unit, which
is in turn sharply overlain by six 20- to 40-m (66-
to 131-ft)-thick, strongly amalgamated, turbidite-
dominated packages (facies 2) (15/3-1 S, Figure 7).
All of these packages have sharp bases and a blocky
lower interval; two of the packages fine upward in
their upper third to upper half (Figure 7).
In contrast to the hanging wall (15/3-1S and
15/3-8) of the Gudrun fault, well data (15/3-7)
indicate that SU4a in the footwall of the struc-
ture is mudstone- instead of sandstone-, dominated
(facies 1 or possibly facies 3), indicating that the
sandstone-rich turbidite-dominated part of SU4a is
spatially restricted to the hanging wall of the Gu-
drun fault and possibly extends farther north-
westward into, and pinches out within, the axis
of the South Viking Graben (Figures 11; 12Aiv).
However, wireline-log and cutting data indicate that
thin (1–2 m [3.3–6.6 ft]), sharp-based, very fine to
medium-grained sandstones are developed in the
footwall within SU4a; these are time equivalent
to the lower upper Oxfordian turbidite-dominated
package identified in the hanging wall (e.g., 15/3-3
and 15/3-7; Figures 7, 11).
Turbidite Depositional Patterns
Northwesterly directed flows, derived from the
Utsira high, are interpreted to have mostly bypassed
areas updip (i.e., southeastward) of the Gudrun
fault (Figures 11; 12Aiii–iv). The thin sandstones
identified in the footwall of the Gudrun fault (e.g.,
in 15/3-3 and 15/3-7; Figure 7) are interpreted to
infill shallow scours, which document this period
of sediment bypass (Figure 12Aiii). The interpre-
tation that bypass was associated with minimal in-
cision is supported by the preservation of key
stratal surfaces in the mudstones underlying SU4a
(Figure 7). However, pronounced incision and
channelization may have occurred lateral to areas
penetrated by wells.
The restriction of thick, amalgamated turbidites
to the northwest of the Gudrun fault implies that
deposition was in some way linked to the presence
of this structure. We suggest that, on encounter-
ing a northwest-facing sea floor fault scarp asso-
ciated with this structure, a rapid decrease in the
velocity of the northwesterly directed sand-rich
flows occurred and a hydraulic jump triggered de-
position (cf. Garcia and Parker, 1989; Garcia, 1993;
Sinclair and Tomasso, 2002). This interpretation
implies one of two possible scenarios: (1) scenario
A: between successive depositional events, rela-
tively minor slip occurred on the Gudrun fault and
only moderate accommodation was created in its
hanging wall (i.e., accommodation ≤ sediment sup-
ply) (Figure 12Aiii); or (2) scenario B: a deep basin
formed in the hanging wall of the Gudrun fault (as
much as 265 m (869 ft) deep based on the thick-
ness of the turbidite-dominated package in SU4a;
Figure 7) in response to a relatively rapid slip be-
tween deposition of SU3 and SU4a (i.e., accom-
modation ≥ sediment supply). Scenario 1 is pre-
ferred based on the two following observations:
(1) fault scarp degradation is not observed in the
sub- or syn-SU4a succession along the length of the
footwall of the Gudrun fault; degradation would
be expected if a large scarp had formed within
these shallowly buried, poorly lithified sediments;
and (2) the preservation of a moderately thick
(∼50 m [∼164 ft]) mud-dominated succession
indicates that sedimentation occurred in the foot-
wall of the Gudrun fault and implies only moderate
structural relief across the structure (Figure 3).
Finally, the 50-m (164-ft)-thick mudstone-
dominated unit that subdivides the two turbidite-
dominated parts of SU4a in the hanging wall of
the Gudrun fault is interpreted to indicate a rel-
atively protracted period when the supply of sand
to this part of the hanging wall was reduced. An-
other period characterized by reduced sand input
occurred toward the end of deposition of SU4a, as
indicated by the thick (∼50 m [∼164 ft]), mudstone-
dominated unit that spans the upper part of SU4a
and the lower part of SU4b (Figure 7).
Stratal Unit 4b: Lower Kimmeridgian
(154.2 Ma)–Top Kimmeridgian (151.5 Ma)
Syndepositional Structural Development and
Basin Geometry
During the late early Kimmeridgian and between
deposition of the turbidite-dominated intervals of
SU4a and SU4b, the Gudrun fault became inactive
(see Gudrun fault tip location on Figure 7), and
the central (BFC) and southern (BFS) segments of
the Brynhild fault propagated to the south and
north, respectively (Figure 12Bii–iii) (Jackson and
Larsen, 2009). As a result, the rollover-related
basins in the hanging walls of the Brynhild fault
segments increased in length from approximately
3 km (∼1.9 mi) (during the time of SU4a de-
position; Figure 12Aii) to at least 10 km (6.2 mi)
(Figure 12Bii). Continued hanging-wall rollover
and associated growth of the northeast-southwest–
trending structural highs led to separation of these
relatively small basins from the main South Viking
Graben (Figure 12Bii–iii). As discussed previously
in relation to the hanging wall of the Gudrun fault
during deposition of SU4a, it is unclear whether
movement on the Brynhild fault greatly outpaced
sediment supply, such that significant topography
was rapidly generated and the hanging wall was
underfilled, or whether movement on the Brynhild
fault and sediment supply were approximately in
balance, such that the hanging wall was always
partially (or fully) filled and only subtle topography
was generated. However, as argued for the time of
SU4a deposition, based on the lack of degradation
along the length of the fault scarp, we interpret
that significant relief was not developed across the
Brynhild fault. In addition, the presence of wedge-
shaped sedimentary packages, which gently diverge
toward the hanging wall of the Brynhild fault, im-
plies that fault slip and sedimentation were broadly
in balance (Prosser, 1993). Therefore, at any given
time, the intra-hanging-wall basins were subtle geo-
morphic features, although progressive fault slip
resulted in preservation of a thick hanging-wall
succession (Figure 12Bii-iii).
Stratigraphic Architecture
Across the study area, the top of SU4b is sharp,
conformable, and defined by a late Kimmeridgian
age (151.5 Ma) flooding surface (Figure 7). In con-
trast, the age and expression of the basal surface
and the stacking pattern and sand content of the
unit itself are variable, and this appears to depend
on structural location. In the footwall of the Gud-
run fault, the base of SU4b is defined by an intra-
Kimmeridgian unconformity; in the central part of
Jackson et al. 1577
the footwall, upper Kimmeridgian strata overlie the
uppermost Oxfordian strata (i.e., 15/3-7), whereas
at the northern end of the footwall, the upper Kim-
meridgian strata overlie upper Oxfordian strata
(i.e., 15/3-3). These observations indicate that the
magnitude of erosion associated with the uncon-
formity increases northward along the footwall
(Figures 7, 11). Internally, SU4b comprises amal-
gamated sheetlike units, as much as 50 m (164 ft)
thick, that have a net-to-gross ratio of approximately
85% (Figure 7). In contrast, in the hanging wall of
the Gudrun fault, SU4b comprises a mudstone-
dominated lower Kimmeridgian succession that has
a conformable contact between SU4b and SU4a
(Figures 7, 11). This indicates that the unconfor-
mity identified in the footwall at the base of SU4b
dies out northwestward into the hanging wall of
the Gudrun fault. In addition, the stratigraphic ar-
chitecture in the hanging wall of the Gudrun fault
differs from the footwall in four principal ways:
first, the base of SU4b is gradational and not sharp;
second, the basal part of SU4b gradually coarsens
and thickens upward over several tens of meters;
third, SU4b is also more heterolithic in the hanging
wall than in the footwall (40–55% vs. 85% net-to-
gross ratio); and fourth, turbidite-dominated units
only reach a maximum thickness of 20 m (66 ft)
(Figure 7).
Finally, in the most proximal part of the study
area (i.e., to the southeast), the time-equivalent unit
to the turbidite-dominated succession in SU4b is
either mudstone dominated or is represented by an
unconformity (15/3-4, 15/3-5; Figures 7, 11).
Turbidite Depositional Patterns
After a pause in the early Kimmeridgian, sand-
dominated gravity flow deposition recommenced
on the hanging wall during the late Kimmeridgian.
As interpreted for the time of SU4a deposition, the
footwall of the Gudrun fault and areas farther up-
slope to the southeast are interpreted to have been
characterized by sediment bypass (Figure 12Biii–
iv), although the abundance of mudstone clasts
within turbidites of SU4b may indicate incision of
the muddy slope by erosive feeder channels far-
ther upslope to the southeast and east outside of
1578 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope
the immediate study area (see feature labeled b in
Figure 4).
There are no wells in the immediate footwall
or hanging wall of the Brynhild fault central, thus,
the thickness and facies character of SU4b is un-
known in these locations. However, by analogy to
the deposits observed in the immediate hanging
wall of the Gudrun fault and the inferred deposi-
tional processes within SU4a, we interpreted that
gravity flows encountering the northwest-facing
sea floor scarp associated with the Brynhild fault
central would also have undergone a rapid de-
crease in velocity and an associated hydraulic jump
(Figure 12Biii) (cf. Garcia and Parker, 1989; Garcia,
1993; Sinclair and Tomasso, 2002). We also in-
terpreted that mudstone-rich units characterize
deposition in the footwall and reflect bypass of
sands (cf. SU4a deposits in 15/3-7 and 15/3-3
in the footwall of the Gudrun fault; Figure 7), and
amalgamated sandstone-rich turbidites characterize
deposition in the hanging wall (cf. SU4a deposits
in 15/3-1S and 15/3-8 in the hanging wall of the
Gudrun fault; Figure 7; see also Figure 12Biii–iv).
Farther down the hanging wall to the north-
west, amalgamated sheetlike turbidites on the crest
of the Brynhild fault central rollover anticline may
reflect periods when the intra-hanging-wall basin
associated with the Brynhild fault central was full,
and flows were able to surmount and deposit on the
structural high (i.e., vicinity of 15/3-3 and 15/3-7;
Figure 12Bii–iii). The sandstone-rich nature and
lack of mudstones within SU4b on this structural
high (i.e., 15/3-3 and 15/3-7; Figure 7) and the
observation that SU4b contains a greater percent-
age of mudstone downdip to the northwest (i.e.,
15/3-1S; Figure 7) suggest that fine-grained mate-
rial was eroded by successive flows that bypassed
the high and deposited farther downdip to the
northwest (Figure 12Biii) (cf. Piper and Normark,
1983; Sinclair, 1992; Sinclair and Tomasso, 2002).
In addition, coarsening-upward and fining-upward
units developed downdip to the northwest (i.e.,
on the northwest-dipping downslope limb of the
Brynhild fault central rollover anticline in the vi-
cinity of 15/3-1S and 15/3-8; Figure 12Bii–iii)
may record the forestepping and backstepping, re-
spectively, of relatively distal, poorly amalgamated,
sheetlike turbidite bodies. Deposition in this loca-
tion may have been triggered by flow divergence and
deceleration on the downslope-facing, northwest-
dipping fold limb (Figure 12Biii).
Stratal Unit 4c: Lower Volgian (151.5 Ma)–Lower
Middle Volgian (147.8 Ma)
Syndepositional Structural Development and
Basin Geometry
During the early to middle Volgian and during the
later stages of deposition of SU4c, the Brynhild
fault became inactive (Figure 12Cii–iii) (see also
Jackson and Larsen, 2009); combined with the
earlier (i.e., late early Kimmeridgian) death of the
Gudrun fault, this resulted in the hanging wall
being characterized by a northwest-dipping slope
(Figure 12Cii–iv) that was devoid of the intraslope
basins that characterized the earlier synrift period
(cf. Figure 12A, B). The decline and eventual ces-
sation of thin-skinned gravity-driven normal fault-
ing within the study area has been interpreted to
reflect reduced rates of hanging-wall rotation re-
lated to declining slip rates on the GBFZ (Thomas
and Coward, 1995; Jackson and Larsen, 2009).
Stratigraphic Architecture
The base of SU4c is conformable and defined by an
upper Kimmeridgian flooding surface; this con-
trasts with SU4a and SU4b, which, at least locally,
have unconformable and erosive basal surfaces. The
top of SU4c is defined by an early middle Volgian
flooding surface (Figure 7). Internally, the sedimen-
tology and architecture of turbidite-dominated
units in SU4c are also markedly different to SU4a
and SU4b. Downdip to the northwest, SU4c is
more heterolithic and characterized by units of
nonamalgamated sheetlike turbidites (i.e., 15/3-
1S and 15/3-8; Figures 6B, C; 7) that are 8 to 40 m
(26 to 131 ft) thick. Both coarsening- and thickening-
upward and fining- and thinning-upward units are
observed (Figures 6B, C; 7). Units that coarsen
upward are typically capped by relatively thick
(10–20 m [33–66 ft]) turbidite-dominated units,
whereas those that fine upward typically commence
with such units. These basal and capping turbidite
sand bodies are significantly thinner and less areally
extensive than similar units in either SU4a or SU4b
(Figure 7). Biostratigraphic data suggest that the
bases of these sand bodies are not associated with
pronounced erosion (e.g., base of sandstones in 15/
3-1S, 15/3-3, and 15/3-7; Figures 7, 11), and that
some of the thicker (>15 m [>49 ft]) sandstones
pass laterally into heterolithic units (e.g., 4070–
4100; 15/3-8; 4215–4240; 15/3-7; Figures 7, 11).
Farther updip to the southeast, SU4c is mudstone
dominated (i.e., 15/3-4 and 15/3-5; Figures 7, 11).
Turbidite Depositional Patterns
After a pause in coarse clastic sediment input to
the hanging wall during the early part of the late
Kimmeridgian, deposition recommenced in the lat-
est Kimmeridgian. As for SU4a and SU4b, we in-
terpreted that turbidity currents bypassed proximal
areas during deposition of SU4c. However, in con-
trast to SU4a and SU4b, the lack of mudstone
clasts within turbidites of SU4c implies that the
bypass was not associated with prominent incision
and/or channelization updip to the east-southeast
(Figure 12Ciii–iv). In addition, downdip to the west-
northwest, turbidite depositional systems appear
to have been less amalgamated, more sheetlike,
and less confined than those in SU4a or SU4b (cf.
Figure 12Aiv, Biv, Civ). The apparent reduction in
the amount of incision and the development of more
poorly confined systems are interpreted to reflect
a transition from a morphologically complex out-
of-grade slope during the SU4a and SU4b times
of deposition, to a morphologically simple, gently
northwest-dipping, in-grade slope (Figure 12Cii–
iii), which lacked at-sea floor fault scarps or intra-
slope basins, during the time of SU4c deposition
(cf. Kneller, 2003; Prather, 2003). Thus, turbidity
currents were not required to incise the slope to
maintain an equilibrium profile during deposition
of SU4c. In addition, we suggest that continued
deepening of the South Viking Graben during the
Late Jurassic, due to an ongoing eustatic sea level
rise, resulted in more sediment being sequestered
on the margins of the Utsira high (Figure 1B).
Consequently, turbidites of SU4c appear to have
been deposited in a system that was finer grained
than the one that characterized SU4a and SU4b.
Alternatively, SU4c may represent deposition in a
Jackson et al. 1579
Figure 13. Conceptual models illustrating potential controls on the development of hanging-wall depositional systems within ex-
tensional basins. (A) Erosion of poorly lithified prerift sandstones and predominantly dipslope-directed drainage results in significant
quantities of sand being delivered to the hanging-wall dipslope (cf. Snorre-H area, Tampen Spur, northern North Sea rift system; Nøttvedt
et al., 2000). (B) Well-lithified prerift carbonates results in little sediment yield to either the hanging-wall dipslope or immediate hanging
wall of the basin-bounding fault. (C) Erosion of poorly lithified prerift sandstones and predominantly immediate hanging-wall-directed
drainage results in significant quantities of sand being delivered to the immediate hanging wall of the basin-bounding fault. (D) Erosion of
poorly lithified prerift sandstones and predominantly dipslope-directed drainage results in significant quantities of sand being delivered
to the hanging-wall dipslope; these sands are deposited within a series of intraslope depocenters developed in response to thin-skinned
gravity-driven listric faulting on a mechanically weak detachment (e.g., salt or shale) located within the prerift succession (cf. this study).

more distal and hence fine-grained part of a coarse-
grained system that was located farther updip to the
east-southeast.
DISCUSSION
Development and Preservation of
Hanging-Wall Dipslope Depositional Systems
There are few published examples of hanging-wall
depositional systems from either modern environ-
ments or in the rock record; as a result, the sedi-
mentology and stratigraphic development of such
systems is poorly constrained (see Ravnås and Steel,
1997; Nøttvedt et al., 2000, for exceptions). The
paucity of examples of ancient hanging-wall de-
positional systems may reflect the low preservation
potential of their associated deposits because of
postdepositional transgressive ravinement across
the crests of normal fault blocks or postrift inversion-
related uplift and erosion. Alternatively, poor data
coverage and/or resolution may be key factors,
with most exploration and production boreholes
typically being located at crests of rotated foot-
wall blocks, updip of synrift hanging-wall deposits
(Figure 13A), and seismic resolution being of in-
sufficient resolution to image the thin deposits.
However, instead of being a function of pres-
ervation or data coverage and/or resolution, the
development of hanging-wall depositional systems
in extensional basins may be inherently variable
and related to several geologic factors. First, the
erodability of bed rock within the sediment source
area may dictate the amount of sediment supplied
to the hanging wall and the potential to develop

1580 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope

volumetrically significant shallow- or deep-marine
depositional systems; for example, given similar
climatic conditions, a catchment composed of well-
lithified carbonates may yield significantly less sedi-
ment than a catchment composed of poorly lithi-
fied clastics (Figure 13B) (Eliet and Gawthorpe,
1995; Nichols and Watchorn, 1998). Second, even
if easily erodible units are present in the sediment
source area, these catchments may preferentially
supply sediments to the immediate hanging wall
of the basin-bounding fault zone instead of to the
hanging-wall dipslope (Figure 13C) (Eliet and
Gawthorpe, 1995).
Therefore, given sufficient sediment yield from
updip catchments, what factors promote the pres-
ervation of hanging-wall depositional systems? In-
sights may be gained from several published ancient
examples. For example, Upper Jurassic rift-related
hanging-wall deposits are preserved in the Snorre-H
(Nøttvedt et al., 2000) and Magnus field (Ravnås
and Steel, 1997) areas on the Tampen spur, North
Viking Graben, offshore western Norway. In both
examples, during the late synrift period, increased
rates of uplift and erosion in the footwalls of major
basin-bounding faults led to progradation of sand-
rich shorefaces downdip onto the hanging wall;
these shorefaces fed turbidite systems located far-
ther downdip. In both these cases and in the case
presented from the South Viking Graben, the pres-
ervation of hanging-wall deposits is controlled by a
variety of location-specific factors. For example, in
the South Viking Graben and the Magnus field,
formation of relatively small intra-hanging-wall ba-
sins created accommodation within which sediments
could be deposited and preserved (Figures 1C; 3;
13D) (Ravnås and Steel, 1997). In contrast, in the
Snorre-H area, erosion of large volumes of poorly
consolidated prerift sands resulted in a relatively
high sediment supply from the footwall crest; this
allowed synrift shoreface systems to prograde suf-
ficiently far down the hanging wall, such that the
associated deposits were protected from subse-
quent late synrift to early prerift flooding-related
erosion.
The examples discussed above indicate that it
is critical to understand climatic conditions and spa-
tial variations in hinterland bedrock erodability as
well as drainage basin morphology and evolution
when assessing the potential for the development
of hanging-wall systems within extensional basins.
In particular, these factors need to be incorporated
into future tectonostratigraphic models for exten-
sional basins, as existing models may be too sim-
plistic in suggesting that hanging-wall depositional
systems are characterized by shallow-marine shore-
faces that pass downdip into volumetrically insignif-
icant deep-marine systems (Leeder and Gawthorpe,
1987; Gawthorpe and Leeder, 2000). In contrast to
that predicted by these existing models, this study
shows that turbidite systems can form volumetri-
cally significant depositional systems on the hang-
ing walls of extensional basins.
Basin Geometry and the Interaction between
Turbidity Currents and Tectonically Controlled
Slope Bathymetry
Cross sectional fault geometries controlled the
overall geometry of small, synrift depocenters on
the hanging wall of the South Viking Graben; the
planar Gudrun fault was associated with an un-
confined depocenter, whereas the listric Brynhild
fault was associated with a rollover-related, rela-
tively confined depocenter. However, it was the
subtle geomorphic expression of the faults at the
contemporaneous seabed, instead of their cross
sectional geometry, that influenced the behavior of
gravity flows and the resultant facies partitioning.
For example, the footwalls of gravity-driven growth
faults are areas of coarse-grained sediment bypass,
although thin sandstones may be locally deposited
and preserved in shallow scours or channels. On
encountering subtle seabed scarps, irrespective of
whether this was associated with a planar (i.e.,
Gudrun fault) or listric (i.e., Brynhild fault) fault,
the turbidity currents are interpreted to have un-
dergone a rapid decrease in velocity and a hydraulic
jump, resulting in deposition of the coarse-grained
component of the flow (cf. Garcia and Parker, 1989;
Garcia, 1993; Sinclair and Tomasso, 2002; Tomasso
and Sinclair, 2004).
The interaction between turbidity currents and
fault-controlled bathymetry has been studied in a
range of basin settings and at a range of scales. For
Jackson et al. 1581
example, in the Annot Sandstone Formation (lower
Oligocene), southeast France, within a locally de-
veloped extensional setting within an overall com-
pressional setting, Pochat and Van den Driessche
(2007) documented decameter-scale spatial varia-
tions in deposit type (i.e., hyperconcentrated tur-
bidite vs. low-density turbidite) from which they
inferred spatial variations in the turbulence struc-
ture (e.g., weakly or nonturbulent vs. strongly tur-
bulent) of a single gravity flow event. These varia-
tions were interpreted to be caused by changes in
the degree of flow turbulence, hydraulic jumps, and
flow stripping related to the interaction of the flow
with meter-scale sea floor topography associated
with a series of meter-scale throw normal faults. At
a larger scale, Adeogba et al. (2005) used 3-D seis-
mic data from offshore west Africa to illustrate the
control of decameter-scale growth faults on tur-
bidity current dynamics and stratigraphic architec-
ture on a salt-influenced passive margin. Instead of
focusing on individual discrete bed-related flows,
their study considered the interactions between
gravity flows and tectonically controlled bathym-
etry over significantly longer temporal scale (e.g.,
several thousand years) and larger spatial scales
(e.g., several kilometers). They demonstrated that
an abrupt decrease in slope gradient, associated
with an at-sea floor fault scarp, resulted in a tran-
sition from confined (channelized) to unconfined
(sheetlike) turbidite deposition (cf. their figure 4
with our Figure 12). Considering the interaction of
turbidites and slope morphology over similar time
and spatial scales, Shultz and Hubbard (2005) used
outcrop data from the Tres Pasos Formation (Cre-
taceous), southern Chile, to identify two key phases
in the development of a fault-controlled turbidite
system: an early period when sediment transport
was highly oblique to the active structure and flows
were partially ponded; and a later period when
fault-controlled bathymetry was infilled and flows
were able to surmount the fault and deposit more
areally extensive sheetlike sand bodies (cf. to SU4a,
SU4b, and SU4c; Figure 12).
The case studies described above and the data
presented from the South Viking Graben indicate
that it is important to identify syndepositional faults
on submarine slopes when exploring for sandstone-
1582 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope
rich turbidite reservoirs; identifying such faults may
be difficult or impossible where faults are of sub-
seismic scale and where well data are sparse, how-
ever. In particular, decameter-scale vertical changes
in facies stacking and bed amalgamation (which may
impact reservoir architecture and properties; see
below) reflect changes in the degree of confinement
and connectivity of constituent subbasins, irrespec-
tive of the type of structure (e.g., normal fault, thrust
fault, strike-slip fault, growth fold), which define
the basin margins (Prather et al., 1998; Kneller and
McCaffrey, 1999; Horine et al., 2000; Haughton,
2001; Sinclair and Tomasso, 2002; Grecula et al.,
2003; Prather, 2003; Hodgson and Haughton, 2004;
Smith, 2004).
Implications for Hydrocarbon Exploration and
Reservoir Geology
The results of this study have implications for the
exploration and production of hydrocarbons from
synrift turbidite reservoirs deposited on the hang-
ing walls of normal fault blocks. In terms of trap-
ping styles, reservoir sand bodies deposited within
intra-hanging-wall basins may be either down-
thrown and sealed against impermeable footwall
units or sealed from permeable footwall units by
shale smear. In addition, rollover anticlines asso-
ciated with listric normal faults (e.g., the Brynhild
fault) may represent four-way structural traps,
with reservoir sand bodies being incorporated into
the rollover anticlines themselves. Rollover-related
folds may also form a critical component of strati-
graphic traps, with turbidite sandstones pinching
out onto the intraslope, syndepositional, rollover-
related highs.
The timing of reservoir deposition, reservoir
quality, and the stratigraphic architecture of syn-
rift turbidites are interpreted to be controlled by
various factors that operate over two distinct tem-
poral and spatial scales. (1) Regional tectonic and
eustatic controls that operate over relatively long
temporal (approximately 8 m.y.) and spatial (e.g.,
several tens of kilometers) scales: overall deepening
of the South Viking Graben during the Late Ju-
rassic, because of increasing rates of fault-related
subsidence and an overall eustatic sea level rise led
to increased sediment storage on the Utsira high
and eastward (updip) retreat of the synrift turbi-
dite system. This led to an upward decrease in grain
size, net-to-gross ratio, and the degree of bed amal-
gamation (cf. SU4a, SU4b, and SU4c; Figure 7),
thereby resulting in an upward decrease in reser-
voir porosity and permeability and an upward in-
crease in the stratigraphic compartmentalization
of reservoir sand bodies (e.g., decreased degree of
vertical and lateral bed amalgamation; see SU4c
in Figure 7). (2) Local tectonic controls that op-
erate over relatively short temporal (approximately
<2 m.y.) and spatial (<5 km [3.1 mi]) scales: the
lateral propagation of gravity-driven growth faults
and overall upslope (landward) migration of activ-
ity across the array led to complex changes in slope
accommodation that markedly affected the dis-
tribution and internal architecture of reservoir
sand bodies. For example, within SU4a and SU4b,
reservoir presence and variations in the net-to-gross
ratio are intimately associated with the syndepo-
sitional basin geometry and associated variations
in gravity-flow behavior (e.g., flow convergence
and flow stripping, hydraulic jump-triggered de-
position, etc.).
CONCLUSIONS
The key conclusions of this integrated 3-D seismic,
wireline, core, and biostratigraphic study of synrift
Upper Jurassic turbidites on the hanging-wall dip-
slope of the South Viking Graben are that:
1. Sand-rich sediment gravity flow-dominated depo-
sitional systems may develop downdip of hanging-
wall shoreline systems in rift basins. Like their
footwall-derived counterparts, these systems can
be volumetrically significant and, therefore, con-
stitute important reservoir-prone units in rift
basins.
2. The sedimentology, stratigraphic architecture,
and evolution of synrift turbidite depositional
systems are strongly controlled by gravity-driven
growth faulting. A key observation is that bathy-
metric changes induced by at-sea-floor fault scarps
led to sand-laden turbidity currents undergoing
a hydraulic jump and depositing their coarse-
grained load. Furthermore, on a larger length scale
and over a longer temporal scale, a combination of
regional sea level rise and landward migration of
gravity-driven growth faulting led to progressive
upslope backstepping of coeval turbidite systems.
3. Although the preservation potential of hanging-
wall depositional systems may be relatively low,
the siting of exploration wells toward the crests of
rotated fault blocks updip of such deposits may
result in such systems being undersampled. The
development of hanging-wall depositional sys-
tems may be inherently variable, however, and
related to the erodibility of units within and the
geomorphic configuration of the updip sediment
source area.
4. The reservoir properties (e.g., net-to-gross ratio,
connectivity, porosity, permeability) of synrift
turbidite deposits may be controlled by a com-
bination of eustatic sea level variations and the
large-scale structural evolution of the hanging-
wall dipslope. As such, it is important to place
the potentially reservoir-bearing stratigraphic
units of interest within a broader regional-to-
subregional tectonostratigraphic framework.
5. When exploring for subtle synrift reservoirs
within rift basins, it is critical to integrate various
data types (e.g., seismic reflection data, wireline-
log data, core data, biostratigraphic data) when
attempting to understand the temporal and spatial
development of reservoir-prone synrift turbidite
depositional systems; this is especially pertinent
in settings where reservoir sand bodies cannot be
directly imaged by seismic reflection data.
REFERENCES CITED
Adeogba, A., T. R. McHargue, and S. A. Graham, 2005,
Transient fan architecture and depositional controls
from near-surface 3-D seismic data, Niger delta conti-
nental slope: AAPG Bulletin, v. 89, p. 627–644, doi:10
.1306/11200404025.
Arnot, M. J., G. H. Browne, and P. R. King, 2007, Thick-
bedded sandstone facies in a middle basin-floor fan set-
ting, Mount Messenger Formation, Mohakatino Beach,
New Zealand, in T. H. Nilsen, R. D. Shew, G. S. Steffens,
and J. R. J. Studlick, eds., Atlas of deep-water outcrops:
AAPG Studies in Geology 56, p. 241–244.
Jackson et al. 1583
Beaubouef, R. T., C. Rossen, F. B. Zelt, M. D. Sullivan, D. C.
Mohrig, and D. C. Jennette, 1999, Deep-water sand-
stones, Brushy Canyon Formation, west Texas: AAPG
Continuing Education Course Notes Series 40, 50 p.
Bouma, A. H., 1962, Sedimentology of some flysch deposits:
A graphic approach to facies interpretation: Amsterdam,
Elsevier, 168 p.
Branther, S. R. F., 2003, The East Brae field, blocks 16/03a,
16/03b, UK North Sea, in J. Gluyas and H. M. Hichens,
eds., United Kingdom oil and gas fields: Commemora-
tive millennium volume: Geological Society (London)
Memoir 20, p. 191–197.
Brehm, J. A., 2003, The North and Beinn fields, Block 16/7a,
UK North Sea, in J. Gluyas and H. M. Hichens, eds.,
United Kingdom oil and gas fields, Commemorative
millennium volume: Geological Society (London) Mem-
oir 20, p. 199–209.
Bruhn, R., and K. Vagle, 2005, Relay ramp evolution and
mass flow deposition (upper Kimmeridgian–lower Vol-
gian) in the Tail End graben, Danish North Sea: Basin
Research, v. 17, p. 551–567, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117
.2005.00276.x.
Cherry, S. T. J., 1993 The interaction of structure and sedi-
mentary process controlling deposition of the Upper Ju-
rassic Brae Formation Conglomerate, Block 16/17, North
Sea, in J. R. Parker, ed., Petroleum geology of northwest
Europe: Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the Geo-
logical Society (London), p. 387–400.
Clark, J. D., and K. T. Pickering, 1996, Architectural ele-
ments and growth patterns of submarine channels: Ap-
plications to hydrocarbon exploration: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 80, p. 194–221.
Cockings, J. H., L. G. Kessler II., T. A. Mazza, and L. A. Riley,
1992, Bathonian to mid-Oxfordian sequence stratigra-
phy of the South Viking Graben, North Sea, in R. F. P.
Hardman, ed., Exploration Britain: Geological insights
for the next decade: Geological Society (London) Special
Publication 67, p. 65–105.
Costa, J. E., and G. P. Williams, 1984, Debris-flow dynamics
(video): U.S. Geological Society Open-File Report 84-
606.
Coward, M. P., 1995, Structural and tectonic setting of the
Permo–Triassic basins of northwest Europe, in S.A.R.
Boldy, ed., Permian and Triassic rifting in northwest
Europe: Geological Society (London) Special Publica-
tion 91, p. 7–39.
Cowie, P. A., S. Gupta, and N. H. Dawers, 2000, Implica-
tions of fault array evolution for synrift depocenter de-
velopment: Insights from a numerical fault growth mod-
el: Basin Research, v. 12, p. 241–261, doi:10.1046/j
.1365-2117.2000.00126.x.
Cowie, P. A., G. Roberts, and E. Mortimer, 2007, Strain
localization with fault arrays over time scales of 100 to
107 years: Observations, explanations and debates, in
M. R. Handy, G. Hirth, and N. Hovius, eds., Tectonic
faults: Agents of change on a dynamic earth: Dahlem
Workshop Report 95, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT
Press, p. 47–77.
Davies, S. J., N. H. Dawers, A. E. McLeod, and J. R. Underhill,
2000, The structural and sedimentological evolution of
1584 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope
early synrift successions: The Middle Jurassic Tarbert
Formation, North Sea: Basin Research, v. 12, p. 343–
336, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2117.2000.00136.x.
Dawers, N. H., and J. R. Underhill, 2000, The role of fault
interaction and linkage in controlling synrift stratigraphic
sequences: Late Jurassic, Statfjord East area, northern
North Sea: AAPG Bulletin, v. 84, p. 45–64.
Dorsey, R. J., P. J. Umhoefer, and P. R. Renne, 1995, Rapid
subsidence and stacked Gilbert-type fan deltas, Pliocene
Loreto Basin, Baja California Sur, Mexico: Sedimentary
Geology, v. 98, p. 181–204, doi:10.1016/0037-0738
(95)00032-4.
Dorsey, R. J., P. J. Umhoefer, and P. D. Falk, 1997, Earth-
quake clustering inferred from Pliocene Gilbert-type fan
deltas in the Loreto Basin, Baja California Sur, Mexico:
Geology, v. 25, p. 679–682, doi:10.1130/0091-7613
(1997)025<0679:ECIFPG>2.3.CO;2.
Eliet, P. P., and R. L. Gawthorpe, 1995, Drainage develop-
ment and sediment supply within rifts, examples from
the Sperchios Basin, central Greece: Journal of the Geo-
logical Society of London, v. 152, p. 883–893, doi:10
.1144/gsjgs.152.5.0883.
Fisher, M. J., and D. C. Mudge, 1990, Triassic, in K. W. Glennie,
ed., Introduction to the petroleum geology of the North
Sea: Oxford, Blackwell, p. 191–218.
Fisher, M. J., and D. C. Mudge, 1998, Triassic, in K. W.
Glennie, ed., Petroleum geology of the North Sea: Basin
concepts and recent advances: Oxford, Blackwell, p. 212–
244.
Fletcher, K. J., 2003a, The central Brae field, blocks 16/07a,
16/07b, U.K. North Sea, in J. Gluyas and H. M. Hichens,
eds., United Kingdom oil and gas fields: Commemorative
millennium volume: Geological Society (London)
Memoir 20, p. 183–190.
Fletcher, K. J., 2003b, The South Brae field, blocks 16/07a,
16/07b, UK North Sea, in J. Gluyas and H. M. Hichens,
eds., United Kingdom oil and gas fields: Commemora-
tive millennium volume: Geological Society (London)
Memoir 20, p. 211–221.
Fraser, S. I., A. M. Robinson, H. D. Johnson, J. R. Underhill,
D. G. A. Kadolsky, R. Connell, P. Johannessen, and R.
Ravnås, 2003, Upper Jurassic, in D. Evans, C. Graham,
A. Armour, and P. Bathurst, eds., The millennium atlas:
Petroleum geology of the central and northern North
Sea: Geological Society (London), p. 157–189.
Frostick, L. E., T. K. Linsey, and I. Reid, 1992, Tectonic and
climatic control on Triassic sedimentation in the Beryl
Basin, northern North Sea: Journal of the Geological So-
ciety of London, v. 149, p. 13–26, doi:10.1144/gsjgs
.149.1.0013.
Gabrielsen, R. H., R. J. Steel, and A. Nøttvedt, 1995, Subtle
traps in extensional terranes: A model with reference to
the North Sea: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 1, p. 223–235,
doi:10.1144/petgeo.1.3.223.
Garcia, M. H., 1993, Hydraulic jumps in sediment-driven
bottom currents: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
v. 199, p. 1094–1117, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429
(1993)119:10(1094).
Garcia, M. H., and G. Parker, 1989, Experiments on hydraulic
jumps in turbidity currents near a canyon-fan transition:
 Science, v. 245, p. 393–396, doi:10.1126/science.245
.4916.393.
Gawthorpe, R. L., and J. M. Hurst, 1993, Transfer zones in
extensional basins: Their structural style and influence
on drainage development and stratigraphy: Journal of
the Geological Society of London, v. 150, p. 1137–
1152, doi:10.1144/gsjgs.150.6.1137.
Gawthorpe, R. L., and M. R. Leeder, 2000, Tectonosedimen-
tary evolution of active extensional basins: Basin Re-
search, v. 12, p. 195–218, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2117
.2000.00121.x.
Gawthorpe, R. L., J. M. Hurst, and C. P. Sladen, 1990, Evo-
lution of Miocene footwall-derived coarse-grained del-
tas, Gulf of Suez, Egypt: Implications for exploration:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 74, p. 1077–1086.
Gawthorpe, R. L., A. J. Fraser, and R. E. Ll. Collier, 1994,
Sequence stratigraphy in active extensional basins: Im-
plications for the interpretation of ancient basin fills:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 11, p. 642–658,
doi:10.1016/0264-8172(94)90021-3.
Glennie, K. W., 1984, Early Permian–Rotliegend, in K. W.
Glennie, ed., Introduction to the petroleum geology of
the North Sea: London, Blackwell Scientific, p. 41–60.
Glennie, K. W., 1990, Outline of the North Sea history and
structural framework, in K. W. Glennie, ed., Introduction
to the petroleum geology of the North Sea, 2nd edition:
Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications, p. 25–62.
Glennie, K. W., 1995, Permian and Triassic rifting in north-
west Europe in S. A. R. Boldy, ed., Permian and Triassic
rifting in northwest Europe: Geological Society (Lon-
don) Special Publication 91, p. 1–5.
Glennie, K. W., J. Higham, and L. Stemmerik, 2003, Permian
in D. Evans, C. Graham, A. Armour and P. Bathurst,
eds., The millennium atlas: Petroleum geology of the
central and northern North Sea: The Geological Society
of London, p. 91–103.
Goldsmith, P. J., G. Hudson, and P. Van Veen, 2003, Triassic,
in D. Evans, C. Graham, A. Armour and P. Bathurst, eds.,
The millennium atlas: Petroleum geology of the cen-
tral and northern North Sea: The Geological Society of
London, p. 105–127.
Grecula, M., S. Flint, G. Potts, H. de V. Wickens, and S.
Johnson, 2003, Partial ponding of turbidite systems in a
basin with subtle growth-fold topography: Laingsburg-
Karoo, South Africa: Journal of Sedimentary Research,
v. 73, p. 603–620, doi:10.1306/120402730603.
Gupta, S., J. R. Underhill, I. R. Sharp, and R. L. Gawthorpe,
1999, Role of fault interactions in controlling synrift sed-
iment dispersal patterns: Miocene, Abu Alaqa Group,
Suez Rift, Egypt: Basin Research, v. 11, p. 167–189,
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2117.1999.00300.x.
Hardy, S., and R. L. Gawthorpe, 2004, Effects of variations in
fault slip rate on sequence stratigraphy in fan deltas: In-
sights from numerical modeling: Geology, v. 26, p. 911–
914, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1998)026<0911:EOVIFS
>2.3.CO;2.
Harris, J. P., and R. M. Fowler, 1987, Enhanced prosperity of
the mid-Late Jurassic sediments of the South Viking
Graben, northern North Sea, in J. Brooks and K. W.
Glennie, eds., Petroleum geology of northwest Europe:
Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the Geological
Society (London), p. 879–898.
Haughton, P. J. W., 2001, Contained turbidites used to track
seabed deformation and basin migration, Sorbas Basin,
south-east Spain: Basin Research, v. 13, p. 117–139,
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2117.2001.00143.x.
Haughton, P. D. W., S. P. Barker, and W. D. McCaffrey,
2003, “Linked” debrites in sand-rich turbidite systems-
origin and significance: Sedimentology, v. 50, p. 459–
482, doi:10.1046/j.1365-3091.2003.00560.x.
Hodgson, D. M., and P. D. W. Haughton, 2004, Impact of
syndepositional faulting on gravity flow behavior and
deep-water stratigraphy, in S. A. Lomas and P. Joseph,
eds., Confined turbidite systems: Geological Society
(London) Special Publication 224, p. 135–158.
Hodgson, D. M., S. S. Flint, D. Hodgetts, N. J. Drinkwater,
E. P. Johannessen, and S. M. Luthi, 2006, Stratigraphic
evolution of fine-grained submarine fan systems, Tanqua
depocenter, Karoo Basin, South Africa: Journal of Sedi-
mentary Research, v. 76, p. 20–40, doi:10.2110/jsr
.2006.03.
Hodgson, N. A., J. Farnsworth, and A. J. Fraser, 1992, Salt-
related tectonics, sedimentation and hydrocarbon plays
in the Central Graben, North Sea, UKCS, in R. F. P.
Hardman, ed., Exploration Britain: Insights for the next
decade: Geological Society (London) Special Publica-
tion 67, p. 31–63.
Horine, R. L., W. H. Mills, V. J. Sturrock, and M. Anthony,
2000, Structural controls on sedimentation and hydro-
carbon charge in the Troika field-deepwater Gulf of
Mexico: AAPG Search and Discovery, article 90914,
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/abstracts/html
/2000/annual/abstracts/0307.htm (accessed Septem-
ber 20, 2009).
Iverson, R. M., 1997, The physics of debris flows: Review of
Geophysics, v. 35, p. 245–296, doi:10.1029/97RG00426.
Jackson, C. A.-L., and E. Larsen, 2008, Temporal constraints
on basin inversion provided by 3-D seismic and well
data: A case study from the South Viking Graben, off-
shore Norway: Basin Research, v. 20, p. 397–417,
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117.2008.00359.x.
Jackson, C. A.-L., and E. Larsen, 2009, Temporal and spatial
development of a gravity-driven normal fault array: Middle–
Upper Jurassic, South Viking Graben, northern North Sea:
Journal of Structural Geology, v. 31, p. 388–402, doi:10
.1016/j.jsg.2009.01.007.
Johansson, M., and D. A. V. Stow, 1995, A classification
scheme for shale clasts in deep-water sandstones, in A. J.
Hartley and D. J. Prosser, eds., Characterization of deep
marine clastic systems: Geological Society (London) Spe-
cial Publication 94, p. 221–241.
Kneller, B., 2003, The influence of flow parameters on turbi-
dite slope channel architecture: Marine and Petroleum
Geology, v. 20 (6-8), p. 901–910.
Kneller, B. C., and M. J. Branney, 1995, Sustained high-
density turbidity currents and the deposition of thick
massive sands: Sedimentology, v. 42, p. 607–616, doi:10
.1111/j.1365-3091.1995.tb00395.x.
Kneller, B., and W. B. McCaffrey, 1999, Depositional effects
of flow nonuniformity and stratification within turbidity
Jackson et al. 1585
 currents approaching a bounding slope: Deflection, re-
flection, and facies variations: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 69, p. 980–991.
Leeder, M. R., and R. L. Gawthorpe, 1987, Sedimentary
models for extensional tilt-block/half-graben basins in
M. P. Coward, J. F. Dewey, and P. L. Hancock, eds., Con-
tinental extensional tectonics: Geological Society (Lon-
don) Special Publication 28, p. 139–152.
Lowe, D. R., 1982, Sediment gravity flows: II. Depositional
models with special reference to the deposits of high-
density turbidity currents I: Journal of Sedimentary Pe-
trology, v. 52, p. 279–297.
McClure, N. M., and A. A. Brown, 1992, A subtle Upper Ju-
rassic submarine fan trap in the South Viking Graben,
United Kingdom, North Sea, in M. Halbouty, ed., Giant
oil and gas fields of the decade (1978–1988): AAPG
Memoir 54, p. 307–322.
McLeod, A. E., J. R. Underhill, S. J. Davies, and N. H.
Dawers, 2002, The influence of fault array evolution
on synrift sedimentation patterns: Controls on deposition
in the Strathspey-Brent-Statfjord half graben, northern
North Sea: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1061–1093.
Mortimer, E., S. Gupta, and P. Cowie, 2005, Clinoform nu-
cleation and growth in coarse-grained deltas, Loreto Basin,
Baja California Sur, Mexico: A response to episodic ac-
celerations in fault displacement: Basin Research, v. 17,
p. 337–359, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117.2005.00273.x.
Mulder, T., and J. Alexander, 2001, The physical character of
subaqueous sedimentary density flows and their depos-
its: Sedimentology, v. 48, p. 269–299, doi:10.1046/j
.1365-3091.2001.00360.x.
Nichols, G., and F. Watchorn, 1998, Climatic and geo-
morphic controls on rift sedimentation: Oligo–Miocene
synrift facies in the Gulf of Aden, Yemen: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 15, p. 505–518, doi:10.1016
/S0264-8172(98)80001-9.
Nøttvedt, A., A. M. Berge, N. H. Dawers, R. B. Færseth, K. O.
Häger, G. Mangerud, and C. Puidefabregas, 2000, Synrift
evolution and resulting play models in the Snorre-H area,
northern North Sea, in A. Nøttvedt, ed., Dynamics of the
Norwegian margin: Geological Society (London) Special
Publication 167, p. 179–218.
Partington, M. A., P. Copestake, B. C. Mitchener, and J. R.
Underhill, 1993, Biostratigraphic calibration of genetic
stratigraphic sequences of the Jurassic–lowermost Creta-
ceous (Hettangian to Ryazanian) of the North Sea and
adjacent areas, in J. R. Parker, ed., Petroleum geology
of northwest Europe: Proceedings of the 4th conference
of the Geological Society (London), p. 347–370.
Pegrum, R. M., and T. E. Ljones, 1984, 15/9 Gamma gas field
offshore Norway, new trap type for the North Sea Basin
with regional structural implications: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 68, p. 874–902.
Piper, D. J. W., and W. R. Normark, 1983, Turbidite-deposits,
patterns and flow characteristics, Navy Submarine Fan,
California borderland: Sedimentology, v. 30, p. 681–694,
doi:10.1111/j.1365-3091.1983.tb00702.x.
Pochat, S., and J. Van Den Driessche, 2007, Impact of synsed-
imentary meter-scale normal fault scarps on sediment
gravity flow dynamics: An example from the Grès d′
1586 Synrift Turbidite Deposition on a Hanging-Wall Dipslope
Annot Formation, SE France: Sedimentary Geology,
v. 202, p. 796–820, doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.09.005.
Posamentier, H. W., and R. Walker, 2006, Facies models re-
visited: SEPM Special Publication 84.
Prather, B. E., 2003, Controls on reservoir distribution, archi-
tecture and stratigraphic trapping in slope settings: Ma-
rine and Petroleum Geology, v. 20, p. 529–545, doi:10
.1016/j.marpetgeo.2003.03.009.
Prather, B. E., J. R. Booth, G. S. Steffens, and P. A. Craig,
1998, Classification, lithologic calibration, and strati-
graphic succession of seismic facies of intraslope basins,
deep-water Gulf of Mexico: AAPG Bulletin, v. 82, p. 701–
728.
Prélat, A., D. M. Hodgson, and S. S. Flint, 2009, Evolution,
architecture and hierarchy of distributary deep-water
deposits: A high-resolution outcrop investigation from
the Permian Karoo Basin, South Africa: Sedimentology,
v. 56, p. 2132–2154, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3091.2009
.01073.x.
Prosser, S., 1993, Rift-related depositional systems and their
seismic expression in G. Williams and A. Dobbs, eds.,
Tectonics and seismic sequence stratigraphy: Geological
Society (London) Special Publication 71, p. 35–66.
Pyles, D. R., 2008, Multiscale stratigraphic analysis of a struc-
turally confined submarine fan: Carboniferous Ross
Sandstone, Ireland: AAPG Bulletin, v. 92, p. 557–587,
doi:10.1306/01110807042.
Ravnås, R., and R. J. Steel, 1997, Contrasting styles of Late
Jurassic synrift turbidite sedimentation: A comparative
study of the Magnus and Oseberg areas, northern North
Sea: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 14, p. 417–449,
doi:10.1016/S0264-8172(97)00010-X.
Shew, R. D., 2007, Sheet sandstones in a mid-fan setting:
Cordoniz Canyon, Brushy Canyon Formation, Texas,
in T. H. Nilsen, R. D. Shew, G. S. Steffens, and J. R.
Studlick, eds., Atlas of deep-water outcrops: AAPG Stud-
ies in Geology 56, p. 471–474.
Shultz, M. R., and S. M. Hubbard, 2005, Sedimentology,
stratigraphic architecture, and ichnology of gravity-flow
deposits partially ponded in a growth-fault-controlled
slope mini-basin, Tres Pasos Formation (Cretaceous),
southern Chile: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 75,
p. 440–453, doi:10.2110/jsr.2005.034.
Sinclair, H. D., 1992, Turbidite sedimentation during Alpine
thrusting: the Taveyannaz Sandstones of eastern Swit-
zerland: Sedimentology, v. 39, p. 837–856, doi:10.1111
/j.1365-3091.1992.tb02156.x.
Sinclair, H. D., 2000, Delta-fed turbidites infilling topo-
graphically complex basins: A new depositional model
the Annot Sandstones, SE France: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 70, p. 504–519, doi:10.1306/2DC40923
-0E47-11D7-8643000102C1865D.
Sinclair, H. D., and M. Tomasso, 2002, Depositional evolution
of confined turbidite basins: Journal of Sedimentary Re-
search, v. 72, p. 451–456, doi:10.1306/111501720451.
Smith, R., 2004, Silled sub-basins to connected tortuous cor-
ridors: Sediment distribution systems on topographically
complex sub-aqueous slopes, in S. A. Lomas and P.
Joseph, eds., Confined turbidite systems: Geological So-
ciety (London) Special Publication 222, p. 23–43.
 Stow, D. A. V., and M. Johansson, 2000, Deep-water mas-
sive sands: Nature, origin and hydrocarbon implications:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 17, p. 145–174.
Talling, P. J., L. A. Amy, R. B. Wynn, J. Peakall, and M.
Robinson, 2004, Beds comprising debrite sandwiched
within co-genetic turbidite: Origin and widespread oc-
currence in distal depositional environments: Sedimen-
tology, v. 51, p. 163–194, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3091
.2004.00617.x.
Thomas, D. W., and M. P. Coward, 1995, Late Jurassic–Early
Cretaceous inversion of the northern East Shetland Ba-
sin, northern North Sea, in J. G. Buchanan and P. G.
Buchanan, eds., Basin inversion: Geological Society (Lon-
don) Special Publication 88, p. 275–306.
Thomas, D. W., and M. P. Coward, 1996, Mesozoic regional
tectonics and South Viking Graben formation: Evidence
for localized thin-skinned detachments during rift devel-
opment and inversion: Marine and Petroleum Geology,
v. 13, p. 149–177, doi:10.1016/0264-8172(95)00034-8.
Tomasso, M., and H. D. Sinclair, 2004, Deep-water sedi-
mentation on an evolving fault-block: The Braux and
St. Benoit outcrops of the Gres d′Annot, in P. Joseph
and S. Lomas, eds., Deep-water sedimentation in the
Alpine Basin of SE France: New perspectives on the Gres
d′Annot and related systems: Geological Society (Lon-
don) Special Publication 221, p. 267–283.
View publication stats
Turner, C. C., J. M. Cohen, E. R. Connell, E. E. and D. M.
Cooper, 1987, A depositional model for the South Brae
oil field, in J. Brooks and K. W. Glennie, eds., Petroleum
geology of northwest Europe: Proceedings of the 3rd
Conference of the Geological Society (London), p. 853–
864.
Underhill, J. R., and M. A. Partington, 1993, Jurassic thermal
doming and deflation: The sequence-stratigraphic evi-
dence, in J. R. Parker, ed., Petroleum geology of north-
west Europe: Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the
Geological Society (London), p. 337–345.
Underhill, J. R., and M. A. Partington, 1994, Use of genetic
sequence stratigraphy in determining a regional tectonic
control on the “mid-Cimmerian unconformity”: Implica-
tions for North Sea Basin development in P. Weimer and
H. W. Posamentier, eds., Siliciclastic sequence stratigra-
phy: AAPG Memoir 58, p. 449–484.
Young, M. J., R. L. Gawthorpe, and I. R. Sharp, 2002, Archi-
tecture and evolution of synrift clastic depositional sys-
tems toward the tip of a major fault segment, Suez Rift,
Egypt: Basin Research, v. 14, p. 1–23, doi:10.1046/j
.1365-2117.2002.00162.x.
Ziegler, P. A., 1990, Tectonic and paleogeographic develop-
ment of the North Sea rift system, in D. Blundell and
A. D. Gibbs, eds., Tectonic evolution of the North Sea
rifts: Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 1–36.
Jackson et al. 1587