XXX10.1144/petgeo2014-050T. Lohr & J. R.

UnderhillTectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin

Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

2015

2014-050 research-articleThematic set: The North Falkland Basin revisited: exploration and appraisal of the Sea Lion Field10.1144/petgeo2014-050Role of rift transection and punctuated subsidence in the development of the North Falkland BasinTina Lohr &, John R. Underhill

Thematic set:
The North Falkland Basin revisited: exploration and appraisal of the Sea Lion Field Petroleum Geoscience
Published online June 25, 2015 doi:10.1144/petgeo2014-050 | Vol. 21 | 2015 | pp. 85­–110

Role of rift transection and punctuated subsidence in the

development of the North Falkland Basin
Tina Lohr1* & John R. Underhill2
1 ERC Equipoise Ltd, Stephenson House, 2 Cherry Orchard Road, Croydon CR0 6BA, UK
2 Centre
for Exploration Geoscience, School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure & Society, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh Campus, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK
* Correspondence: TLohr@ercequipoise.com

Abstract:  The results of well-constrained seismic interpretation and new mapping of three-dimensional (3D) seismic data
volumes demonstrates that the North Falkland Basin consists of two superimposed failed rift basins: a Late Jurassic NW–SE-
striking Southern Rift Basin (SRB); and an Early Cretaceous north–south-striking Northern Rift Basin (NRB).
The SRB is best developed in coastal waters of the Falkland Islands, where it comprises a series of extensional sub-basins
that are transected by faults belonging to the more substantive NRB. Regional interpretation demonstrates that the NRB con-
sists of a southward-tapering, asymmetric extensional basin containing a thick (in excess of 10 km) sequence of sediments.
Its syn-rift subsidence history was controlled by a major west-dipping normal fault array comprising several fault segment
precursors, which, together with corresponding antithetic faults, effectively subdivides the hanging wall into a series of sub-
basins throughout its length.
The NRB initially developed in a fluvial and later lacustrine environment before becoming predominantly marine in the
Tertiary. A prograding delta system filled the basin from the north during the early post-rift phase. Contemporaneously,
sediment was shed off the segmented basin-bounding fault via long-established feeder drainage systems through breached
relay ramps into the depocentre. The resultant sediment dispersal led to deposition of numerous lacustrine turbidites that
created the Sea Lion fans and its affiliates, the location of which mimics, and is thus interpreted to have been controlled by,
the underlying syn-rift sub-basins.
Post-rift subsidence was punctuated by an important, but short-lived, phase of basin inversion during the Aptian that
created a large, broad and gentle north–south-striking anticline that runs along the central basin axis. Whilst the episode of
basin inversion arrested subsidence, it did not inhibit petroleum prospectivity. The syn-rift lacustrine source intervals did
subsequently pass through the critical moment in the Cretaceous leading to hydrocarbon maturation and the migration of
waxy oil, a process that continues to the present day.

Received 18 July 2014; revised 20 January 2015; accepted 4 April 2015

Introduction the amount and timing of uplift and inversion, and the extent and
age of unconformities.
The North Falkland Basin (NFB) is the name given to the main set One important outcome of our new basin analysis has been to
of sedimentary basins that lie to the north of the Falkland Islands. highlight a need to define and apply a new nomenclature to the
As such, the basin is part of the Falkland Plateau and is situated on basins north of the Falkland Islands in order to unify existing terms
the southern margin of the South American Plate, which is defined and to clarify definitions. In published literature, the whole area
by active subduction along its western Chilean and southern has often been treated as one basin and called the ‘North Falkland
Scotian margins, as well as Atlantic Ocean seafloor spreading on Basin’ (NFB). Conversely, the ‘South Falkland Basin’ (SFB) is the
its eastern edge (Fig. 1). term used to describe the basin located to the south of the Falkland
Previous authors (e.g. Bransden et al. 1999; Thomson & Islands (Fig. 1).
Underhill 1999; Richards & Hillier 2000a, b; Richardson & Bransden et al. (1999) have already recognized the existence of
Underhill 2002; Richards et al. 1996) focused their attention on an older Jurassic rift underlying a younger Cretaceous rift, based
the North Falkland Basin, and different authors developed differ- on a regional study using widely spaced two-dimensional (2D)
ent evolutionary models. The main basin in the north is about seismic surveys. In this paper we are complementing and expand-
150 km long, but the whole basin occupies an area that is about ing these findings based on detailed work that was possible due to
200 km long and 50 km wide at its northern end. It tapers south- new seismic data, especially high-resolution 3D seismic data sets
wards to a width of about 30 km around 50 km north of the Islands, and biostratigraphic age constraints resulting from bespoke in-
where its distinctive north–south strike becomes subsumed in a house studies commissioned by Rockhopper (Holmes et al. 2015).
predominant NW–SE-striking set of extensional faults. We suggest subdividing the NFB into a ‘Northern Rift Basin’
This paper presents the results of a comprehensive study that (NRB) and a ‘Southern Rift Basin’ (SRB) owing to a completely
analyses the North Falkland Basin as a whole, including the com- different evolution during their syn- and post-rift phases. Figure 2
plexity in the south that results from the occurrence of an earlier shows a regional tectonic map illustrating both basins with their
rift system. Regional and detailed seismic interpretation has been different structural styles. The area in-between, where both basins
undertaken in order to better understand the age relationships and interact, is called the ‘transition area’. In all subsequent sections,
kinematic interaction between differently orientated (transected) we therefore adopt this new terminology. The abbreviations of all
basins and intersecting fault systems, the role of inherited structures, megasequences and seismic markers that are used in this paper are

© 2015 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London for GSL and EAGE. All rights reserved. For permissions: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/
permissions. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018
86
GIN
NAZCA
AR
PLATE
CONTINENTAL M
S
SOUTH JoB
AMERICAN
Fig
PLATE .2 3 NFB
FALKLAND PLATEAU
MB
Fig.2
FALKLAND
ISLANDS SFB BB
WSR
SHA
ANTARCTIC CKL
ETO
N FR
PLATE ACT
URE
ZO
NE
500km ANTARCTIC PLATE
shown and explained in Table 1, and compared with the seismic
markers and suggested ages from the work of Bransden et al.
(1999) and Richards & Hillier (2000a, b).
Data
The seismic data set utilized in this study consists of several 2D
and 3D seismic surveys shot between 1993 and 2011 (Fig. 2).
There are 363 2D seismic lines that have been acquired by differ-
ent companies from 1993 to 2008. The first three 3D seismic sur-
veys (Shell in 1998, Desire in 2004 and Rockhopper in 2007) were
infilled and superseded by a large proprietary 3D regional survey
in 2011, which occupies an area of over 4500 km2 and provides a
high-resolution imaging of the deepest part of the northern basin
and its eastern flank. In the 2011 seismic campaign, two additional
3D surveys were acquired by Rockhopper, the Ernest 3D survey
(506 km2) that is located in the centre of the basin close to the
Ernest well (26/6-1), and the Weddell 3D survey (310 km2) situated
in the south.
The overall quality of the 2D seismic data is good throughout
the basin. The three newly acquired 3D seismic volumes provide
very good quality high-resolution data. The Ernest and Weddell
3D data reveal the geological complexity of the subsurface struc-
tures and explain the difficulties that were encountered when
interpreting the 2D data in these areas. The interpretation of the
3D seismic data has led to a better understanding of the general
tectonic evolution by imaging complex fault patterns, volcanic
intrusions and unconformities. This has helped to improve the
mapping in areas where only 2D data exist. Twenty wells were
drilled between 1998 and 2011, most of which were used to con-
strain our interpretations. Sixteen wells are located within the
large regional 3D volume and four wells are located on 2D lines.
The southernmost well is Ernest 26/6-1. There is no well control
further south, including the area of the Weddell 3D seismic sur-
vey. The best stratigraphic control is provided by the dense set of
wells that occur in and around the Sea Lion discovery and they
provide an excellent constraint on interpretations in the northern
basins. More details about those wells and the specifics of the Sea
Lion discovery can be found in Bunt (2015), Farrimond et al.
(2015), Francis et al. (2015), Holmes et al. (2015), MacAulay
(2015) Griffiths (2015) and Williams (2015), and also in Richards
& Hillier (2000a, b).
T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill
ATLANTIC OCEAN
MAURICE EWING BANK
NORTH SCOTIA RIDGE
SCOTIA PLATE Fig. 1. Location map of the South
SANDWICH
PLATE American Atlantic Margin showing the
position of the Falkland Islands with
SCOTIA RIDGE
SOUTH respect to the major plate boundaries.
The map highlights the main sedimentary
basins including: NFB, North Falkland
Basin; SFB, South Falkland Basin; SJoB,
San Jorge Basin; MB, Malvinas Basin;
BB, Burdwood Bank. The boxed area
WEDDELL SEA
depicts the map shown in Figure 2 and
the line of section shown in Figure 23.
In this paper, all seismic sections and maps are shown in TWT
(two-way travel time). On the regional scale that we focus on in
this study, no major velocity changes occur, and therefore TWT
and isochron maps are representative, illustrating relative changes
in depth or thickness. The maps shown in this paper focus on the
main part of the NFB and do not necessarily reflect the limits of the
basin that extend beyond the seismic data set that we have used.
Architecture of the North Falkland Basin
Regional setting
Pre-rift geology: insights from the Falkland Islands
The sedimentary rocks of the NFB rise to subcrop out on the sea-
bed in coastal waters, but no syn- or post-rift exposures occur on
the islands themselves. Consequently, all rocks on the nearby
Falkland Islands afford the opportunity to investigate the pre-rift
beneath the basins. However, the absence of Jurassic to Cenozoic
strata on the islands does not rule out the possibility that they were
deposited over the area and were eroded during Cenozoic uplift
(Aldiss & Edwards 1999; Hodgkinson 2002). Indeed, apatite fis-
sion-track analysis lends support to this having been likely
(Thomson et al. 2002).
Aldiss & Edwards (1999) divided the deformation events
recorded on the islands into at least five phases of folding and
faulting but their absolute timing is rarely possible to determine
since the youngest preserved deposits are Permian. The oldest
exposures consist of rocks ascribed to the Meso-Proterozoic Cape
Meredith Complex located in the very southern tip of the western
island, whereas the main parts of the islands are composed of
folded and faulted metasedimentary rocks of Permian to Silurian
age, that are intersected by numerous dykes.
There are two main structural tends: NE-striking folds and
thrusts on the western island; and NW-striking folds and thrusts in
the north of both islands. The thrusts are thought to have developed
during the Late Palaeozoic Cape Fold Belt Orogeny when the area
of the Falkland Islands was part of Gondwana and in close proxim-
ity to today’s South Africa (e.g. Marshall 1994; Curtis & Hyam
1998; Trewin et al. 2002; Stone et al. 2008). Field studies have
revealed extensional kinematics along some of those structures but
their timing cannot be determined owing to the absence of younger
strata (Aldiss & Edwards 1999).
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin 87

    






 
 
 







 

  

 






  
  
  












 


 






 
 

  

 

 

 



 


 

 




   
 

 

 

 
















   
 

Fig. 2. Regional tectonic map with major interpreted faults of the Northern Rift Basin (NRB) and the Southern Rift Basin (SRB), as well as seismic
and well data base. This map shows the major part of the basin that has been focused on in this paper but its limits extend beyond the seismic data set
shown here.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

88 T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill

Table 1. Nomenclature of important unconformities and seismic markers used in this paper, and compared to those from Bransden et al. (1999) and
Richards & Hillier (2000a, b)
EŽŵĞŶĐůĂƚƵƌĞ ^ĞŝƐŵŝĐŵĂƌŬĞƌ ^ĞŝƐŵŝĐŵĂƌŬĞƌ džƉůĂŶĂƚŝŽŶ ŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐŵĂƌŬĞƌƐŝŶ ŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐŵĂƌŬĞƌƐŝŶ
ĐŽůŽƵƌ ƌĂŶƐĚĞŶ ĞƚĂů͘ ;ϭϵϵϵͿ ZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐΘ,ŝůůŝĞƌ ;ϮϬϬϬĂ͕ďͿ

^ĞĂďĞĚ ŽŶĨŽƌŵŝƚLJŝŶƚŚĞEZ͕ƵŶĐŽŶĨŽƌŵŝƚLJŝŶƚŚĞ^Z

ĞŶŽnjŽŝĐ ŽŶĨŽƌŵŝƚLJŝŶƚŚĞEZ͕ƵŶĐŽŶĨŽƌŵŝƚLJŝŶƚŚĞ^Z͕ ĞƚǁĞĞŶ͚ϭϬ͛ĂŶĚ͚ϮϬ͛ŝŶƚŚĞ /ŶƚƌĂůĂƚĞƉŽƐƚͲƌŝĨƚ

ŵĂƌŬĞƌ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽĨŽƌĞůĂŶĚďĂƐŝŶƚĞĐƚŽŶŝĐƐ ŶŽƌƚŚ͕ KůŝŐŽĐĞŶĞʹDŝŽĐĞŶĞ
ĂŐĞ͚͘ϯϬ͛ŝŶƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚ

& &ŽƌĞůĂŶĚĂƐŝŶ /ŶĐůƵĚĞƐ ďĂĐŬďƵůŐĞ ŝŶƚŚĞEZĂŶĚĨŽƌĞͲďƵůŐĞŝŶ

ƚŚĞ^Z

ƉƚŝĂŶŵĂƌŬĞƌ /ŶǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ ZĞŐŝŽŶĂůŵĂƌŬĞƌ͕ϭϭϵDĂ͕ŵĂƌŬƐ ƌĞŐŝŽŶĂů ͛ϯϬ͛ŝŶƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚ;WĂůĞŽĐĞŶĞ ͚ƚŽƉ>ϲ͛ƉƚŝĂŶ͕ŝŶƚƌĂ͚DWͲ

ŝŶǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ͕ĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚƚŽϭƐƵƌĨĂĐĞŝŶŝŶƚĞƌŶĂů ĂŐĞͿĂŶĚĐŽƌƌĞůĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƌ Z͛ŵŝĚƉŽƐƚͲƌŝĨƚ
ŶŽŵĞŶĐůĂƚƵƌĞ ĞŶŽnjŽŝĐ ŵĂƌŬĞƌŝŶƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚ

ĂƐĞ^>D ĂƐĞ^ĞĂ>ŝŽŶDĂŝŶ ĂƐĞƐƵƌĨĂĐĞŽĨƚŚĞ ^ĞĂ>ŝŽŶĨĂŶƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕ĂƌůLJ

ŽŵƉůĞdž ƉƚŝĂŶ

,ĂƵƚĞƌŝǀŝĂŶ ĂƐĞŽĨƉŽƐƚͲƌŝĨƚĚĞůƚĂƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕ϭϯϭDĂ͕ĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚ ƉƉƌŽdž͛͘ϰϬ͛ƚŽƉŽĨƉŽƐƚͲƌŝĨƚ ͚ƚŽƉdh͛ƚŽƉƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶĂů

ŵĂƌŬĞƌ ƚŽϯϭŝŶŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůŶŽŵĞŶĐůĂƚƵƌĞ ƉĂƐƐŝǀĞ ŝŶĨŝůů͕DĂĂƐƚƌŝĐŚƚŝĂŶ ƵŶŝƚ͕sĂůĂŶŐŝŶŝĂŶ
ĂŐĞ

EW EŽƌƚŚĞƌŶƉŽƐƚͲƌŝĨƚ EZƉŽƐƚͲƌŝĨƚƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞ

E^ϯ EŽƌƚŚĞƌŶƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚϯ EZůĂƚĞƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚ WĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƉŽƐƚͲƌŝĨƚƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞ ͚ƚŽƉ>^ͲZ͛ƚŽƉůĂƚĞƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚ͕

dŝƚŚŽŶŝĂŶʹĞƌƌŝĂƐŝĂŶ

E^Ϯ EŽƌƚŚĞƌŶƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚϮ EZŵŝĚƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚ͕>ĂƚĞsĂůĂŶŐŝŶŝĂŶ ͛ϲϬ͛ƚŽƉD^//ƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚ͕ ͚^ͲZ͛ĞĂƌůLJƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚ

ĞƌƌŝĂƐŝĂŶʹĂůĂŶŐŝŶŝĂŶĂŐĞ ƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞ͕:ƵƌĂƐƐŝĐ

E^ϭ EŽƌƚŚĞƌŶƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚϭ EZĞĂƌůLJƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚ͕sĂůĂŶŐŝŶŝĂŶ /ŶƚƌĂD^//ƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚ͕ĞƌƌŝĂƐŝĂŶʹ ͚^ͲZ͛ĞĂƌůLJƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚ

sĂůĂŶŐŝŶŝĂŶĂŐĞ ƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞ͕:ƵƌĂƐƐŝĐ

E EŽƌƚŚĂƐĞ WƌĞͲƌŝĨƚƵŶĐŽŶĨŽƌŵŝƚLJEZ ͚ϳϬ͛ďĂƐĞD^// ͚WͲZ͛ƉƌĞͲƌŝĨƚƵŶĐŽŶĨŽƌŵŝƚLJ͕

;ƐĞŝƐŵŽƐƚƌĂƚŝŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂůůLJ ĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚƚŽ^^ϯͿ ĞǀŽŶŝĂŶďĂƐĞŵĞŶƚ

EZ EŽƌƚŚĞƌŶZŝĨƚĂƐŝŶ ƌĞƚĂĐĞŽƵƐƌŝĨƚƐLJƐƚĞŵǁŝƚŚ ^ĞĂ>ŝŽŶĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌLJ ͚D^//͛ DĞŐĂƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞ //

^W ^ŽƵƚŚĞƌŶƉŽƐƚͲƌŝĨƚ ^ZƉŽƐƚͲƌŝĨƚƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞ

^^ϯ ^ŽƵƚŚĞƌŶƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚϯ ^ZůĂƚĞƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚ;ƐĞŝƐŵŽƐƚƌĂƚŝŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂůůLJ ͚ϳϬ͛ƚŽƉƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚD^/

ĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚƚŽEͿ͕:ƵƌĂƐƐŝĐ

^^Ϯ ^ŽƵƚŚĞƌŶƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚϮ ^ZŵŝĚƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚ͕:ƵƌĂƐƐŝĐ hƉƉĞƌ:ƵƌĂƐƐŝĐƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƐ

^^ϭ ^ŽƵƚŚĞƌŶƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚϭ ^ZĞĂƌůLJƐLJŶͲƌŝĨƚ͕:ƵƌĂƐƐŝĐ hƉƉĞƌ:ƵƌĂƐƐŝĐƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƐ

^ ^ŽƵƚŚĂƐĞ WƌĞͲƌŝĨƚƵŶĐŽŶĨŽƌŵŝƚLJ^Z ͚ϴϬ͛ďĂƐĞD^/

^Z ^ŽƵƚŚĞƌŶZŝĨƚĂƐŝŶ :ƵƌĂƐƐŝĐƌŝĨƚ ƐLJƐƚĞŵ ƵŶĚĞƌůLJŝŶŐƚŚĞEZ ͚D^/͛ DĞŐĂƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞ /

The deformation was accompanied by only very-low-grade
metamorphism. Clay mineral maturity analysis reveals that the
western island and some part of the eastern island have been only
in the late diagenetic zone, whereas other parts of the eastern island
are weakly metamorphosed (Anchi- and Epi-metamorphic zones).
For a comprehensive description of the geology of the Falkland
Islands readers are referred to the British Geological Survey (BGS)
Memoir of Aldiss & Edwards (1999).
Seismic definition of tectonostratigraphic megasequences
A seismically hard basement reflector represents the pre-rift uncon-
formity of the North Falklands Basin, with the rocks below being
equivalent to those exposed on the Falkland Islands. Figures 3 and 4
show two interpreted seismic sections, one in the south illustrating
the transection of both NRB and SRB syn-rift sequences, and
another one through the main NRB half-graben. The intersection
between both basins in Figure 3 serves to demonstrate the occur-
rence of two distinct syn-rift sequences opposed to each other on
differently orientated faults: an older SRB syn-rift along NW–­SE-
striking faults; and a younger NRB syn-rift along north–south-striking
faults. Our mapping shows that, whilst the NRB plunges to become
significantly deeper than the SRB, the SRB contains syn-rift
sequences below the pre-rift unconformity of the NRB and hence, is
older than it. This can be seen in many places over the area.
Our results differ from those previously presented by Richards
& Hillier (2000a, b), who suggested that the differently orientated
fault systems have both been active simultaneously during east–
west extension, and that the NW–SE-striking faults underwent up
to 9 km of dextral movements and offset the north–south-striking
faults. However, this is not supported by our megasequence analy-
sis of the seismic data as there are two distinctive rift sequences
present that are separated by an unconformity (Figs 3 and 4), and
there is no consistent dextral displacement along the NW–SE-
striking faults (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regional interpretation of the major megasequences reveals
that the SRB syn-rift sequence is thickest in the south and thins to
the north. Conversely, the NRB syn-rift sequence overlies the
SRB sequence, and is thickest in the north and thins towards the
south (Fig. 5). The top SS3 marker (SRB top syn-rift) is seis-
mostratigraphically equivalent to the NB marker (NRB pre-rift
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018
Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin
Fig. 3. Two-dimensional seismic line that captures the intersecting megasequences of two different rifts. Note the growth strata of syn-rift SRB towards
fault D and the growth strata of syn-rift NRB towards the Evie Fault, as well as the inversion anticline at the Aptian marker in the hanging wall of the
Evie Fault. For the location see Figure 2, and for abbreviations see Table 1.
unconformity). This surface is an important regional unconform-
ity marked by significant erosional truncation albeit of uncertain
duration. The NRB syn-rift sequence is equivalent with the early
post-rift sequence of the SRB. Their mutual post-rift phase is
punctuated by Aptian inversion, and later followed by a regional
uplift during the Cenozoic, during which the SRB was placed in a
much shallower position, and its post-rift and some syn-rift sedi-
ments were eroded.
A regional chronostratigraphic diagram has been compiled for
the basin (Fig. 6). It shows the tectonostratigraphic changes for the
last 160  Ma on north–south- and east–west-striking profiles, and
explains the different megasequences and their spatial variation
throughout the basin. The corresponding tectonic events are also
illustrated, as well as the seismic markers that have been mapped
either regionally or locally where present.
We have mapped the major megasequences, and generated
regional TWT and isochron maps (Figs 7 and 8). The SRB pre-rift
unconformity, or SB (South Base), is shown with fault polygons for
the southern and eastern part, and a more detailed map can be seen
in Figure 9. The dominant fault strike is NW–SE in the south with
numerous but small north–south-striking faults. In the north how-
ever, the north–south-striking faults dominate; they are longer and
with larger throws than those in the south. In contrast, there are also
NW–SE to west–east-striking faults in the north, but those are in the
minority and have smaller fault throws and lengths. The maps show
intensive faulting and associated strong morphology with kilome-
tre-deep basins, as well as structural highs that are very close to the
seabed. This results from the two superimposed rifting phases,
whereby first the SRB was created and then subsequently the NRB.
Four different High (Footwall) and Low (Hanging wall) struc-
tural domains can be identified where the two northern and south-
ern rifts transect each other: High–High, Low–Low, High–Low
and Low–High (Fig. 9). High–High areas are those that were ele-
vated footwall blocks during both the SRB and NRB phases, and
they are very shallowly buried areas today (e.g. Keppel terrace and
Evie High). Low–Low areas are such locations that were hanging-
wall blocks during both phases. They have undergone significant
throw during the SRB rifting and then again during the NRB rift-
ing phase, and are therefore relatively deep basins today. Examples
are the Ernest graben, and the deepest parts of the Evie graben.
89
High–Lows and Low–Highs are those areas that were first foot-
wall and later hanging-wall blocks, or vice versa. They are at mod-
erate depth and are between both extremes. The most prominent
example is the High–Low that has been drilled by the Ernest
well 26/6-1. These four different configurations are important to
consider when analysing megasequences in the well data. The
Ernest well has been drilled on a High–Low structure and therefore
one would not expect an SRB syn-rift sequence to be present but
rather NRB syn-rift and post-rift sequences. Likewise, the Dawn
well 25/5-1 is located on a High–High and thus has neither SRB
nor NRB syn-rift sequences.
Analysis of the seismically defined tectonostratigraphic
megasequences and their displacement by faults has demon-
strated that the NW–SE-striking SRB normal faults are older
than the north–south-striking NRB normal faults, an interpreta-
tion albeit complicated by the fact that both fault systems seem to
be offset by one another. The relative timing of faulting can be
obtained from mapping and correlation of seismic sequence
packages, whereas analysing the basement map only could lead
to an incorrect age relationship as their intersection geometry
varies: where NW–SE-striking faults are low in length and throw,
they are mostly displaced by the north–south-striking ones.
Where the NW–SE-striking faults have a high length and throw,
they appear to have acted as important tectonic boundaries that
controlled the truncation of younger faults. This is a phenomenon
that is common to other rift systems, and occurs when fault tips
encounter weaker boundaries and stress is deflected (e.g. onto a
pre-existing fault) to accommodate strain (e.g. Moustafa 1996;
Nixon et al. 2012). The NRB faults strike north–south but change
their orientation to a NNW–SSE strike towards the south. The
reason for this change seems to be the influence of pre-existing
structures belonging to the SRB, which are more dominant in the
south where their throws and lengths are higher and thus have
more influence on subsequent faulting.
Apart from the displacement of younger horizons, another crite-
rion for distinguishing the younger NRB faults from the older SRB
is by their difference in fault angle. The NRB faults dip about 60°
and are therefore much steeper than the major SRB faults, which
have a fault dip of only 25°–30°, a difference that may have been
accentuated by having undergone two phases of rifting.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018
90 T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill
Southern Rift Basin (SRB)
Our mapping demonstrates that the SRB consists of three major half-
graben, all of which are bounded by NE-dipping and NW-striking
listric normal faults (Figs 2, 3 and 9). These faults are each about
100 km long and exhibit reciprocal antithetic faulting of their hang-
ing-wall sediments. The basins are relatively shallow and reach over
3 s TWT at their deepest (Fig. 9). The SRB’s NW–SE-striking faults
are in close proximity to NW–SE-striking faults related to compres-
sional deformation evident on the Falkland Islands (Aldiss &
Edwards 1999), and might be the same faults: Cape Fold Belt thrusts
that were reactivated as normal faults during SRB rifting.
A strong seismic reflector defines the pre-rift unconformity or
‘Top Basement’ or South Base (SB), where incoherent low-ampli-
tude reflectors characterize the pre-rift section underneath, whereas
the section above shows coherent high-amplitude reflectors (Fig.
3). The pre-rift sequence is defined as the economic basement, and
probably consists of rocks that are also exposed on the Falkland
Islands, namely low-grade metamorphosed folded and faulted
Palaeozoic sediments. The syn-rift sequence can be recognized by
a thick package of reflectors that diverge towards the basin-bound-
ing faults, indicating thickened strata and therefore fault-controlled
syn-rift deposition. Within this package are two unconformities
that allow us to subdivide the syn-rift sequence into three phases:
syn-rift 1, 2 and 3 (SS1, SS2 and SS3).
The SRB pre-rift unconformity can be best analysed on the
Weddell 3D seismic data (Fig. 10). Here the imaging is very good
because the unconformity is relatively shallow (up to 2 s) and the
reflector is very strong. The maps in Figure 10 illustrate a major
NW–SE fault strike on the top SB TWT map that is related to the
SRB extension, probably indicating NE–SW-directed extension. A
few north–south- to NNE–SSW-striking faults are also visible and
some of them continue up to the top SS2 unconformity, due to
reactivation. Some act as nucleation points for tight anticlines,
possibly due to transpression or as nodes that focus tectonic inver-
sion. The largest fault zone has a strong reflector in its vicinity that
possibly indicates volcanic rocks (Fig. 10).
The top syn-rift surface (SS3) is a major unconformity that sepa-
rates the homogenous syn-rift sequence below from the channelized
post-rift sequence marked by a more discontinuous and chaotic
seismic facies character above (Fig. 10) which may indicate a flu-
vial depositional environment. The unconformity has been faulted
by numerous NNW–SSE-trending normal faults forming narrow
graben. These faults developed during the SS2 rift phase, contem-
poraneously with transpression along some of the NNE–SSW-
trending faults. They were further reactivated as extensional faults
during the NRB rifting. The difference in orientation between the
north–south-trending NRB faults in the north and the NNW–SSE-
trending ones in the south results because the southern ones are
reactivated faults, whereas the northern ones are not. The top syn-
rift unconformity can be mapped relatively far to the north, close to
the Dawn well 25/5-1. Here it pinches out against the pre-rift
unconformity (Fig. 5), which shows that the SRB syn-rift sequence
thins dramatically towards the north and has been preserved only in
a few local basins underneath the NRB syn-rift sequence (Fig. 4). It
is likely that small remnants of SRB basins remain preserved under-
neath the NRB further north, something that may have played a role
in controlling differential compaction during NRB subsidence.
Today, the SRB contains a maximum syn-rift sequence of 2 s TWT
(about 3 km) and was possibly much thicker. However, its full
thickness in the south cannot be illustrated as it has been eroded
during the Cenozoic uplift of the Falkland Islands.
Unfortunately, the sparsity of wells in the southern area makes
it difficult to calibrate the SRB sequence, and interpretations
remain more speculative in this part of the North Falkland
Basin as a result. The Dawn well 25/5-1 is located on a High–High
configuration and therefore penetrates from the NRB post-rift
sequence directly into SRB pre-rift rocks. Richardson & Underhill
(2002) analysed core data from Well 14/24-1 and dated the deepest
sediments as Upper Jurassic. Whilst they assumed that the dated
succession formed part of the NRB syn-rift basin, our detailed
seismic interpretation demonstrates that NRB post-rift rocks
directly overlie SRB syn-rift rocks, thus implying that the Jurassic
sediments in this well instead form part of the SRB syn-rift
sequence (Fig. 5). Hence, Richardson & Underhill (2002) in effect
demonstrated that the SRB syn-rift is Late Jurassic in age.
Wells 14/9-1 and -2 are located on the intragraben high (also
known as Orca Ridge), and have encountered a sequence below the
NRB pre-rift unconformity with tuffaceous claystone, sandstone
and conglomerate above the seismically transparent quartzitic base-
ment (Fig. 4). Our seismic interpretation suggests strongly that this
sequence is part of the SRB syn-rift, and biostratigraphic analysis
supports that it probably belongs to the Upper Jurassic (internal
studies by Holmes et al. 2015). Richards & Hillier (2000a, b)
assigned these strata to the NRB syn-rift sequence. Although we
disagree with this, they have suggested a Middle Jurassic to
Tithonian age for these strata, which fits with our interpretation that
they belong to the Late Jurassic syn-rift basins of the SRB.
The post-rift sequence is present only in the northern part of the
SRB owing to erosion in the south. It can be clearly distinguished
from the SRB syn-rift sequence as it is seismically less coherent
due to the high number of channel features (Fig. 10). The post-rift
is correlatable far into the north, and is age equivalent to both syn-
and post-rift sequences of the NRB, and will therefore be described
in the next section. The top SS3 surface merges with the top pre-
rift unconformity (NB) of the NRB (Figs 5 and 6).
The Cenozoic marker represents an important erosional uncon-
formity in the SRB and has been correlated with an intra-Tertiary
correlative conformity in the NRB. However, our results suggest
that the marker is diachronous, younging to the south, where it ulti-
mately merges with the seabed and then becomes the topographical
expression of the Falkland Islands indicating present-day erosion
(Figs 3, 5 and 10). This erosional unconformity in the very shallow
subsurface of the SRB suggests a relatively recent and significant
phase of uplift. From the seismic data, one can see erosional trunca-
tions of pre-, syn- and post-rift strata (Fig. 5) that suggest a more
regional long-wavelength uplift and removal of huge volumes of
sediments rather than localized reactivation, as there are no anti-
clines or other structures that might be ascribed to tectonic inversion.
Northern Rift Basin (NRB)
Basin configuration
The NRB is an Early Cretaceous rift basin that was initially
filled with fluvial and lacustrine sediments during both its
syn- and early post-rift stages. Its main basin is a deep half-gra-
ben with a west-dipping and high-displacement normal fault
defining its ­eastern margin that accumulated several kilometres
of sediments. There is an intragraben high that separates the
major depocentre from a western, shallower graben system, the
sub-basins and normal faults of which are much smaller than
those of the eastern major basin. The NRB system continues to
the north and south of the major graben. To the north, the basin
separates into several smaller ones that are narrower and shal-
lower (Fig. 2). Towards the south, the main basin also narrows
and the displacement along normal faults is reduced. Extension
continued further south where a discrete graben (Evie graben)
developed separately from the main graben (Figs 2, 7 and 8).
Both basins were established independently during syn-rift and
early post-rift but shared a similar evolution during their later
post-rift phase. The Evie graben is much smaller and shallower,
Fig. 4. Representative east–west seismic line through the regional 3D survey with the main structural features and megasequences. For the location see Figure 2, and for abbreviations see Table 1.
Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin

91

Fig. 5. Regional cross-section (TWT in seconds) illustrating the megasequences of the North Falkland Basin. For the location see Figure 2.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

92 T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill


   

 
   
   

    
 „ Ž 
 
 


„ 

‡ € ˆ ƒ   ‰ €  ƒ  ƒ ‚


 Š† €   „‰ € 
 ‹  ƒ ‚
       


 
  


 € €€

 ƒ   


 ‡  —  €
‡  —  €
€‘—€’  € € 
   € €€ • … €
  ƒ–

„ ‰ 
    ‹





 


    Œ   ƒ 
 „ ƒ 
…

  ‰
  —

Œ 



         




 € € 
 
‡  — 



      

 †


  
     

Œ
 
 

 
   
    


    †Œƒ „‰ ŒŽ ‚‘’ ƒ € ƒ   ‘   
  †   ƒ € 

•  €  €  „‰ ƒ –




…

­€  †Œƒ ‰ ‚  €  “€” ‹Œ


‚ƒ€

 Œƒ ‰ Œ
 Œ‡ €Œ   †

Fig. 6. North–south and east–west chronostratigraphic charts illustrating the megasequences for the whole NFB, based on seismic and well data. The
Cenozoic unconformity shows only the time when uplift and erosion occurred but does not, however, illustrate which sequences were eroded. This
is for illustrative purposes since erosion occurred down to pre-SRB rocks in certain places. Seismic markers are shown as dashed lines where age is
uncertain, and their colours correspond to those in Table 1.

and throw along the Evie fault is also smaller than at the major h­ igh-throw faults strike WNW–ESE and are older than the north–
basin-bounding fault in the north. In general, the normal faults south ones as they do not offset the NB reflector. The 3D Ernest
of the NRB show a southwards decrease in their throw and seismic data have been mapped in detail, and have subsequently
length, and their strike varies slightly around north–south. The been integrated with the interpretation of the other 3D seismic data
structural highs that separate both basins are the Keppel terrace and correlated across areas where there is 2D seismic coverage only.
and the Ernest High. The general north–south fault strike sug- The fault pattern that defines the rifting of the NRB has been
gests an east–west-directed extension direction during rifting. mapped across the entire basin in order to define the extent of the
South of the graben, the fault’s strike direction changes from whole basin. Emphasis has been placed on mapping the major fault
north–south into a NNW–SSE strike. The reason for this change is at the eastern side of the NRB in order to analyse its growth during
related to reactivation: some of the extensional faults in the south are rifting and its control on sedimentation. This major fault is, in fact,
reactivated, having previously been extensional or transpressional as a fault system that consists of numerous small- and large-scale
seen in the Weddell 3D data (Fig. 10). Their orientation is only faults. Its overall fault geometry is highly undulating in map view,
slightly oblique to the new east–west extensional stress regime, and and the different segments show a concave shape towards the west.
therefore reactivation was favoured over the generation of new faults. This is very typical of segmented faults that grow in displacement
The transitional area shows intersections between the north– and length until they link with neighbouring faults, and conse-
south-striking faults that are related to the NRB and the NW–SE- quently build larger master faults (e.g. Ferrill et al. 1999; McClay
striking faults that are related to the SRB (Fig. 2). The fault pattern et al. 2002; Marchal et al. 2003; Walsh et al. 2003; Manzocchi
here is complex as the faults are shorter and have lower throws et al. 2006; Lohr et al. 2008; Baudon & Cartwright 2008). We
than would otherwise allow them to be correlated unambiguously have distinguished six large fault segments, labelled A–F, in Figure
between neighbouring 2D seismic lines. Also, some unconformi- 12. The relative age of the normal fault segments has been defined
ties are converging and additional reflectors (probably represent- by comparing the sedimentary thickness of these segments and the
ing volcanic rocks) challenge the interpretation. This is most fault pattern in their hanging wall. The oldest segment is in the
evident in the 3D Ernest data set where data quality is very good middle of the basin, and the younger ones towards the south and
and therefore reveals the extent of structural complexity that is north. Their lateral position and timing of initiation and linkage
observed in this area (Fig. 11). Here, relatively low-throw north– probably depends primarily on rock mechanic properties and,
south- striking faults are related to NRB extension, whereas therewith, also on pre-rift basement configurations.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin

Fig. 7. Regional TWT maps (two-way-travel time in seconds) covering both the SRB and NRB where seismic interpretation was possible and seismic markers present.
93
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018
94 T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill
Fig. 8. Regional isochron maps (two-way-travel time in seconds) showing the relative thickness variations of the major NFB megasequences.
Pre-rift geology
The pre-rift unconformity is a very prominent boundary marked by
seismic reflector terminations and has been mapped regionally. It is
a strong reflector where it represents eroded basement. This is cali-
brated by Well 14/9-1 that has drilled quartzitic Devonian rocks on
the intragraben high (Fig. 4). The unconformity becomes less
reflective and more difficult to pick out within the deeper parts of
the basin, which might be related to poorer imaging with depth,
additional non-coherent reflectors associated with volcanic rocks or
locally preserved pre-rift sedimentary sequences. For these reasons,
it is often difficult to define a clear boundary between the pre-rift
and early syn-rift sequences in these deeper areas. The intragraben
high has a layered upper part and a seismically transparent deeper
part. Wells 14/9-1 and -2 have encountered tuffaceous claystone,
sandstone and conglomerate above quartzitic basement.
Biostratigraphic dating is not very well constrained owing to the
restricted fluvial/lacustrine environment, but a likely Late Jurassic
age has been suggested (Richards & Hillier 2000a, b; internal stud-
ies by Holmes et al. 2015). From the seismic data, there is strong
evidence that this section belongs to the pre-rift sequence since its
thickness varies across east–west-striking faults that are restricted
to the intragraben high only. It is probable that this sequence is part
of the SRB syn-rift sequence preserved beneath the NRB.
The top basement is very well imaged on the structural high to the
east. It is a very strong reflector without coherent seismic structures
beneath. This indicates that the basement might not be composed of
layered sediments but, rather, metamorphic or igneous rocks, possi-
bly also the quartzitic rock that has been drilled by Well 14/9-1 on the
intragraben high. On the structural high to the east, we have identified
several lineaments, of which some might be faults related to the pre-
rift phase. A seismic line in Figure 13 images the most obvious of
those lineaments – we interpret it as a normal fault with reflectors of
a tilted hanging wall. The hanging-wall reflectors might indicate a
pre-rift sedimentary basin, presumably related to the rifting event that
created the SRB. Further to the south are more indications of pre-rift
structures, as can be seen on the Sanson terrace (Fig. 13).
There are numerous sedimentary feeders on the eastern
basement high that have shed sediments into the depocentre and
are linked to post-rift fan deposits (Fig. 12). The largest
feeder is opposite Well 14/15-4, with a width of about 1.5 km and
a deep canyon incision of about 100 ms (marked yellow in Fig. 14).
A more detailed description of those feeders and their relationship
to the basin fans and fault segments is presented below.
Syn-rift history
The syn-rift sequence can be recognized in the seismic data by
diverging reflectors indicating syn-tectonic deposition in an active
half-graben setting. As with the SRB, we can distinguish three syn-
rift units: an early syn-rift 1; a main syn-rift 2; and a late syn-rift 3
(NS1, NS2 and NS3: see Table 1, Figs 4 and 15). The timing of rift
initiation is not well defined as there are no wells that penetrate the
oldest sediments in the basin centre. However, Well 14/5-1A, which
is located in the northern part of the basin, does penetrate approxi-
mately 70% of the NS2 sequence down to a depth of 4.5 km, 3.5 s
TWT (Fig. 15). The sedimentary rocks encountered are mainly
claystones with layers of siltstone and sandstone. Biostratigrphic
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018
Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin
dating of these sediments is not very confident due to restricted
fluvial/lacustrine markers but the oldest encountered sediments are
likely to be of Early Cretaceous age, probably Late Valanginian
(internal studies by Holmes et al. 2015). Owing to the fact that this
well terminates very close to the base syn-rift and that syn-rift sedi-
ment accumulation is often very rapid, we suggest that rifting
started not earlier than Valanginian and is unlikely to be Jurassic.
Syn-rift 1 is a relatively thin sequence and exists only in the
deepest parts of the basin. The top of this sequence has been
mapped, where possible, but the reflector is not very coherent and
the boundary to syn-rift 2 is sometimes ambiguous. In the basin
centre, it is at a TWT of about 6 s.
Syn-rift 2 is a thick package of diverging reflectors. The whole
unit thickens strongly towards the major fault to the east. Internal
reflectors are well defined and are offset by normal faults that detach
at the base of the sequence, or within syn-rift 1 (Fig. 4). Top syn-rift
2 is the strongest reflector within the syn-rift sequence and can be
mapped throughout the basin, in many places in great detail. An
isochron map of syn-rift 2 demonstrates an increased TWT thickness
close to the major fault to the east, and a strong thinning of the sedi-
ment wedge towards the west (Fig. 16). Although the map does show
only the vertical TWT isochron instead of the strata-perpendicular
95
Fig. 9. Southern part of the SB (South
Base or SRB pre-rift unconformity)
TWT map with mapped faults. Basement
hanging-wall and footwall configuration:
HH, High–High; LL, Low–Low; HL,
High–Low; LH – Low–High.
true isochron, this trend is already evident from seismic data (Fig. 4)
and is therefore a good approximation. We interpret this sedimentary
package to be the main syn-rift sequence.
Syn-rift 3 is the youngest syn-rift sequence. It is thinner than
syn-rift 2 and its internal reflectors are not as well defined as the
older sequence underneath. An isochron map of syn-rift 3 illustrates
a thicker sequence in the east but thinning towards the west
(Fig. 16). The westwards thinning seems to be more homogeneous
than in the syn-rift 2 sequence, possibly due to a decrease in
fault growth resulting in less accommodation space for syn-rift
deposits. Furthermore, the top syn-rift 3 map shows a much
broader depression that extends further away from the major basin
fault than it does on the deeper levels. The basin becomes more
symmetric as thermal subsidence and compaction become more
dominant in comparison to faulting. This indicates the transition to
the post-rift phase.
Lateral differences in the isochron maps are probably related to
variations in throw along the major (c. 150 km-long) fault. It has been
demonstrated that large faults develop through the linkage of numer-
ous smaller faults. Differences in syn-rift sediment thickness along
fault strike can demonstrate different timings in the growth and link-
age of segments (e.g. in the North Sea Viking Graben: McLeod et al.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

96 T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill

Fig. 10. NW–SE seismic line through the 3D Weddell survey and TWT structure maps, showing top pre-rift and top syn-rift unconformities. Tight
anticlines within the SS2 sequence are related to transpressional faulting. NNW–SSE-trending normal faults occurred shortly after SS3 and the faults
seem to be soft-linked to pre-existing basement fractures, and probably developed during the NRB syn-rift. Strong and restricted reflectors above the
basement are interpreted as volcanic rocks. Note the channel-rich sequence above the top SS3 in the post-rift. For location see Figures 2 and 9.

2000). In map view, the strong undulation of this west-dipping
­normal fault suggests that it is composed of several tens of km-scale
segments that are concave towards the hanging wall and the linkage
zones of which are further west than their fault centres. We have
mapped these faults in detail and have identified areas of linkage,
varying throws, relay ramps and footwall collapse faults that devel-
oped as a result of fault-scarp erosion and degradation. The initiation
of the main segments might have been influenced by pre-rift base-
ment structures. The area of segments A, B and D is probably under-
lain by a corridor of pre-rift extensional basins that have a higher
potential to compact during subsidence than the more competent
metamorphic and magmatic basement, as can be seen in Figure 13.
The syn-rift 2 sequence has its thickest accumulation of sediments
at the centre of the major fault, just south of Well 14/10-8 (Fig. 16).
The thicker area continues south up to Well 14/15-1, and to the north
to Well 14/10-6. Between wells 14/10-6 and 14/10-3 is another
smaller depocentre, and south of Well 14/15-1 is another one. Syn-rift
sequence 3 shows a slightly different distribution of depocentres. In
general, the basin widens towards the west, but the main depocentre
is still just south of Well 14/10-8, with a significant thickness between
14/10-6 and south of 14/15-1 but no longer between 14/10-6 and
14/10-3. This main depocentre is in front of the oldest fault segment
A, that is probably underlain by a SRB syn-rift basin, and therefore
underwent higher compaction and subsidence than its surroundings.
The areas just north and south of segment A are the next oldest.
But since the northern part is thinner, and more throw has been
taken up by the southern part, we label this southern segment as
segment B. Hence, the northern part becomes segment C. Segments
A and B have dependent depocentres developed during syn-rift 3
deposition. This is also illustrated by their subsidiary faults in the
hanging wall (Figs 12 and 16). These faults are antithetic normal
faults that dip to the east and have a concave shape towards the
east, suggesting that they are related to fault segments A and B.
Their shape and extent suggests that they comprise a combined
depocentre as their tips point towards the northern end of segment
A and the southern end of segment B. Displacement along the anti-
thetic faults varies, and the highest offsets can be observed along
top syn-rift 2. Displacement decreases on the shallower reflectors.
Some faults are present only in the syn-rift sequence; others are
through-going up to the Base SLMC horizon in the early post-rift.
This suggests that they were initiated during syn-rift, probably as
they accommodate large displacement along the major fault. They
later became reactivated during the post-rift phase.
Post-rift fill
The syn- to post-rift boundary is hard to define with precision as the
change appears to be gradual and transitional, reflecting a reduction
in fault growth along the main eastern boundary and smaller throw
on its antithetic fault arrays during the early post-rift phase. Onlap
and subsequent drape characterize both sides of the basin. The dep-
ocentre shifted further to the west and became more centric, as is
illustrated in the isochron maps. The main mechanism for basin
development probably changed gradually from fault growth along
the main eastern fault to thermal subsidence and compaction.
The chronostratigraphic diagram (Fig. 6) demonstrates the dep-
osition during the syn- and post-rift phase for the NRB in the area
of the major graben (Sea Lion area). It illustrates the relative chro-
nology of fan deposits shed from the eastern structural high, and
indicates source and reservoir rocks. Although the majority of the
sediment volume was transported via the delta from north to
south along the basin axis, the easterly shed fans are highlighted in
the chronostratigraphic diagram owing to their importance for
exploration. Richards & Hillier (2000a, b) have analysed the
source of the northerly-derived delta sediments through petro-
graphical and heavy mineral analyses, and suggest that they have
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018
Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin
been derived by the unroofing of a metamorphic and granitic ter-
rain but the actual source area remains uncertain.
We have mapped several post-rift reflectors in the NRB: the
Hauterivian marker (3D1), the Base SLMC, the Aptian marker (E1)
and a Cenozoic marker. The Hauterivian and Aptian markers are the
base and top of a high-reflective seismic package that is a prograding
delta sequence (Fig. 15). No age dating exists for the Top NS3, but
the early post-rift Hauterivian marker has been assigned to 131 Ma
(Holmes et al. 2015). The Aptian marker is defined as 119 Ma in the
Sea Lion wells (Holmes et al. 2015). It marks a time of tectonic
inversion in both the NRB and SRB, and can be correlated regionally.
The overlying sedimentary package contains well-defined clin-
oforms that demonstrate a southward-prograding sequence.
Variable erosion of the topsets suggests that progradation occurred
during both highstand and falling stages of lake level (forced
regression), perhaps in response to uplift to the north at this time.
The geometry of the clinoform-bearing sequence is consistent with
deltaic progradation along the basin’s depositional axis.
Sands shed from and deposited ahead of the advancing delta front
accumulated as lake-basin-floor fans (e.g. F3A and F3C northerly
fans), the accumulation of which contributed to progressive filling
of the basin from north to south. At the same time, sediments were
shed from the eastern high via feeder systems into the basin (Fig.
12). Those easterly-derived sand-rich sediments accumulated as
97
Fig. 11. East–west seismic line through
the Ernest 3D survey illustrating the
structural complexity that is challenging
to interpret on the 3D data but even more
difficult on the 2D data. The NB (North
Base) and SB (South Base) TWT maps
highlight older east–west-trending and
younger north–south-trending basins. For
the location see Figures 2 and 9.
fans and have been mapped in detail for prospectivity (e.g. Sea Lion
sands: Williams 2015). Well data show that the sediments derived
from the eastern structural high are excellent quality, sand rich,
whereas the sediments derived from the distal delta source in the
north may be poorer quality, although only a limited number of wells
to date have tested this play. This is expressed in wells 14/5-1A and
14/10-1, which have been drilled along the inversion anticline and
their reservoir quality is poor, compared to the sands drilled in the
basin depocentre further east (Fig. 17). Drilling the anticline was
reasonable at the time, since this was done in 1998 when the inter-
pretation was based on 2D and poorer quality 3D seismic data.
However, with the new 3D data, we can now image and unravel
stratigraphic sequences in great detail using seismic attributes (Bunt
2015), which results in a better understanding of the evolution of the
basin system and thus provides the necessary tools for understand-
ing the rock physics of the reservoirs (Francis et al. 2015) that con-
tributed to the drilling success at Sea Lion (MacAulay 2015).
The Base SLMC horizon is a reflector between the Hauterivian
and Aptian markers within the delta sequence, and defines the
common base for the numerous Sea Lion and satellite fans like
Casper, Casper South and Beverley (Figs 4, 15, and 18). There are
numerous normal faults within this post-rift sequence. Their t­ iming
varies, as some of them show higher displacements at the syn-rift
reflectors than at the post-rift ones, suggesting an early initiation
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

98 T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill

Fig. 12. Basemap of the NRB main basin over the regional 3D seismic survey with some of the post-rift fans (grey), syn-rift faults at basement level
(black), and antithetic (purple) and radial faults (pink) at the Hauterivian marker level. Only a few of the antithetic and radial faults offset the Sea Lion
and satellite fans, most faulting occurred before these fans were deposited. The yellow dashed line represents a contour around the Aptian inversion
anticline, illustrating the structural–stratigraphic position of the Sea Lion fans. The interpreted major fault segments are shown in white, letters refer to
age: A is the oldest, F the youngest.

and later reactivation. Most of the faults stopped during the earliest
post-rift, some within the prograding sequence, and only a very
few offset the Sea Lion and satellite fans, but none of them contin-
ues up to the Aptian marker (apart from faults related to the eastern
margin or the intragraben high: Fig. 15).
The isochron map of the whole delta sequence between the
Hauterivian and Aptian markers has a depocentre in the middle of the
basin (Figs 18 & 19). This is similar to the top syn-rift to the
Hauterivian marker isochron map (Fig. 19). In contrast, the older
sequence has the highest sediment thickness around and north of
Well 14/15-3 only, whereas the younger sequence also has a high
sediment thickness further south. The main syn-rift depocentre in
the hanging wall of segments A and B is still preserved for the
early phase of the post-rift. The post-rift Hauterivian marker shows
the antithetic faults around segments A and B. An increased thick-
ness in this area is also evident from the early post-rift isochron
map. Although the basin generally widens during the post-rift, the
old syn-rift depocentre still dominates. However, the deepest part
is no longer just south of Well 14/10-8 but between wells 14/15-4
and 14/15-3, which suggests that the depocentre shifted internally
further SW, possibly as a result of completed fault linkage between
segments A and B. Owing to its heterogeneous faulting, the earliest
post-rift sequence could also be ascribed to a syn-rift to post-rift
transitional phase.
The lateral differences in the isochron maps that have been
described above for the late syn-rift and early post-rift sequences
explain the complexity that is ascribed to compaction and differen-
tial subsidence related to pre-rift structures and subsidiary hang-
ing-wall faults. This may explain why the position of the post- to
syn-rift boundary differs widely between previous interpreters
(e.g. Bransden et al. 1999; Richards & Hillier 2000a, b; Richardson
& Underhill 2002). However, the detailed mapping on the high-
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin 99

Fig. 13. Two north–south lines illustrating the SB and NB unconformities. (Top) Seismic line along the basement high illustrating a partially eroded
half-graben related to the SRB. (Bottom) Seismic line through the Sanson terrace across a relay ramp showing remains of SRB syn-rift basins. For the
location see Figure 2.

Fig. 14. Coherency image and north–south seismic line illustrating numerous channel incisions on the eastern basement high that shed sediments into
the basin centre. For the location see Figure 2.

resolution 3D seismic data set allows us to confidently identify markers within this package, and have identified a prograding
syn-rift, transition and post-rift sequences. Furthermore, like sequence, an inversion-related unconformity and diagenetic
Bransden et al. (1999) and Richards & Hillier (2000a, b), who ana- effects. However, since this was not the focus of this study, it is
lysed the Cenozoic package, we have recognized numerous other therefore not described in this paper.
 100
T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill
Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

Fig. 15. Representative north–south line through the regional 3D seismic data. It shows the megasequences and illustrates the post-rift southward-prograding depositional sequence, bounded by the Hauterivian and
Aptian marker surfaces. For the location see Figure 2, and for abbreviations see Table 1.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin

Fig. 16. TWT and isochron maps with overlying antithetic faults (purple) that offset the top NS2 reflector, and the associated fault pattern of the major basin fault (black). Interpreted major fault segments are coloured
pink and labelled from A (oldest) to F (youngest).
101
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

102 T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill

  

 


    
 
     
    
       
 



  

   


 

Fig. 17. Play concept illustrating a schematic west–east section through the main graben of the NRB. Vertically exaggerated to highlight the inversion anticline.

Fig. 18. NW–SE seismic line illustrating the throw and extent of the antithetic faults. The large arrow indicates strong subsidence that is accommodated
by antithetic faults. The seismic line crosses a structural high (compare with the isochron map) above which post-rift strata thinned. For the location see
Figures 2 and 22.

Basin margin segmentation
Another fault category that affects the hanging wall are a set of
radial faults, marked in pink in Figure 12. They occur very close
to, and radiate out from, the main segment linkage zones, often
diverging radially towards the west. They are NW–SE to SW–NE
striking, both north and south dipping, and establish graben. They
offset a gently domed structure that is visible on north–south seis-
mic lines (Fig. 20). Most of the radial faults are slightly younger
than the Base SLMC horizon. They developed directly above
­basement promontories, and most of them correspond to a major
segment linkage zone. They offset most of the strata belonging to
the early prograding delta sequence, and some of the radial faults
go deeper into the syn-rift, whereas a few are rooted directly on
basement rocks. Since they do not show growth strata and are
younger than the fans they are offsetting, the radial faults do not
control the deposition of the fans. However, depending on the
amount of throw, they could seal and inhibit flow within the res-
ervoir. The radial faults are orientated in such a way that one fault
tip is located updip towards the basement margin high and the
other one downdip towards the basin centre. These faults alone
would therefore not be sufficient as a trapping mechanism.
Instead, a combined stratigraphic and structural trap is needed to
prevent updip leakage through canyon fills in systems that were
not by-passed. The domes around the radial faults have a three-
way dip closure only and are relatively small. The radial faults do
not seem to have influenced the sediment input feeders nor acted
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin 103

Fig. 19. TWT isochron maps of post-rift megasequences. Blue colours indicate a large thickness. The oldest sequence shows a small depocentre in
the middle of the basin, whereas the Hauterivian–Aptian marker isochron shows a wider depocentre that continues further north, south and west. The
youngest sequence illustrates the Aptian inversion anticline in the middle of the basin.

as pathways during fan deposition, as they are younger than the
mapped fans.
Basin inversion
The occurrence of an intrabasinal unconformity demonstrates that
basin subsidence was inconsistent with a typical McKenzie-type
rift-drift (syn- to post-rift) history, whereby it was punctuated by
an important phase of uplift and erosion. In the centre of both the
NRB main graben and the Evie graben, this horizon defines north–
south-striking anticlines that gently fold the post- and partly syn-
rift sediments, resulting in two synclines at either side of the
anticline (Figs 2–4, 12 and 17). In the NRB main graben, this is
associated with a shift in depocentre location from the basin centre
to two peripheral locations. Analysis of the youngest stratigraphy
below and the oldest above the unconformity E1 allows it to be
ascribed an Aptian age (119 Ma: Holmes et al. 2015).
We interpret the phase of folding and the formation of the
unconformity to represent and record an important Aptian phase of
intrabasinal structural inversion related mainly to the bulk uplift of
the sedimentary depocentre as there are no indications for seismic-
scale reactivation of former normal faults. It folded the underlying
sediments that were originally transported and deposited along the
basin axis, and are now located on top of the anticline, creating a
trap mechanism for fluids that was the focus of Shell’s original two
exploration wells drilled in the first campaign in 1998.
At the Aptian level, we also observe truncated clinoforms at the
northern limit of the eastern structural high above fault segments
C and E. This suggests that this high was also uplifted and that
these progrades were partially eroded (Fig. 4) (Bunt 2015;
Williams 2015), which implies that the lake might once have
extended f­ urther east and therewith the shoreline where reworked
sands developed that sourced the Sea Lion fan and its satellites.
The Aptian uplift was possibly also the cause of delta termination
as it eliminated the accommodation space for sedimentary depos-
its into the lake. Apart from the eastern structural high, also the
­western margin, the intragraben high and the Evie high may have
been slightly uplifted. However, this remains ambiguous from
the seismic data, and well data are not sufficient to provide this
information.
The Early and Late Cretaceous section above the Aptian marker
is marked by continuous sedimentation, suggesting renewed basin
subsidence. However, biostratigraphic data suggest that relatively
low rates of deposition and condensation occurred during the
renewed phase of subsidence relative to the syn-rift and early
­post-rift phases (Figs 4 and 6). The slow down in basin subsidence
was recorded by a transition from lacustrine to fluvial to marine
conditions (Holmes et al. 2015), suggesting that renewed subsid-
ence promoted the ingress of ocean water.
Trapping mechanism
While the dominant trapping mechanism for the Sea Lion Field and
its satellite fans is stratigraphic, our interpretation suggests that
there is also, in part, a structural element on the western flank,
resulting from structural inversion of the basin axis. High-quality
reservoir sands that were sourced from the north and NE are incor-
porated into the eastern flank of the broad, open inversion fold (Fig.
17). The western side of the play is effectively created by downdip
shale-out of the reservoir sandstones onto the inversion anticline.
By contrast, the eastern flank is an updip pinch-out stratigraphic
trap with an occasional structural element as the fan complexes nar-
row towards their respective feeder systems, extending onto the
basement high. Hydrocarbon trapping occurs where the shallower
end of a feeder is eroded and replaced by shales, or where faults
offset the narrow feeders and juxtapose sands against shales.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018
104 T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill
Discussion
Timing, distribution and tectonic control of the
lacustrine fans
The depositional sequence between the Hauterivian and Aptian
markers contains sediments that were derived mainly from the north
and as background lacustrine sedimentation. However, there were
also sediments that were derived from the east that create the pro-
spective lacustrine fan reservoir play fairway containing the Sea
Lion Field. The northerly-derived deposits were sourced from a
­prograding delta sequence, whereas the easterly-derived deposits
were shed from the adjacent structural high, but evidence for their
source is absent due to erosion. Both systems are coeval and their
depositional patterns interfere, which may suggest that the easterly-
derived fans were shed from the same delta front that once extended
further east on top of the structural high. This idea was first sug-
gested on the basis of thin-section analysis on Sea Lion well cores,
which showed highly mature sands that implied the reworking of
shelfal sequences (Williams 2015). The source of the Sea Lion and
satellite fans would therefore be a shallow lacustrine shelf further
east on top of the structural high where reworked sediments were
formed and then transported into the deepest part of the lake. The
Eastern Structural High was probably subaqueous but lay at a very
shallow water depth at that time. Climatically controlled lake-level
changes could have had a significant influence on shoreline extent
and therefore on sediment reworking potential.
A subdivision of the Hauterivian–Aptian marker isochron map
into two parts (Fig. 21), separated by the Base SLMC, demon-
strates the change in basin subsidence. Although the Hauterivian–
Aptian marker isochron map shows a quite widened basin and little
evidence of any segment-related variation in deposition, the older
Fig. 20. North–south seismic lines crossing
segment-linkage zones and illustrating the
mapped radial normal faults within the
delta sequence. The northern line crosses
the fault–segment linkage C–E and the
southern line fault-segment linkage A–B as
depicted in Fig.19. Underneath each set of
radial faults is a structural high. The radial
faults are downthrown towards the centre
of the dome. For location see Figures 2
and 19.
part of the isochron reveals an interesting pattern: it highlights not
only the combined depocentre of segments A and B, but also
another depocentre further south at the hanging wall of segment D,
and a third depocentre further west close to Well 14/9-2. The Base
SLMC horizon is offset by many of the antithetic faults but
younger horizons show less and less faulting (Figs 4, 15 and 18).
This implies that the early post-rift deposition is still strongly con-
trolled by deformation along some of the syn-rift hanging-wall
faults accommodating continued subsidence and compaction. The
thickness of this sequence varies laterally, with local highs, for
example, around Well 14/15-4 (Fig. 19). Seismic data reveal that
there are structural heterogeneities at basement level and associ-
ated strong faulting above (Fig. 18), which suggests that the inher-
ited basement morphology not only partially controlled syn-rift
antithetic faulting but also had a minor influence on the early post-
rift deposition due to the reactivation of those antithetic faults. In
marked contrast, the younger post-rift sequence between the Base
SLMC and Aptian marker (Fig. 21) shows a quite different pattern:
Here the individual depocentres are no longer recognizable but,
instead, one large and relatively symmetric basin has developed.
Antithetic faults have only a very minor control on deposition.
To illustrate the relationship between the lacustrine fans, varia-
tions in sediment thickness within the basin and faulting, we have
produced a diagram that shows the timing and lateral distribution
of the fans according to their feeder source (Fig. 22). Stratigraphic
sequences span the oldest Hauterivian marker (3D1) to the young-
est MF1 (slightly older than the Aptian marker). The diagram does
not show the actual fan deposition within the basin, but rather
which feeder each fan came from and when it was deposited. The
major prograding delta-fed fans (F3C and F3A northerly fans)
sourced from the north are also shown.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin 105

Fig. 21. Isochron maps of the delta sequence: the Hauterivian marker to the Base SLMC isochron with pre-Base SLMC fans, and the Base SLMC to
Aptian marker isochron with post-Base SLMC fans. Note the heterogeneous thickness of the older sequence with three major depocentres, and the
homogenous thickness of the younger sequence.

In the early stages of easterly-derived sedimentation the basin was
not symmetric, so the first incoming post-rift deposits encountered
morphological variations and filled-up the deepest parts of the basin.
These were the depocentre of segments A+B, as well as segment D
(Fig. 21). The oldest mappable fans were deposited in the hanging
wall of those segments. The first fans up to level F3G are the smallest
ones and do not reach far to the west. They filled-up the topographi-
cal depressions, so that the subsequent fans up to level F3C could
reach further west and deposit more extensively than the older ones.
Up to level F3C, all fans were derived from the southern segments
and deposited in the combined hanging wall of segments A+B, as
well as segment D, but no fans seem to have derived from the north-
ern segments. As shown in Figures 18 and 21, there is a minor struc-
tural high around Well 14/15-4 that was present some time between
the Hauterivian marker and the Base SLMC, possibly around level
F3D, which developed in response to renewed movement along anti-
thetic faults. The early fans seem to have flowed around this high. Of
the prograding sediments that derived from the north, the F3C north-
erly fan system has been mapped as an interesting high-amplitude
feature. It reaches as far south as Well 14/15-3. This fan system
crosses the area of the former structural high and terminates in the
segment A+B depocentre. Its eastern boundary is adjacent to the
older fans, as they probably had a compactional topography that
served to confine the F3C northerly fan depositional system.
The time between level F3B and F3A marks a distinct change in
depositional pattern. The F3A northerly fan system developed
from the north flowing along the basin axis and numerous fans
derived simultaneously from the east and pond against it. This was
the period with the greatest number of fans deposited, where
almost all feeders were active and shed sediments into the basin.
This could have been a period of lake-level lowstand and forced
progradation, and climatically driven changes might be the cause
but further studies are needed to understand this pattern.
The Sea Lion fans were the first deposits that were influenced by
bathymetric expression of the F3A fan system and at this stage the
basin was being filled successively from north to south: SL30 derived
from the northern segment E, followed by SL20 and SL10 at the
boundary between segments C and A, and, finally, SL05 from
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

106 T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill

Fig. 22. Fan-distribution diagram illustrating from which feeder the numerous fans derived. The Sea Lion fans are shown in yellow and the other
satellite fans in orange. Additional mapped fans appear in green. Note the difference in fan position below and above the Base SLMC marker. (Top)
Structural basemap with the master faults in black, and blue radial and purple antithetic faults mapped at the Hauterivian marker level (3D1). The
Aptian marker is not shown here as it is slightly younger than the fan sequence in this figure.

segment A. Subsequent fans (e.g. Casper, Casper South and Beverley:
Fig. 22) continue to show a younging towards the south, but they were
all shed from within segment A. After F3A, there seem to be no more
fans from the southern segments B and D: the reason for this is not
clear. There can be several geological reasons for the variations in
sediment supply from the basement high, such as climatic changes,
footwall degradation with enforced erosion especially at segment A or
the presence of less competent and more erosive basement rocks
exposed at segment A. Another explanation could be the extent of the
delta and palaeo-shoreline over the eastern margin and its original
(now eroded) hinterland topography. The continuous southwards
propagation of post-Base SLMC fans, together with the southward-
prograding delta, suggests a deactivation and activation of feeders
from north to south with advancing delta front that stopped at the base-
ment promontory between segments A and B. Tectonics may have
played a role, at least partly, since the fans young towards the oldest
segment where inherited pre-rift structures have been identified on
both footwalls and hanging walls, controlling syn-rift and early post-
rift faulting, as well as the feeder location. In such areas, longer-lived
hanging-wall faults and therewith related subsidence would provide
more accommodation space and, hence, preferential fan deposition –
unlike other areas with no accommodation space where fan feeders
could have been backfilled and ceased to supply sediment.
Radial faults
The development of the radial faults seems to be related to the
major basin-bounding fault, as they occur at fault-linkage zones
where edges or promontories extend out into the basin from its
margin. There is a major contrast in compaction and subsidence at
such a boundary: hanging-wall sediments suffer strong subsidence
and compaction, whereas the footwall rocks do not. The uncom-
pactable hard basement continues at depth as slivers of footwall
blocks where the soft post-rift sediments are draped over to form
dome-like structures. During this deformation, stress perturbation
occurs and structures develop that apparently do not fit the regional
strain or stress pattern. Thus, the domes are not related to compres-
sional anticlines, but rather drape over competent basement prom-
ontories that lead to outer-arc stretching and therefore local
extension. There is no evidence that these domes could have been
caused by inversion or strike- or oblique-slip movements. Tectonic
inversion would not favour the development of anticlines of this
scale in these locations but would rather create wider folding, like
the inversion anticline formed during the Aptian. Likewise, strike-
or oblique-slip kinematics along the major basin fault would result
in both transpressional and extensional structures at different areas
along the major basin-bounding fault due to its strong undulation,
Fig. 23. North–south cross-section illustrating the uplift of the Falkland Islands and SRB due to oblique collision at the northern margin of the Scotia Plate, and therewith related foreland bulging and flexural doming. The
SRB and Falkland Islands are part of the forebulge and undergo uplift, whereas the NRB is part of the backbulge and undergoes dynamic subsidence, and is currently at its greatest depth of burial. The boundary between
the forebulge and backbulge is transient, and approximately in the area of the Evie graben to Keppel terrace. Note the large vertical exaggeration. The seismic line through the South Falkland Basin is taken from Bry
et al. (2004); the seismic line through the North Falkland Basin is from this study (see Fig. 1 for the location).
Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018

Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin

Fig. 24. Combined petroleum system events chart and subsidence curve. The petroleum system events chart is simplified and focuses on the area around Sea Lion. The subsidence curve (Green, pers. comm.) shows the
burial history for the Hauterivian marker based on Well 14/10-1, which is located directly on the inversion anticline. The Aptian uplift was localized and only minor, and has a very small impact on source rocks at depth.
107

This impact is even smaller at wells away from the anticline.

 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018
108 T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill
with both right- and left-stepping segments. We do not observe
this and, instead, we propose that a simple drape over basement
promontory mechanism provides the most plausible explanation
for the features observed here.
Phases of uplift
Pre-NRB uplift
The exact timing of the transition between the SRB syn-rift and
beginning of its post-rift phase cannot be well defined. Regional
interpretation suggests that the SS3 (SRB top syn-rift) and NB (NRB
pre-rift) unconformities are seismostratigraphically equivalent, but a
significant hiatus may be associated with that surface. Top SS3 is
often an angular unconformity that indicates subaerial erosion. Syn-
rift reflectors are layered and often coherent, in ­comparison to the
post-rift reflectors that are rarely layered, non-coherent and show
many channel features (Fig. 10). We interpret the syn-rift seismic
pattern to represent a deep-water environment with calm background
sedimentation, whereas the post-rift seismic pattern indicates a much
shallower and higher-energy depositional environment. This sug-
gests that after rifting, the SRB must have undergone a period of
slight uplift, possibly exposing footwall blocks to subaerial condi-
tions, whereas shallow-water conditions persisted over hanging-wall
blocks. The north, however, probably underwent a higher uplift and
erosion, and the few places where pre-NRB structures are preserved
might be very early SRB syn-rift deposits. Uplift and erosion of SRB
sediments, as well as pre-SRB basement rocks, would have provided
the sedimentary infill for the NRB. The time of uplift and erosion is
difficult to determine without well control but it must have happened
before, or upon commencement of, the NRB syn-rift phase.
The absence of a thick sedimentary cover between the SRB and
the NRB syn-rift packages suggests that the SRB did not experi-
ence much, if any, thermal (post-rift) subsidence, but was uplifted
soon after its syn-rift phase. Good evidence for this is seen where
the top SS3 unconformity does not show indications of erosion
(Fig. 10), but rather a continuous sedimentation with relatively
rapid shallowing of the depositional environment from a calm
background sedimentation (parallel and coherent reflectors) to
higher-energy sedimentation (chaotic and channel-rich sequence).
If a SRB-related thermal sag phase sequence had occurred and was
completely eroded during the NRB rifting, the top SS3 surface
would also have been affected and would have exhibited reflector
terminations everywhere. However, erosional truncation is not
observed where the SRB syn-rift sequence is completely preserved
but only occurs further north where the SRB syn-rift sequence has
been partially or completely eroded during the NRB syn-rift phase.
The bottom of the Ernest well 26/6-1 penetrates a volcaniclastic
sequence that has indications for subaerial exposure in that thin-
section analysis suggests the series to have been ferruginized and,
possibly, colonized by plants (Macchi pers. comm.). The volcani-
clastics are located just on top of the SB basement unconformity
and are part of the earliest NRB syn-rift deposits. The area of the
Ernest well is a High–Low (Fig. 9), which means it was a high at
the time of SRB rifting but a low at the time of NRB rifting. The
subaerial exposure and erosion must have occurred before this area
underwent significant subsidence during the NRB extension.
The uplift described here occurred regionally, and the amount of
uplift and erosion might have been of the order of several hundreds of
metres or even up to a few kilometres, with lower values in the south
and higher values in the north. However, this remains speculative and
cannot be constrained further since there are no well data that could
provide information about the depositional environment or even
allow apatite fission-track analysis. This uplift probably resulted in
the isolation of sub-basins in the SRB and restricted deposition within
them, with heterogeneous and poorly sorted sediments shed over
short distances from subaerial highs into neighbouring basins. The
cause of the uplift at the end of the SRB syn-rift period might have
been magmatic doming that triggered the rifting of the NRB, similar
to the uplift documented from the East African Rift system today.
Post-NRB uplift
At the Aptian seismic regional marker (119 Ma), we observe two
north–south-striking anticlines, one within the main NRB graben and
other one within the Evie graben (Figs 3, 4 and 19). In addition, the
Aptian marker truncates clinoforms at the eastern bounding fault (Fig.
3). We interpret that this regional marker documents a time of mild but
regional east–west-directed compression that led to the gentle folding
of the post- and partly syn-rift sediments into anticlines, and the mild
uplift of the eastern structural high. The associated erosion of parts of
the prograding delta sequence left no evidence that could suggest how
far the delta extended to the east on top of this basement high.
We have estimated the amount of relative uplift by comparing
the present-day depth difference between the anticlinal and the
synclinal hinge at different positions from five wells. The values
range from 200 to 300 m but do not take into account synclinal
subsidence during folding, or any changes due to subsequent com-
paction. Subsidence in the synclines during folding increases the
absolute uplift but is considered to be very minor. Contrary to this,
post-inversion subsidence would decrease the depth differences
between the anticlinal and synclinal hinges. Therefore, the esti-
mated relative values of uplift are likely to be good approximations
of the true amount of uplift along the anticline during the Aptian
inversion. This inversion seems to have led to a relatively minor
uplift that has no significant implications for source rock maturity:
however, it has significant implications for trapping hydrocarbons.
The origin of the Aptian inversion remains uncertain. However, we
can say that it required an approximate east–west compressive far-
field stress since the whole basin is mildly affected, and the inversion
is expressed by gentle anticlines and bulk uplift rather than reactiva-
tion along certain faults. A possible explanation might be a change in
spreading rates on distant oceanic spreading centres and, consequently,
increased effects of ridge-push (sensu Bott 1991). Support for this
notion comes from König & Jokat’s (2006) work, which demonstrated
a marked increase in spreading rate by about 9 mm a−1 between Africa
and Antarctica in the Aptian, something that we speculate could have
triggered and driven this mild inversion in the NRB.
Recent uplift
The recent uplift that is responsible for erosion of most of the SRB
syn- and post-rift sediments is related to a very regional exhuma-
tion of large areas of the Falkland Plateau, rather than reactivation
of individual faults. It especially affected the Falkland Islands and
the southern part of the SRB. The Cenozoic uplift and doming may
be related to the oblique convergence between the Scotia and
South American plates, causing foreland bulging and flexural
doming (Thomson et al. 2002). This flexure started probably in
Early Cenozoic times and still continues today (Bry et al. 2004).
Sinistral transpressional movement causes the Scotia Plate to
thrust onto the Falkland Plateau of the South American Plate, with
thrusts forming a morphological high on the oceanic Scotia Plate,
the so-called Burdwood Bank (Fig. 1) that acts as the load which
causes the flexure. The South Falkland Basin (Fig. 1) represents
the foredeep, and the Falkland Islands are located at the crest of the
peripheral forebulge, whereas the SRB is situated at the northern
flank of the forebulge down towards the backbulge (Fig. 23). The
foredeep is an underfilled basin, whereas the forebulge shows a
flexural uplift that is higher than the dynamic subsidence, which
results in the exhumation of both the Falkland Islands and the
southern part of the SRB. The NRB main graben is part of the
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018
Tectonic evolution of the North Falkland Basin
backbulge and therefore undergoes not only a general subsidence
and compaction but, in addition, a dynamic subsidence related to
its position in the backbulge. The NRB main graben is therefore
not affected by uplift and the present-day depth of the main graben
is also the maximum depth of burial that this basin has ever reached
since rifting started in the Early Cretaceous.
Thomson et al. (2002) measured the amount of uplift and erosion
of the Falkland Islands using apatite fission-track and vitrinite
reflectance data. For the uplift that occurred since the end of the
Mesozoic (cooling began between 80 and 40 Ma) they calculated an
amount of 1.6–4  km, assuming a geothermal gradient of 20–
50°C km−1. Our interpretations support the lower uplift estimates in
the range of 1–2 km on the Falkland Islands, which gradually reduce
northwards. The point of zero uplift appears to occur in the area of
the Evie graben and Keppel terrace, where there is no longer any
clear seismic evidence for an angular unconformity. Northwards tilt-
ing of the SRB during the Cenozoic resulting from foreland flexure
is a plausible mechanism by which to explain the uplift and erosion
of its post-rift and partly syn-rift sequences, and the associated cool-
ing of the Falkland Islands. As the Scotia plate boundary to the south
of the Falkland Islands is still active (Bry et al. 2004), this model
predicts that the Falkland Islands will still be experiencing vertical
tectonic movements today (Thomson et al. 2002), something that is
supported by their geomorphological record of river incision, raised
beach deposits and marine erosion levels (e.g. Andersson 1907;
Clapperton & Roberts 1986; Aldiss & Edwards 1999).
The role of tectonics in controlling the
petroleum system
Wells drilled during the initial exploration campaign demonstrated
that a proven petroleum system existed in the NFB (Richards &
Hillier 2000a, b). The extensive data set acquired by Rockhopper
during the Sea Lion exploration and appraisal campaign has sig-
nificantly improved the understanding on how the various elements
of the petroleum system work (source rock, reservoir, seal, trap,
maturation, migration, timing and preservation), as well as helping
to de-risk the future exploration potential of the basin (Fig. 24).
In common with many continental rifts, including other Mesozoic
basins of the South Atlantic and modern systems in the East African
Rift (e.g. Lake Albert), the syn-rift and early part of the post-rift
basin-fill in the NFB was dominated by continental deposition (Fig.
17). Given the climatic conditions during the Early Cretaceous,
lacustrine deposition prevailed in the depocentres leading to the
development of thick waxy oil-prone source rocks, the geochemistry
of which is described by Farrimond et al. (2015).
Although the burial of the source-rock-bearing interval was
arrested by the pulse of tectonic inversion, it had more impact on
the development of the major axial closure than the source rock’s
subsequent maturation. Indeed, burial histories (Fig. 24) demon-
strate that renewed subsidence post-inversion led to the lacustrine
waxy source rocks passing through the critical moment in oil gen-
eration (sensu Magoon & Dow 1994) and, hence, first entering the
oil window during the Cretaceous.
Lacustrine turbidites form reservoir sand play fairways. Identified
by amplitude anomalies, they were mainly deposited in the asym-
metric half-graben depocentre on the eastern side of the basin (Fig.
17) (Bunt 2015), whereas footwall highs and basin margin sequences
largely comprised tight units. It is these early post-rift clastics that
provide a high-quality reservoir. The main entry points were sited at
the relay ramps between individual normal fault segments.
An important element in the creation of the successful play was
the development of the north–south-striking open periclinal fold
along the basin axis (Fig. 17). Formed by tectonic inversion of the
basin’s depocentre, its recognition led to the drilling of two wells
(14/5-1 and 14/10-1) by Shell, both of which encountered oil shows.
109
Structural inversion is often detrimental to petroleum prospectivity
because of the mismatch in timing between maximum depth of
source rock burial and migration relative to trap formation (e.g. the
Weald and Wessex basins of southern England: Butler & Pullan
1990; Underhill & Paterson 1998; Underhill & Stoneley 1998).
However, as in other cases (e.g. Orman Lange in mid-Norway,
recent large discoveries in the Levantine Basin in offshore waters of
the SE Mediterranean, and fields in the West Natuna Sea and along
the Atlantic Margins), where the phase of inversion only punctuated
basin subsidence and the source rocks went on to reach their maxi-
mum burial and maturity subsequent to the phase of basin inversion,
large charged petroleum traps result. In keeping with other rift sys-
tems, migration out from the kitchen occurs through the progressive
updip, fill-and-spill of structures be they structural or stratigraphic.
Since faults that penetrate the early post-rift sequence devel-
oped before hydrocarbon generation and migration occurred, they
can be crucial as potential barriers for fluids escaping updip onto
the eastern margin where a stratigraphic pinch-out might fail. The
very same faults may also create pre-rift reservoir-bearing trap
opportunities in the SRB or in structurally elevated positions
around the NRB. However, no such structures have proven to be
successful to date.
Conclusions
During this study we have interpreted and integrated data into one
regional basin-wide model within a consistent tectonic context that
helps to better understand the structural and stratigraphic complexity
of the North Falkland Basin. The NFB is an excellent example of
two transecting rift basins in which their post-rift phase of ­subsidence
is punctuated by structural inversion of the basin axis prior to hydro-
carbon maturation and migration. There is an older, probably Late
Jurassic, SRB with major NW–SE-striking normal faults, and a
younger Early Cretaceous NRB with major north–south-striking
normal faults initiated prior to the rifting of the South Atlantic.
NW–SE-striking SRB structures are underlying those of the
NRB and dominate in the south where the NRB structures have
been mainly eroded. The north–south-striking NRB structures,
however, dominate in the north where SRB structures are deeply
buried. The transition area in-between shows equally both north–
south- and NW–SE-striking structures.
The NRB’s main graben fault grew by segment linkage from
numerous smaller faults that merged into one through-going fault
zone. The timing of early rifting was therefore not synchronous and
sediment thickness varies along strike during syn-rift. Hence, several
depocentres developed that persisted until the early post-rift phase
before the basin became filled-up and levelled with deposits. Antithetic
hanging-wall faults reflect the heterogeneous basin subsidence and
therefore highlight early depocentres. Their activity started during the
late syn-rift phase and continued during the early post-rift, many of the
faults are coeval with the deposition of the earliest fans and therefore
guide their deposition. They have, however, ceased to be active during
deposition of the later fans, including, for example, Sea Lion, Casper
and Beverley. Radial faults are related to drape-over basement prom-
ontories and are mostly younger than the fans. They have not influ-
enced their deposition but have, on occasion, offset the fans.
Fan position is determined by their input feeder location and we
have developed a fan-distribution diagram to illustrate their spatial
and temporal development. The deposition of fans has been influ-
enced by (a) the location of long-established feeders on the base-
ment margin (which, in turn, is guided by inherited structures and
fault segmentation); (b) the basin morphology (subsidiary hang-
ing-wall faults created local depocentres that were filled-up first);
and (c) the supply of sediments.
The end of the SRB’s syn-rift phase corresponds to the begin-
ning of the syn-rift phase in the NRB. Regional uplift of the SRB
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 22, 2018
110 T. Lohr & J. R. Underhill
resulted in partial erosion of structural highs, probably caused by
magmatic doming that was associated with NRB rifting.
East–west-directed compression during the Aptian caused mild
uplift on the eastern basement margin and created north–south-strik-
ing gentle anticlines that changed the basin’s geometry locally. The
amount of uplift was between 200 and 300 m. The inversion occurred
shortly after deposition of the reservoir rocks but prior to renewed
subsidence, which was the main driver for the maturation and migra-
tion of the hydrocarbons that reside in the Sea Lion Fan.
The present-day shallow position of the Southern Rift Basin is
related to transpressional subduction at the plate boundary to the
Scotia Plate that puts the Falkland Plateau into a foreland basin posi-
tion and leads to flexural tectonics, which causes the Falkland Islands
and the SRB to be uplifted as part of a peripheral foreland bulge,
whereas the NRB undergoes subsidence at the same time. The seismi-
cally prominent Cenozoic marker is the result of these flexural tecton-
ics and is an intra-Tertiary marker in the Sea Lion area to the north, but
is equivalent to the present-day surface of the Falkland Islands where
erosion and uplift still occurs today. The amount of uplift is estimated
to be between 1 km in the very south of the SRB and 0 km at the transi-
tion area around the Keppel terrace and Evie graben.
Acknowledgements and Funding
We acknowledge Rockhopper and their Joint Venture partners Premier Oil for
permission to publish. For reasons of confidentially, the authors were asked to
disguise the absolute scale bar on some of the maps and seismic sections that are
still in open acreage. In particular, we thank Lucy Williams, Fiona MacAulay
and Lou Macchi for encouraging us to write up the results of our seismic-based
tectonic and stratigraphic analysis of the basin. Tina Lohr thanks ERC Equipoise
for their support in allowing us the time to do so. Kate Overy and Mike Braim at
ERC Equipoise are acknowledged for assisting with the seismic interpretation.
We are grateful to John Bounds and Anna Clark for their help drafting some of
the figures. We thank Petroleum Geoscience’s Chief Editor, Phil Christie, and
the two journal’s reviewers, Nick Richardson and Mike Lentini, for their con-
structive comments on our original manuscript.
References
Aldiss, D.T. & Edwards, E.J. 1999. The Geology of the Falkland Islands. British
Geological Survey Technical Report WC/99/10.
Andersson, J.G. 1907. Contributions to the Geology of the Falkland Islands.
Wissenschafliche Ergebnisse der Schwedischen Südpolar-Expedition 1901–
1903, 3, 38
Baudon, C. & Cartwright, J. 2008. Early stage evolution of growth faults: 3D
seismic insights from the Levant Basin, Eastern Mediterranean. Journal of
Structural Geology, 30, 888–898.
Bott, M.H.P. 1991. Ridge push and associated plate interior stress in normal and
hot spot regions. Tectonophysics, 200, 17–32.
Bransden, P.J.E., Burges, P., Durham, M.J. & Hall, J.G. 1999. Evidence for
multi-phase rifting in the North Falklands Basin. In: Cameron, N.R., Bate,
R.H. & Clure, V.S. (eds) The Oil and Gas Habitats of the South Atlantic.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 153, 425–442, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1999.153.01.26.
Bry, M., White, N., Singh, S., England, R. & Trowell, C. 2004. Anatomy and forma-
tion of oblique continental collision: South Falkland basin. Tectonics, 23, 1–20.
Bunt, R.J.W. 2015. The use of seismic attributes for fan and reservoir defini-
tion in the Sea Lion field, North Falkland Basin. Petroleum Geoscience, 21,
137–149, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP423/petgeo2014-055.
Butler, M. & Pullan, C.P. 1990. Tertiary structures and hydrocarbon entrapment
in the Weald Basin of southern England. In: Hardman, R.F.P. & Brooks,
J. (eds) Tectonic Events Responsible for Britain’s Oil and Gas Reserves.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 55, 371–391, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1990.055.01.19.
Clapperton, C.M. & Roberts, D.E. 1986. Quaternary sea level changes in the
Falkland Islands. Quaternary of South America an Antarctic Peninsula, 4,
99–117.
Curtis, M.L. & Hyam, D.M. 1998. Late Palaeozoic to Mesozoic structural evo-
lution of the Falkland Islands: A displaced segment of the Cape Fold Belt.
Journal of the Geological Society, London, 155, 115–129, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1144/gsjgs.155.1.0115.
Farrimond, P., Green, A. & Williams, L.s. 2015. Petroleum geochemistry
of Sea Lion Field, North Falkland Basin. Petroleum Geoscience, 21, 125–
135.
Ferrill, D.A., Stamatakos, J.A. & Sims, D. 1999. Normal fault corrugation:
Implications for growth and seismicity of active normal faults. Journal of
Structural Geology, 21, 1027–1038.
Francis, A., Lewis, M. & Booth, C. 2015. Sea Lion Field, North Falkland Basin:
seismic inversion and quantitative interpretation. Petroleum Geoscience, 21,
151–169.
Griffiths, A. 2015. The reservoir characterization of the Sea Lion field.
Petroleum Geoscience, 21, 199–209.
Hodgkinson., R. 2002. Structural studies in the Falkland Islands, South Atlantic.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.
Holmes, N., Atkin, D., Mahdi, S. & Ayress, M. 2015. Integrated biostratig-
raphy and chemical stratigraphy in the development of a reservoir-scale
stratigraphic framework for the Sea Lion Field area, North Falkland Basin.
Petroleum Geoscience, 21, 171–182.
König, W. & Jokat, W. 2006. The Mesozoic breakup of the Weddell Sea.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, B12102.
Lohr, T., Krawczyk, C., Oncken, O. & Tanner, D. 2008. Evolution of a fault
surface from 3D attribute analysis and displacement measurements. Journal
of Structural Geology, 30, 690–700.
MacAulay, F. 2015. Sea Lion Field discovery and appraisal: a turning point for
the North Falkland Basin. Petroleum Geoscience, 21, 111–124.
Magoon, L. B. & Dow, W. G. 1994. The petroleum system. In: Magoon, L. B. &
Dow, W. G. (eds) The Petroleum System—From Source to Trap. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, 60, 3–24.
Manzocchi, T., Walsh, J.J. & Nichol, A. 2006. Displacement accumulation from
earthquakes on isolated normal faults. Journal of Structural Geology, 28,
1685–1693.
Marchal, D., Guiraud, M. & Rives, T. 2003. Geometric and morphologic evo-
lution of normal fault planes and traces from 2D to 4D data. Journal of
Structural Geology, 25, 135–158.
Marshall, J.E.A. 1994. The Falkland Islands: A key element in Gondwana pal-
aeogeography. Tectonics, 13, 499–514.
McClay, K.R., Dooley, T., Whitehouse, P. & Mills, M. 2002. 4-D evolution of
rift systems: Insights from scaled physical models. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 86, 935–959.
McLeod, A.E., Dawers, N.H. & Underhill, J.R. 2000. The propagation and link-
age of normal faults: Insights from the Strathspey-Brent-Statfjord fault array,
Northern North Sea. Basin Research, 12, 263–284.
Moustafa, A.R. 1996. Internal structure and deformation of an accommodation zone
in the northern part of the Suez rift. Journal of Structural Geology, 18, 93–107.
Nixon, C.W., Sanderson, D.J. & Bull, J.M. 2012. Analysis of a strike-slip fault
network using high resolution multibeam bathymetry, offshore NW Devon
U.K. Tectonophysics, 541–543, 69–80.
Richards, P.C., Gatliff, R.W., Quinn, M.F., Williamson, J.P. & Fannin, N.G.T.
1996. The geological evolution of the Falkland Islands continental shelf. In:
Storey, B.C., King, E.C. & Livermore, R.A. (eds) Weddell Sea Tectonics
and Gondwana Break-up. Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
108, 105–128, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1996.108.01.08.
Richards, P.C. & Hillier, B. 2000a. Post drilling analysis of the North Falkland
Basin – Part 1: Tectono-stratigraphic framework. Journal of Petroleum
Geology, 23, 253–272.
Richards, P.C. & Hillier, B. 2000b. Post drilling analysis of the North Falkland
Basin – Part 2: Petroleum systems and future prospects. Journal of Petroleum
Geology, 23, 273–292.
Richardson, N.J. & Underhill, J.R. 2002. Controls on structural architecture and
sedimentary character of syn-rift sequences, North Falkland Basin, South
Atlantic. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 19, 417–443.
Stone, P., Richards, P.C., Kimbell, G.S., Esser, R.P. & Reeves, D. 2008.
Cretaceous dykes discovered in the Falkland Islands: Implications for
regional tectonics. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 165, 1–4,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/0016-76492007-072.
Thomson, K., Hegarty, K.A., Marshallsea, S.J. & Green, P.F. 2002. Thermal and
tectonic evolution of the Falkland Islands: Implications for hydrocarbon explora-
tion in the adjacent offshore region. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 19, 95–116.
Thomson, K. & Underhill, J.R. 1999. Frontier exploration in the South Atlantic:
Structural prospectivity in the North Falkland Basin. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 83, 778–797.
Trewin, N.H., Macdonald, D.I.M. & Thomas, C.G.C. 2002. Stratigraphy and
sedimentology of the Permian of the Falkland Islands: Lithostratigraphic
and palaeoenvironmental links with South Africa. Journal of the Geological
Society, London, 159, 5–19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/0016-764900-089.
Underhill, J.R. & Paterson, S. 1998. Genesis of tectonic inversion structures:
Seismic evidence for the development of key structures along the Purbeck–
Isle of Wight Disturbance. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 155,
975–992, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.155.6.0975.
Underhill, J.R. & Stoneley, R. 1998. Introduction to the development, evolu-
tion and petroleum geology of the Wessex Basin. In: Underhill, J.R. (ed.)
Development, Evolution and Petroleum Geology of the Wessex Basin.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 133, 1–18, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.133.01.01.
Walsh, J.J., Bailey, W.R., Childs, C., Nicol, A. & Bonson, C.G. 2003. Formation
of segmented normal faults: a 3-D perspective. Journal of Structural
Geology, 25, 1251–1262.
Williams, L.S. 2015. Sedimentology of the Lower Cretaceous reservoirs of the
Sea Lion Field, North Falkland Basin. Petroleum Geoscience, 21, 183–198.