Int 2021 0020.1

Interpretation
Downloaded 06/25/21 to 129.240.240.5. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
Subsurface geological imaging of northeastern Tunisia

during the middle to the upper Eocene: Insights from
integrated geophysical interpretation
Journal: Interpretation
Manuscript ID INT-2021-0020.R1
Manuscript Type: 2020-10 Focus on Africa
Date Submitted by the

04-May-2021
Author:
Complete List of Authors: ABIDI, Oussama; University of Tunis El Manar Faculty of Sciences of
Tunis
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
Sebei, Kawthar; University of Tunis El Manar Faculty of Sciences of

Tunis
Amiri, Adnen; University of Tunis El Manar Faculty of Sciences of Tunis,
Departement of Geology
Boussiga, haïfa; National Agronomic Institute of Tunisia, Geology
Hamdi, Imen; University of Carthage Faculty of Sciences of Bizerte,
Departement of Geology
Inoubli, Mohamed Hédi; Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, Geology
Ben Salem, Abdelhamid; Entreprise Tunisienne d’Activités Pétrolières
Keywords: seismic stratigraphy, Africa, geology, inversion, imaging
Outcrop and subsurface modeling, Structural, stratigraphic, and

Subject Areas:
sedimentologic interpretation, Borehole and log interpretation
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/interpretation
This paper presented here as accepted for publication in Interpretation prior to copyediting and composition.
© 2021 Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association . of Petroleum Geologists.
Page 1 of 62 Interpretation
1
2
3 Subsurface geological imaging of northeastern Tunisia during the Middle
4
5
6
to the Upper Eocene: Insights from integrated geophysical interpretation
7
8
9 Oussama Abidi1, Kawthar Sebei1, Adnen Amiri1, Haifa Boussiga1,2, Imen Hamdi Nasr1,3,
10
11 Mohamed Hedi Inoubli1 and Abdelhamid Ben Salem4
12
13
14 1-Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, Research Unit of Applied Geophysics, University of Tunis El-
15
16
Manar, 1060 Tunis, Tunisia.
17
18
19
20
2-National Agronomic Institute of Tunisia, University of Carthage, 43 Avenue Charles
21
22 Nicolle, 1082 Tunis, Tunisia.
23
24
25 3-Faculty of Sciences of Bizerte, University of Carthage, 7021 Jarzouna, Tunisia.
26
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28 4-Entreprise Tunisienne d’Activités Pétrolières (ETAP), 54, Avenue Mohamed V – 1002

29
30
Tunis, Tunisia.
31
32
33
34
Email: oussamaabidi115@gmail.com, Tel: +(216) 50 833 973
35
36
37 ABSTRACT
38
39
40
The Middle to Upper Eocene series are characterized by multiple hiatuses related to erosion,
41
42 non-deposition or condensed series in the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet provinces. We
43
44 performed an integrated study taking advantage from surface and subsurface geology, faunal
45
46 content, borehole logs, electrical well logs, vertical seismic profiles and surface seismic
47
48
49 sections. Calibrated seismic profiles together with borehole data analysis reveal
50
51 unconformities with deep erosion, pinchouts, normal faulting and basin inversion which are
52
53 dated Campanian, intra-Lutetian and Priabonian compressive phases; these events were also
54
55
56 described at the regional scale in Tunisia. Tectonics, sea level fluctuations and climate
57
58 changes closely controlled the depositional process during the Middle to Upper Eocene time.
59
60 The depositional environment ranges from internal to outer platform separated by an inherited
1
Interpretation Page 2 of 62
1
2
3 paleo-high. We determine eight third order sequences characterizing the interaction between
4
5
6
tectonic pulsations, sea level changes and the developed accommodation space within the
7
8 Middle to Upper Eocene interval. We correlate the obtained results of the Cap Bon-Gulf of
9
10 Hammamet provinces with the published global charts of sea-level changes and we find a
11
12
good correspondence across third order cycles. Model-based 3D inversion proved to be a
13
14
15 solution to model the lateral and vertical lithological distribution of the Middle to Upper
16
17 Eocene series.
18
19
20 Keywords: Integrated interpretation, seismic stratigraphy, seismic inversion, Middle to Upper
21
22
23
Eocene, Souar Formation, Halk El Menzel Formation, Geodynamic evolution, Northeastern
24
25 Tunisia.
26
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28 INTRODUCTION
29
30 Situated on the north-eastern edge of the African margin foreland basin, Tunisia expresses a
31
32
33 structural diversity involving a variety of structures developed during the Meso-Cenozoic
34
35 time (Haller, 1983; Ouali, 1984; Touati, 1985; Zargouni, 1985; Ben Ayed, 1986; Dewey et al.,
36
37 1989; Guiraud and Bosworth, 1999; Bouaziz et al., 2002).
38
39
40
During the Eocene time, the northeastern part of Tunisia constitutes a part of the passive
41
42
43 continental margin of the African Plate (Bishop, 1988; El Ghali et al., 2003; Taktak et al.,
44
45 2012). The Souar Formation, dated Lutetian to Priabonian PP, is made of marls with micritic
46
47 limestones and clayey limestone intercalations unevenly distributed in Tunisia (Burollet,
48
49
50 1956; Fournié, 1978; Ben Ismail Lattrache, 1981; Haller, 1983; Mejri et al., 2006; Ben Salem,
51
52 2002; Tlig et al., 2010; Amami Hamdi and Ben Ismail Lattrache, 2013). During this epoch,
53
54 Tunisia had undergone lateral facies variations, related to depositional environment changes
55
56
57
(Figure 1). The interval is essentially limy platform in central Tunisia (Burollet, 1956; Comte
58
59 and Dufaure, 1973; Fournié, 1978; El Ghali et al., 2003); it is an open sea type deposits in
60
2
1
2
3 Eastern Tunisia (Ben Salem, 1992). Within onshore Tunisia, the Souar Formation shows
4
5
6
several erosional and/or non-depositional gaps (Bujalka et al., 1971; Comte and Dufaure,
7
8 1973; Haller, 1983; Ben Salem, 1992; Boussiga et al., 2005; Sebei et al., 2007; Hezzi, 2014).
9
10
11 Remarkable thickness and facies variations took place in northeastern Tunisia; the Souar
12
13 Formation may include erosion and/or non-depositional surfaces (Bujalka et al. 1971).
14
15
16 Locally, some areas are even completely devoid either through non deposition and/or erosion
17
18 (Bujalka et al. 1971; Sebei et al. 2007). Previous studies focused mainly on the stratigraphic
19
20 studies (Burollet, 1956; Fournié, 1978; Bonnefous and Bismuth, 1982; Ben Salem, 1992; Ben
21
22
23
Salem et al., 2002), the tectonic subsidence (Ellouz, 1984; Patriat et al., 2003) or the
24
25 structuring of the areas (Comte and Dufaure, 1973; Haller, 1983; Ben Salem, 1992). Few of
26
27 them focused on the vertical and lateral facies variations in relation to relative sea level
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 changes, variations in depositional environment and basin architecture.
30
31
32
33
The Pyrenean phase, occurred during the Middle to Upper Eocene interval, is a general
34
35 tectonic event in the Mediterranean area (Letouzey and Trémolières, 1980). It is particularly
36
37 known in Algeria where the event was dated Lutetian (Frizon de Lamotte et al., 2000). In
38
39
Tunisia, its effects were not clearly reported in outcrops. However, it is seismically identified
40
41
42 in southern Atlas (Bédir, 1995) and eastern Tunisia (Haller, 1983, Boussiga et al., 2003 and
43
44 2005; Khomsi et al., 2006). This event, which was reported by Abidi et al., (2014, 2015, 2016
45
46 and 2017), requires more accurate dating. It necessitates, also, an understanding of its effect
47
48
49 on basin structuring and its implication on the sedimentary records.
50
51
52 This paper aims to (i) characterize the stratigraphic evolution of the Lutetian - Priabonian
53
54 interval through the integration of surface and subsurface data and previous works, (ii)
55
56 analyze its facies and thickness distribution and characterize the basin architecture, (iii)
57
58
59
60
3
1
2
3 generate isochore and facies mapping of the Lutetian - Priabonian interval and (iv) describe
4
5
6
the geodynamic basin evolution during this epoch.
7
8
9 GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
10
11
12
The Souar Formation, defined at Henchir Souar (Figure 2a), is a 1114 m thick clay and marl
13
14 series with intercalations of shell-limestones and oyster lumachelles (Burollet, 1956) in the
15
16 Southern part of the Tunisian dorsal. The Souar Formation is framed by the Ypresian
17
18 BouDabbous limestone and the Oligo-Aquitanian silty limestone and sandstone of the Fortuna
19
20
21 Formation (Figure 2b).
22
23
24 In the Cap Bon region, this Middle to Upper Eocene interval is essentially made of shaly
25
26 series (Souar A and Souar B formations) characterizing an open marine environment (Figure
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
1) and includes intercalations of calcareous limy beds rich in Nummulites, Orbitolites,
29
30
31 Fabiania, Discocyclina sp. and Globorotalia lehneri called the Reineche member (Burollet,
32
33 1956; Salaj, 1980; Ben Ismail Lattrache, 1981; Haller, 1983). According to Solignac (1927),
34
35 the Reineche limestone member is attributed to the Lutetian. Whereas, Castany (1951)
36
37
38 attributed an Upper Lutetian age for the marls and limestones of Jebel Abderrahmane
39
40 anticline (Figure 2a). Furthermore, these latter are unconformably overlaid by Oligocene
41
42 deposits through an Upper Eocene sedimentary gap.
43
44
45 The Middle to Upper Eocene dates the oldest outcropping series in the Cap Bon region
46
47
48 (Figure 2a). This 725 m thick interval occupies the hinge of Jebel Abderrahmane anticline
49
50 (Arnould, 1950; Burollet, 1956; Ben Ismail-Lattrache, 1981; Ben Salem, 2002). This rich
51
52 microfauna interval includes Acarinina bullbrooki, Morozovella spinulosa, Mo. lehneri,
53
54
55
Hantkenina dumblei, Globigerina boweri, G. Venezuelana, G. frontosa, Spiroplectammina cf.
56
57 dentata, Globigerina cf. senni, Globorotalia cf. centralis, Globorotalia cf. spinulosa, G. cf.
58
59 aragonensis, Truncorotaloides cf. topilensis, Globigerinatheka semi-involuta,
60
4
1
2
3 Cribrohantkenina inflata, Globigerina sp, Globorotalia sp, Rotaliidae Miliolidae (Ben Ismail-
4
5
6
Lattrache, 1981 and 2000). Within the northern part of the Abderrahmane anticline, the Souar
7
8 Formation develops frequent Nummulites rich carbonate levels representing the Reineche unit
9
10 (Burollet, 1956).
11
12
13 Towards the northeastern part of the Cap Bon region, the Souar shale changes laterally into
14
15
16 the bioclastic limestones of the Halk El Menzel Formation (Bismuth and Bonnefous, 1981;
17
18 Bonnefous and Bismuth, 1982; Haller, 1983; Sebei et al., 2007). This formation (Figure 1)
19
20 extends from Eastern Cap Bon and Eastern Gulf of Hammamet to Lampione Island and
21
22
23
probably to Malta (Bismuth and Bonnefous, 1981). It is also encountered in the Sirt basin as
24
25 described by Lehman et al. (1967).
26
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28 The variations of the lithological characteristics of the Lutetian-Priabonian series in North-

29
30 Eastern Tunisia and the Pelagian areas allowed Bonnefous and Bismuth (1982) and Haller
31
32
33
(1983) to highlight several distinct paleogeographic domains. In the Cap Bon Peninsula, these
34
35 domains correspond to:
36
37
38 (i) a relatively deep marine area that is individualized in the south-western part of Jebel
39
40 Abderrahmane where the Souar Formation is characterized by pelagic microfauna rich shale.
41
42
43 (ii) a shallow fore reef area established towards the northeastern part of Jebel Abderrahmane
44
45
46 anticline and the Zembra island. It reveals carbonate deposits bearing Nummulites and
47
48 Discocyclines. This is interpreted as a paleo-high area located to the north-east and offshore.
49
50
51 (iii) these shallow water carbonate deposits are also encountered in the Pelagian Sea; they are
52
53
characterized by para-reefal limestone and dolomite deposits corresponding to the Halk EL
54
55
56 Menzel and its lateral equivalent Riccio formation.
57
58
59
60
5
1
2
3 (iv) areas totally devoid of Eocene deposits. These areas are highlighted by wells drilled on
4
5
6
the eastern coast of the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet. These areas could correspond to
7
8 zones that probably emerged during the studied time period.
9
10
11 According to Ben Salem (1992), the disposition of these domains would certainly have guided
12
13 and influenced the various subsequent paleogeography. This paleogeographic differentiation
14
15
16 is the signature of tectonic pulses that occurred in the area. In fact, during the Middle to Upper
17
18 Eocene period, compressive structures like “paleo-anticlines” and “synclines” have been
19
20 described in Tunisia (Rouvier, 1977; Ben Ayed, 1986; Bédir, 1995; Chihi, 1995). The
21
22
23
Mesozoic basins inversion timing synchronized with that of the Pyrenean orogeny. This
24
25 suggests that compressive deformation was active on both Eurasian and African margins in
26
27 the western Mediterranean domain (Letouzey and Trémolières, 1980; Bouaziz et al., 2002;
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 Lacombe and Jolivet, 2005). This compressive tectonic phase is materialized by tilted block,
30
31
32 uplift and downlift.
33
34
35 DATA AND METHODS
36
37
38 Available Data
39
40
Available data include onshore and offshore seismic and borehole data recorded in the Cap
41
42
43 Bon and the Gulf of Hammamet region (Figure 2c). Seismic data, related to different vintages
44
45 (from 1973 to 2000), were acquired by different contractors such CGG, Western Geophysical,
46
47 Praklaseismos, etc. Although old seismic data have regional coverage, recent data have much
48
49
50 better quality in terms of signal to noise content, depth of penetration, frequency content, etc.
51
52 Petroleum exploration boreholes were drilled between 1978 and 2008. Well logs were largely
53
54 acquired by Schlumberger.
55
56
57
58
59
60
6
1
2
3 Many wells crossed the Middle to Upper Eocene series. Electrical well logs, check-shots,
4
5
6
vertical seismic profiling, mud-logs and biostratigraphic determinations were provided. These
7
8 data are of prime interest to calibrate the modelling.
9
10
11 Corrected sonics from transit time drifts and density logs are used for seismic calibration
12
13 (Figure 3). Gamma Ray, spontaneous polarization and sonic logs are used for lithologic
14
15
16 determination. The computed acoustic impedance variations characterize the reflection
17
18 coefficients distributions that would imitate surface seismic data at well locations. Gamma
19
20 Ray (GR) and Sonic (DT) logs helped to differentiate and analyze the lithology units. The
21
22
23
stratigraphic units range from Ypresian to Chattian stage encompassing the target interval
24
25 (Figure 3). Sonic and Gamma Ray deflections are clear at lithological interfaces especially in
26
27 well W1. Likewise, the interval velocity underlines these boundaries and relate to the
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 traversed lithologies by the wellbore. The transition between the Oligocene sandstone
30
31
32 deposits (Fortuna Formation) and the Middle to Upper Eocene marls series (Souar B) is
33
34 marked by an increase of the sonic readings; interval velocity varies between 2200 and 2470
35
36 m/s. The Reineche member appeared with a clear decrease in the Gamma Ray readings and an
37
38
39 increase in the sonic transit times. Similarly, the transition between the Ypresian limestone of
40
41 the BouDabbous Formation and the Middle to Upper Eocene marls (Souar A) is shown by a
42
43 decrease of the Gamma Ray log and an increase of the Sonic log readings (interval velocity
44
45
46
variation from 2500 to 3100 m/s).
47
48
49 The seismic frequency spectra are illustrated by Figure 4a. The total seismic spectrum relates
50
51 to the wavelet shape and clarifies its resolution (Figure 4a, green color). A model-based
52
53 approach is applied to extract the optimal wavelet that explain the observed seismic while
54
55
56
maintaining borehole calibration (Inoubli et al., 1990). Computed zero phase wavelet, using
57
58 W1 well logs, is displayed on Figure 4b.
59
60
7
1
2
3 SUBSURFACE MODELING
4
5
6 Wells data investigation
7
8
9 Middle to Upper Eocene series outcrop in the onshore part of the study area. These series are
10
11 crossed by numerous boreholes in the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet area (Figure 2c).
12
13
Lithological columns were constructed using mud logs and available well logs, such as sonic
14
15
16 and gamma ray (Figures 3). The Eocene-Oligocene transition is clearly highlighted on
17
18 electrical logs and is characterized by a sharp increase in resistivity logs and sonic transit
19
20 times together with a radioactivity decrease; the described curves behavior characterize the
21
22
23 transition from Souar marls to Fortuna sands. The lower to Middle Eocene transition is
24
25 gradual; it responds to an increase of the sonic readings together with a Gamma ray decrease,
26
27 illustrating the transition from the BouDabbous limestone to Souar marls (Figures 3).
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29
30 Some wells exhibit the most complete Middle to Upper Eocene series (Figure 3). Dating is
31
32
33 performed through the richness of the crossed levels in microfauna. Lutetian sediments
34
35 include Acarinina bullbrooki, Morozovella spinulosa, Mo. lehneri, Hantkenina dumblei,
36
37 Globigerina boweri, G. Venezuelana, G. frontosa, Spiroplectammina cf. dentata,
38
39
40 Globigerapsis mexicana, G. kugleri, G. index, G. frontosa. Bartonian series are characterized
41
42 by the presence of Globigerina cf. senni, Globorotalia cf. centralis, Globorotalia cf.
43
44 spinulosa, G. cf. aragonensis, Truncorotaloides cf. topilensis and Globigerapsis cf. kugleri.
45
46
47
The Upper Eocene sediments (Priabonian age) contain Globigerinatheka semi involuta,
48
49 Cribrohantkenina inflata, Rotaliidae Miliolidae, Asterigerina sp, Chapmanina gassinensis,
50
51 Globorotalia cerroazulensis cunialensis. Furthermore, the faunistic content reveals variable
52
53 internal hiatuses along the Middle to Upper Eocene series. It consists of (i) the absence of the
54
55
56 Upper part of the Priabonian series in wells W5 and W6, (ii) the lack of series dating the
57
58 Priabonian, Bartonian and the Upper part of le Lutetian in W7, W7a and W7b wells, (iii) the
59
60 missing of the Upper Lutetian to the early Bartonian in W8 well, (iv) the preservation of the
8
1
2
3 Upper part of Lutetian in W4a well; (v) the lacking of the Middle to Upper Eocene series in
4
5
6
W3, W3a, W3b and W3c wells (Figure 5). The absence of these series expresses either non-
7
8 deposition, total erosion or condensed deposits of the Lutetian-Priabonian series.
9
10
11 Figure 6 illustrates a NW onshore - offshore correlation over a distance approximately 75 km.
12
13 The Lutetian-Priabonian PP Souar Formation is made up of two marly units, namely Souar A
14
15
16 and Souar B, separated by the Reineche limestone member. It is encountered in W1 and W2
17
18 wells. Towards the south-east of the study area, this member grows laterally into limestone
19
20 and dolomite deposits forming the Halk EL Menzel Formation within well W4 location. The
21
22
23
lower section consists of alternating dolomite beds and compact biomicrites with benthic
24
25 foraminifera. These transitions upward to an assemblage of calcimicrite and calcisparite with
26
27 foraminiferous debris indicating a platform environment with meteoric water incursions
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 causing dolomitization of the Middle to Upper Eocene sediments. According to Bonnefous
30
31
32 and Bismuth (1982), meteoric water incursions are interpreted as emersion indication during
33
34 the Middle to Upper Eocene interval.
35
36
37 The facies changes relate to depositional environment variations ranging from outer neritic
38
39
setting expressed at W1 and W1a locations, passing through to inner platform environment
40
41
42 indicated by W4b, W4c, W4d and W4e wells, to deep open marine environment at W6 and
43
44 W7 positions. Some 42 km southeast of well W1, Well W3 indicates the absence of the Souar
45
46 Formation; that is also the case for almost all other wells of the Gulf of Hammamet province
47
48
49 (Sebei et al., 2007). In other wells, the Oligocene Fortuna Formation is unconformably lying
50
51 on the various units of the Souar Formation (at W7a); the Langhian Ain Grab Formation
52
53 overlays unconformably the Halk El Menzel Formation ( at W4); other younger formations
54
55
56
may repose directly on the Late Cretaceous carbonates series (W3a). The 12 Ma time gap in
57
58 the sedimentary series recorded at W3b well location and the vertical movements that exceed
59
60
9
1
2
3 500 and even 600 m are among the most striking and regional features of North- Eastern
4
5
6
Tunisia and Sicily channel (Winnock and Bea, 1979).
7
8
9 The Lutetian-Priabonian PP sediments show large thickness variations related to
10
11 accommodation change in space. These deposits are well developed and outcrop in the Cap
12
13 Bon region (725 m) and less developed within the offshore wells; well W1 crossed
14
15
16 approximately 400 m thick sediments of Lutetian to Priabonian PP.
17
18
19 Seismic interpretation
20
21
22
Geometry of seismic horizons
23
24 Seismic sections are useful for defining the geometry and extension of the basin architecture
25
26
27 during the Middle to Upper Eocene series. Neighboring boreholes help characterize the
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 seismic response of the studied interval. Check shots, synthetic seismograms and vertical
30
31 seismic profiles are particularly useful for seismic data calibration.
32
33
34 A carefully calibrated (wells W1 and W4a) north-west seismic profile, displayed with the
35
36
37 phase seismic attribute (Figure 7), individualizes a high morphology and displays numerous
38
39 pinching out reflectors together with important lateral facies variations. The southeastern part
40
41 of the seismic section delineates significant localized thickening with convex-up structures
42
43
44
and coalescing growth of seismic pattern (facies 0 in Figure 7). Drape shape geometry is also
45
46 expressed by the overlying set of seismic reflectors. Altogether, indicate reefal buildups
47
48 signature (Bubb and Hatlelid, 1977; Stark, 2008; Burdgess et al. 2013; Sebei et al., 2019).
49
50
These seismic facies are represented by 217 m and 1134 m thick intervals crossed
51
52
53 respectively by W4a and W4 wells. These are interpreted as the seismic response of carbonate
54
55 series bearing bioherms edified by polypiers dated Upper Cretaceous at W4 well location and
56
57 of microsparite micrite and recrystallized rudists dated Cenomanian –Turonian at W4a
58
59
60 position. Seismic data do not easily distinguish between the deposits conventionally
10
1
2
3 designated as reefs and banks (Bubb and Hatlelid, 1977). Stratigraphic interpretation of
4
5
6
seismic data is the best tool to map the distribution of reefs. Characteristics differ highly
7
8 between buildups and the surrounding deposits. So, the developed reefal construction suggests
9
10 that the southeastern part of the seismic section was at a higher position by that time. The
11
12
inherited floor geometry bevels and ends the Coniacian to Ypresian series; the reflectors
13
14
15 terminate and onlap against the developed reef construction. This architecture explains the
16
17 lack of Coniacian to Ypresian series within well W4 (Figure 7). Only Upper Lutetian
18
19 sediments were expressed by well W4a. The seismic facies of the Upper Lutetian is bordered
20
21
22 by a couple of continuous and high acoustic impedance contrast reflectors delimiting a
23
24 transparent seismic facies. It constitutes the acoustic response of biomicrosparite
25
26 Discocyclines rich and chalky white biomicrite encountered in well W4a. They evolve
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29
laterally into three parallel seismic reflections with high acoustic impedance contrast
30
31 indicating a subsiding depositional setting in shallow water environment. Thus, they are
32
33 interpreted as dolomite and limestone deposits rich in Globigerinidae and benthic
34
35
foraminifera dated Middle to Upper Eocene in well W4. All described series are sealed by
36
37
38 high amplitude continuous reflectors characterizing the Langhian Ain Grab Formation,
39
40 expressing a carbonate platform environment established during a major transgression period
41
42 (Figure 7).
43
44
45
46
The calibrated north-east seismic profile, displayed with the phase seismic attribute (Figure
47
48 8), shows the folded Coniacian-Santonian Aleg Formation and Campanian-early
49
50 Maastrichtian Abiod Formation. The profile exhibits an angular unconformity where the
51
52 Upper Cretaceous series are uncovered and partially to completely eroded (1 and 2 in Figure
53
54
55 8). It displays, also, the pinching out of the Maastrichtian-Paleocene El Haria Formation, the
56
57 Ypresian BouDabbous Formation and the Middle to Upper Eocene series (3, 4 and 5 in Figure
58
59 8). The inherited paleo-topography gives rise to an unconformity following the observed
60
11
1
2
3 hiatus to the NE part of the seismic profile (Figure 8) and the top structure remained emerged
4
5
6
till the Oligocene transgression leading to the deposition of the Ketatna limestone that covered
7
8 and sealed the previous deposits (6 in Figure 8). So, the pointed hiatus is non-depositional.
9
10
11 The north-west seismic section (Figure 9a), displayed with the phase seismic attribute and
12
13 calibrated using W1, illustrates the absence of the Eocene series within its southeastern part
14
15
16 and the onlap terminations of the internal reflectors of the Souar against the Ypresian
17
18 BouDabbous Formation. While the Maastrichtian to Paleocene El Haria series and the
19
20 Ypresian BouDabbous deposits exhibit regular thickness, the Lutetian-Priabonian PP Souar
21
22
23
Formation thins towards the northwest and the southeast. The flattening of the top Souar
24
25 horizon (Figure 9b) highlights a depocenter shape that shows onlap terminations of the
26
27 internal reflectors against a structured reflector (4 in Figure 9b). The inherited topography
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 results from northwest directed tectonic compressive phase dated intra-Lutetian which folded
30
31
32 the series and created the accommodation space that was subsequently filled by the Souar
33
34 Formation (Figure 9b). Seismic section on figure 9c reveals a thickening of the Oligocene
35
36 deposits towards the south-east. This is also supported by onlap terminations against the top
37
38
39 Souar Formation. The Fortuna Formation is made up of gray shale with silty sand levels and
40
41 thin beds of fine quarzitic sandstone and sandy limestone interval which are deposited in
42
43 shallow marine to deltaic environment, with extremely poor microfauna; the upper part of the
44
45
46
formation is deposited in an open marine environment which passage is transitional (Yaïch et
47
48 al., 1994). These sets are sealed by the Ain Grab limestones as a signature of an internal
49
50 platform environment.
51
52
53 The calibrated northeast onshore seismic profile illustrates the presence of two fault systems
54
55
56
(Figure 10). The red colored set of faults relates to an array of tilted blocs that affect the
57
58 Abiod, El Haria and BouDabbous formations (1, 2 and 3 in Figure 10). The upper part of the
59
60 Souar Formation, made of shales, seals all the pre-existing fault system and enable dating the
12
1
2
3 onset of normal faulting, which is estimated to occur during the Middle Eocene interval. The
4
5
6
black colored second normal fault system (Figure 10) indicates that the onset of the tilting is
7
8 posterior to the deposition of Ain Grab Formation (6 of Figure 10). The major growth
9
10 faulting, to the right of the interpreted line, illustrates ductile deformation and potential
11
12
accommodation. The sedimentary thickening towards these faults’ planes are easily
13
14
15 recognized. Listric normal faulting appears to be the result of downslope movement along a
16
17 low-angle decollement between the uppermost Miocene series and the overlying basinal
18
19 sediments.
20
21
22
23
Distribution of the Middle to Upper Eocene interval
24
25 Isochore maps of the Middle to Upper Eocene interval were presented by several authors
26
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28 (Burollet and Ellouz, 1986; Bishop, 1988; Amami-Hamdi and Ben Ismail Lattrache, 2013).
29
30 Despite the information given by these maps, they didn’t considerate the interactions between
31
32 structures, thickness and facies changes. To highlight the major thickness variation of the
33
34
35
Middle to Upper Eocene Souar and Halk El Menzel formations, an isochore map is generated
36
37 through the kriging of many well results and key seismic profiles (wells are shown in Figure
38
39 11a) in the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet provinces. The conversion from time to depth is
40
41 performed using interval velocity field computed from check-shot surveys.
42
43
44
45
The Middle to Upper Eocene isochore map (Figure 11a) illustrates significant thickness
46
47 variations. Though it is much thicker in the continent, thickness decreases towards the Gulf of
48
49 Hammamet. The map displays, as well, the development of N-S trending depocenter in the
50
51
Gulf of Hammamet with a maximum thickness of 600 m; this is displayed by seismic sections
52
53
54 close to well W1 which crossed some 391 m thick Souar Formation; well W4b crossed 420 m
55
56 thick Halk Menzel Formation. On the other hand, an extended northeast trending and
57
58 connected hiatus zones are recognized in boreholes and illustrated by key seismic profiles.
59
60
13
1
2
3 This areal gap related to non-deposition or erosion of the Middle to Upper Eocene series,
4
5
6
subdivides the area into two main northeast directed basins (Figure 11a).
7
8
9 The study of the Middle to Upper Eocene deposits supported by borehole data, calibrated
10
11 seismic facies and isochore maps enabled the construction of the prevailing paleogeographic
12
13 map (Figure 11b). The Cap Bon region is mainly occupied by Souar facies with the exception
14
15
16 of the area surrounding W4d and W4e wells which is characterized by the limy facies of the
17
18 Halk el Menzel Formation. The N-S trending 600 m thick depocenter is occupied by the
19
20 Souar facies which is deposited in a deep platform environment. While, towards the east, the
21
22
23
study area is entirely represented by the limestone facies of the Halk EL Menzel Formation
24
25 which relates to a shallow platform environment. The hiatus zone, to the east, subdivides the
26
27 limestone of the Halk el Menzel Formation into two NE oriented zones (Figure 11b).
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29
30 Seismic stratigraphy
31
32
33 Sequential stratigraphy focuses on the genetically associated facies in sedimentary system
34
35 tracts delimited by surface boundaries (Haq et al., 1987). The sediment analysis in sequential
36
37
38 stratigraphy help to decipher the signature of the sediment record, eustatic variations and
39
40 tectonism. The sequential analysis is based on an integrated modeling taking advantage of
41
42 borehole data analysis and interpretation of selected key seismic profiles.
43
44
45 Mud logs and well log signature, essentially Sonic and Gamma Ray logs, help delineate the
46
47
48 depositional sequences of the Gulf of Hammamet during the Lutetian-Priabonian time. Based
49
50 on the seismic stratigraphy concept (Vail et al., 1977), facies variations, discontinuities and
51
52 accurate dating by faunal assemblages, five stratigraphic incomplete sequences are recognized
53
54
55
within well W1 (Figure 12). The marls and clays of the Upper Eocene series are enriched at
56
57 the base with clayey limestones and comprised levels of glauconite at the top witnessing a
58
59 transgressive tendency episode. Each sequence includes its transgressive system tract (TST)
60
14
1
2
3 and the following highstand system tract (HST). These system tracts are separated by the
4
5
6
related maximum flooding surface (mfs). The absence of the lowstand system tract (LST) in
7
8 each sequence is due to the relative proximal position of the well; and regressive units
9
10 manifest themselves in the distal part of the basin. The Lutetian and the Bartonian stages are
11
12
recorded by a unique sequence, while the Priabonian time enabled the recognition of three
13
14
15 depositional sequences. The maximum readings of the Gamma Ray log are observed along
16
17 the first sequence. The fourth and the fifth sequences are marked by decreasing Gamma Ray
18
19 values with some deflections (Figure 12). Based on the Middle to Upper Eocene time,
20
21
22 approximating 13.9 Ma (Gradstein et al., 2012; Cohen et al., 2013), the average duration for
23
24 each sequence is about 2.78 Ma. Therefore, we interpret these sequences as third-order
25
26 depositional sequences (Vail et al., 1991).
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 The Middle to Upper Eocene Souar Formation expresses significant thickness variations.
30
31
32 Seismic stratigraphy analysis is carried out in NW – SE seismic section calibrated to W1 well
33
34 where the Middle to Upper Eocene series are thick and more developed (Figure 13A). The
35
36 subdivision into seismic sequences is based on borehole calibration using synthetic
37
38
39 seismograms and time-depth curves. Amplitude contrast together with reflections
40
41 terminations (onlap and truncation) expressed on the seismic section allow the delineation of
42
43 eight third order sequences within the Lutetian-Priabonian time interval. These sequences
44
45
46
(Figure 13A) consist of continuous, concordant, high amplitude and parallel to subparallel
47
48 seismic reflections. These seismic facies type shows the occurrence of almost constant
49
50 sedimentation rate under a small water slice. The onlap reflection terminations result from the
51
52 gradual and continuous subsidence together with relative rise of the sea level. Referring to W1
53
54
55 well, these seismic facies correspond to the Priabonian marly limestone beds, the Bartonian
56
57 tender green marls with some clayey limestone beds and pyrite and the Lutetian marly
58
59 limestone beds with whitish limestone beds. Sedimentation is guided by four main factors:
60
15
1
2
3 eustatism, tectonic, subsidence and climate. Eustatic fluctuation has considerable influence on
4
5
6
the lithology pattern and on the sequence’s arrangement. Tectonism has a considerable effect
7
8 on the syn-depositional architecture of the sediments. An important tectonic phase is
9
10 highlighted during the Lutetian interval. This is shown by the onlap terminations of the
11
12
sequences 2 to 8 over the first one (Figure 13A). This recorded tectonic phase together with
13
14
15 subsidence enable the occurrence of the needed accommodation space that housed the Upper
16
17 Lutetian to Priabonian PP deposits.
18
19
20 Seismic inversion
21
22
23 The Middle to Upper Eocene Souar Formation is known, in the study area, by its lateral
24
25 facies’ variations (Salaj, 1980: Bismuth and Bonnefous, 1981; Bonnefous and Bismuth, 1982;
26
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28 Sebei et al., 2007). This interval is mainly made of marls and shales with intercalations of
29
30 limestone beds known as the Reineche member and clayey limestone. The limestone beds are
31
32 essentially micritic. Marls are limy mudstones containing variable proportions of clays.
33
34
35
Towards the southeast of the study area, the Halk El Menzel Formation is entirely made of
36
37 limestones with some thin dolomite beds in the first unit.
38
39
40 Seismic inversion based on "a priori model" is applied to predict the lithological distribution
41
42 as a function of depth in order to better quantify the lateral facies variations. Two key seismic
43
44
45
sections have been selected for the inversion procedure. The first seismic profile (Figure 9a)
46
47 passes through well W1 which crossed the Souar shales while the second seismic section
48
49 (Figure 16a) passes through well W4 which encountered Halk El Menzel carbonates.
50
51
52 Cross-plot of acoustic impedance versus Gamma Ray in W1 well was used for lithofacies
53
54
55
distribution and to classify sediments into shale, marl and limestone (Figure 14). High
56
57 impedance values and low Gamma Ray readings characterize limestone prone lithology,
58
59 while low impedance values with significant high Gamma Ray deflection typify shale
60
16
1
2
3 sediments. Marls have intermediate impedance and Gamma Ray values. Thus, limestone
4
5
6
expresses impedance values greater than 7800 AIU, while shale characterizes values smaller
7
8 than 5400 AIU. The same lithologies are crossed by W4 (Shale, marl and limestone) for the
9
10 Serravallian to Upper Cretaceous series. So, the inversion results of W1 are also valid for the
11
12
lithologies crossed by W4 well.
13
14
15
16 The "a priori" AI model is constructed through the interpolation / extrapolation of the filtered
17
18 AI log along the picked key seismic horizons. Figures 15a and 16b show the computed "a
19
20 priori" AI model.
21
22
23 Good correlations are observed from the cross-plot of inverted AI and well-derived AI for
24
25
26 both wells W1 and W4 (Figure 17.1a and Figure 17.2a). Figure 17.1b and Figure 17.2b
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28 compare the synthetic seismic with the actual seismic.

29
30
31 Acoustic impedance sections are useful for detailed structural and stratigraphic interpretation.
32
33 The inverted section (Figure 15b) shows areas of high impedance (greater than 7800 AIU,
34
35
36 blue colored) for limestone intervals such us Abiod, BouDabbous and Ain Grab formations.
37
38 The lateral distribution of the Reineche member is highlighted as well. Other areas with
39
40 acoustic impedance values lower than 5400 AIU relate to shale lithology (green); the brown
41
42
43
colored interval shows intermediate values and relate to marly series. The acoustic impedance
44
45 distribution of the Souar Formation enables the prediction of the lithology as well as its lateral
46
47 and vertical variations (Figure 15b). This relates to the outer neritic to open marine
48
49
depositional environment of the Souar Formation. The flattening at the top of the Ain grab
50
51
52 Formation (Figure 15c) shows the thickening of the Oligocene Fortuna Formation towards the
53
54 south-east. It is expressed by the onlapping reflection terminations. The inverted section
55
56 crossing well W4 shows the same color distribution (Figure 16c). The Halk El Menzel
57
58
59
60
17
1
2
3 Formation is colored in blue as the expression of the limestone enrichment and relates to the
4
5
6
shallow platform depositional environment of this formation.
7
8
9 DISCUSSIONS AND GEODYNAMIC EVOLUTION
10
11
12
1D versus 2D or 3D sequential stratigraphic analysis
13
14 One dimensional (Figure 12) compared to two dimensional (Figure 13) sequential analysis
15
16
17 shows different numbers of delineated sequences. In the meantime, the number of third order
18
19 sequences in well W1 (Figure 12) is equal to those delineated at well location in the seismic
20
21 section (Figure 13). Laterally, towards the northwest, eight third order sequences are
22
23
24
expressed by the seismic section. The observed difference relates to the development of three
25
26 Lutetian sequences. The stratigraphic analysis based on electric logs shows only one Lutetian
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28 sequence. This may appear obvious due to the higher resolution offered by electric well logs
29
30
compared to the low resolution in the reflection seismic data. But one must bear in mind that
31
32
33 depositional sequences are three-dimensional geological bodies (Vail et al., 1977 and 1991;
34
35 Catuneanu, 2006); depending on its relative position, a well may not encounter all system
36
37 tracts of a sequence or even their complete absence, and that sequential stratigraphic analysis
38
39
40 should not be based solely on borehole data. This suggests that subsurface geological
41
42 modeling exercise should integrate seismic data, borehole biostratigraphic based
43
44 lithostatigraphic logs, electric well logs, seismic well shots, vertical seismic profiles (VSP),
45
46
47
etc.
48
49
50 Onshore versus offshore sequential analysis
51
52
53
Njahi Derbali and Touir (2019) defined eight third order sequences for the Middle to the
54
55 Upper Eocene interval in central Tunisia, at Jebel Kabbara. Deposits, made of thick marls
56
57 interceded with bioclastic and lumachellic limestone (Taktak et al., 2010), are organized into
58
59
three members, namely Cherahil A and Cherahil B separated by the Siouf carbonate member
60
18
1
2
3 (Burollet, 1956; Comte and Dufaure, 1973; Fournié, 1978; Chermiti et al., 2018). According
4
5
6
to Njahi Derbali and Touir (2019), the Lutetian stage is represented by four sequences (S1 to
7
8 S4); sequence S4 commences at the end of Lutetian and extend to the lower part of the
9
10 Bartonian. They delineated four sequences dating the Upper Bartonian-Priabonian (S5 to S8).
11
12
These third order depositional sequences are mainly separated by ravined surfaces that reflect
13
14
15 sub-areal exposure. The eight depositional sequences are made of transgressive and highstand
16
17 system tracts and indicate shallow water marine shelf with alternating episodes of marine
18
19 conditions and periods of restricted lagoonal environment.
20
21
22
23
The results in this paper are comparable to those obtained in Central Tunisia (Figure 13A and
24
25 B). The Lutetian – Priabonian PP sediments exhibit the same number of sequences in the Cap
26
27 Bon and Gulf of Hammamet provinces and the fourth sequence is located, as well, in the
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 transition between the late Lutetian to the lower Bartonian time. However, sediment records
30
31
32 characterize deeper conditions and the series indicate a continuously subsiding area and
33
34 relative sea level rise.
35
36
37 Global Scale comparison
38
39
40 Some global charts of sea level changes have been compiled by several authors over the years
41
42 (Haq et al., 1987; Snedden and Liu, 2010; Haq, 2014; etc.). These charts include eustatic
43
44
45 cycles and supercycles for Mesozoic (Haq et al., 1987; Snedden and Liu, 2010; Haq, 2014;
46
47 etc.) and Cenozoic eras (Haq et al., 1987; Snedden and Liu, 2010). A tentative correlation is
48
49 performed between the results in this study and those published by Snedden and Liu (Figure
50
51
13C). The delineated stratigraphic units are based on borehole lithology, faunal content,
52
53
54 available well logs (Gamma Ray, Sonic, etc.) and seismic reflection terminations such as
55
56 onlaps or truncations; the delimited sequences result from the spatial distribution of the
57
58
59
60
19
1
2
3 stratigraphic units and are indications of the global evolution of the depositional environment
4
5
6
during the Lutetian-Priabonian period. In all, eight stratigraphic sequences are defined.
7
8
9 Compared to the global Chart of Snedden and Liu (2010), the constructed chart conveys a
10
11 correspondence between the third order cycles. Sequence S1 is equivalent to cycle Lu1, cycle
12
13 Lu2 matches with sequence S2, sequence S3 is to be linked to cycle Lu3, the last sequence of
14
15
16 the Lutetian age S4 coincides to cycle Lu4. The Bartonian stage is represented by the unique
17
18 sequence S5 that should be attached to cycle Bart1; and the Priabonian Pr1, Pr2 and Pr3
19
20 cycles correspond to sequences S6, S7 and S8 (Figure 13A and C). This close correspondence
21
22
23
emanates from the relative thickness of each sequence which should be greater than the
24
25 seismic resolution limit (25m).
26
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28 Geodynamic evolution
29
30
31 North-eastern Tunisia had undergone complex geodynamic evolution that controlled the
32
33 Cenomanian to Langhian depositional processes (Ben Ayed, 1986; Bouaziz et al., 2002; Abidi
34
35 et al., 2016; Abidi, 2017; Sebei et al., 2019). Seismic profiles, borehole logs, surface and
36
37
38 subsurface geology can help the understanding of basin “behaviour” mechanisms and
39
40 structural deformations of the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet area.
41
42
43 The partial absence of Middle to Upper Eocene records in the Gulf of Hammamet province
44
45
(Figure 11a) relates to the inherited paleo-topography (Figure 8) induced by the Campanian
46
47
48 tectonic event. The subsequent strain is expressed by a partial uplift of the region leading to
49
50 the total erosion of the Santonian to Campanian deposits and the non-deposition of the
51
52 Maastrichtian to Eocene series; so that, all series encompassing the Aleg to the Souar
53
54
55 formations are completely absent. The magnitude of this time gap increases locally around
56
57 well W3d and the Langhian Ain Grab limestone rests unconformably on the Cenomanian
58
59 series. Abidi et al., (2016 and 2018) depicted a north-south compressive tectonic phase in the
60
20
1
2
3 Gulf of Hammamet (Figure 18). This tectonic phase is responsible for the growth of N-S
4
5
6
extensive structures such as grabens and tilted blocks. The Campanian phase was, also,
7
8 described by Turki (1985), Saadi (1997) and Rabhi et al. (2001) and resulted in folding,
9
10 erosion, gaps, unconformities and uplifted areas in Central Tunisia. The shortening phase
11
12
reactivated preexisting Jurassic-Early Cretaceous faults and induced important erosion of the
13
14
15 Upper Cretaceous and non-deposition of Paleocene-Lower Eocene series and basin inversion
16
17 (Ouali, 1984; Ben Ayed, 1986; Belkhiria et al., 2017). Zouari (1995) and Rabhi et al. (2001)
18
19 described a transpressional phase that originated wrinkles, thin sedimentation and non-
20
21
22 deposition in the vicinity of north-south axis. Regionally, the Campanian event is the
23
24 expression of the tectonic regime change resulting from relative movements of the Eurasian
25
26 and African plates (Dewey et al., 1989; Tavernelli et al., 2004; Guiraud et al., 2005).
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 A distally steepened ramp was formed in the Gulf of Hammamet during the Upper Cretaceous
30
31
32 stage (Sebei et al., 2007, Tlig et al., 2008; Sebei et al., 2019), rudist build-ups populated the
33
34 outer ramp forming a complex bioconstruction barrier (Figure 19a). This is disclosed by the
35
36 seismic facies (Figure 7) and encountered by W4 and W4a wells. Reef external morphology
37
38
39 and internal structure comprise a wide variety of types, including extensive barrier reefs that
40
41 cover large areas and small isolated reefs (Heckel, 1974; Sebei et al., 2007; Sebei et al.,
42
43 2019). The barrier reefs are linear with relatively deep water on both sides during deposition.
44
45
46
The outer side of the barrier is destroyed by wave actions and fine particles are suspended
47
48 and blocks crumble on the reef slope crossed by W4a well. The internal side typified very
49
50 calm environment with fine limestone deposits. Depending on eustatism, subtidal zone
51
52 may be isolated by reef barriers from the outer platform environment and sedimentation
53
54
55 process develops silt and mud deposits. Well W4 crossed biodetrital rudist rich limestone
56
57 and associated skeletal shell debris. The same features, cropping out in Central of Tunisia,
58
59 were described by authors (Khessibi, 1978; Marie et al., 1984; Bismuth and Mahjoub, 1985;
60
21
1
2
3 Negra and Philip, 1986; Zaghbib-Turki, 2003; Zagrarni et al., 2003); they revealed carbonate
4
5
6
ramp deposition, carbonate build-ups and successions of marlstone and biogenic
7
8 limestones. This sedimentary system was controlled by local and regional factors such as
9
10 tectonism and eustatic fluctuation (Negra and Philip, 1986; Zaghbib-Turki, 2003; Zagrarni
11
12
et al., 2003).
13
14
15
16 A major Tertiary transgression (Haq et al., 1987; Snedden and Liu, 2010), marked by a
17
18 pelagic environment, led to the deposition of calm water facies during Paleocene, Ypresian
19
20 and early Lutetian stages. Simmons et al. (2007) and Abidi et al. (2018) highlight a major
21
22
23
transgression during the Selandian, corresponding to the Pg10 event. Clear regressive trends
24
25 took place at the end of the Bartonian stage. W1 and W5 wells show condensed series and
26
27 alternations of benthic marl facies with planktonic microfauna and reworked deposits. The
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 overall Tertiary transgressive phase is outlined in central of Tunisia (Kadri et al., 2015) where
30
31
32 Middle and Upper Eocene records are made of clays and coquina limestone.
33
34
35 Analysis of the Tertiary succession, based on wells (W4 and W4a) and calibrated seismic
36
37 sections (Figure 19b), inferred an intra-Lutetian north-west compressive tectonic pulsation
38
39
that caused basin restructuration. This geometry is shown by onlapping reflections
40
41
42 terminations against the inherited reefal constructions (Figure 19b); the area was the site of
43
44 significant sedimentation with 157 m thick dolomite and limestone series within W4 well. At
45
46 this locality, the inverted northeast section (Figure 16c) expresses lateral facies variations and
47
48
49 pleads to the presence of marly limestone (blue colored acoustic impedance) towards the
50
51 south-west.
52
53
54 The northwestern side of the Gulf of Hammamet exhibits homogeneous marine sedimentation
55
56 of Upper Cretaceous and Eocene deposits (Figures 5 and 6). The latter are separated by an
57
58
59 unconformity related to the missing of Danian-Selandian series (W1 well). As a consequence
60
22
1
2
3 of the intra-Lutetian compression, Figure 13A highlights the onlapping termination of S2
4
5
6
through S8 sequences against sequence S1. This architecture led to the development of the
7
8 most important depocenter encountered in the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet provinces
9
10 (Figure 11a). The inverted section (Figure 15b) indicates the lateral extension of marl and
11
12
shale units (brown and green colored impedances) with an intermediate carbonate bank (blue
13
14
15 colored impedances) characterizing the Middle to Upper Eocene series towards the northwest.
16
17
18 The intra-Lutetian compressive phase gave rise to northwest extensive structures such as the
19
20 observed tilted blocks in the Cap Bon Area, illustrated by the seismic section (Figure 10). A
21
22
23
Priabonian event was depicted through the observed incomplete series on borehole data. This
24
25 is highlighted by the absence of the Upper part of Priabonian in well W5, the lack of the
26
27 Priabonian in well W6, and the absence of the Priabonian, Bartonian and the Upper part of le
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 Lutetian around wells W7, W7a and W7b. Structuring, tectonic evolution and sea level
30
31
32 fluctuation of the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet provinces during the Upper Cretaceous to
33
34 Paleogene period are summarized in Figure 20.
35
36
37 Both tectonic pulsations outlined the essential paleogeographic features of the region.
38
39
Paleotopography, eustatism, sediment supply and warm climate controlled the deposition of
40
41
42 Souar and Halk El Menzel formations in the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet provinces
43
44 during Middle to Upper Eocene time. Sedimentation is mostly terrigenous (Souar Formation)
45
46 in a deep platform environment (W1, W1a, W5) which reflect intermittent variations in
47
48
49 bathymetry and changes in hydrodynamism. While at W4, W4a and W4b, the sediments are
50
51 dominated by the carbonates of the Halk El Menzel Formation of open shallow platform
52
53 environment. This organization is illustrated by the block diagram of Figure 21.
54
55
56 The Middle to Upper Eocene compressive phases are observed in Tunisia (Haller, 1983; Ben
57
58
59 Ayed, 1986; Ben Salem, 1992; Bédir, 1995; Boussiga et al., 2003 and 2005; El Ghali et al.,
60
23
1
2
3 2003; Khomsi et al., 2006). These are responsible of the lack of Eocene, Paleocene and Upper
4
5
6
Maastrichtian series in the Gulf of Hammamet area (Sebei et al., 2007; Abidi et al., 2016;
7
8 Abidi, 2017). Seismic truncations result from the Eocene transpressive phase which is
9
10 synchronous with the "Pyrenean phase" identified in the eastern Tunisia by Boussiga et al.
11
12
(2005), Khomsi et al. (2006) and Abidi et al. (2016). The ‘Pyrenean phase’ was also outlined
13
14
15 in the N-S axis (Rabhi et al., 2001), the Sahel area (Haller, 1983; Bédir, 1995) and the
16
17 Enfidha region (Mzali and Zouari, 2006) where the tectonic event was dated Lutetian. As this
18
19 regime remained active up to the Upper Lutetian (Chandoul, 1988; Bouaziz et al., 2002; El
20
21
22 Ghali et al., 2003), the paleogeography is kept almost unchanged through the Eocene period
23
24 (Bismuth and Bonnefous, 1981). Between Kasserine uplift and the Gulf of Gabes basin, the
25
26 Middle to Upper Eocene compression phase resulted in folding, erosion and sub aerial
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29
exposure of the previously deposited series (Fournié, 1978; Kadri et al., 2015; Njahi Derbali
30
31 and Touir, 2019).
32
33
34 On a larger scale, the Eocene tectonic phase generated large folded structures within North
35
36 African region (Letouzey and Tremolières, 1980) and started the Saharan Atlas uplift in
37
38
39 Algeria (Guiraud and Bosworth, 1999). This regional event developed phosphate basins in
40
41 Tunisia (Burollet, 1956) and Morocco (Winnock, 1980; Stille, 1992; Stille et al., 1996;
42
43 Mouflih, 2015; Nguidi et al., 2021). The Eocene compressive phase resulted from the
44
45
46
convergence of European and African plates, just after the opening of the North Atlantic
47
48 (Olivet et al., 1984) and the rotation of the Corso-Sardis blocks inducing the closure of the
49
50 Ligurian Ocean (Tapponnier, 1977; El Ghali et al., 2003).
51
52
53 CONCLUSIONS
54
55
56 Middle to Upper Eocene stratigraphic series exhibit significant facies and thickness variations
57
58 in the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet provinces. Based on its micro-faunal content,
59
60
24
1
2
3 borehole data shows multiple and variable internal gaps dated Upper Lutetian to Upper
4
5
6
Priabonian, Upper Lutetian to Early Bartonian, Bartonian to Priabonian and the complete
7
8 absence of the Middle to Upper Eocene series.
9
10
11 Three tectonic compressive phases were depicted based on interpreted seismic sections and
12
13 boreholes data analysis: (i) the Campanian event led to partial to total erosion of the
14
15
16 Coniacian to Campanian series and the formation of a paleo-high zone that controlled the
17
18 sedimentation process, (ii) the intra-Lutetian event gave rise to normal faulting, local gaps and
19
20 structural floor topography and creates the accommodation space for the deposition of the
21
22
23
Souar and Halk El Menzel formations, (iii) the end Priabonian event, clearly evidenced by
24
25 borehole data, is responsible for multiple and variable amplitude hiatuses.
26
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28 Isochore map illustrates the development of north-south trending depocenter in the study area
29
30 with a maximum thickness of 600 m. An extended northeast trending and connected hiatus
31
32
33
zones, related to non-deposition or erosion or even emerged area attested by the presence of
34
35 Microcodium cited previously, subdivides the area into two main basins.
36
37
38 Integrated seismic stratigraphic analysis reveals, locally, eight third order sequences recording
39
40 to the Middle to Upper Eocene time. The Lutetian stage is made of four sequences. The
41
42
43
Bartonian interval is represented by a unique sequence. The Priabonian period is characterized
44
45 by three sequences. Sequences occurrence and distributions are linked to the tectonic and sea
46
47 level fluctuations. Good correspondence is observed between the obtained results and
48
49
published three order cycles of sea level changes. Seismic inversion was used for lithological
50
51
52 prediction to complement the seismic stratigraphic analysis and the depositional environment
53
54 variation related to the Souar and the Halk El Menzel formations ranging from “internal” to
55
56 outer platform separated by an inherited paleo-high.
57
58
59
60
25
1
2
3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
4
5
6 We are grateful to Dr. Sunday AMOYEDO, Prof Mohamed BEN YOUSSEF and two
7
8 anonymous reviewers whose comments resulted in the final balanced version of this
9
10
11 manuscript. This research would not have been produced without data provided by the
12
13 Tunisian National Oil Company (ETAP); they are gratefully acknowledged.
14
15
16 REFERENCES
17
18
19 Abidi, O., Inoubli, M.H., Sebei, K., Boussiga, H., Amiri, A., Hamdi-Nasr, I., 2014,
20
21 Geodynamic framework and petroleum potential of Cap-Bon-Gulf of Hammamet province –
22
23
24
Tunisia: Search and Discovery Article #30368.
25
26
27 Abidi, O., Inoubli, M.H., Sebei, K., Boussiga, H., Amiri, A., Hamdi-Nasr, I., and Ben Salem,
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 A., 2015, Apport de la sismique réflexion dans la modélisation géologique de subsurface du
30
31 Cap Bon et du Golfe de Hammamet province (Tunisie Nord Orientale) : Colloque
32
33
34
international « Risque sismique et effets induits dans la région Maghrébine » Sétif du 27 au
35
36 28 octobre 2015, Algérie.
37
38
39 Abidi, O., Inoubli, M. H., Sebei, K., Amiri, A., Boussiga, H., Hamdi Nasr, I., Ben Salem, A.,
40
41 Elabed, M., 2016, Geodynamic Evolution of Northeastern Tunisia During the Maastrichtian
42
43
44
Paleocene Time: Insights from Integrated Seismic Stratigraphic Analysis: Surveys in
45
46 Geophysics. Springer. DOI 10.1007/s10712- 016-9404-0.
47
48
49 Abidi, O., 2017, Apport de l’inversion sismique et des méthodes géophysiques intégrées dans
50
51 la modélisation géologique de la région du Cap Bon-Golfe d’Hammamet au cours de
52
53
54 Maastrichtien Paléocène : Thèse de Doctorat, Faculté des Sciences de Bizerte, p. 219.
55
56
57 Abidi, O., Inoubli, M. H., Sebei, K., Amiri, A., Boussiga, H., Hamdi Nasr, I., Boujamaoui,
58
59 M., Ben Salem, A., Elabed, M., 2018, Integrated stratigraphic modeling of the Cap Bon
60
26
1
2
3 province during the Maastrichtian Paleocene interval, Tunisia. Journal: Arabian Journal of
4
5
6
Geosciences. Volume 11, Issue 8, article number 167.
7
8
9 Amami-Hamdi, A., Ben Ismail-Lattrache, K., 2013, Les ostracodes et foraminifères associés
10
11 des dépôts de l’Éocène moyen et supérieur de la coupe de Jebel Serj (Tunisie centrale). Intérêt
12
13 biostratigraphique, paléoécologique et paléo-bio-géographique : Rev. Micro paleontol. 56
14
15
16 (4),159–174.
17
18
19 Arnould, M., 1950, Notice explicative de la carte géologique au 1/50.000 de la Tunisie,
20
21 FeuilleN°22, Menzel Bou Zelfa : Ann. Géol. Tunis, 31p.
22
23
24 Bédir, M., 1995, Mécanismes géodynamiques des bassins associés aux couloirs de
25
26
cisaillements de la marge atlasique de la Tunisie : séismostratigraphie, séismotectonique et
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 implications pétrolières : Thèse ès Sciences, Univ. Tunis II, 416 p.
30
31
32 Belkhiria, W., Boussiga, H., and Inoubli, M. H., 2017, Thick-skinned tectonics within the
33
34 intracontinental easternmost Atlas foreland-and-thrust belt (Tunisia): Meso-Cenozoic
35
36
37
kinematics and implications for regional geodynamics: Tectonics, 36, 981–1004.
38
39
40 Ben Ayed, N., 1986, Evolution tectonique de l’avant pays de la chaîne alpine de Tunisie du
41
42 début du Mésozoïque à l’Actuel : Thèse Doctorat d’Etat, Université Paris Sud, France, 328p.
43
44
45 Ben Ismail Lattrache, K., 1981, Etude micropaléontologique et biostratigraphique des séries
46
47 paléogènes de l'anticlinal du Jebel Abderrahman (Cap Bon Tunisie Nord orientale) : Thèse
48
49
50 3eme cycle, Fac. Sci. Tunis, 229 p., 12 pl.
51
52
53 Ben Ismail-Lattrache, K., 2000, Précision sur le passage Lutétien-Bartonien dans les dépôts
54
55 Eocènes moyens en Tunisie centrale et nord orientale : Revue de Micropaléontologie. Vol. 42.
56
57 N°1-2 pp. 3 - 16.
58
59
60
27
1
2
3 Ben Salem, H.,1992, Contribution à la connaissance de la géologie du Cap Bon :
4
5
6
Stratigraphie, tectonique et sédimentologie : Thèse de Spécialité, Univ. Tunis II. Fac. Sc.,
7
8 203p.
9
10
11 Ben Salem, H., 2002, The Cretaceous-Paleogene transition in Tunisia: general overview:
12
13 Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Palaeoecology 178, p. 139 - 143.
14
15
16
Bishop, W.F., 1988, Petroleum geology of East-central Tunisia: AAPG Bull., v. 72, No. 9, pp.
17
18
19 1033–1058.
20
21
22 Bismuth, H., Bonnefous, J., 1981, The biostratigraphy of carbonate deposits of the Middle
23
24 and Upper Eocene in northeastern off-shore Tunisia: Paleogeog. Paleo-clim. And Paleoecol.,
25
26
36, pp. B191-211.
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29
30 Bismuth, H., Mahjoub, M. N., 1985, Le Crétacé moyen du Djebel Chambi. Aperçu
31
32 biostratigraphique et sédimentologique : Actes du 1er Congrès NI. Sc. Terre, Tunis, t. II,
33
34 pp.37-94.
35
36
37 Bonnefous, J., Bismuth. H., 1982, Les faciès carbonatés de plateforme de l’Eocène moyen et
38
39
40 supérieur dans l’offshore tunisien nord- oriental et en mer pélagienne : implications
41
42 paléogéographiques et analyse micropaléontologique : Bull. Centre de Rech. Explor. Prod. Elf
43
44 Aquitaine- Pau 6, 2, pp. 337-403.
45
46
47 Bouaziz, S., Barrier, E., Soussi, M., Turki, M. M., Zouari, H., 2002, Tectonic evolution of the
48
49
50 northern African margin in Tunisia from paleostress data and sedimentary record:
51
52 Tectonophysics, 357, pp 227-253.
53
54
55 Boussiga, H., Alouani, R., Tlig, S., Inoubli, M.H., 2003, The Sahel platform reconstruction
56
57 using geological and seismic data (Tunisia): 1st North Africa Mediterranean Petroleum &
58
59
60 Geosciences Conference and Exhibition, Tunis, Tunisia, October 6-9th. 2003.
28
1
2
3 Boussiga, H., Inoubli, M.H., Alouani, R., Sebei, K., Ben Jemia, M.G., 2005, Geodynamic
4
5
6
reconstruction of the Sahel Plateform (Tunisia): an integrated approach: 2nd North Africa
7
8 Mediterranean Petroleum & Geosciences Conference and Exhibition, Algers, Algeria, 10-13
9
10 April. 2005.
11
12
13 Bubb, J. N., Hatlelid, W. G., 1977, Seismic Stratigraphy and Global Changes of Sea Level,
14
15
16 Part10: Seismic Recognition of Carbonate Buildups: Seismic Stratigraphy-Applications to
17
18 Hydrocarbon Exploration, Charles E. Payton, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1306/M26490C12.
19
20
21 Bujalka, P., Johan, Z., Krivy, M., Rakus, M. et Vacek, J., 1971, Carte géologique de la
22
23 Tunisie (Grombalia) à l’échelle 1/50 000 : ed. Serv. Géol. Tunisie.
24
25
26
Burdgess, M., Winefeld, P., Marcello, M., Chris, E., 2013, Methods for identification of
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 isolated carbonate buildups from seismic reﬂection data: AAPG Bull 97(7):1071–1098.
30
31
32 Burollet, P.F.,1956, Contribution à l’étude stratigraphique de la Tunisie Centrale : Annales
33
34 des Mines et de la Géologie 18, 388. Tunis.
35
36
37 Burollet, P. F., Ellouz, N., 1986, L’évolution des bassins sédimentaires de la Tunisie centrale
38
39
40 et orientale : Bull. Centre Rech. Expl. Prod. Elf - Aquitaine, Pau, 10, 49-68.
41
42
43 Castany, G., 1951, Étude géologique de l’Atlas Tunisien oriental : Annales des mines et de la
44
45 géologie, Tunis, 1-632.
46
47
48 Catuneanu, O., 2006, Principles of sequence stratigraphy: Department of earth and
49
50
51
atmospheric sciences university of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, ISBN-13: 978-0-444-
52
53 51568-1, 387p.
54
55
56 Chandoul, H., 1988, Les roches mères en Tunisie, répartition, épaisseur et qualités : rapport
57
58 inédit (ETAP), CH/DF/DEX Tunisie, 375, 1988, 37 p.
59
60
29
1
2
3 Chermiti, A., Moumni, Y., Khiari, N., Ben Youssef, M., 2018, Facies Analysis, Sequence
4
5
6
stratigraphy And Paleo-environment reconstruction of the Paleogene deposits in Central
7
8 Tunisia (Faidh Section): Journal of African Earth Sciences , Volume 144, August 2018, Pages
9
10 183-195.
11
12
13 Chihi, L., 1995, Etude tectonique et microtectonique du graben de Kasserine (Tunisie
14
15
16 Centrale) et des structures voisines J. Selloum et L. Maargba : Thèse de Doctorat 3ème cycle,
17
18 Univ. Paris Sud – Centre d'Orsay, 116p.
19
20
21 Cohen, K.M., Finney, S.C., Gibbard, P.L., Fan, J. X., 2013, The ICS International
22
23 Chronostratigraphic Chart: Episodes 36: 199-204.
24
25
26
Comte, D. and Dufaure, P., 1973, Quelques précisions sur la stratigraphie et la
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 paléogéographie tertiaires en Tunisie centrale et centro-orientale, du Cap Bon à Mezzouna :
30
31 Ann Mines Géol Tunisie 26 :241–256.
32
33
34 Dewey, J.F., Helman, M.L., Knott, S.D., Turco, E., Hutton, D.H.W., 1989, Kinematics of the
35
36
37
western Mediterranean: Geological Society, London, Special publications, v. 45, pp. 265-283.
38
39
40 El Ghali, A., Ben Ayed, N., Bobier, C., Zargouni, F., Krima, A., 2003, Les manifestations
41
42 tectoniques synsédimentaires associées à la compression éocène en Tunisie : implications
43
44 paléogéographiques et structurales sur la marge Nord-Africaine : C.R. Geoscience, 335, 763-
45
46
47
771.
48
49
50 Ellouz, N., 1984, Etude la subsidence de la Tunisie atlasique, orientale et de la mer
51
52 pélagienne : Thèse 3ème cycle, Univ. Paris VI, 182p.
53
54
55 Fournié, D., 1978, Nomenclature lithostratigraphique des séries du Crétacé supérieur au
56
57 Tertiaire de Tunisie : Bulletin des Centres de Recherche Exploration-Production Elf-
58
59
60 Aquitaine, v. 2, pp. 97–148.
30
1
2
3 Frizon de Lamotte, D., Saint Bézard, B., Barcène, R., 2000, The two main steps of the atlas
4
5
6
building and geodynamics of the western Mediterranean: Tectonics 19(4):740–761.
7
8
9 Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G., Schmitz, M.D., Ogg, G.M., 2012, The Geologic Time Scale, vol.
10
11 2: Elsevier, pp. 1144p.
12
13
14 Guiraud, R., Bosworth, W., 1999, Phanerozoic geodynamic evolution of northeastern Africa
15
16
and the northwestern Arabian platform: Tectonophysics 315, 73–108.
17
18
19
20
Guiraud, R., Bosworth, W., Thierry, J. & Delplanque, 2005, Phanerozoic geological evolution
21
22 of Northern and Central Africa: An overview: Journal of African Earth Sciences, v. 43, pp.
23
24 83–143.
25
26
27 Haller, P., 1983, Structure profonde du Sahel tunisien. Interprétation géodynamique : Thèse
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29
30 3eme cycle Université Franche Compté), 162p.
31
32
33 Haq, B.U., Hardenbol, J., Vail, P.R., 1987, Chronology of fluctuating sea levels since the
34
35 Triassic: Science 235, 1156–1167.
36
37
38 Haq, B.U., 2014, Cretaceous eustasy revisited. Global and Planetary Change 113 44–58.
39
40
41 Heckel, P.H., 1974, Carbonate buildups in the geologic record: A review: Soc Econ Paleontol
42
43
44 Miner Spec PubI18:90-154.
45
46
47 Hezzi, I., 2014, Caractérisation géophysique de la plateforme de Sahel, Tunisie nord-orientale
48
49 et ses conséquences géodynamiques : Thèse de doctorat, Université de Rennes, 205p.
50
51
52 Inoubli, M.H., Vincent, R., Patrice, R., 1990, Seismic processing by integrated analysis of
53
54
borehole and surface seismic data: Society of Exploration Geophysicists. In: Sixtieth annual
55
56
57 international meeting & exposition September 23–27, 1990 San Francisco, California.
58
59
60
31
1
2
3 Kadri, A., Essid, E., Merzeraud, G., 2015, Kasserine Island" boundaries variations during the
4
5
6
Upper cretaceous-Eocene (Central Tunisia): J. Afr. Earth Sci. 111, 244–257.
7
8
9 Khessibi, M., 1978, Etude géologique de secteur Maknassy-Mezzouna : Thèse d’Université.
10
11 Univ. Lyon. 220p.
12
13
14 Khomsi, S., Bédir, M., Soussi, M., Ben Jemia, G.M., Ben Ismail-Lattrache, K., 2006, Mise en
15
16
évidence en subsurface d’évènements compressifs Eocène moyen-supérieur en Tunisie
17
18
19 orientale (Sahel) : généralité de la phase atlasique en Afrique du Nord : C R Geosci338:41-49.
20
21
22 Lacombe, O., Jolivet, L., 2005, Structural and Kinematic relationships between Corsica and
23
24 the Pyrenees-Provence domain at the time of Pyrenean orogeny: Tectonics, 24, 1-20.
25
26
27 Lehman, E. P., Rozeboom, J. J., Waller, H. O., Conley, C. D., 1967, Microfacies of Linya:
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29
30 The Petroleum Exploration Society of Libya, 80p.
31
32
33 Letouzey, J., Tremolières, P., 1980, Paleo-stress fields around the Mediterranean since the
34
35 Mesozoic derived from microtectonics: Comparisons with plate tectonic data: Mem BRGM
36
37 115:261–273.
38
39
40
Marie, J., Trouvé, Ph., Deforges, G. & Duphaure, Ph., 1984, Nouveaux éléments de
41
42
43 paléogéographie du Crétacé de Tunisie : Notes et Mémoires No. 19, Compagnie Française des
44
45 Pétroles, Paris, p. 37.
46
47
48 Mejri, F., Burollet, P. Ben Ferjani, A., 2006, Petroleum Geology of Tunisia: A Renewed
49
50
51
Synthesis Entreprise Tunisienne d’Activités Pétrolière ETAP Mémoire n°= 22, 230p.
52
53
54 Mouflih, M., 2015. Les phosphates du Maroc Central et du Moyen-Atlas d’âge Maastrichtien-
55
56 Lutétien : sédimentologie, stratigraphie séquentielle, contexte génétique et valorisation. Thèse
57
58 d’Etat, Université Cadi Ayyad, Marrakech, Maroc, 340 p.
59
60
32
1
2
3 Mzali, H., Zouari, H., 2006, Caractérisation géométrique et cinématique des structures liées
4
5
6
aux phases compressives de l’Éocène au Quaternaire inférieur en Tunisie : exemple de la
7
8 Tunisie nord-orientale : C. R. Geosciences 338 (2006) 742–749.
9
10
11 Negra, MH., Philip, J., 1986, Stratigraphie et paléontologie des formations à Rudistes et
12
13 grands Foraminifères du Campanien supérieur du Jebel Kebar (Tunisie Centrale) : Géolog
14
15
16 Méditerr Marseille 1. XII-XIII 1–2:49–57.
17
18
19 Nguidi, M.A., Mouflih, M., Benbouziane, A., Kocsis, L., El Ouariti, S., El Boukhari, H.,
20
21 Aquit, M., Yazami, O.K., 2021, Lithofacies analysis, sedimentary dynamics and genesis of
22
23 Maastrichtian-Eocene phosphorites of BouCraa deposit (southern Morocco), Journal of
24
25
26 African Earth Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2021.104161.
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 Njahi Derbali, Z., Touir, J., 2019, Sedimentology and sequence stratigraphy of the Middle and
30
31 Upper Eocene succession from Jebel Kabbara (central Tunisia): Journal of African Earth
32
33 Sciences 160 (2019) 103599.
34
35
36
37
Olivet, J.L., Bonnin, J., Beuzart, P., Auzende, J.M., 1984, Cinématique de l’Atlantique nord et
38
39 central : Rapports scientifiques et techniques du Centre national pour l’exploitation des
40
41 océans 54, 108 p.
42
43
44 Ouali, J., 1984, Structure et évolution géodynamique du chaînon Nara-Sidi Khalif (Tunisie
45
46
47
centrale) : Thèse de Doctorat 3eme cycle. Université Rennes1, 119p.
48
49
50 Patriat, M., Ellouz, N., dey, Z., Gaulier, J.M., Ben Kilani, H., 2003, The Hammamet, Gabes
51
52 and Chotts basins (Tunisia): a review of the subsidence history: Sedimentary geology 156: pp.
53
54 241-262.
55
56
57
58
59
60
33
1
2
3 Rabhi, M., Chekhma, H., M, R., Ben Haj Ali, M., Mahjoub, K., 2001, Nouvelles données sur
4
5
6
la tectonique compressive au sommet du Crétacé et au début du Tertiaire dans l’Axe Nord-
7
8 Sud (Tunisie centrale) : Notes du Service Géologique de Tunisie, n° 68. pp. 113118.
9
10
11 Rouvier, H., 1977, Géologie de l’extrême-nord tunisien. Tectoniques et paléogéographies
12
13 superposées à l’extrémité orientale de la chaîne nord maghrébine : Annales de Mines de la
14
15
16 Géologie, Tunisie, n. 29, 427 p.
17
18
19 Saadi, M., 1997, Géodynamique des bassins sur relais de décrochements au Crétacé-
20
21 Cénozoïque et géométrie des séquences génétiques du bassin Oligo-Aquitanien de Saouaf
22
23 (Tunisie centro-orientale) : Thèse Doctorat, Univ. Tunis II, 348p.
24
25
26
Salaj, J., 1980, Microbiostratigraphie du Crétacé et du Paléocène de la Tunisies septentrionale
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 et orientale (Hypostratotypes tunisienne) : Géol. Inst. D. Stura. Bratislava, 238p.
30
31
32 Sebei, K., Inoubli, M.H., Boussiga, H., Tlig, S., Alouani, R., Boujamaoui, M., 2007, Seismic
33
34 stratigraphy, tectonics and depositional history in the Halk el Menzel region, NE Tunisia: J
35
36
37
Afr Earth Sc 47:9–29.
38
39
40 Sebei, K., Amiri, A., Abidi, O., Manai, D., Inoubli, M.H., Ben Salem, A., 2019, Episodes
41
42 with reefal formations during the Aptian–Late Cretaceous in the gulf of Hammamet
43
44 (Northeastern Tunisia): insights from seismic reﬂection and wells data, Journal: International
45
46
47
Journal of Earth Sciences. Volume 108, Issue 3 pp 779-797.
48
49
50 Simmons, M.D., Sharland, P.R., Casey, D.M., Davies, R.B., Sutcliffe, O.E., 2007, Arabian
51
52 Plate sequence stratigraphy: potential implications for global chronostratigraphy : Geo-Arabia
53
54 12, 101–130.
55
56
57
58
59
60
34
1
2
3 Snedden, JW., Liu, C., 2010, A Compilation of Phanerozoic Sea-Level Change, Coastal
4
5
6
Onlaps and Recommended Sequence Designations: AAPG Search and Discovery Article
7
8 #40594.
9
10
11 Solignac, M., 1927, Etude géologique de la Tunisie septentrionale : Dir. Gén. Trav. Publics.,
12
13 Service des Mines, Tunis : Thèse de Doct.es Sciences., Lyon, 1 vol. (XIII-756 p.-[4] p. de pl.
14
15
16 dépl.) : ill. ; 32 cm.
17
18
19 Stark, A., 2008, Seismic methods and applications: a guide for the detection of geologic
20
21 structures, earthquake zones and hazards: Resource exploration, and geotechnical
22
23 engineering. ISBN-13: 9781599424415, 591p.
24
25
26
Stille, P., 1992, Nd–Sr isotope evidence for dramatic changes of paleocurrents in the Atlantic
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 Ocean during the past 80 m.y. Geology, 20, 387–390:
30
31 https://doi.org/10.1130/00917613(1992)020<0387:NSIEFD>2.3.CO;2
32
33
34 Stille, P., Steinmann, M., Riggs, S.R., 1996, Nd isotope evidence for the evolution of the
35
36 paleocurrents in the Atlantic and Tethys Oceans during the past 180 Ma. Earth Planet Science
37
38
39 Letter, 144, 9–19.
40
41
42 Taktak, F., Kharbachi, S., Bouaziz, S., Tlig, S., 2010, Basin dynamics and petroleum potential
43
44 of the Eocene series in the Gulf of Gabes, Tunisia: J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 75, 114–128.
45
46
47 Taktak, F., Bouaziz, S., Tlig, S., 2012, Depositional and tectonic constraints for hydrocarbon
48
49
targets of the Lutetian–Langhian sequences from the Gulf of Gabes — Tunisia: Journal of
50
51
52 Petroleum Science and Engineering, Pages 50-65.
53
54
55 Tapponnier, P., 1977, Évolution tectonique du système alpin en Méditerranée :
56
57 poinçonnement et écrasement rigide-plastique : Bull. Soc. géol. France VII (3) 437–460.
58
59
60
35
1
2
3 Tavarnelli, E., Butler, R.W.H., Decandia, F.A., Calamita, F., Grasso, M., Alvarez, W., Renda,
4
5
6
P., 2004, Implications of fault reactivation and structural inheritance in the Cenozoic tectonic
7
8 evolution of Italy: Special Volume of the Italian Geological Society for the IGC 32 Florence.
9
10
11 Tlig, S., Sahli, H., Ouaja, M., Mzoughi, M., 2008, Cenomanian Turonian rudist build-ups and
12
13 geodynamic evolution of the Northern Chotts mountains (Tunisia): Eighth International
14
15
16 Congress on Rudists June 23-25, 2008-zmir, Turkey.
17
18
19 Tlig, S., Sahli, S., Er-Raioui, L., Alouani, R., Mzoughi, M., 2010, Depositional environment
20
21 controls on petroleum potential of the Eocene in the North of Tunisia: Journal of Petroleum
22
23 Science and Engineering 71 (2010) 91–105.
24
25
26
Touati, M.A., 1985, Etude géologique et géophysique de la concession de Sidi El Itayem en
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 Tunisie orientale et Sahel de Sfax. Histoire géologique du bassin et évolution de la
30
31 fracturation des structures du Crétacé au Plio- Quaternaire : Thèse de Doctorat 3ème cycle,
32
33 Univ. P. et M. Curie, Paris VI.
34
35
36
37
Turki, M.M., 1985, Polycinématique et contrôle sédimentaire associé sur la cicatrice
38
39 Zaghouan– Nebhana : Thèse de Doctorat d’Etat, Faculté des sciences de Tunis, Université de
40
41 Tunis El Manar II, Tunis et Rev. Sc. Terre de l’UST (INRST), 7, 262p.
42
43
44 Vail, P. R., Mitchum, Jr. R. M., Todd, R. G., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes
45
46
47
of sea level. In PAYTON, C. E. (Ed), Seismic Stratigraphy – Applications to Hydrocarbon
48
49 Exploration: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 26, 1977, pp. 49–212.
50
51
52 Vail, P.R., Audemard, F., Bowman, S.A., Eisner, P.N., Perez-Cruz, C., 1991, The
53
54 stratigraphic signatures of tectonics, eustasy and sedimentology. An overview. In: Einsele, G.
55
56
57
(Ed.), Cycles and Events in Stratigraphy: Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 617–659.
58
59
60
36
1
2
3 Winnock, E., and Bea, F., 1979, Structure de la mer pélagienne : Géologie méditerranéenne.
4
5
6
T.VI, n°1, pp. 35-39.
7
8
9 Winnock, E., 1980, Les dépôts de l’Eocène au nord de l’Afrique : Apercu paléogéographique
10
11 de l’ensemble. In : Géologie comparée des gisements de phosphates et de pétrole : Colloque
12
13 International, Orléans, 6-7 Novembre 1979. Document du BRGM, 24, 219-243.
14
15
16
Yaïch, C., Ben Ismail, K., Zaghbib-Turki, D., Turki, M. M, 1994, Interprétation séquentielle
17
18
19 de l’Oligo-Miocène (Tunisie Centrale et Nord-Orientale) : Sciences Géologiques, bulletins et
20
21 mémoires, pp 27-49.
22
23
24 Zaghbib-Turki, D., 2003, Cretaceous coral-Rudist formations in Tunisia. North African
25
26
Cretaceous Carbonate Platform systems: SBN 978-1-4020-1607-3 ISBN 978-94-010-0015-4
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-010-0015-4.
30
31
32 Zagrarni, M.F., Negra, M.H., Melki, S., 2003, Turonian Rudist-Coral Limestones in Jebel
33
34 Bireno, Central Tunisia. In: Gili E., El Hédi Negra M., Skelton P.W. (eds) North African
35
36
37
Cretaceous Carbonate Platform Systems. NATO Science Series (Series IV: Earth and
38
39 Environmental Sciences), vol 28. Springer, Dordrecht. 0015-4_6.
40
41
42 Zargouni, F., 1985, Tectonique de l'Atlas méridional de Tunisie, Evolution géométrique et
43
44 cinématique des structures en zone de cisaillement : Thèse Sci., Université Louis Pasteur,
45
46
47
Strasbourg, France. 296p.
48
49
50 Zouari, H., 1995, Evolution géodynamique de l’Atlas centro-méridional de la Tunisie :
51
52 stratigraphie, analyse géométrique, cinématique et tectono-sédimentaire : Thèse es-Sciences.
53
54 Fac. Sciences Tunis, Univ. Tunis II, 251p.
55
56
57
58
59
60
37
1
2
3 LIST OF FIGURES
4
5
6 Figure 1 : Mid to late Eocene paleogeography and lithofacies map of Tunisia (Bonnefous and
7
8 Bismuth, 1982).
9
10
11 Figure 2: (a) Location map of the outcropping Souar Formation; (b) Location of the main
12
13
14 seismic sections and drilled wells used in the present study; (c) Lithostratigraphy column of
15
16 the Souar Formation (locality type).
17
18
19 Figure 3: Lithological, Sonic, Gamma Ray, Resistivity logs and interval velocity curve within
20
21 W1 well.
22
23
24 Figure 4: (a) Computed amplitude spectra based on seismic data. Green color adopted for
25
26
seismic data, Red for signal and Black for noise. (b) Inverted deterministic wavelet based on
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29 available seismic data and constrained by sonic and density logs recorded in W1 well.
30
31
32 Figure 5: Campanian to Late Chattian lithostratigraphic chart of the study.
33
34
35 Figure 6: Northwest -Southeast lateral correlation between drilled wells.
36
37
38 Figure 7: Post deposited series on the inherited floor geometry related to the reefal
39
40 construction distribution. Gamma Ray log (green color) and the sonic log (red color); (0) reef
41
42 construction facies, (1) top reef construction, (2) top Aleg Formation, (3) top Abiod
43
44
45
Formation, (4) top El Haria Formation, (5) top BouDabbous Formation, (6) top Souar
46
47 Formation, (7) top Fortuna Formation, (8) top Ain Grab Formation and (9) top Mahmoud
48
49 Formation.
50
51
52 Figure 8: Interpreted seismic line with partial erosion of the Upper Cretaceous series.
53
54
U1: Campanian unconformity; Horizons relate to: (1) Top Aleg Formation, (2) top Abiod
55
56
57 Formation, (3) top El Haria Formation, (4) top BouDabbous Formation, (5) top Souar
58
59
60
38
1
2
3 Formation, (6) top Ketatna Formation, (7) top Fortuna Formation and (8) top Ain Grab
4
5
6
Formation.
7
8
9
Figure 9: (a) Interpreted seismic line showing the depocenter of the Souar Formation. (b)
10
11 Flattening at the top of Souar Formation. (c) Flattening at the top of Ain Grab Formation
12
13 showing the Fortuna Formation depocenter. (1) top Abiod Formation, (2) top El Haria
14
15
Formation, (3) top BouDabbous Formation, (4) intra-Souar horizon, (5) top Souar Formation,
16
17
18 (6) top Ain grab Formation and (7) top Oum Douil Formation.
19
20
21 Figure 10: Interpreted seismic line showing systems of normal faulting. Red fault system
22
23 relates the intra-Lutetian phase; black fault system is posterior to the Ain Grab Formation.
24
25 Picked horizons are: (1) top Abiod Formation, (2) top El Haria Formation, (3) top
26
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28 BouDabbous Formation, (4) top Souar Formation, (5) top Fortuna Formation and (6) top Ain
29
30 Grab Formation.
31
32
33 Figure 11: (a) Isopach map and (b) Paleogeographic distribution of the Middle to Upper
34
35 Eocene interval in the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet provinces.
36
37
38 Figure 12: Identified sequences from Gamma Ray and sonic logs within W1 well.
39
40
41 Figure 13: (A) Sequence types related to Lutetian (S1 to S4), Bartonian (S5) and Priabonian
42
43 (S6 to S8). (A) Sequences types defined by Njahi Derbali and Touir (2019) at Jebel Kabbara
44
45
46 in central Tunisia. (C) Global chart of sea level changes published by Snedden and Liu
47
48 (2010).
49
50
51 Figure 14: Gamma Ray versus Acoustic impedance cross plot.
52
53
54 Figure 15: Model-based inversion using W1 well on a seismic profile passing through the
55
56 Souar Formation. (a) initial model, (b) inverted impedance section and (c) flattening at the top
57
58
59
of Ain Grab Formation to highlight the Fortuna basin. Horizons correspond to: (1) top Abiod
60
39
1
2
3 Formation, (2) top El Haria Formation, (3) top BouDabbous Formation, (4) top Souar
4
5
6
Formation, (5) top Fortuna Formation, (6) top Ain grab Formation and (7) top Oum Douil
7
8 Formation.
9
10
11 Figure 16: Model-based inversion using W4 well on a seismic profile passing through the
12
13 Halk El Menzel Formation (a) Amplitude seismic profile, (b) initial model and (c) inverted
14
15
impedance section. Horizons correspond to: (1) top reefal construction, (2) top Halk El
16
17
18 Menzel Formation, (3) top Ain Grab Formation, (4) top Mahmoud Formation and (5) top
19
20 Saouaf Formation.
21
22
23 Figure 17: Quality control (QC) of the inversion process: original versus inverted impedance
24
25 cross-plot of W1 well (1a) and W4 well (2a), correlation between the original log, the initial
26
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28 model and the inverted result of the seismic profile passing through the Souar Formation (1b)
29
30 and of the seismic profile passing through the Halk El Menzel Formation (2b).
31
32
33 Figure 18: Interpreted seismic lines showing an unconformity at the El Haria
34
35 Formation base published by Abidi et al. (2018). Picked horizons are top Cenomanian
36
37
Fahdene Formation (1), top Coniacian-Santonian Aleg Formation (2), top Campanian Abiod
38
39
40 Formation (3), top Maastrichtian-Paleocene El Haria Formation (4), and top Langhian
41
42 Mahmoud Formation (5).
43
44
45 Figure 19: Structural evolution Highlighting the intra-Lutetian compressive phase and its
46
47 relationship with the deposition of the Middle to Upper Eocene series. (a) Flattening at the top
48
49
50 of BouDabbous Formation, (b) Flattening al the top of Souar Formation, (c) actual
51
52 architecture. Picked horizons are: (0) reef construction facies, (1) top reef construction, (2) top
53
54 Aleg Formation, (3) top Abiod Formation, (4) top El Haria Formation, (5) top BouDabbous
55
56
57
Formation, (6) top Souar Formation, (7) top Fortuna Formation, (8) top Ain grab Formation
58
59 and (9) top Mahmoud Formation.
60
40
1
2
3 Figure 20: Structuring, tectonic event and sea level fluctuation of the Cap Bon and Gulf of
4
5
6
Hammamet provinces during the Upper Cretaceous to Paleogene period.
7
8
9
Figure 21: Block diagram summarizing the organization of the sedimentary environments.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
Figure 1 : Mid to late Eocene paleogeography and lithofacies map of Tunisia (Bonnefous and Bismuth,
29
1982).
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/interpretation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
Figure 2: (a) Location map of the outcropping Souar Formation; (b) Location of the main seismic sections
32
and drilled wells used in the present study; (c) Lithostratigraphy column of the Souar Formation (locality
33 type).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
Figure 3: Lithological, Sonic, Gamma Ray, Resistivity logs and interval velocity curve within W1 well.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26 Figure 4: (a) Computed amplitude spectra based on seismic data. Green color adopted for seismic data, Red
for signal and Black for noise. (b) Inverted deterministic wavelet based on available seismic data and
27
constrained by sonic and density logs recorded in W1 well.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26 Figure 5: Campanian to Late Chattian lithostratigraphic chart of the study.

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
Figure 6: Northwest -Southeast lateral correlation between drilled wells.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Figure 7: Post deposited series on the inherited floor geometry related to the reefal construction distribution.
25 Gamma Ray log (green color) and the sonic log (red color); (0) reef construction facies, (1) top reef
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26 construction, (2) top Aleg Formation, (3) top Abiod Formation, (4) top El Haria Formation, (5) top
27 BouDabbous Formation, (6) top Souar Formation, (7) top Fortuna Formation, (8) top Ain Grab Formation
28 and (9) top Mahmoud Formation.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Figure 8: Interpreted seismic line with partial erosion of the Upper Cretaceous series. U1:
24 Campanian unconformity; Horizons relate to: (1) Top Aleg Formation, (2) top Abiod Formation, (3) top El
25 Haria Formation, (4) top BouDabbous Formation, (5) top Souar Formation, (6) top Ketatna Formation, (7)
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26 top Fortuna Formation and (8) top Ain Grab Formation.

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Figure 9: (a) Interpreted seismic line showing the depocenter of the Souar Formation. (b) Flattening at the
46 top of Souar Formation. (c) Flattening at the top of Ain Grab Formation showing the Fortuna Formation
47 depocenter. (1) top Abiod Formation, (2) top El Haria Formation, (3) top BouDabbous Formation, (4) intra-
Souar horizon, (5) top Souar Formation, (6) top Ain grab Formation and (7) top Oum Douil Formation.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29 Figure 10: Interpreted seismic line showing systems of normal faulting. Red fault system relates the intra-
30 Lutetian phase; black fault system is posterior to the Ain Grab Formation. Picked horizons are: (1) top
31 Abiod Formation, (2) top El Haria Formation, (3) top BouDabbous Formation, (4) top Souar Formation, (5)
32 top Fortuna Formation and (6) top Ain Grab Formation.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27 Figure 11: (a) Isopach map and (b) Paleogeographic distribution of the Middle to Upper Eocene interval in
the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet provinces.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Figure 12: Identified sequences from Gamma Ray and sonic logs within W1 well.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Figure 13: (A) Sequence types related to Lutetian (S1 to S4), Bartonian (S5) and Priabonian (S6 to S8). (A)
20 Sequences types defined by Njahi Derbali and Touir (2019) at Jebel Kabbara in central Tunisia. (C) Global
21 chart of sea level changes published by Snedden and Liu (2010).
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Figure 14: Gamma Ray versus Acoustic impedance cross plot.
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Figure 15: Model-based inversion using W1 well on a seismic profile passing through the Souar Formation.
46 (a) initial model, (b) inverted impedance section and (c) flattening at the top of Ain Grab Formation to
47 highlight the Fortuna basin. Horizons correspond to: (1) top Abiod Formation, (2) top El Haria Formation, (3)
top BouDabbous Formation, (4) top Souar Formation, (5) top Fortuna Formation, (6) top Ain grab Formation
48 and (7) top Oum Douil Formation.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Figure 16: Model-based inversion using W4 well on a seismic profile passing through the Halk El Menzel
46 Formation (a) Amplitude seismic profile, (b) initial model and (c) inverted impedance section. Horizons
47 correspond to: (1) top reefal construction, (2) top Halk El Menzel Formation, (3) top Ain Grab Formation, (4)
top Mahmoud Formation and (5) top Saouaf Formation.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 Figure 17: Quality control (QC) of the inversion process: original versus inverted impedance cross-plot of W1
38 well (1a) and W4 well (2a), correlation between the original log, the initial model and the inverted result of
39 the seismic profile passing through the Souar Formation (1b) and of the seismic profile passing through the
40 Halk El Menzel Formation (2b).
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Figure 18: Interpreted seismic lines showing an unconformity at the El Haria Formation base published by
19 Abidi et al. (2018). Picked horizons are top Cenomanian Fahdene Formation (1), top Coniacian-Santonian
20 Aleg Formation (2), top Campanian Abiod Formation (3), top Maastrichtian-Paleocene El Haria Formation
21 (4), and top Langhian Mahmoud Formation (5).
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 Figure 19: Structural evolution Highlighting the intra-Lutetian compressive phase and its relationship with
44 the deposition of the Middle to Upper Eocene series. (a) Flattening at the top of BouDabbous Formation, (b)
45 Flattening al the top of Souar Formation, (c) actual architecture. Picked horizons are: (0) reef construction
46 facies, (1) top reef construction, (2) top Aleg Formation, (3) top Abiod Formation, (4) top El Haria
Formation, (5) top BouDabbous Formation, (6) top Souar Formation, (7) top Fortuna Formation, (8) top Ain
47
grab Formation and (9) top Mahmoud Formation.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Figure 20: Structuring, tectonic event and sea level fluctuation of the Cap Bon and Gulf of Hammamet
34
provinces during the Upper Cretaceous to Paleogene period.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
Figure 21: Block diagram summarizing the organization of the sedimentary environments.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
DATA AND MATERIALS AVAILABILITY
Data associated with this research are available and can be obtained by contacting the corresponding
author.
DOI:10.1190/int-2021-0020.1

Int 2021 0020.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Int 2021 0020.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interpretation

Subsurface geological imaging of northeastern Tunisia

Manuscript Type: 2020-10 Focus on Africa

Date Submitted by the

Sebei, Kawthar; University of Tunis El Manar Faculty of Sciences of

Keywords: seismic stratigraphy, Africa, geology, inversion, imaging

Outcrop and subsurface modeling, Structural, stratigraphic, and

28 4-Entreprise Tunisienne d’Activités Pétrolières (ETAP), 54, Avenue Mohamed V – 1002

28 The variations of the lithological characteristics of the Lutetian-Priabonian series in North-

28 compare the synthetic seismic with the actual seismic.

26 Figure 5: Campanian to Late Chattian lithostratigraphic chart of the study.

26 top Fortuna Formation and (8) top Ain Grab Formation.

You might also like