No abstract

The Campanian Cliff House Formation represents a series of individually progradational shoreface tongues preserved in an overall landward‐stepping system. In the Mancos Canyon area, the formation consists of four, 50‐ to 55‐m‐thick and 10‐ to 20‐km‐wide sandstone tongues, which pinch out landwards into lower coastal plain and lagoonal deposits of the Upper Menefee Formation and seawards into offshore shales of the Lewis Shale Formation. Photogrammetric mapping of lithofacies along the steep and well‐exposed canyon walls was combined with sedimentary facies analysis and mapping of the detailed facies architecture. Two major facies associations have been identified, one comprising the mostly muddy and organic‐rich facies of lagoonal and lower coastal plain origin and one comprising the sandstone‐dominated facies of shoreface origin. Key stratigraphic surfaces were identified by combining the mapped geometry of the lithofacies units with the interpretation of depositional processes. The stratigraphic surfaces (master ravinement surface, shoreface/coastal plain contact, transgressive surface, maximum flooding surface and the sequence boundary) allow each major sandstone tongue to be divided into a simple sequence, consisting of a basal transgressive system tract (TST) overlain by a highstand system tract (HST). Within each sandstone tongue, a higher frequency cyclicity is evident. The high‐frequency cycles show a complex stacking pattern development and are commonly truncated in the downdip direction by surfaces of regressive marine erosion. The complexities of the Cliff House sandstone tongues are believed to reflect changes in the rate of sea‐level rise combined with the responses of the depositional system to these changes. Synsedimentary compaction, causing a thickness increase in the sandstone tongues above intervals of previously uncompacted lagoonal/coastal plain sediments, also played a role. This study of the facies architecture, geometry and sequence stratigraphy of the Cliff House Formation highlights the fact that there may be some problems in applying conventional sequence stratigraphical methods to landward‐stepping systems in general. These difficulties stem from the fact that no single stratigraphic surface can easily be identified and followed from the non‐marine to the fully marine realm (i.e. from the landward to the basinward pinch‐out of the sandstone tongues). In addition, the effects of synsedimentary compaction and changes in the shoreface dynamics are not easily recognized in limited data sets such as from the subsurface.

No abstract

No abstract

Recent sequence stratigraphic debate on the Brent system have focused on the interpreted nature of the progradational trajectory (horizontal, slightly upwards or downwards) of the shoreline (Rannoch/Etive Formations) through time, as this gives a direct measure of how late Aalenian-Bajocian relative sea level changed during regression. Early interpretations emphasized the unified shallowing-upward nature of the Rannoch-Etive-Ness depositional system, and implicitly accepted a uniform shoreline progradation, i.e. a shoreline trajectory that was horizontal or slightly rising, implying a stable or slightly rising relative sea level. No irregularities of the trajectory were noted, and unusual shifts in facies, grain size etc. were normally related to autocyclic processes.More recent work has suggested that in some instances there is evidence for more irregular shoreline progradation at certain times, and for fall(s) in relative sea level and forced regression. This evidence comes from incised valleys and deep erosion/subaerial exposure surfaces from the landward (Etive-Ness boundary) and basinward (Rannoch-Etive) reaches of the Brent system respectively. However, it is currently unclear if any of these downshift surfaces recognized in the strandplain/coastal plain and shoreface environments are in time-equivalent strata.Current debate is mostly handicapped by a lack of agreement on the origin and depositional facies of the Etive Formation. There is significant debate about the relative amounts of fluvial, tidal and wave influence detected in the strata of this formation, with some authors arguing for a dominance of fluvial distributaries and mouth-bar deposits, whereas others propose either tidal-channel and inlet deposits or wave-dominated shoreface and strandplain settings. The stratigraphy is impacted by this disagreement. The character and sharp base of the Etive Formation can be argued to be consistent with normal shoreline processes, where wave or tidal conditions can produce significant erosion in the shoreface, without the necessity of any forced regression. Other interpretations, particularly where the Etive Formation is seen in terms of fluvial facies and processes, require a significant basinward shift of the shoreline to explain the Rannoch-Etive superposition, and a fall of sea level to cause the erosive boundary between the two formations.However, there is now ample evidence, including new evidence presented here, that both of the end-member scenarios for the progradation of the Brent system are incorrect. The notion that the overall progradation was entirely a product of normal regression, during stable and/or slightly rising relative sea level, is negated by local evidence of incised valleys, of subaerial exposure and plant growth in lower shoreface strata in the Rannoch Formation, and of repeated erosion surfaces with coarse-grained lags at the base of the Etive Formation. On the other hand, the idea of continuous sea level fall or of a single, late-stage fall, such that there was regional valley inc...