riK AriKi - ill Association ot i'etroleuniGcologisls Bulletin
V. 70, No. 2 (February 1986), P. 131-137, 5 Figs.
Eustatic Sea Level Changes Interpreted from Seismic Stratigraphy:
A Critique of the Methodology with Particular Reference to the
North Sea Jurassic Record'
ANDREW D. MIALL'
ABSTRACT
Seismic stratigraphic methods for interpreting eustatic
sea level change are based on generalized stratigraphic
models and chronostratigraphic interpretations that have
not been substantiated by publication of the necessary basic
supportive data. Chronostratigraphic correlations of sea
level change curves between basins are based partly on cir-
cular reasoning. Onlap and offlap seismic models may not
indicate sea level change but flexural subsidence, facies
shifts, or changes in sea level in the opposite direction to
that proposed.
Resolution of some of these problems may be achieved
by publication of basic data now in confidential industry
files. The widely acclaimed "Vail curves" should not be used
as templates for basin correlation until such data have been
provided, and such use should be supported by appropriate
conventional Uthostratigraphic and biostratigraphic docu-
mentation from each new basin. Where such data have been
made available, as with the North Sea Jurassic, serious
questions of interpretation are raised.
INTRODUCTION
Peter Vail and his colleagues at Exxon have brought
about a revolution in stratigraphic thinking during the last
ten years (Vail et al, 1977a, b). Their ideas about global
eustatic control of unconformity-bounded sequences are
contributions of first-rate importance to our science. This
paper does not take aim at the overall model or its broader
conclusions. However, I do have four concerns of lesser
magnitude.
1. An independent assessment of the methodology, the
data, and the results is virtually impossible because little of
the primary documentation has been published. The indus-
try confidentiality problem is a source of major difficulties.
2. The global charts of coastal onlap and sea level change
have become accepted as a new standard of geologic time
(for example they appear on the key synthesis charts of
©Copyright 1986. The American Association of Petroleum Geoiogists. All
rights reserved.
''Manuscript received, April 1,1985; accepted, Octobers, 1985.
Geology Department, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1,
Canada.
Thanks are due to L. F. Brown, Jr., and C. Summerhayes (journal reviewers)
and to A. Hallam, for useful and encouraging comments.
131
Harland et al, 1982) despite the absence of a rigorous, pub-
lished examination of the supporting data. This contrasts
dramatically with the enormous public debate and publica-
tion effort that have been going on for many years by geolo-
gists attempting to refine and calibrate biostratigraphic,
radiometric, and magnetostratigraphic time scales. Revi-
sions of these scales appear frequently, whereas the "Vail
curves" continue to be accepted as finished products
(except for the revisions of the Jurassic scale, discussed
below). This leads to and is part of the third problem.
3. The existence of the widely acclaimed Vail curves seems
to be encouraging a circularity in arguments about local
correlation. The seismic stratigraphers explicitly state that
the curves have become their standard for geologic time.
For example, with reference to the Jurassic of the North
Sea, Vail and Todd (1981, p. 217) stated, "several uncon-
formities cannot be dated precisely; in these cases their ages
are based on our global cycle chart, with age assignment
made on the basis of a best fit with the data." And again:
"Interpretations [of stratigraphic sequences] based on litho-
facies and biostratigraphy could be misleading unless they
are placed within a context of detailed stratal chronostrati-
graphic correlations" (Vail et al, 1984, p. 143). The context
of the word "chronostratigraphic" in this second reference
implies correlation by tracing seismic reflections.
4. The type of self-justifying approach noted above may
be leading to perpetuation of errors, and is certainly dis-
couraging attempts to investigate local departures from the
so-called global standard. Vail et al (1984, p. 139) rightly
criticized the tendency to assign major unconformities
automatically to named tectonic episodes, when passive
changes in sea level may be the actual cause. However, all
basins are affected by varying and constantly changing tec-
tonic processes which may produce local stratigraphic
effects out of phase with those resulting from eustatic sea
level change. Such effects are in danger of being miscorrela-
ted, misinterpreted, or ignored by those who are too willing
to adjust their data to fit a preconceived global curve.
These points can be summarized as a general concern
that stratigraphers in general (and seismic stratigraphers in
particular) seem to be abandoning scientific caution and
healthy skepticism in the rush to apply an exciting new idea.
Numerous recent papers use the Vail curves as a reference
standard for correlation purposes as though they are some
kind of officially approved global standard. This is not a
healthy trend. Because of the lack of published supporting
data in the original papers (in AAPG Memoir 26) I was
132 Eustatic Sea Lavel Changes

CO 500-1
E 3 COASTAL DEPOSITS
cc
E 3 MARINE DEPOSITS
• INITIAL SHELF EDGE
f COASTAL AGGRADATION
x9 = AGEINM.Y.
SHIFT DOWNWARD
SUPERSEQUENCE BCD
a 0-",
0 KM 25
Figure 1—Typical seismic section, subdivided into sequences and two major seismic "fades." Arrows show vertical increments of
coastal onlap and its downward shift that are measured as a first step in determining sea level change (Vail et al, 1977a, theu* Figure 13).

eager to read the specialized study of the North Sea Jurassic
by Vail et al (1984) in the new AAPG Memoir 36 on interre-
gional unconformities. My concerns were not allayed, how-
ever, and I turned back to their earlier study on the same
subject (Vail and Todd, 1981), where many more supporting
data are made available. The reader should be aware that
the 1984 paper is but a condensed and slightly updated ver-
sion of the 1981 article. Its tendency toward sweeping gener-
alization contrasts markedly with the other papers in
AAPG Memoir 36, most of which are tightly argued local
studies packed with data. Several interesting comparisons
of specific facts and ideas can be made between the Vail
article and the others in the book, and will be referred to
later in this paper.
Other workers have had different concerns. For exam-
ple, Parkinson and Summerhayes (1985) showed that subsi-
dence rates will markedly affect the local response to a
global change in sea level, so that parallel, synchronous
events should not be anticipated in all situations. Watts
(1982) attributed coastal onlap on many divergent plate
margins to post-rift cooling and flexure, rather than sea
level change emd, in a later paper (Watts and Thorne, 1984),
provided a detailed series of models of United States Atlan-
tic-margin stratigraphy based on seismic and well analysis
that showed how a Vail-type coastal onlap curve could be
synthesized using mainly data on thermal contraction of the
crust and sediment loading.
These problems, plus those detailed below, deserve wider
circulation among petroleum geologists who, the writer
believes, are placing far too much reliance on the Vail curves
as correlation tools.
IS ALL COASTAL ONLAP COASTAL?
The recognition of coastal onlap is fundamental to the
Vail method. A lack of recognition by Vail and his co-work-
ers of the many different fades that can generate an onlap
geometry led to the well-known debate about the sawtooth
onlap curves and the impossibility of instantaneous regres-
sions (corresponding to the flat portions of the saw teeth).
This problem has been reexamined, and Vail et al (1984)
now interpret the upper part of each onlapping sequence as
alluvial in origin (compare Figures 1 and 2). This permits
sediment accumulation to continue while sea level begins to
fall. Rises and falls of sea level can then be shown to have
occurred at similar rates (e.g., Vail et al, 1984, their Figure

TRUNCATION (TE)
TOPLAP (TP)
CO
oc
LU

COASTAL
(ON-C)

500-
EIZ3I AUUVIAL PUUN m i COASTAL PLAIN [ E ] NEARSHORE ^ ^ FWE-GRAINED MARINE
[ T ] SEQUENCE BOUNDARV TYPE OLS DOWNLAP SURFACE la SEQUENCE IDENTIRCATION

Figure 2—Later version of Figure 1, showing "fan" deposits followed by unconformity. Note reflectors downlapping across this
deposit (Vail et al, 1984, their Figure 3).
 Andrew D. Miali 133

7). This certainly may be the case in many instances, but is perceive the relevance of the concept of coastal onlap here,
the new model the solution in every case? Does every case or to understand how sea level change can be quantified
show an alluvial component, or is this another overgenerali- using evidence from an entirely deep marine succession.
zation? "Unfortunately, seismic stratigraphic techniques do
not always permit identification of this fades change
IS COASTAL ONLAP QUANTIFIED CORRECTLY?
between coastal and alluvial plains" (Vail et al, 1984, p.
136). Exactly
Sequences are separated by a "downward shift in coastal In all thdr diagrams illustrating the procedure for quanti-
onlap" marking a fall in sea level (e.g., Vail and Todd, 1981, fying coastal onlap, the onlapping reflections are shown as
p. 221). In an earlier diagram illustrating the procedure for subparallel and subhorizontal and are seen to onlap a gently
constructing onlap charts (Figure 1, from Vail et al, 1977a, dipping unconformity (Figure 1, from Vail et al, 1977a,
their Figure 13) the downward shift appeared to carry sea their Figure 13; Vail and Todd, 1981, their Figure 2A; Vail et
level well below the shelf edge. Pitman and Golovchenko al, 1984, their Figure 3a). The measurement of the vertical
(1983) demonstrated that this is unlikely Another possible magnitude of the onlap and its subsequent downward shift
interpretation is that the reflections onlapping the uncon- is simple in such cases. However, many actual seismic sec-
formity are not coastal sediments at all but submarine fans. tions do not show onlap, but a gradual thinning out of all
According to the seismic models, submarine fan deposits units toward zero thickness at a hinge line. This configura-
are typically associated with lowstands of sea level when tion is particularly common on divergent continental mar-
submarine canyons are enlarged by subaerial erosion and gins. How is sea level rise and fall calculated in such
large volumes of detritus are fed directly to the continental circumstances? (See also Watts, 1982.)
slope. Von der Borch et al (1982) described a well-exposed In other cases, sequences are tilted by faulting, folding,
Precambrian canyon-fill sequence which they interpreted or differential subsidence. Jurassic sections in the Viking
this way Submarine fans are therefore to be expected at pre- graben illustrate this (Vail and Todd, 1981, their Figure 5).
cisely those times when a fall in sea level is suggested by the How is allowance made for this in determining the magni-
downward shift in onlap. The problem is that if this inter- tude of coastal onlap? The original diagram (Figure 1, from
pretation is correct, the magnitude of the downward shift Vail et al, 1977a, their Figure 13) seems to indicate that the
itself bears no relationship to the amount by which sea level dip of the onlapping reflections is simply ignored; this could
has fallen. The shelf undergoes erosion at this time, so that lead to vertical errors of several hundred meters.
there may be no precise sedimentary record of the position
of sea level lowstand. Miall (1984, his Figure 8.14) sug-
gested that offlapping coastal fades may be formed during ARE THE ONLAP MODELS CORRECT?
sea level fall but are planed off as erosion accompanies the
Vail and Todd (1981, their Figure 3 and p. 221) offered six
fall.
models as examples of stratigraphic patterns resulting from
In their recent models (Figure 2, from Vail and Todd, various combinations of sea level change and subsidence
1981, their Figure 2a; Vail et al, 1984, thdr Figure 3A) sub- (Figure 3). A condensed version of the discussion is
marine fans or "mounds" are drawn onlapping type 1 repeated in their later paper (Vail et al, 1984, their Figures 6
unconformities, but are themselves capped by an uncon- and 7, and discussion in text). These models are proposed as
formity with slope clinoforms that developed during the standards for interpreting seismic sections but, again, this
subsequent (interpreted) highstand downlapping across writer is worried about their universal applicability Several
them. This relationship seems unlikely. Has it been seem capable of substantially different interpretation.
observed? First, a simple marine regression accompanying coastal
In the Moray Firth basin, the Tithonian sequences onlap (Figure 3a) is interpreted as the product of a sea level
" . . . display a mounded reflection pattern and are charac- stillstand or slow fall, less than the rate of subsidence. The
terized by onlapping and downlapping reflections at their latter condition represents a relative local rise, but there
base which overlie concordant reflections below. Thick would be nothing in the seismic section to distinguish this
deep-marine sands are present in the central portion of the from an absolute rise in sea level, especially where abundant
basin" (Vail and Todd, 1981, p. 232). This sdsmic character sediments were available to maintain the stratigraphic
permitted the recognition of four thin unconformity- regression.
bounded sequences interpreted as the product of rapid sea A marine hiatus or condensed section (Figure 3c) is inter-
level change (p. 234). However, the overall seismic character preted as indicating a rapid rise in sea level, with sediment
suggests to this writer a series of submarine fan lobes starvation in the deep offshore because of temporary
switching in position as a result of autocyclic switches of dis- entrapment of detritus in coastal delta complexes. Vail and
tributary channels without any need to invoke sea level Todd (1981) stated that ". . . such hiatuses are not global.
change. Brown (1984) related lateral facies changes in these Sometimes they may differ in age within the same
sediments to progradation from active fault-line scarps, basin " Yet in the later paper (Vail et al, 1984, p. 135),
and fault movement can also be a mechanism for initiating this has been changed: "The age of a condensed section
fan distributary switching. Hallam (1984, p. 224) also inter- within a given depositional sequence tends to be synchro-
prets Kimmeridgian-Tithonian events in the North Sea as nous globally but may differ shghtly from basin to basin
the product of local tectonics. It is difficult, in any case, to with changes in rates of deposition and subsidence." Does
134 Eustatic Sea Le i\ Changes

STRATIGRAPHIC AND FACIES PATTERNS INDICATED EUSTATIC S E A - L E V E L CHANGE

Marine Regression with Coastal Onlap

Slow Fall
Less than the Rate
(0) of Subsidence)
or Stillstand

1^ Rise or Stillstand
(b) with Subsidence

Marine Hiatus (MH) with Marine Transgression

Rapid Rise
(c)

Type 1 Unconformity

Rapid Fall
(d)
CANYON CUT I Greater than the
Rate of Subsidence)

Type 2 Unconformity

Rise Following
(e) Slow Fall
or Stillstand

Type 3 Unconformity
Fall Followed by
Faster Rate of Fall,
(f) but Less than the
Rate of Subsidence

;\V*'a LOWSTAND El MARINE FINE-GRAINED

Figure 3—Models of sea level change interpreted from stratigraphic geometries (Vail and Todd, 1981, their Figure 3).

this revision indicate the growth of another general, univer- recent rapid rise in sea level, but only to a level that, on
sal model for interpreting sea level change? If so, a reading Phanerozoic terms, is still relatively low. Has the possibility
of another paper in AAPG Memoir 36 throws some useful been examined that the condensed sequences in the Jurassic
light on the proposal. Tucholke and Embley (1984) dis- are the result of thermal circulation?
cussed erosional unconformities in the South Atlantic, A type 1 unconformity (Figure 3d) is supposedly charac-
Indian, and Antarctic Oceans east, south, and west of terized by submarine canyon enlargement and lowstand
South Africa. Several have been documented in DSDP deposits (submarine fans). This model makes a great deal
cores and do, indeed, seem to correlate with periods of ris- of sense, but the implication that canyon enlargement and
ing sea level on the Vail curves. However, others (early Oli- submarine fan backfilling (onlap) occur only during low-
gocene, late Miocene-early Pliocene) appear to owe their stands of sea level (e.g.. Figure 4b) is surely incorrect. In
origin to current erosion arising from increased thermal the absence of subaerial exposure, submarine erosion of
oceanic circulation associated with the growth of the Ant- canyons can occur by sediment gravity flows, mass wast-
arctic Ice Cap. The late Miocene-early Phocene uncon- ing, and submarine landslides (e.g., McGregor and Ben-
formity coincides with an episode of low sea level on the nett, 1979; McGregor et al, 1982; May et al, 1983). The
Vail curve. These current-swept areas still exist on the sea debris so produced may make a substantial contribution
floor at the present day, which has been characterized by a to fan accumulations at the canyon mouth. Even during
 Andrew D. Miall 135

SEA LEVEL
Berryhill (1985) discussed an example of deltaic marine off-
lap developed during a lowstand of sea level. This signifi-
^ H I G H S T A N D DEPOSITS cant study appears to indicate the exact opposite of the Vail
LOWSTAND DEPOSITS model.
OLDER ROCKS Have possibilities such as these been allowed for in con-
struction of the global curves? Such questions of basin
dynamics as sediment supply and current dispersion must
be considered. Basin evolution is a three- or four-dimen-
sional problem, which cannot be simplified into a series of
generalized two-dimensional cartoons.
prm SUBAERIAL
1-^^ EXPOSURE
UNCONFORMITIES
HOW ACCURATE ARE THE CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC
SUBMARINE CORRELATIONS?
SUBAERIAL
MARINE Many questions have been posed in the preceding para-
OIMLAP-.
graphs. The answer to many of them is likely to be that the
achievement of global correlation is itself a demonstration
Figure 4^Basic stratigraphic models for sea level highstand and of the validity of the model. "Here it is; it works." Let us
lowstand. Many problems with these models need careful exami- therefore examine these correlations.
nation with respect to specific basin examples (Vail et al, 1977a, A diagram I have always had great difficulty believing is
their Figure 9). the one showing parallel, railroad-line correlations between
four basins around the world and the global chart of relative
change of sea level (Figure 5, from Vail et al, 1977b, their
high sea level stands, large volumes of sediment may be Figure 5). The point of this diagram is to demonstrate that
fed into a canyon once deltas prograde far enough across intervals of coastal onlap and their downward shift can be
the shelf; sediment can also be transported along the shelf correlated globally with remarkable precision, for which
parallel to shoreline by oceanic currents that spill onto the the only possible explanation is eustatic sea level change.
shelf (Flemming, 1978, 1981). The association proposed However, any experienced stratigrapher should be suspi-
for the type 1 unconformity is, therefore, far from being cious of such precision. Many of us have problems correlat-
the only possible one. Type 2 unconformities (Figure 3e) ing sections convincingly across a single sedimentary basin.
are distinguished from type 1 partly by the absence of low- Real stratigraphic data are generally fuzzy and full of prob-
stand deposits, but there is no reason why the processes lems and anomalies. This leads to the suspicion that the
which supposedly give rise to a type 2 unconformity (rise global chart itself has long since become the primary
following slow fall or ycanyon incision astillstand) should method of correlation. Two quotations confirming this
not nd fan development. were cited at the beginning of this paper. The dangers of cir-
Marine off lap is associated with highstands of sea level, cular reasoning are obvious. One's doubts are not allayed by
according to the original model (Figure 4a, from Vail et al, statements such as, "the late Pliensbachian hiatus described
1977a, their Figure 9). However, this is very much depen- from wells by Linsley and others (1979) fits the basal early
dent on shelf width, sediment supply and the location of Pliensbachian sequence boundary on our global cycle
major deltas. Following sea level rise across a wide shelf, chart" (Vail and Todd, 1981, p. 230). Elsewhere, Vail and
Todd (1981, p. 228) stated that the sequence boundary cor-
offlap or progradation of slope clinoforms may proceed
responding to the base of the Oxfordian "is very difficult to
slowly or not at all until deltas build out to the shelf edge.
identify from seismic or well data" in the North Viking gra-
Once again, this is dependent on local conditions. Suter and

RELATIVE CHANGES IN SEA LEVEL

—RBWG FAUING— FALLING— —RISING FALUNG— —RISING FALLilG— —RBING FALLING—

SIPPSUNO BASIN, NORTH SEA NW AFRICA SAN JOAQUIN BASIN GLOBAL CYCLES
AUSTRALIA CAUFORNIA

Figure 5—Correlation of regional cycles of coastal onlap and its downward shift from four continents, averaged to yield the "global"
curve (Vail et al, 1977b, their Figure 5).
136 Eustatic Sea Level Changes

ben area. Yet a sequence boundary is clearly shown on the gradually decreases in rate, because it is related to a thermal
chart of coastal onlap from this area (Vail and Todd, 1981, decay curve. It does not change rapidly enough to cause
their Figure 11). Are these examples of wishful thinking? regional unconformities. Tectonic subsidence patterns dif-
Circular reasoning? fer from region to region, and are not globally synchro-
An examination of other papers in AAPG Memoir 36 nous. We therefore conclude that the many synchronous
yields startling contrasts. For example, Poag and Schlee unconformities and abrupt changes in stratigraphy
(1984), in their discussion of the United States Atlantic mar- observed in basins globally, are caused by eustatic sea-level
gin, repeatedly warned about the limitations of the tech- changes, superimposed on regional tectonic and sedimen-
niques for correlating stratigraphic events and deducing sea tary regimes that change at much slower rates." As a state-
level and subsidence history. They stated that"... under the ment of belief, this is clear, concise, and almost certainly
most ideal conditions . . . the accuracy of Cenozoic correct in most places. However, important local anomalies
biozonation can vary by as much as a million years, and get swept aside by such generalizations.
older biozones are much less accurate. Moreover, no con- Passive margins (so-called) are, in fact, far from passive.
census exists as to which published biozonation is most For example, during the Jurassic, the northern North Sea
accurate." They also warn about the problems inherent in was affected by extensional faults, wrench faults, diapiric
the art of seismic interpretation. Their study combined seis- movement of Zechstein salt, volcanic activity, and regional
mic data with an analysis of six deep offshore wells (includ- isostatic subsidence (Glennie, 1984). To separate the strati-
ing the COST series). Their schematic columnar sections graphic effects of this activity from those due to eustatic sea
showed that of 10 major "global" Cenomanian-to-Holo- level change requires meticulous documentation of local
cene unconformities in the Vail synthesis, only three or pos- structure and stratigraphic architecture, with an emphasis
sibly four occur in all the subbasins investigated. Two other on the departures from the Vail curves. If Vail and his co-
regional unconformities do not correspond precisely to any workers have done this, it has not been published. As noted
show by Vail, and several other unconformities appear in earlier. Watts (1982) interpreted flexural down warp of
one or some, but not all of the subbasins. This synthesis has divergent margins as one of the major causes of coastal
an air of stratigraphic reality about it. Thorne and Watts onlap.
(1984) reported similar difficulties of correlation. As an example of the major differences in approach,
In all their papers. Vail and his co-workers converted bio- there is the question of the late Cimmerian movements. Sev-
stratigraphic-sequence ages to geochronometric values, for eral workers refer to these events (Brown, 1984; Glennie,
convenience and purposes of comparison. This is a familiar 1984; Hancock, 1984), which supposedly took place during
procedure, but the results vary depending on which time the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous, and involved fault
scale is used. There is no international agreement on this movement and regional upUft, with accompanying wide-
topic. Vail and co-workers used the Jurassic and Cretaceous spread erosion. However, Vail and Todd (1981, p. 217) and
scales of van Hinte (1976a, b). However, this work is now 10 Vail et al (1984, p. 139) believed that they can equate the so-
years old; recent compilations, such as that by Harland et al called late Cimmerian unconformity with their late Berria-
(1982), indicate that in the Jurassic, van Hinte's scale may sian global eustatic sea level fall, and that there was no
be too young by as much as 20 m.y.—the discrepancy varies major, short-term tectonic activity in the North Sea at that
from stage to stage. This is not of crucial importance so long time. Which interpretation is correct?
as all workers use the same scale but, as they do not, it is Triassic rocks in the North Viking graben and the Moray
another possible source of error and confusion. Firth can be subdivided into three unconformity-bounded
Vail and Todd (1981) and Vail et al (1984) indicated possi- sequences (Vail and Todd, 1981). Except at the very top of
ble ranges of error for the ages of each sequence-bounding the succession, the beds are all nonmarine (fluvial, lacus-
unconformity. These range up to only 3 m.y., and clearly trine) (Fisher, 1984). Unconformities developed entirely
relate only to the accuracy of biostratigraphic determina- within nonmarine deposits can only be the result of local
tions within the van Hinte scales, not the absolute accuracy tectonic activity, so the method of documenting coastal
of the scales themselves. In addition, age assignments of onlap and determining sea level change cannot be applied
several of the global unconformities vary by part of a stage here. This is made clear in the coastal onlap chart for this
and up to 2 m.y. between the two papers. In the 1984 paper, area (Vail and Todd, 1981, their Figures 7,10,11; Vail et al,
this is explained as revision brought about "by more careful 1984, their Figures 9, 10). However, comparisons of the
age dating," with no further explanation. local coastal onlap charts with the global chart imply a cor-
relation between the intra-Triassic unconformities of the
North Sea and global events of downward shift in coastal
CAN TECTONIC INFLUENCES BE IGNORED? onlap (Vail and Todd, 1981, their Figures 11,12,13; Vail et
al, 1984, their Figure 10). Are the authors implying a genetic
Some, such as SIoss (1984), believe that unconformity- link, or is this simply a case of everything being lined up to
bounded sequences are the product of globally synchronous show parallel correlations?
episodes of cratonic uplift. I am not of this beUef and do not On a global scale, many correlations have been estab-
wish to examine this question here. However, other tectonic lished between major plate movements, orogenic episodes,
considerations must be addressed. and large-scale changes in sea level (see summary in Miall,
Vail etal (1984, p. 137) stated: "In general... the tectonic 1984, p. 360-361). The reason is that the latter are brought
subsidence along most passive margins is long-term and about by volume changes in oceanic spreading centers at
 Andrew D. Miall
times of change in global average spreading rates or during
reordering of the spreading centers. Schwan (1980) com-
piled a detailed tabulation of tectonic events for the Late
Jurassic to Holocene that permits many intriguing compari-
sons with the Vail curves. This being the case, it becomes
even more important to avoid a too hasty attribution of
unconformities and onlap-offlap patterns to global sea
level changes, lest the effects of strictly local tectonic events
be completely overshadowed. Hallam (1984) provided an
excellent, detailed review of this problem with reference to
specific sea level change events proposed by Vail and his co-
workers, including many additional examples from the
North Sea area.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for continuous eustatic sea level change
throughout the Phanerozoic is now overwhelming. Much
of the evidence has nothing to do with seismic stratigraphy
but is based on careful outcrop geology, including studies of
lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy, lithofacies, and biofacies
(e.g., see discussions by Hallam, 1984; Miall, 1984, p. 345-
357). The broad conclusions of Vail and his co-workers are
therefore no longer in doubt, although there are still prob-
lems in determining a mechanism for short-term change at
times when appeal cannot be made to the growth and decay
of continental ice sheets—for example, during the Meso-
zoic—and many of the specific sea level changes proposed
by the Vail team remain questionable.
This paper questions the global universality of the Vail
curves by focusing on local problems of fades interpreta-
tion, chronostratigraphic correlation, and tectonic over-
printing. The apparent simpUcity of the new method is in
danger of sweeping these problems aside, with consequent
loss of important local detail. To resolve these difficulties
calls for more, detailed local research and a systematic pub-
hcation of all the basic data.
REFERENCES CITED
Brown, S., 1984, Jurassic, in K. W. Glennie, ed.. Introduction to the
petroleum geology of the North Sea: Oxford, Blackwell Scientific
Publications, p. 103-131.
Fisher, M. J., 1984, Triassic, in K. W. Glennie, ed.. Introduction to the
petroleum geology of the North Sea: Oxford, Blackwell Scientific
Publications, p. 85-101.
Hemming, B. W., 1978, Underwater sand dunes along the southeast Afri-
can continental margin—observations and implications: Marine
Geology, v. 26, p. 177-198.
1981, Factors controlling shelf sediment dispersal along the
southeast African continental margin: Marine Geology, v. 42, p. 259-
277.
Glennie, K. W., 1984, The structural framework and the pre-Permian his-
tory of the North Sea area, in K. W. Glennie, ed.. Introduction to the
petroleum geology of the North Sea: Oxford, Blackwell Scientific
Publications, p. 17-39.
Hallam, A., 1984, Pre-Quaternary sea-level changes: Annual Review of
Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 12, p. 205-243.
Hancock, J. M., 1984, Cretaceous, in K. W. Glennie, ed.. Introduction to
the petroleum geology of the North Sea: Oxford, Blackwell Scientific
Publications, p. 133-150.
137
Harland, W. B., A. V. Cox, P. G. Llewellyn, C. A. G. Pickton, A. G.
Smith, and R. Walters, 1982, A geologic time scale: Cambridge, Cam-
bridge University Press, 131 p.
Linsley, P. N., H. C. Potter, G. McNab, and D. Racher, 1979, Beatrice
field, Moray Firth, North Sea (abs.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 63, p. 487.
May, J. A., J. E. Warme, and R. A. Slater, 1983, Role of submarine can-
yons on shelfbreak erosion and sedimentation: modern and ancient
examples, in The shelfbreak: critical interface on continental mar-
gins: SEPM Special Publication 33, p. 315-332.
McGregor, B. A., and R. H. Bennett, 1979, Mass movement of sediment
on the continental slope and rise seaward of the Baltimore Canyon
Trough: Marine Geology, v. 33, p. 163-174.
W. L. Stubblefield, W. B. F. Ryan, and D. C. Twichell, 1982,
Wilmington submarine canyon: a marine fluvial-like system: Geol-
ogy, v. 10, p. 27-30.
Miall, A. D., 1984, Principles of sedimentary basin analysis: New York,
Springer-Verlag, 490 p.
Parkinson, N., and C. Summerhayes, 1985, Synchronous global
sequence boundaries: AAPG Bulletin, v. 69, p. 685-687.
Pitman, W. C , 111, and X. Golovchenko, 1983, The effect of sea level
change on the shelfedge and slope of passive margins, in The
shelfbreak: critical interface on continental margins: SEPM Special
Publication 33, p. 41-58.
Poag, C. W, and J. S. Schlee, 1984, Depositional sequences and strati-
graphic gaps on submerged United States Atlantic margin, in Interre-
gional unconformities and hydrocarbon accumulation: AAPG
Memoir 36, p. 165-182.
Schwan, W., 1980, Geodynamic peaks in Alpinotype orogenies and
changes in ocean-floor spreading during Late Jurassic-late Tertiary
time: AAPG Bulletin, v. 64, p. 359-373.
Sloss, L. L., 1984, Comparative anatomy of cratonic unconformities, in
Interregional unconformities and hydrocarbon exploration: AAPG
Memoir 36, p. 1-6.
Suter, J. R., and H. L. Berryhill, Jr., 1985, Late Quaternary shelf-margin
dehas, northwest Gulf of Mexico: AAPG Bulletin, v. 69, p. 77-91.
Thome, J., and A. B. Watts, 1984, Seismic reflectors and unconformities
at passive continental margins: Nature, v. 311, p. 365-368.
Tlicholke, B. E., and R. W. Embley, 1984, Cenozoic regional erosion of
the abyssal sea floor off South Africa, in Interregional unconformi-
ties and hydrocarbon accumulation: AAPG Memoir 36, p. 145-164.
Vail, R R., and R. G. Todd, 1981, Northern North Sea Jurassic uncon-
formities, chronostratigraphy and sea-level changes from seismic
stratigraphy, in L. V. Illing and G. D. Hobson, eds.. Petroleum geol-
ogy of the continental shelf of north-west Europe: London, Heyden,
Institute of Petroleum, p. 216-235.
J. Hardenbol, and R. G. Todd, 1984, Jurassic unconformities,
chronostratigraphy and sea-level changes from seismic stratigraphy
and biostratigraphy, in Interregional unconformities and hydrocar-
bon accumulation: AAPG Memoir 36, p. 129-144.
R. M. Mitchem, Jr., and S. Thompson, III, 1977a, Seismic stra-
tigraphy and global changes of sea level, part 3: relative changes of sea
level from coastal onlap, in Seismic stratigraphy—applications to
hydrocarbon exploration: AAPG Memoir 26, p. 63-81.
1977b, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes
of sea level, part 4: global cycles of relative cha:«ges of sea level, in
Seismic stratigraphy—application to hydrocarbon exploration:
AAPG Memoir 26, p. 83-97.
van Hinte, J. E., 1976a, A Jurassic time scale: AAPG Bulletin, v. 60, p.
489-497.
1976b, A Cretaceous time scale: AAPG Bulletin, v. 60, p. 498-
516.
von der Borch, C. C , R. Smit, and A. E. Grady, 1982, Late Proterozoic
submarine canyons of Adelaide geosyncline. South Australia: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 66, p. 332-347.
Watts, A. B., 1982, Tectonic subsidence, flexure and global changes of
sea level: Nature, v. 297, p. 469-474.
and J. Thorne, 1984, Tectonics, global changes in sea level and
their relationship to stratigraphical sequences at the U.S. Atlantic
continental margin: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. I, p. 319-339.