Print this pageStrengths of Forward and Reverse Basin Models - New Insights from the Norwegian Continental Margin
The distinction between predictive and explanatory basin models is essential because both types of models find application in the basin analysis workflow. Explanations can be as valuable as predictions but which types of basin models are best suited for which applications? Here we review, test and benchmark different basin modeling approaches in a reconstruction case study of the Norwegian Volcanic Margin.
Basin modeling approaches can be categorized into forward and reverse models. Forward models aim at reproducing the present basin configuration by simulating the key geological processes forward in time. Examples range from kinematic to dynamic basin models. Reverse model start from the present configuration and go back in time; backstripping and decompaction approaches are examples of this. An important distinction between forward and reverse approaches is that reverse models take the present basin configuration as input, while forward models aim at predicting it. These differing reconstruction strategies frequently yield differing results, which is illustrated here with the example case of the Voring basin in the Norwegian Sea.
The Voring basin province formed as a consequence of multiple rift events that cumulated in the opening of the North Atlantic in earliest Eocene times. The effects of breakup, the presence of a high-velocity lower crustal body, and extensive intrusive and extrusive magmatic activity have led to a complex basin history that is a challenging task for all basin modeling approaches. We reconstruct the thermal and structural evolution of the Voring basin using different reconstruction approaches ranging from decompaction/backstripping to complex thermotectonostratigraphic forward models. This case study from the Norwegian Sea illustrates that in particular at highly stretched deep water margins, different modeling approaches may yield different results. These differences stem both from different sensitivities to the input data (e.g. paleo-water depth, compaction laws, and stratigraphy) and from varying flexibilities to account for complex geological processes like, e.g. erosion, flexure, underplating and breakup. This paper highlights and quantifies the strengths and characteristics of different basin modeling approaches.
AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90090©2009 AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, June 7-10, 2009