The sequence stratigraphy of Mesozoic successions in the Levant margin

The sequence stratigraphy ofMesozoic successions in theLevant margin, southwestern

framework of the Levant margin presented here is in accor-dance with recently published Mesozoic sequence stratigra-

AUTHORS

Michael Gardosh Oil and Gas Unit, IsraelMinistry of Infrastructures, 234 Jaffa St., Jeru-salem 36148, Israel; [email protected]

Michael Gardosh received his Ph.D. in geophys-ics from Tel Aviv University. He worked for theIsrael National Oil Company from 1990 to 1997and for the Geophysical Institute of Israel from1997 to 2010. Presently, he is the director ofthe Geophysical Section in the Israel Ministryof Infrastructure. His research interests are thestratigraphy, structure, tectonic evolution, andpetroleum systems of the eastern Mediterra-nean region.

Paul Weimer Energy and Minerals AppliedResearch Center, Department of GeologicalSciences, Colorado University, Boulder, Colo-rado 80309-0399; [email protected]

Paul Weimer holds the Benson Endowed Chairof the Department of Geological Sciences andserves as the director of the Energy and MineralsApplied Research Center. He is the presidentof AAPG in 20112012.

Akiva Flexer Department of Geophysicsand Planetary Sciences, Tel-Aviv University,Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel; [email protected]

Akiva Flexer is professor (emeritus) of geologyin Tel Aviv University. For more than 40 yr,he has studied the geology of Israel and adjacentareas. His areas of interests are stratigraphyand basin analysis, Cretaceous research, geol-ogy of the Middle East and eastern Mediterra-nean, geohydrology, and environmental studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank S. Baker, Y. Druckman, I. Bruner, andU. Frieslander for their help and useful com-ments during various stages of this study. Thanksare due to the Geophysical Institute of Israelstaff and in particular to J. Steinberg, R. Gafso,and Y. Menachem for technical assistance. Thecontinuous support of N. Silverman is greatlyappreciated. Comments by AAPG reviewers NickFryer, George T. Bertram, and an anonymousreviewer clarified many aspects of this work.The AAPG Editor thanks the following reviewersfor their work on this paper: George T. Bertram,Nick Fryer, and an anonymous reviewer.phy of the Arabian platform, therefore, it may be used as aworking model for reconstructing other rifted Tethyan mar-gins in the region. This study further emphasizes the reservoirpotential of Jurassic and Cretaceous deep-water lowstandwedges offshore Israel, where extensive exploration efforts arecurrently occurring.

Copyright 2011. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

Manuscript received August 4, 2009; provisional acceptance November 4, 2009; revised manuscriptreceived October 18, 2010; final acceptance February 8, 2011.DOI:10.1306/02081109135Israel: A model for the evolutionof southern Tethys marginsMichael Gardosh, Paul Weimer, and Akiva Flexer

ABSTRACT

The Levant margin, in the subsurface of the eastern Medi-terranean area, formed during the early Mesozoic followingrifting and subsequent opening of the southern TethysOcean.This work describes the stratigraphic evolution of the shelfedge and slope for this margin in southwestern Israel and inthe adjacent Mediterranean Sea. The study is based on theinterpretation of 27 wells and 92 seismic reflection lines to-taling 2000 km (1243 mi). Depositional sequences and se-quence boundaries of the Jurassic and the Cretaceous age in-ferred from seismic reflection terminations, wireline-log stackingpatterns, lithofacies, and biostratigraphic data. Six low-orderand 22 high-order depositional cycles were identified. Theirstratigraphic architecture reflects shifts of depocenters fromthe basin to its margin, controlled by eustasy and regional sub-sidence. Aggrading and backstepping of carbonate platforms inthe Levant shelf is associated with relative rises in sea level.Progradation of siliciclastic and carbonate slopes toward thebasin is related to relative drops in sea level. The stratigraphicAAPG Bulletin, v. 95, no. 10 (October 2011), pp. 1763 1793 1763

cumulations. Oil and gas were produced from the

Mesozoic succession. Well and seismic data wereINTRODUCTION

The continental shelf and slope of the Mesozoic isfound in the subsurface of the eastern Mediterra-nean Sea, along the southwestern edge of the Le-vant region: a geographic area that encompasseswestern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and northernSinai (Figure 1A). This Mesozoic shelf and slopethat formed part of the southern continental marginsof the Tethys Ocean (Bein and Gvirtzman, 1977;Garfunkel andDerin, 1984) are termed in this studythe Levantmargin (LM). The evolution of the LMfollowed continental breakup, rifting, and subse-quent opening of the Tethys north of the Gond-wana supercontinent (Figure 1B) (Garfunkel, 1998;Robertson, 1998). Cenozoic plate collision resultedwith closure of the Tethys Ocean and widespreaddestruction of Mesozoic marine basins. The south-western Levant region remained, however, severalhundred kilometers south of the Africa-Eurasia col-lision front (Figure 1A) and was only mildly de-formed. Because of its relatively shallow burial depth(16 km) and the available extensive explorationdatabase, this area is an ideal location for studyingthe Levant part of the Tethyan rifted margins.

The Mesozoic shelf edge of the Levant under-lies the southeastern Mediterranean coastal area(Figure 2A). Mesozoic rocks that crop out eastand south of the coast (Figure 2A) are composedof coarse-grained siliciclastic and carbonate strataof continental to shallow-marine origin (Figure 3).In contrast, Jurassic and Cretaceous strata that werepenetrated by wells in the southeastern Mediter-ranean Sea are dominated by fine-grained deep-water deposits (Figure 3) (Bein and Gvirtzman,1977). Most previous works provide descriptionsof either the shallow-marine (Arkin and Braun,1965; Flexer, 1968; Druckman, 1974; Goldberg andFriedman, 1974) or the deep-marine lithostrati-graphic units (Cohen, 1971, 1976;Derin, 1974; Beinand Weiler, 1976; Flexer et al., 1986). A system-atic stratigraphic summary of the Mesozoic shelfedge and slope environment in the Levant regionis, however, not yet available. The purpose of thisarticle is to present an integrated study of well andseismic data that places previous lithostratigraphicinterpretation of the LM into a modern sequence-1764 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southintegrated on an interpretation workstation throughsynthetic seismograms and time-converted wire-line logs (Gelbermann et al., 1980). Lithologic de-scriptions and biostratigraphic information weretaken from previously published composite logs,well completion reports, and related studies.

TECTONIC SETTING ANDSTRATIGRAPHIC EVOLUTION

The early evolution of the LM is associated with thelate Paleozoic to early Mesozoic breakup and riftingof northernGondwana (Garfunkel andDerin, 1984;Helez,Ashdod, andSadot fields onshore (Figure 2B),whereas significant oil and gas shows were found inYam-2 and YamWest-1 wells offshore (Figure 2B).An additional purpose of this article is to identifypotential reservoir intervals within the studied Me-sozoic depositional sequences.

DATA SET

The study covers an area of 100 100 km (62 62 mi) on the coastal plain and adjacent Medi-terranean Sea, extending from central Israel tonorthern Sinai (Figures 1A, 2A). Hydrocarbon ex-ploration activity resulted in acquisition of a denseseismic grid and about 150 wells in this area. Partof this extensive data set was used in the presentanalysis (Gardosh, 2002). The seismic data include92 land and marine two-dimensional seismic re-flection lines totaling 2000 km (1243mi), acquiredduring the 1970s to early 1990s. Borehole datainclude 23 onshore wells and four offshore wells.Most of the studied wells reached the Lower toUpper Jurassic stratigraphic levels. The HelezDeep-1 well (Figure 2B) penetrated the entirestratigraphic framework. Our analysis provides aworking model for reconstructing the evolution ofother southern Tethys margins, thus, comprising animportant addition to the global Tethyan database.

The Jurassic and Cretaceous successions ofsouthwestern Israel host several hydrocarbon ac-western Israel

Garfunkel, 1998; Robertson, 1998). A regional horstand graben system consisting of northeast to south-west striking sets of normal faults developed, moreor less parallel to the modern coastline throughoutthe Levant onshore and offshore (Garfunkel, 1998;

Gardosh and Druckman, 2006). Well and seismic(Garfunkel and Derin, 1984; Garfunkel, 1998).Cooling and thermal subsidence of the attenuatedcrust was followed by the development of a deep-marine basin bordered to the east and south by ashallow-marine shelf (Figure 5). The Middle Ju-

Figure 1. (A) Location mapof the study area showing theshaded topography, bathymetry,and main tectonic elements ofthe eastern Mediterranean re-gion. Major fault zones and plateboundaries are shown in heavywhite lines. (B) A paleotectonicreconstruction of the Tethyan riftsystem during the early Meso-zoic. Modified from Robertson(1998) and Garfunkel (1998).rassic to middle Cretaceous paleogeography is

data reveal thickness variations that indicate sev-eral kilometers of vertical offset on individual faultblocks (Garfunkel and Derin, 1984; Garfunkel,1998). The strata of the Triassic RamonGroup andthe Lower Jurassic lower part of the Arad Group(Figure 3) found in southern and central Israel arecomposed of limestone, dolomite, siliciclastic, andevaporite successions (Druckman, 1974; Goldbergand Friedman, 1974), indicating that at the timeof rifting, the southern Levant region was locatedin a wide continental to shallow-marine platform.Seismic reflection data further suggest that theearlyMesozoic platform extended into themodernoffshore area (Figure 4) (Gardosh and Druckman,2006). Rifting was associated with extrusive andintrusivemagmatism, particularly during the EarlyJurassic and resulted in modification and thinningof the Levant crust (Garfunkel, 1998).

By the Middle to Late Jurassic, faulting andrifting activity in the Levant region mostly ceased

reflected by the distribution of lithostratigraphicunits. Jurassic and Cretaceous strata of the Arad,Kurnub, and Judea groups found in outcrops in-land are dominated by platformal carbonate andsiliciclastic strata (Figures 2A, 3, 5) (Arkin andBraun, 1965; Cohen, 1971; Derin, 1974; Goldbergand Friedman, 1974). The coeval strata of theDelta, Gevaram, and Talme Yafe groups foundoffshore are dominated by deep-marine shale andmarl (Figures 3, 5) (Cohen, 1971; Derin, 1974; Beinand Weiler, 1976). In the southern coastal plain,the depositional hinge belt that separates these fa-cies belts is a 10- to 20-km (6.2- to 12.4-mi)-widezone located near the modern coastline (Figure 5).

A paleographic change associated with re-gional plate organization and closure of the TethysOcean occurred during the Senonian to Paleo-gene. The middle Cretaceous carbonate platformsof the LMwere covered by the widespread deepermarine chalk and marl of the Mount Scopus andGardosh et al. 1765

1766 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in SouthHashefela groups (Figure 3) (Gvirtzman and Reiss,1965; Flexer, 1968) present in outcrops and wellsthroughout the Levant region.

SEQUENCE-STRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Methodology

The sequence-stratigraphic study of the Mesozoicsuccession in the LM integrates seismic and well

data. Onlap and truncation surfaces, interpreted aspotential sequence boundaries with regional ex-tent, have been identified in seismic profiles throughseismic reflection terminations and internal reflec-tion configuration patterns. On wireline logs, theseunconformity surfaces are correlated to the bot-toms and tops of characteristic funnel-shaped andbell-shaped log-stacking patterns. Exposure of theMesozoic shelf is indicated for some of the unconfor-mity surfaces by paleosols and mineralization phe-nomena associated with karstification. Planktonic

Figure 2. (A) Schematic geologic map showing the distribution of Mesozoic strata in outcrops (modified from Sneh et al., 1998) andlocation of study area. (B) Map of studied seismic lines and wells. The approximate position of the shelf edges during 1 = Middle Jurassic(Jr2); 2 = Late Jurassic (Jr3); 3 = Barremian to Aptian (Cr1); and 4 = Cenomanian to Turonian (Cr2) are marked in dashed lines. Thelocations of Figures 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are shown. Well abbreviations are ASD3 = Ashdod-3; ASQ2 = Asqelon-2; ASQ3 =Asqelon-3; BA1 = Barnea-1; BV1 = Bravo-1; BW1 = Beeri West-1; GV1 = Givati-1; GY4 = Gan Yavne-4; H22 = Helez-22; HAS1 = HofAshdod-1; HD1 = Helez Deep-1; K1 = Kissufim-1; KD1 = Kefar Darom-1; L1 = Lior-1; MY1 = Massout Yitzhaq-1; N7 = Negba-7; NI1 =Nirim-1; NIS1 = Nissanit-1; NM4 = NirAm-4; P1 = Palmachim-1; S1 = Sadot-1; SH1 = Shuva-1; T1 = Til-1; TY4 = Talme Yafe-4; Y1 =Yinnon-1; Y2 = Yam-2; YW1 = Yam West-1. Note the location of the Helez and Ashdod oil fields and the Sadot gas field along the JurassicCretaceous shelf edge.western Israel

foraminifera and ostracod zonations, described inbiostratigraphic studies andwell reports, were usedto establish the chronostratigraphic framework ofJurassic and Cretaceous depositional cycles. Micro-palentologic evidence for paleoenvironmental in-

terpretation is mostly unavailable, although sev-eral studies of Lower Cretaceous ostracods wereused to interpret paleowater depths.

The sequence analysis of the JurassicCreta-ceous shelf and slope shows two levels of cyclicity

Figure 3. Stratigraphic summary of the Levant margin showing depositional sequences that are described in this study. Chrono-stratigraphic ages are taken from Hardenbol et al. (1998), and global eustatic curve and supercycles are from Haq et al. (1988), calibratedto the Hardenbol et al. (1998) time frame. Lithostratigraphic units for the Levant basin and shelf are adapted from the stratigraphic tableof Fleischer and Varshavsky (2002).Gardosh et al. 1767

Figure 4. Composite seismicprofile across the Levant margin,(A) uninterpreted or (B) inter-preted, showing proposed low-order Mesozoic depositional se-quences, six wireline-log ties,and interpreted structures. Nor-mal faults are associated withthe Paleozoic to early Mesozoicextension; and high-angle re-verse faults and folds are relatedto latest Cretaceous to earlyCenozoic transpression. SeeFigure 2B for location of seismicprofiles and Figure 3 for theage of depositional sequences.TWT = two-way traveltime.1768 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in South(Figure 3). Following sequence-stratigraphic con-ventions, these are correlated with low-order cy-cles that reflect global tectonoeustatic sea levelchanges of 10 to 40 m.y. time spans; and high-order cycles that are associated with environmen-tal and tectonic events of 1 to 10 m.y. time spans(Haq et al., 1988). The alphanumeric system usedhere for low-order cycles (Figure 3) is a modifiedversion of time-stratigraphic units of Fleischerand Varshavsky (2002). Cretaceous stratigraphicunits are referred to in this article by the termslower for the NeocomianAptian, middle for theAlbianTuronian, and upper for the ConiacianMaastrichtian (Figure 3). This informal subdivisionthat is commonly used by local geologists (Flexer

et al., 1986) reflects the three distinct lithologiesof the Cretaceous succession in the Levant area.

Jurassic Depositional Sequences

The Jurassic is associated with an early evolution-ary stage of the LM. Shallow-marine carbonateplatforms that extended throughout the Levantonshore and offshore characterize the Lower Ju-rassic (Figures 3, 5). Middle to Upper Jurassicstrata show a well-defined carbonate shelf edgeand slope east of a deep-marine basin (Figure 5).Regional unconformities separate three low-orderdepositional cycles of the Early, Middle, and LateJurassic.western Israel

The Jr1 Depositional Sequence(PliensbachianLower Aalenian)The Jr1 low-order sequence (Figure 3) is a 1000-to 1500-m (3281- to 4921-ft)-thick Lower Jurassicsuccession. Coeval stratigraphic units crop out inthe Ramon area (Figure 2A) and were penetratedby wells in central and southern Israel. East andsouth of the study area, the Jr1 sequence com-prises extensive platforms of shallow-marine car-bonate, interlayerd with sandstone and evaporitebeds (Figure 3). The shallow-marine carbonateplatforms extend to the modern coastline and theadjacent Mediterranean Sea (Figure 5).

The lower boundary of Jr1 is a regional un-conformity surface of the Late Triassic to the EarlyJurassic (Figure 3) (Druckman, 1974; Goldberg

and Friedman, 1974). In the Helez Deep-1 well(Figure 5), this unconformity is identified at thebase of shale that is several tens of meters thickand is composed of red-brown claystone contain-ing ferruginous pisolites and clay particles thatoverlie Triassic limestone (4812 m [15,787 ft] inFigure 6). Druckman (1984) correlates this redshale with the Mishor Clay that crops out in theRamon area (Figure 2A, 3). This Lower Jurassiccontinental unit is interpreted to have been de-posited over a subaerially exposed and karstifiedTriassic shelf (Druckman, 1974, 1984; Goldbergand Friedman, 1974). On seismic profiles, the lowersequence boundary of Jr1 appears as a continuoushigh-amplitude reflection at the top of the Triassicsuccession (Figure 7).

Figure 5. Regional geologic section across the study area from the onshore to the offshore showing the structure, lithology, andproposed low-order depositional sequences of the LM. The section illustrates the change in depositional setting from a TriassicEarlyJurassic platform to Middle JurassicLate Cretaceous marine basin. A JurassicCretaceous carbonate shelf developed on the edge of thebasin that filled with fine-grained carbonate and siliciclastic strata. Folds and reverse fault are associated with the inversion of earlyMesozoic rift structures. The section is constructed from well and seismic data presented in Figure 4; see Figure 2B for location.Gardosh et al. 1769

1770 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

Sequence boundaries (white lines) are

interpreted from onlapping and down-lapping reflection terminations (black ar-rows) and well ties. See Figure 2B forthe location of the profile.Figure 7. Composite seismic profile,(A) uninterpreted or (B) interpreted,across the shelf and upper slope area ofthe JurassicCretaceous margin, showingproposed high-order depositional se-quences and the time-based gamma-raylogs of the NirAm-4 and Ashkelon-3 wells.In the study area, the Jr1 sequence is composedprimarily of interbedded limestone and dolomite(Figure 6).Micropaleontologic and sedimentologicstudies of the lithostratigraphic equivalents Ardon

and Qeren formations (Figure 3) indicate that thecarbonate was deposited on a low-energy shallow-marine shelf (Derin, 1974, 1979; Buchbinder,1986). Two high-order depositional sequences,

Figure 6. Stratigraphic summary of the Helez Deep-1 well, located near the JurassicCretaceous shelf edge, showing from left to right:wireline logs (gamma ray, spontaneous potential [SP], resistivity, and sonic), interpreted lithology, proposed sequence-stratigraphic frame-work, chronostratigraphy (from Derin, 1979, and Druckman, 1984), and lithostratigraphic units (from Fleischer and Varshavsky, 2002).The Jurassic depositional sequences in this well (Jr13) are dominated by shallow-marine carbonate strata. Funnel-shaped wireline-logtrends are interpreted as upward coarsening of the carbonate facies during highstands. Shale breaks overlying postulated sequenceboundaries are interpreted as lowstand to transgressive systems tracts. See location of well in Figure 2B. T.D. = total depth; K.B. = kellybushing.Gardosh et al. 1771

Jr1.1 and Jr1.2, are recognized within the Jr1carbonate interval. These are characterized bysubtle funnel-shaped patterns of gamma-ray andspontaneous potential (SP) logs that are inter-preted as shallowing-upward trends of the car-bonate facies (Figure 6). A change from lower tohigher energy depositional environment (mud tograinstone) present in the carbonate strata corre-sponding to the upper part of Jr1.2 (Buchbinder,1986; Buchbinder and Price, 1987) supports thewireline-log interpretation. The strata of Jr1.1 con-tain the foraminiferO. primaeva of the HettangianSinemurian to Pliensbachian (Derin, 1979; Hirschet al., 1998), whereas the Jr1.2 strata contain theforaminifers O. praecurser, Mayancina, and D. ca-yeuxi, indicating the Pliensbachian to Aalenianage (Derin, 1979).

The Jr1.2 lower sequence boundary is corre-lated to the bottom of the shale or argillaceouscarbonate bed found in the Helez Deep-1 andTalme Yafe-4 wells (Figures 6, 8) that indicatepossible exposure of the shelf. In the Talme Yafe-4 well, this shale (at 3970 m [13,025 ft]) overliestraces of paleosol, thus suggesting a period ofemergence and subaerial weathering (Buchbinderand Price, 1987). The shaly interval between Jr1.1and Jr1.2 is likely correlative to an unconformityof regional extent corresponding to the base of theLower Inmar Formation (Figure 3) (Goldberg andFriedman, 1974). This siliciclastic unit of the EarlyJurassic found in outcrops in the Ramon area andwells in northern Negev (Figure 2A) is interpretedby Hirsch et al. (1998) as a regressive interval thatreflects a relative drop of sea level between earlyToarcian (Ardon Formation) and ToarcianAalenian(Qeren Formation) highstands (Figure 3).

In the offshore, the Jr1 sequence comprises a200-m (656-ft)-thick carbonate succession at thebottom of the YamWest-1 well (Figures 5, 9, 10).Foraminifera biozonation indicates Pliensbachianto Toarcian age for this section (Gill et al., 1995),similar to the age of the Jr1 strata in Helez Deep-1.The top of the sequence is recognized by a thinshale bed found in Yam West-1 at a depth of5080 m (16,667 ft) (Figure 9). This postulatedupper sequence boundary corresponds to a contin-uous high-amplitude seismic reflection (Figure 4),1772 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southinterpreted as the top of the Jr1 carbonate plat-form (Figure 5).

The Jr2 Depositional Sequence (UpperAalenianBathonian)The Jr2 low-order sequence is a 1000- to 1500-m(3281- to 4921-ft)-thick Middle Jurassic succes-sion (Figure 3). Coeval stratigraphic units crop outin the Ramon area (Figure 2A) and were pene-trated by wells in central and southern Israel. Eastand south of the study area, the Jr2 sequencecomprises extensive platforms of shallow-marinecarbonate, interlayered with sandstones and shales(Figure 3). Carbonate platforms extend to themodern coastline. In the adjacent MediterraneanSea, the Jr2 sequence is dominated by shale andcarbonate slope deposits (Figure 5).

The lower boundary of Jr2 is a regional un-conformity of the Middle Jurassic (Figure 3). Inthe Helez Deep-1, Talme Yafe-1, and Helez-22wells near the coastline, the boundary is corre-lated to the base of a several tens of meters thickshale bed (Figures 6, 8), containing thin layers ofsandstone and limestone. Pervasive dolomitizationassociated with paleokarst is found below the shale(Buchbinder, 1986), possibly indicating exposureof the shelf. On seismic profiles, the boundary isa continuous high-amplitude reflection that isprobably associated with the velocity/density con-trast between the shale and the underlying car-bonate (Figure 7, between 2 and 2.8 s). The lowerboundary of Jr2 is likely coeval with the bases ofthe Rosh Pina Formation found in the subsur-face of northern and southern Israel and the up-per Inmar Formation that crop out in the Negevarea (Figures 2A, 3) (Derin, 1974; Goldberg andFriedman, 1974). In these areas, the two litho-stratigraphic units comprise thick siliciclastic in-tervals that are interpreted to have been associatedwith a relative drop of sea level and emergence ofthe Jurassic platform during the Aalenian (Figure 3)(Hirsch et al., 1998).

In the eastern part of the study area, the Jr2strata are composed of limestone with some inter-bedded shale of the Daya, Barnea, and Shederotformations (Figure 6). Micropaleontologic andsedimentologic studies show that the carbonatewestern Israel

Figure 8. Regional stratigraphic section from the Helez Deep-1 well onshore, to the Bravo-1 well offshore, showing interpreted high-order depositional sequences of the JurassicCretaceous shelf and upper slope area. Alternating progradational and onlapping stratal patterns within the Mesozoic sequences are projected from nearby seismic profiles. See Figure 2Bfor the location of the profile and Figure 5 for the key. M.S.L. = mean sea level; V/H = vertical/horizontal.

Gardoshet

al.1773

1774 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southfacies of these stratigraphic units were deposited inshallow-marine inner- to outer-shelf settings (Derin,1974, 1979). Three higher order sequences, Jr2.1,Jr2.2, and Jr2.3, are recognized within the Jr2 se-quence. Inwireline logs, these three sequences form

subtle funnel-shaped patterns of gamma-ray, SP,and sonic logs (Figure 6) that are interpreted asshallowing-upward trends of the carbonate facies.High-energy reefoidal and oolitic limestone foundin the upper parts of these units in the Helez

Figure 9. Stratigraphic summary of the Yam West-1, located in the JurassicCretaceous marine basin, showing from left to right:wireline logs (gamma ray, spontaneous potential [SP], resistivity, and sonic) and interpreted lithology, proposed sequence-stratigraphicframework, chronostratigraphy (from Gill et al., 1995), and lithostratigraphic units (from Fleischer and Varshavsky, 2002). The Mesozoicdepositional sequences in this well (Jr13, Cr13) are dominated by fine-grained siliciclastic and carbonate strata that accumulated onthe lower slope and deep-marine basin. Cretaceous high-order sequence boundaries are correlated to the bases of bell-shaped wireline-log trends interpreted as fining-upward turbidite systems. See Figure 2B for the location of the profile and Figure 6 for the key to logtrends and lithology. LST = lowstand systems tract; HST = highstand systems tract; TST = transgressive systems tract.western Israel

Deep-1 well (Derin, 1979), supporting the paleo-geographic interpretation. High-order sequenceboundaries are interpreted at the base of shale orargillaceous limestone beds that separate the car-bonate intervals of Jr2.12.3 (Figure 6). Regionalfacies distribution indicates a regressive interval ofearly Bathonian age that likely corresponds to thebase of Jr2.3 (Hirsch et al., 1998). Foraminifer bio-zones indicate an Aalenian to Bajocian or Bathonianage for the Jr2.1 and Jr2.2 strata and Bathonianage for the Jr2.3 strata (Figure 6) (Derin, 1974,1979).

On seismic profiles, the Jr2.12.3 sequencescompriseparallel alternatinghigh- and low-amplitudereflection packages that show minor incision anddownlapping of mounded reflections (Figures 7, 11).The three units terminate westward near the mod-

ern coastline, with moderate- to steep-angle slopesthat are onlapped by uppermost Jurassic to LowerCretaceous strata (Figures 7, 11).

The Jr3 Depositional Sequence (BathonianKimmeridgian)The Jr3 low-order sequence is a 300- to 600-m(984- to 1969-ft)-thick Middle to Upper Jurassicsuccession (Figure 3). Coeval stratigraphic unitscrop out in the Ramon and northern Negev areaand were penetrated by wells in central and south-ern Israel (Figure 2A, B). East and south of thestudy area, the Jr3 sequence comprises extensiveplatforms of shallow-marine carbonate, interlayerdwith shale and some sandstone beds (Figure 3).Shallow-marine carbonate platforms extend to themodern coastline. In the adjacent Mediterranean

Figure 10. Stratigraphic section from the Yam-2 to Yam West-1 well showing interpreted high-order depositional sequences of theJurassicCretaceous deep-marine basin. Note the similarity in wireline-log stacking patterns between the two wells. The reverse faultingand folding in the eastern part of the section is associated with the Late Cretaceous Syrian arc folding phase. See Figure 2B for thelocation of the profile and Figure 3 for a lithology key.Gardosh et al. 1775

Figure 11. Seismic profile, (A) unin-terpreted or (B) interpreted, in the south-eastern part of the study area showingproposed high-order depositional sequencesof the JurassicCretaceous margin andwireline logs of the Beeri West-1 well. Se-quence boundaries (white lines) are inter-preted from onlapping and downlappingreflection terminations (black arrows) andwell ties. See Figure 2B for the locationof the profile. TWT = two-way traveltime.1776 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in SouthSea, the Jr3 sequence is dominated by shale andcarbonate slope deposits (Figure 5).

The lower boundary of Jr3 is an unconformityof the late Middle Jurassic (Figure 3). This surfaceis correlated to the base of an interval several tensof meters thick composed of shale, marl, siltstone,and sandstone of the Karmon Formation, foundin wells throughout the southern coastal plain(Figures 3, 6) (Derin, 1974). Postdepositional do-lomitization and secondary porosity related to pa-leokarst in the carbonates below the Karmon shale

(Buchbinder, 1979) indicate an exposure of theMiddle Jurassic shelf. The Jr3 lower boundarylikely corresponds to a late Bathonian to Callovianrelative drop in sea level interpreted from regionallithofacies data (Hirsch et al., 1998).

Two high-order sequences, Jr3.1 and Jr3.2, arerecognized in the study area. These are charac-terized by conspicuous funnel-shaped patterns ofwireline logs formed by vertical transitions fromshale to limestone (Figures 6, 12). The upwardfacies change from siliciclastic to carbonate in Jr3.1western Israel

the Jr3.2 strata contains the foraminiferA. jaccardiof the Oxfordian (Hirsch et al., 1998). The lowerboundary of Jr3.2 is indicated by karst-related do-lomitization and mineralization at the top of theZohar limestone (Buchbinder, 1981; 1986). Onseismic profiles, the Jr3.1 and Jr3.2 sequences ap-pear as a series of continuous high-amplitude reflec-tions that terminate toward the west in moderate-to steep-angle slopes that are onlapped by LowerCretaceous strata (Figures 7, 11, 13).

The Jr2 and Jr3 Depositional Sequences in the OffshoreIn the offshore area, the Jr2 and Jr3 low-order se-quences are composed of fine-grained strata thatwere deposited several tens of kilometers west of

the Middle to Late Jurassic shelf edge (Figure 5).This 600- to 700-m (1969- to 2297-ft)-thick suc-cession found in the Yam-2 and Yam West-1 well(Figures 9, 10) is composed of shale, fine-grainedand oolitic limestone, and some siltstone and fine-grained sandstone. Planktonic foraminifera foundin the Yam-2 well indicate a probable Bathonianage for the lowermost part, and Oxfordian toKimmeridgian age for most of this Jurassic succes-sion (Figure 10) (Derin et al., 1990). In the YamWest-1 well, foraminiferal biozonation indicates aBajocian to Bathonian age for the carbonate-richlower part (above the Jr1 sequence boundary) andCallovian to Kimmeridgian age for the upper shale-dominated part of the Jurassic succession (Figure 9)(Gill et al., 1995).

Figure 12. Stratigraphic summary of the Massout Yizhaq-1 well,located near the edge of the JurassicCretaceous platforms, showingfrom left to right: wireline logs (spontaneous potential [SP], resis-tivity, and sonic) and interpreted lithology, proposed sequence-stratigraphic framework, chronostratigraphy (from Lipson-Benitah,1994), and lithostratigraphic units (from Fleischer and Varshavsky,2002). The Cretaceous depositional sequences in this well (Cr12)are dominated by shallow-marine carbonates. Sandstone bedsare found in the Lower Cretaceous depositional units (Cr1.31.5).High-order sequence boundaries are correlated to the bases ofthe siliciclastic intervals that are likely associated with relative dropsof sea level. Funnel-shaped wireline-log trends are interpreted asupward coarsening of the carbonate facies during highstands. SeeFigure 2B for the location of the profile and Figure 6 for the key tolog trends and lithology. TST = transgressive systems tract; HST =highstand systems tract; LST = lowstand systems tract.(Figure 6) corresponds, respectively, to the Kar-mon and Zohar formations (Derin, 1974); and inJr3.2 (Figure 12), with the Kidod and Beer Shevaformations (Derin, 1974). In the Ashdod-3, BeeriWest-1, and Helez Deep-1 wells (Figure 2B), theJr3.1 strata contain the Bathonian to Callovianforaminifer T. palastiniensis (Derin, 1974, 1979);in the Kissufim-1 and Sadot-1 wells (Figure 2B),Gardosh et al. 1777

Figure 13. Seismic profile, (A) uninter-preted or (B) interpreted, showing pro-posed high-order depositional sequencesof the JurassicCretaceous shelf and upperslope, correlated to time-based wirelinelogs of the Lior-1 and Masout Yizhaq-1wells. Sequence boundaries (white lines)are interpreted from onlapping and down-lapping reflection terminations (black ar-rows) and well ties. The Mesozoic marginshows a transition from aggradation(Jr2.23.2, Cr1.31.5, Cr2.32.6) to pro-gradation (Cr1.2, Cr2.12.2). See Figure 2Bfor the location of the profile.1778 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in SouthDerin et al. (1990) suggest that the MiddleUpper Jurassic dark, pyritic shale in Yam-2 wasdeposited in deep-marine, partly anoxic conditions,similar to the depositional environment of theDeltaFormation (Figure 3) found in the offshore Delta-1well 60 km (37mi) to the north. Petrographic studyof cutting samples taken from the Bathonian lime-stone at the bottom of Yam-2 (Figure 10) showsplanktonic foram-sponge spicule mudstones andwackestones of deep-marine origin (Brady, 1990).The depositional environment of theMiddleUpper

Jurassic succession in Yam West-1 is less well de-fined. The upper Delta-type dark shale (Figure 9)is likely of deep-marine origin. The lower part iscomposed of shale and alternating oolitic, pelle-toidal, and spiculitic limestone beds, as much as to100 m (328 ft) thick (Figure 9). Gill et al. (1995)describe this carbonate lithofacies as similar to theMiddleUpper Jurassic shallow-marine platformalstrata found east of the modern coastline. Wire-line logs display, however, cylindrical and bell-shaped patterns (Figure 9) that may be interpretedwestern Israel

Cretaceous Depositional Sequences

The Cretaceous is associated with a late stage ofcarbonate margin deposition along the LM. Aconspicuous, Jurassic shelf-edge was already pre-sent near the modern coastline on the edge of adeep-marine basin (Figure 5). The regional depo-sitional pattern progressively changed in time frompredominantly siliciclastic sediments during theEarly Cretaceous to predominantly carbonate sedi-ments during the Late Cretaceous. Regional un-conformities separate three low-order depositionalcycles of latest Jurassic to Early Cretaceous, mid-dle Cretaceous, and Late Cretaceous ages.

The Cr1 Sequence (TithonianAptian)The Cr1 low-order sequence is a 500- to 1500-m(1640- to 4921-m)-thick succession of latest Ju-rassic to early Middle Cretaceous age (Figure 3).Coeval stratigraphic units crop out in the northernNegev and eastern Galilee area (Figure 2A) andwere penetrated by wells throughout Israel. Eastand south of the study area, the Cr1 sequence isas deep-marine gravity flows. In seismic profiles,theMiddleUpper Jurassic succession correlates toa reflection-free and occasionally discontinuous low-amplitude reflection package (Figure 4) (Gardosh,2002). This seismic stratigraphic character furthersupports a deep-marine depositional environmentfor the Jr23 strata offshore.

Based on the biostratigraphic, sedimentologic,and geophysical evidence, the MiddleUpper Ju-rassic rock succession found in the Yam-2 andYamWest-1 wells is interpreted as slope and basinalstrata of deep-marine origin. This offshore rocksuccession that is coeval to the Jr2 and Jr3 shallow-marine carbonate platforms found near the coast-line (Figure 5) likely accumulated within the ma-rine basin during high-frequency drops of sea leveland is therefore, onlapping the upper boundary ofthe Jr1 sequence (Figures 5, 8). In Yam West-1,the lower boundary of Jr3 is probably correlatedto the base of a Bathonian shale bed defined byFleischer and Varshavsky (2002) as the KarmonFormation (Figure 9).dominated by fluvial-eolian sandstone, siltstone,and shale (Figure 3). Mixed carbonate-siliciclasticplatforms of shallow-marine origin are found nearthe modern coastline. In the adjacent Mediterra-nean Sea, the Cr1 sequence is dominated by deep-marine dark shale (Figure 5).

The lower boundary of Cr1 is an unconformitythat is recognized at the top of the Jurassic stratain outcrops and wells throughout the Levant re-gion (Figure 3) (Flexer et al., 1986). In the easternpart of the study area, the boundary correlates tothe hiatus found in wells between MiddleUpperJurassic (Jr3) and Neocomian strata (Figures 6,12). On seismic profiles, the base of the sequenceis a prominent truncation and onlapping surface(Figures 4, 7, 11, 13), where Cr1 strata overliethe Lower and Middle Jurassic slopes (Jr12).

The Cr1 cycle is subdivided into six higher or-der sequences: Jr4.1, Cr1.1, Cr1.2, Cr1.3, Cr1.4,and Cr1.5 (Figure 3). Near the coastline and off-shore, these units are correlated to darkmarine shaleof the Gevaram Group (Figure 3) (Cohen, 1971).In the Ashkelon-2 well (Figure 8), a Gevaram-typeshale bed several tens of meters thick that overliesJurassic carbonate strata contains the Tithonianforaminifers E. stelliocostata and E. uhligi (Derinet al., 1988a). In the offshore Yam-2 andYamWest-1wells, the same Tithonian planktonic foraminiferawas found in a 200- to 300-m (656- to 984-ft)-thickinterval composed of shale, limestone, and somesandstone of the Yam Formation (Figures 3, 9, 10)(Derin et al., 1990; Gill et al., 1995). It is proposedthat the Tithonian marine shale, which was depos-ited over the Middle to Upper Jurassic carbonateslope, comprises the lowermost part of the Cr1cycle. Because of its considerable thickness in theoffshore, the Tithonian strata are defined as a dis-tinct high-order depositional sequence, termed Jr4.1(Figures 3, 9, 10). The lower boundary of Jr4.1 iscorrelated in Yam West-1 to the base of a thin sand-stone bed at the base of a bell-shaped wireline-log pattern interpreted as deep-water gravity flow(Figure 9).

The Cr1.1 and Cr1.2 high-order sequences areinterbedded shale and siltstone intervals of Neo-comian age found near the modern coastline andoffshore. In seismic profiles, the two sequences areGardosh et al. 1779

characterized by parallel discontinuous to hum-mocky reflections that onlap the slopes and shelfedges of MiddleUpper Jurassic carbonate plat-forms (Figures 7, 8). The lower sequence bound-aries of these two units correlate to the bottoms ofbell-shaped fining-upward patterns of wireline logs(Figures 9, 10) interpreted as deep-water gravityflows. The ages of these units are constrained bymicrofauna. In the Yam-2 well, Cr1.1 contains theforaminifer T. elongate of the Berriasian to Va-langinian (Derin et al., 1990), and Cr1.2 containsthe foraminifers E. caracoalla and E. Epistomina ofthe HauterivianBarremian (Derin et al., 1990).The same biostratigraphic age is estimated for theCr1.2 strata in the Yam West-1 well (Figure 9)(Gill et al., 1995).

The Cr1.3 to Cr1.5 high-order sequences atthe upper part of Cr1 has wider distribution. Eastof themodern coastline, these units comprisemixedcarbonate-siliciclastic platforms of the Neocomianto Aptian (Figures 3, 5). On seismic profiles, theseunits appear as series of parallel high-amplitudereflections that downlap westward and terminateinmoderate- to steep-angle slopes (Figures 11, 13).Inwell logs, the high-order sequences display funnel-shaped wireline log patterns that are associatedwith upward transition from sandstone and shaleto limestone (Figures 6, 12). The lower boundariesfor each sequence are correlated to the bases ofthe siliciclastic intervals presumed to have beendeposited during relative drops of sea level. Theforaminifer Ch. Decipien, found in the Cr1.3 andCr1.4 strata, indicates the Hauterivian to Bar-remian age, whereas the Orbitulina species, foundin the Cr1.5 strata, indicate Aptian to Albian age(Figure 12) (Derin et al., 1983). The lithostrati-graphic equivalent of Cr1.5, the Telamim Forma-tion (Figure 12), contains the shallow-marine Ap-tian ostracodCythereis btaterensis (Rosenfeld et al.,1998).

In the offshore area, the Cr1.31.5 cyclescomprise a 300- to 500-m (984- to 1640-ft)-thickfine-grained siliciclastic interval that overlies theCr1.2 strata (Figures 8, 10). The Barremian to Aptianforaminifers Ch. decipien and G. barremiana arefound within this interval in the Bravo-1, Yam-2,and Yam West-1 wells (Derin et al., 1988b, 1990;1780 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in SouthGill et al., 1995).Wireline logs display a bell-shapedupward-fining pattern (Figure 9), correspondingto a transition from sandstone to shale. On seismicprofiles, this interval is a part of a series of paralleldiscontinuous to hummocky reflections that on-lap the Jurassic shelf edge (Figure 4) or the top ofthe Cr1.2 sequence (Figure 8). Based on the bio-stratigraphic data and stratal pattern, the offshoreBarremian to Aptian fine-grained siliciclastic suc-cession presumably include the deep-water equiv-alents of the Cr1.31.5 platforms found east of themodern coastline (Figure 5).

The Cr2 Sequence (AptianAlbianTuronian)The Cr2 low-order sequence is a 500- to 1000-m(1640- to 3281-ft)-thick middle Cretaceous succes-sion (Figure 3). Coeval stratigraphic units crop outin southern, central, and northern Israel (Figure 2A).East of the study area, the Cr2 sequence comprisesextensive platforms of shallow-marine carbonatethat extend to the vicinity of the modern coastline(Figure 5). Near the coast and in the adjacentMediterranean Sea, the Cr2 sequence is domi-nated by detrital slope carbonate strata (Figure 5).

The lower boundary of the Cr2 sequence iscorrelated to a late Aptian unconformity surfacerecognized within the carbonate outcrops east ofthe study area (Flexer et al., 1986; Braun andHirsch, 1994). In the offshore area, this boundaryis correlated to a pronounced lithologic break be-tween the Cr1 shale (Gevaram Group) and theoverlying fine-grainedcarbonate (TalmeTafeGroup)(Figures 3, 10). On seismic profiles, this changein lithology corresponds to an upward change inseismic stratigraphic character from a chaotic orreflection-free zone to continuous high- and low-amplitude seismic reflections (Figure 4). Near themodern coastline, the base of Cr2 is recognized bytruncation underneath the sequence boundary andonlapping and downlapping of seismic reflectionsabove it (Figures 7, 11, 13).

The Cr2 cycle is subdivided into six high-ordersequences: Cr2.1 to Cr2.6 (Figure 3). The twolower units, Cr2.1 and Cr2.2, are wedge-shapedsedimentary packages dominated by fine-grainedcarbonate detritus that are recognized in seismicand well data onshore and offshore (Figures 8, 13,western Israel

14). Their coeval lithostratigraphic unit, the TalmeYafe Group (Figure 3) (Cohen, 1971), is found inwells near the Mediterranean coastline. In seismicprofiles, the two units are separated by a minorunconformity recognized by incision, onlapping,and downlapping reflections (Figures 7, 11, 13).In the Massout Yzhaq-1 well east of the moderncoastline, the Cr2.1 and Cr2.2 sequences are char-acterized by a funnel-shaped wireline-log patternand are interpreted as upward-shallowing trends ofcarbonate lithofacies (Figure 12). A thin argilla-ceous unit termed the Yavne Shale (Figure 12)(Braun and Hirsch, 1994) overlies the Cr2.1 lowersequence boundary. Ostracod zonation suggests lateAptian age for the Yavne strata (Rosenfeld et al.,1998). The foraminifer biozones, Hedbergella andTicinela, indicate an Albian age for the Cr2.12.2strata in the offshore YamWest-1 well (Gill et al.,1995), although a late Aptian age is likely for the

lower part of Cr2.1 in the Yam-2 well (Figure 10)(Derin et al., 1990).

The upper depositional sequences, Cr2.3 toCr2.6 (Figure 3), are identified only in the easternpart of the study area. In seismic profiles, theseunits comprise series of high amplitude parallelreflections that terminate toward the west withhigh-angle to vertical slopes onlapped by Tertiarystrata (Figures 7, 13). In wireline logs, the Cr2.3to Cr2.6 sequences display funnel-shaped blockyand irregular patterns of high resistivity and sonicvelocity values (Figure 12). Seismic stratigraphicand wireline log character suggests that these unitscomprise shallow-marine carbonate platforms. Thelithostratigraphic equivalents of Cr2.3 to Cr2.6 arethe limestone and dolomite of the Judea Group(Figure 3) that crop out through central andsouthern Israel (Figure 2A). High-order sequenceboundaries are correlated to sharp shifts of sonic

Figure 14. Stratigraphic section from Massout Yzhaq-1 to the Barnea-1 well, showing high-order depositional sequences and systemstracts in the shelf and upper slope of the lower to middle Cretaceous margin. Alternating progradational and onlapping stratal patternsthat are projected from nearby seismic profiles reflect the internal composition of the Cr1.2, Cr2.1, and Cr2.2 sequences. See Figure 2Bfor the location of the profile and Figure 6 for the key to lithology and systems tracts. M.S.L. = mean sea level; V/H = vertical/horizontal;HST = highstand systems tract; LST = lowstand systems tract.Gardosh et al. 1781

found in seismic profiles (Figure 7). Thin shale andargillaceous limestone intervals, characterized byand SP wireline logs within the carbonate section(Figures 12, 14). These are interpreted as thin shaleor argillaceous limestone beds that are associatedwith breaks of shallow-marine carbonate deposi-tion during minor relative drops of sea level. Theages of the Cr2.3 to Cr2.6 high-order sequencesare not well constrained because of lack of bio-stratigraphic information. The foraminifer biozonesR. globotrunacanoides, R. brotzeni, andM. Helvetica,found in the Cr2.6 strata at the Massout Yzhak-1well (Figure 12) (Lipson-Benitah, 1994), indicatea Cenomanian to Turonian age for the upper partof the Cr2 cycle.

The Cr3 Sequence (SenonianMaastrichtian)The Cr3 low-order sequence is a 100- to 700-m(328- to 2297-ft)-thick Upper Cretaceous suc-cession dominated by marl and chalk (Figure 3).Stratigraphic units of this age crop out in southern,central, and northern Israel (Figure 2A). The Cr3strata are found in the offshore but aremissing in theeastern part of the study area onshore (Figures 4, 5),where they were deposited and later eroded dur-ing the Tertiary. The lower sequence boundaryof Cr3 is correlated to a regional unconformityfound in outcrops throughout Israel, between themiddle Cretaceous carbonate of the Judea Groupand the Upper Cretaceous chalk of the MountScopus Group (Figure 3) (Flexer, 1968). On seis-mic profiles, the boundary is characterized by on-lapping of the Cr3 chalk on the Cr2 slope carbon-ate (Figures 4, 5). In the offshore YamWest-1 andYam-2 wells, the lithologic transition from Albianmarl and shale to Senonian chalk corresponds to apronounced change of wireline-log stacking pat-terns (Figures 9, 10).

Two high-order sequences, Cr3.1 and Cr3.2,are recognized offshore (Figure 3). The Cr3.1 stratacontain the foraminifer species Globotruncana ofthe Santonian to the Campanian, whereas Cr3.2contains the Maastrichtian foraminifer species A.mayaroensis (Figure 10) (Derin et al., 1988b, 1990).A high-order sequence boundary between theseunits is interpreted in the Yam-2 and Bravo-1 atthe base of a chalky bed containing chert frag-ments (Figures 8, 10). East of the study area, theCampanian-Maastrichtian chert-rich Mishash For-1782 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southa high gamma-ray response, are found within thecarbonate sections. These terrigenous strata werelikely deposited following drops of sea level andexposure of the shallow-marine platforms. An ex-ample is the iron-rich red claystone at the base ofJr1.1 (Figure 6), considered being coeval to theLower Jurassic continental deposits of the MishorFormation (Druckman, 1984). The Mishor stratamark a break in shallow-marine carbonate de-position followed by prolonged exposure of theolder Triassic shelf (Druckman, 1974; Goldberglation between the paleogeographic evolution ofthemargin from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous andrelative sea level changes of the southern TethysOcean.

Early Jurassic Margin (Jr1)

The Jr1 stratawere deposited on a northwest-facingcarbonate platform that evolved during severalrelative sea level cycles (Figure 5). Lower Jurassicsequences are dominated by shallow-marine lime-stone and dolomite, corresponding to the contin-uous parallel high- and low-amplitude reflectionsmation overlies a truncation surface of the upperSenonian (Figure 3) (Gvirtzman et al., 1989). Al-though the origin of the chert in the offshore isnot established with certainty, Mishash chert frag-ments were likely transported from a shallowerplatform into the deeper basin during aminor dropof sea level at the beginning of the Cr3.2 cycle. Inthe YamWest-1 well, the Cr3.1 is missing and theupper SenonianMaastrichtian Cr3.2 sequence over-lies Albian strata (Figure 10).

MARGIN EVOLUTION

Well and seismic reflection data show distinctdepositional patterns in the Jurassic and Creta-ceous successions of the LM. Within a sequence-stratigraphic framework, these are correlated to thesystems tracts of high-order depositional cycles.The detailed sequence architecture reveals the re-western Israel

shoals. In the Talme Yafe-4 well (Figure 8), theupper part of the Jr1.2 highstand contains ooliticbeds (Buchbinder and Price, 1987). Thus, the exis-tence of a high-energy shelf edge near the present-day coastline, interpreted on the seismic data, isfurther supported by the lithofacies distribution.

Middle and Late Jurassic Margin (Jr2, Jr3)

The high-order sequences of Jr2 and Jr3 show con-tinued growth of carbonate platforms (Figure 5).The lithology and stratal pattern of these unitsreflect relative sea level changes of short durationand their corresponding systems tracts, as shownschematically in Figure 15A. In the offshore, Mid-dle to Late Jurassic strata are composed of inter-bedded shale and limestone and some sandstonebeds. These strata are interpreted as the lowstandsystems tracts of the Jr2 and Jr3 high-order cycles(Figure 15A). Wireline-log patterns (Figures 9,10), seismic stratigraphic character (Figure 4), po-sition in the depositional profile, and the presenceof deep-marine fauna (Brady, 1990) suggest thatthe coarse-grained strata were transported by grav-ity flows and were deposited in submarine chan-nels and fans on the slope and within the basin(Figure 15A).and Friedman, 1974). This relative drop in Tethyansea level corresponds to a long-term latest Triassicto Early Jurassic eustatic fall (Figure 3) (Haq et al.,1988; Hardenbol et al., 1998; Hirsch et al., 1998;Haq and Al-Qahtani, 2005). Similarly, the shalebed at the base of the Jr1.2 sequence (Figure 6)mayhave accumulated following an early Toarcian eu-static fall (Figure 3) (Haq et al., 1988; Hardenbolet al., 1998).

The platformal limestone and dolomite beds,comprising the Lower Jurassic Jr1.1 and Jr1.2 se-quences near the coastline (Figures 6, 8), are dom-inated by wackestones and mudstones of shallow-marine to lagoonal environments (Derin, 1974;Buchbinder, 1986). These strata were likely de-posited during relative rises in sea level and sub-sequent aggradation and progradation of the shelf.Downlapping and mounded seismic reflectionspresent in the Jr1.1 and Jr1.2 sequences (Figure 7)are interpreted as prograding carbonate banks andIn wells located east of the modern coastline,the lower parts of Jr2.12.3 and Jr3.13.2 se-quences are composed of shale, marl, and argil-laceous carbonate beds several tens of meters thick(Figures 6, 12). These strata are interpreted aslowstand to transgressive systems tracts of the high-order cycles (Figure 15A). Exposure of the shelfis indicated by karst-related dolomitization andmineralization recognized in the shallow-marinelimestone at the top of the Jr1.2, Jr2.3, and Jr3.1sequences (Figure 6). Terrigenous deposits thatoverlie the sequence boundaries (Figure 15A) likelyaccumulated during a late stage of relative drop toearly stage of relative rise in sea level. Hirsch et al.(1998) noted the relation between MiddleUpperJurassic sedimentary units of the southern Levantand global tectono-eustatic cycles. Specifically, theseauthors noted that the Rosh Pina and Karmonshale (lower parts of Jr2.1 and Jr3.1) are associ-ated, respectively, with Aalenian and late Bath-onian eustatic falls (Figure 3) (Haq et al., 1988;Hardenbol et al., 1998).

Carbonate successions, up to several hundredmeters thick, comprise the Jr2.12.3 and Jr3.13.2 sequences landward of the modern coastline(Figure 5). Well data from the Helez and Ashdodareas show that the carbonates are composed ofoolitic, pelletal, spiculitc, bioclastic, and reefallimestone (Derin, 1974; Buchbinder, 1979). Theseaggradational carbonate platforms are interpretedas highstand systems tracts that accumulated duringlate stages of sea level rises (Figure 15A). Moundedand downlapping seismic reflections (Figures 7,11) are interpreted as high-energy ooid-pelletshoals and fringing reef complexes that likely de-veloped in outer-shelf to shelf-margin environments(Figure 15A).

The shelf edges of the Jr2 and Jr3 high-ordersequences are located in a relatively narrow zone,generally parallel to the present-day coastline(Figure 2B). The overall margin geometry is ofaggrading and retrograding carbonate ramps in akeep-up carbonate system (Sarg, 1988). Thisconfiguration indicates limited bypass or sheddingand rapid buildup during highstand periods. At theend of the Jurassic, a steep carbonate margin haddeveloped east of a deep-marine basin with a waterGardosh et al. 1783

1784 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

Latest JurassicEarly Cretaceous Margin (Cr1) stone found at the top of the Cr1.2 sequence in

Figure 15. Depositional and systems tract models for the high-ordeCreyanussio(A) latest Jurassic to lower Cretaceous Jr4.1Cr1.2 (B) and middleseismic data, reconstruct the varying paleogeography of the Tethsiliciclastic slope (B), to prograding carbonate slope (C). See discThe development of the Cr1 sequence is asso-ciated with cessation of Jurassic carbonate growthand deposition of siliciclastic strata on the slopeand within the basin (Figure 5). A schematic de-positional model for these units, based on thecomposition of the Cr1.2 sequence, is shown inFigure 15B. The lower boundary of the Cr1 se-quence is a prominent truncation surface causedby the 1000-m (3281-ft)-deep Gevaram Canyon(Figure 16) (Cohen, 1971, 1976). Canyon incisionon the Jurassic shelf likely occurred during a rel-ative drop of sea level during the Tithonian andearly Neocomian that correspondswith a prolongedglobal eustatic fall (Figure 3) (Haq et al., 1988;Hardenbol et al., 1998; Haq and Al-Qahtani, 2005).

The lithology and stratal pattern of the Jr4.1,Cr1.1, and Cr1.2 reflect short cycles of sea levelchanges and their corresponding systems tracts. Inoffshore wells, the Cr1.2 strata comprise a bell-shaped log-stacking pattern containing sandstonebeds at its base (Figures 9, 10). This part of thesequence is interpreted as a deep-marine turbiditecomplex that accumulated on the lower slopeand basin floor during an early lowstand stage(Figure 15B). Sands were likely transported ba-sinward by submarine gravity flows through theGevaram Canyon system (Figure 16). Near themodern coastline, the Cr1.2 sequence is dominat-ed by shale, with only a minor amount of sand-stone (Figure 8). Seismic profiles show mounded,chaotic, and gull wing reflection configurations(Figures 7, 13). This part of the sequence is in-terpreted as channel-fill and channel-levee com-plexes that compose the upper part of a lowstandfan (Figure 15B). A zone of parallel to obliquedownlapping reflections that correlates with a thickinterval of silty shale in the Lior-1 well (Figures 13,the Massout Yizhaq-1 well (Figures 12, 14) is in-terpreted as a highstand systems tract, associatedwith sea level rise at the end of the Cr1.2 cycle(Figure 15B).

The evolution of the LM during the late Neo-comian toAptian is characterized by reestablishmentof a platformal shallow-marine carbonate deposition(Figure 3). High-order cyclicity is recognized bythe composition of the mixed siliciclastic-carbonateplatforms that comprise the Cr1.31.5 sequences.Sandstone, siltstone, and shale beds found be-low the carbonate are interpreted as lowstand totransgressive systems tracts of the Cr1.31.5 cycles(Figures 6, 12). Petrography and heavy mineralassemblage indicate that theNeocomian sands wereeroded from older Nubian sandstone exposed onthe Arabian shield in the east (Shenhav, 1971). Thesands were redeposited near the Tethyan shorelinein coastal dunes, shoals, and shelf deltas (Shenhav,1971). The basinward flow of coarse-grained sili-ciclastic strata is likely associated with relativedrops of sea level at the beginning of each cycle.

Oolitic to sandy limestone and some inter-bedded dolomite in the upper parts of Cr1.31.5(Figure 12) comprise the highstand systems tractsof these sequences. The carbonate strata (of theHelez and Telamim formations, Figure 3) accumu-lated as oolitic shoals and carbonate banks in theouter-shelf areas of the Neocomian carbonate plat-forms (Shenhav, 1971). Upward facies transition,from siliciclastic to carbonate strata (Figure 12),likely associated with a relative rise in sea level. Onseismic profiles, the three sequences appear as par-allel continuous reflections that terminate abruptlytoward the west (Figures 11, 13) and are, therefore,interpreted as distally steepened carbonate ramps(sensu Read, 1985). The shelf-edge areas of theCr1.31.5 ramps are located in a narrow zone,

r sequences of the LM during the Middle to Late Jurassic, Jr23taceous, Cr2.12.2 (C). The models, which are based on well andmargin ranging from aggrading carbonate shelf (A), progradingn in text.depth of about 2 km (1.2 mi) (see the geologiccross sections in Figure 8).

14) is interpreted as a prograding mud-prone shelfdelta that developed at the end of the lowstandstage (Figure 15B). Shallow-marine oolitic lime-Gardosh et al. 1785

of the Neocomian Cr1.2

sequence. These beltswere defined on seismicprofiles using the two-Figure 16. Schematicpaleogeographic mapshowing three facies beltsthat comprise the low-stand systems tract (LST)dimensional seismic

1786 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southgenerally subparallel to the present-day coastline(Figure 2B).

Middle Cretaceous Margin (Cr2)

Deposition of carbonate detritus on the slope andwithin the basin characterizes the LM during the

early part of Cr2 (Figure 5). Relative sea levelchanges of short duration are reflected by the in-ternal structure of the Albian Cr2.1 and Cr2.2 se-quences, shown schematically in Figure 15C. Thickbeds of carbonate breccias composed of angularunsorted limestone fragments are found in the Al-bian strata near themodern coastline (Figures 8, 14)

facies methodology ofRamsayer (1979) whereabbreviations of reflectionconfigurations are C =concordant; Hu = hum-mocky; Pdis = parallel,discontinuous; T = trun-cation, erosional; On =onlap; Dn = downlap;M = mounded; Ch =chaotic; P = parallel; Ob =oblique.western Israel

(Cohen, 1971). On seismic profiles, the brecciascorrelate with high-amplitude discontinuous reflec-tions that onlap and downlap onto the Cr2.1 andCr2.2 sequence boundaries (Figures 7, 13). Theseare interpreted as debris flows that accumulatedon the slope during relative drops of late Aptianand middle Albian sea levels (Figure 15C).

The highstand systems tracts of the Cr2.1 andCr2.2 sequences comprise two lithofacies belts(Figure 15C). The eastern belt is a carbonate rampcomposed of limestone, dolomite, and some marland shale of the Yakhini Formation (Figure 3). Anostracod assemblage found in the Yakhini strataindicates a shallow, warm, marine environment(Rosenfeld et al., 1998). On seismic profiles, theCr2.12.2 carbonate ramp is characterized by par-allel continuous to hummocky discontinuous re-flections (Figures 11, 13). The western lithofaciesbelt is composed of fine-grained carbonate slopedetritus of the Talme Yafe Group (Figure 3). Anostracod assemblage found in the Talme Yafe strataindicates deposition in water depth of 200 to500 m (6561640 ft) (Rosenfeld et al., 1998). Onseismic profiles, the carbonate slope is character-ized by oblique downlapping reflection patterns(Figures 11, 13).

The stratal relations between these two faciesbelts (Figure 14) suggest that both comprise high-stand systems tracts of the Cr2.12.2 cycles. Aneastern flat-topped carbonate shelf system (sensuHandford and Loucks 1993) developed during arelative rise of sea level. Carbonate material pro-duced on the ramp was transported basinward byturbidity currents andwas redeposited on the slope(Figure 15C). Droxler et al. (1983) described asimilar process in the Holocene carbonate systemsof the Bahamas. Their highstand shedding occurswhen the rate of carbonate production exceedsthe rate of creation of accommodation and is typ-ically associated with considerable basinward pro-gradation. This depositional model implies thatthe Yakhini and Talme Yafe (Figure 3) are coevalstratigraphic units that accumulated during Albianhighstands.

The upperAlbianCenomanianCr2.3 toCr2.5sequences are platformal carbonate strata dominatedby shallow-marine limestone and dolomite that areSeismic profiles show series of parallel reflectionsthat terminate westward with high-angle slopesonlapped by upper Tertiary strata (Figures 7, 13).The morphology of the margin during the lateAlbianCenomanian is that of a rimmed carbonateplatform (sensu Handford and Loucks, 1993). Theshelf edge is composed of carbonate buildups that,in places, are eroded and form steep escarpments.The carbonate beds are interpreted as the high-stand systems tracts, whereas thin argillaceous in-tervals overlying the high-order sequence bound-aries comprise lowstand systems tracts of thecorresponding cycles (Figures 12, 14). The pro-nounced aggrading and backstepping of the car-bonate ramps suggest a keep-up pattern (Sarg,1988) that is associated with a rapid rate of sealevel rise. The eustatic curve shows the highestglobal sea level since the break-up off Pangea duringthe late Albian to the Cenomanian time (Figure 3)(Haq et al., 1988; Hardenbol et al., 1998).

The CenomanianTuronian (Cr2.6) sequenceis composed of dolomite, limestone,marl, and chalkthat correspond with the strata of the Negba andDaliyya formations (Figures 3, 12) (Lipson-Benitahet al., 1990; Lipson-Benitah, 1994). On seismicprofiles, this unit shows a continuous parallel re-flection that downlaps onto the underlying sequenceboundary (Figures 13, 14). The morphology ofthe margin is that of a homoclinal westward dip-ping carbonate ramp (sensuHandford and Loucks,1993). Foraminifera and ostracod species foundin the Daliyya marl indicate an open-marine en-vironment of 100 to 200 m (328 to 656 ft) ofwater depth (Rosenfeld et al., 1998). Thus, a paleo-environmental change in the LM is indicated atthe end of the Cr2 cycle.

Upper Cretaceous Margin (Cr3)

The Upper Cretaceous Cr3 sequence is composedof interbedded chalk and marl (Figure 5). Theequivalent lithostratigraphic units, Mount Scopusfound east of the modern coastline (Figure 5).These rocks of the upper Judea Group (Figure 3)are composed of various types of rudistid reefs,tidal flats, and inner-shelf deposits (Bein, 1976;Sass and Bein, 1982; Braun and Hirsch, 1994).Gardosh et al. 1787

and Hashefela groups (Figure 3), were depositedthroughout western Israel in an intermediate todeep-marine environment (Sass and Bein, 1982;Flexer et al., 1986; Gvirtzman et al., 1989). Thedemise of the middle Cretaceous carbonate plat-forms and deposition of pelagic and hemipelagicstrata reflect drowning of the LM that is probablyassociated with some relative rise in sea level andchange in oceanic sea-water composition (Sass andBein, 1982).

In the offshore area, the Cr3.1 and Cr3.2 se-quences are characterized by onlapping seismic re-flections on the preexisting slope (Figure 4), in-terpreted as gravity flows that were emplaced in adeep-water, slope and base-of-slope setting. A sim-ilar depositional setting is interpreted by Wattset al. (1980) in the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiarypelagic chalk of the North Sea, where large-scaleallochthonous units were deposited by debris andturbidite flows. High-order cyclicity in Cr3.1 isinterpreted in the Yam-2 well. The lower part ofthe sequence (2600- to 2730-m [8530- to 8957-ft]depth in Figure 10) is composed of argillaceouschalk and contains chert fragments that were likelytransported to the deep-marine basin by submarinegravity flows during a lowstand. The clean pelagicchalk at the upper part of the sequence (2490- to2600-m [8169- to 8530-ft] depth in Figure 10) isinterpreted as the highstand systems tract of theCr3.1 sequence.

DISCUSSION

Several large-scale stratal stacking trends are pre-sent for the Jurassic and Cretaceous LM, alternat-ing between aggradation, progradation, and back-stepping (Figure 17A). The edge of the platformmargin for the Jr1.2 to Jr3.2 and Cr1.3 to Cr1.5sequences shows an aggradational and backstep-ping pattern (Figure 17A). Concomitant to thatpattern is the overall onlap and infilling within theslope and basinal deposits coeval to the Jr23 toCr1.3 to Cr1.5 platform deposits. Distinct pro-gradation in the carbonate margin occurred in theCr2.1 to Cr2.2 sequences (Figure 17A). The geom-etry of this margin, in cross section, is markedly dif-1788 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southferent from the underlying Jr1 to Cr1 sequences.The platform edges of the Cr2.3 to Cr2.6 se-quences show an overall aggradation and back-stepping pattern similar to the Jr1Cr1 platforms(Figure 17A). To the west, in the deep basin, theCr3 deposits onlap onto the eroded and foldedsurface of the Cr2 sequences.

Where the overall stratal stacking patterns il-lustrated in Figure 17A are integrated with theages of the sequences, a distinct hierarchy of se-quences and systems tracts can be interpreted,consisting of lower and higher order cycles. Inthis stratigraphic framework, the higher order se-quence sets are the systems tracts of the lowerorder sequences (Mitchum and Van Wagoner,1991). For example, the Jr4.1, Cr1.1, and Cr1.2high-order sequences are defined as the lowstandsequence set (LSS) of the Cr1 low-order sequence;and the Cr1.3 to Cr1.5 are its transgressive tohighstand sequence set (TSS-HSS) (Figure 17A).During the time of deposition of the Cr1 sequence,the main depocenter gradually shifted from thebasins center toward its eastern margin, althoughsome deposition occurred within the basin also dur-ing the TSS-HSS stage (Cr1.31.5) (Figure 17A).The Cr2.1 and Cr2.2 high-order sequences aredefined as the LSS of the Cr2 low-order sequence,and Cr2.3 to Cr2.6 high-order sequences are itsTSS-HSS (Figure 17A). Here, again, a shift from aslope and basin depocenter toward the margin isdemonstrated.

The composite sequence hierarchy of the Jr1,Jr2, and Jr3 low-order sequences is less clear pre-sumably because of the lower resolution of seismicand biostratigraphic data. The carbonate platformsof the Jr1.11.2, Jr2.12.3, and Jr3.13.2 se-quences are identified as the transgressive to high-stand sequence sets of Jr1, Jr2, and Jr3, respectively(Figure 17A). The low-order sequences probablyinitiated with a considerable accumulation of sed-iments within the basin, where an LSS was de-veloped (Jr23). Like at the upper part of Cr1,some deposition within the basin may have oc-curred also during the TSS-HSS stages, althoughthe two types of sequence sets are not clearly sep-arated within the basin. Similarly, the Cr3 prob-ably started with a significant deposition withinwestern Israel

Figure 17. (A) Schematicreconstructed cross sec-tion, illustrating the stack-ing patterns of the Jurassicand Cretaceous deposi-tional cycles. High-ordersequences stack into sys-tems tracts of low-ordercomposite sequences. Low-stand sequence sets (LSS)show infilling and pro-gradation, whereas trans-

gressive to highstand se-the basin. At a later stage, deposition occurredacross the entire margin and LSS, and TSS-HSStypes were not confined to a particular area.

The chronostratigraphic diagram in Figure 17Bfurther illustrates the shifts in the loci of the maindepocenters with time and highlight periods oferosion and/or nondeposition that existed in var-ious parts of the basin and margin throughout itsMesozoic history. Particularly long periods of ero-sion or nondeposition (1020 m.y.) characterize

the proximal margin at the end of the Jr3 and Cr2low-order cycles and the deep basin at the end ofthe Jr1 and Cr2 low-order cycles (Figure 17B).Shorter periods of erosion and nondeposition (15 m.y.) are interpreted for most of the high-ordersequence boundaries (Figure 17B). During a rela-tive fall of sea level (lowstand stages), the shelfand upper slope area of the margin were sub-jected to submarine or subaerial erosion, incision,and occasional karstification. During a relative rise

quence sets (TSS-HSS) showbackstepping and aggra-dation of the Tethyan mar-gin. (B) Chronostratigraphic(Wheeler) diagram illustrat-ing shifts of depocentersacross the margins that arepredominantly controlledby eustasy. See text fordiscussion.Gardosh et al. 1789

in sea level (transgressive to highstand stages),the distal part of the basin was either sedimentstarved or accumulated only thin condensed sec-tions (Figure 17B).

Recent studies of Jurassic and Cretaceousdepositional sequences of the Arabian platform(Figure 1B) reveal their relations to eustasy (Sharlandet al., 2004; Haq and Al-Qahtani, 2005). In thestudy area, eustatic control is demonstrated by thelower order sequence boundaries of Jr2, Cr1, andCr3 sequences. These correspond well with globallowering of sea level during the ToarcianAalenian,Tithonian, and TuronianConiacian, respectively(Figure 3) (Hardenbol et al., 1998; Sharland et al.,2004; Haq and Al-Qahtani, 2005). The devel-opment of the carbonate margin during the Jr3and Cr2 TSS-HSS (Figure 17A) corresponds to aCallovianKimmeridgian and late AlbianTuronianeustatic rise, respectively (Figure 3) (Hardenbolet al., 1998; Haq and Al-Qahtani, 2005).

Tectonic activity played an additional role inthe stratigraphic evolution of the LM. The Jr1lower boundary corresponds to a latest Triassic toEarly Jurassic erosional event of regional extentthat coincides with the time of Tethyan rifting inthe easternMediterraneanarea (HaqandAl-Qahtani,2005). The thick accumulations of siliciclastic de-posits on the Levant slope during the NeocomianLSS (Cr1) likely related to magmatic activity, up-lift, and erosion of the centralNegev area (Figure 2A)(Garfunkel, 1998). The Cr2 lower boundary cor-responds to a late Aptian unconformity of regionalextent (Sharland et al., 2004; Haq and Al-Qahtani,2005). This event was probably affected by a mi-nor eustatic drop (Figure 3) (Hardenbol et al.,1998) related to the last pulse of Tethyan riftingin the northeastern Mediterranean.

A recently published relative sea level curvefor the Arabian platform by Haq and Al-Qahtani(2005) shows 29 Jurassic and Cretaceous deposi-tional cycles of short duration. The time of most ofthese cycles coincides with the 22 high-order se-quences recorded in the study area. Thus, theMesozoic stratigraphy of southwestern Israel rep-resents the evolution of the entire southern Te-thys margins that formed on the edges of Arabiaand Africa.1790 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in SouthIMPLICATIONS FOR OIL ANDGAS EXPLORATION

Several onshore and offshore discoveries indicatesignificant hydrocarbon potential in the Mesozoicstrata of western Israel. The sequence and stratalstratigraphic pattern of the Tethyan margin pre-sented here may be applied to explore potentialreservoirs and traps, as demonstrated in the fol-lowing examples.

The Helez oil field, discovered in the 1950s, islocated near the JurassicCretaceous shelf edgeabout 10 km (6.2 mi) east of the modern coast-line (Figures 2B, 5). Since its discovery, the fieldproduced 17 million bbl oil (Gilboa et al., 1990).Themain reservoirs are Lower Cretaceous shallow-marine sandstones (Helez Formation) found nearthe edges of the Cr1.3 and Cr1.4 mixed carbonate-siliciclastic platforms (Figures 12, 14). Althoughthe field is nearly depleted, about 2 million bblrecoverable oil are estimated to be present (Gilboaet al., 1990). Production in the Helez field is af-fected by discontinuity of reservoir beds as re-flected by variations in pressure regimes (Gilboaet al., 1990). Detailed analysis of high-frequencysequences and sequence boundaries may result inimproved reservoir models and enhanced produc-tion from this field.

The Ashdod field is a smaller oil accumula-tion discovered in the 1970s northwest of Helez(Figure 2B). Since its discovery, the field hasproduced about 0.5 million bbl oil from MiddleUpper Jurassic carbonate bank lithofacies (ZoharFormation) found at the edge of the Jr3.1 plat-form (Figures 5, 6). Carbonate banks and buildupscharacterize the shelf edges of the Jr23 platformsalong the LM (Figure 5). Larger petroleum accu-mulations are likely found in this stratigraphic po-sition northeast and southwest of the Ashdod area(Figure 2B).

Significant reservoir potential is found in Ju-rassic and Cretaceous deep-marine strata offshore(Figure 5). Lower Cretaceous turbidite sands andMiddle to Upper Jurassic mass-flow deposits werepenetrated by several offshore wells. These unitscomprise parts of the lowstand systems tracts ofJr23 and Cr1 depositional cycles. Gas shows werewestern Israel

The JurassicCretaceous margins are character-

careous detritus at the continental margin of the Arabiancraton: Sedimentology, v. 23, p. 511532, doi:10.1111ized by a distinct hierarchy of low-order and high-order depositional cycles. Sequence boundariesare inferred from seismic reflection terminations,wireline-log stacking patterns, lithofacies data, andcorrelation to regional unconformities recognizedinland. The architecture of depositional sequencesdemonstrates periodic shifts of depocenters asso-ciated with relative changes in sea level. Aggra-dation and backstepping of carbonate platformscharacterize the MiddleLate Jurassic, late EarlyCretaceous, and late middle Cretaceous margin.Progradation of siliciclastic and carbonate slopescharacterizes the latest JurassicEarly Cretaceousand middle Cretaceous margin. Long periods ofshelf exposure and erosion are recognized in thelatest Jurassic and late middle Cretaceous. Eustasy,combined with regional subsidence, is considereddiscovered in Lower Cretaceous sandstones, andlight oil was tested in the Middle Jurassic carbon-ate in the Yam West-1 and Yam-2 wells, respec-tively (Figure 5). Further study of sediment fair-ways and depositional elements on the Mesozoicslope may contribute to successful exploration inthese types of reservoirs.

Finally, reservoir potential is found in carbon-ate breccias at the base of the Cr2.1 and Cr2.2sequences near the modern coastline (Figures 7, 8,15C). These mass-flow deposits accumulated onthe Levant slope during Albian relative drops ofsea level and were later covered by fine-grainedcarbonate detritus (Figure 15C). High-porosityand significant gas shows found in several wellsindicate good reservoir potential in these units.

CONCLUSIONS

Early Mesozoic breakup was followed by openingof the southern Tethys Ocean and the develop-ment of continental margins along the northernedge of Gondwana. The Mesozoic strata of theproximal margin area, found in the Levant inte-rior, have been previously extensively studied. Thisstudy describes the shelf edge and slope of theTethyan marine basin in the subsurface of south-western Israel and the adjacentMediterranean Sea./j.1365-3091.1976.tb00065.x.Brady, M., 1990, Petrographic description and interpretation

of cuttings from the Yam-2 well (52805325 m) off-shore Israel: Colorado, Harme and Brady GeologicalConsultants Inc., 4 p., 7 plates.

Braun, M., and F. Hirsch, 1994, Mid-Cretaceous (AlbianCenomanian) carbonate platforms in Israel: Madrid,Spain, Cuadernos de Geologia Iberica, v. 18, p. 5981.

Buchbinder, B., 1986, Sedimentology, diagenesis and geneticsubdivision of the Nirim Formation (Lower Jurassic) inthe Helez Deep 1A well: Jerusalem, Israel, GeologicalSurvey of Israel report GSI/23/86.

Buchbinder, B., and M. Price, 1987, Sedimentology and ge-netic subdivision of the Lower Jurassic Nirim Formation(part) in the Talme Yafe 4 borehole: Jerusalem, Israel,Geological Survey of Israel report GSI/6/87.

Buchbinder, L. G., 1979, Facies, environment of depositionand correlation of the Zohar (Brur Calcarenite) Karmonand Shderot formations in the Ashdod area, prepared foras the dominant control over the long-term de-positional trends. The stratigraphic frameworkpresented here for the Tethyan shelf and slope isin accordance with the recently published Meso-zoic sequence stratigraphy of the Arabian plat-form. Therefore, the Levant margin may be takenas a model for reconstructing the evolution ofother Tethyan margins in the region. The resultsfurther predicts the depositional setting of res-ervoirs rocks in the Levant shelf and highlight thepotential for Jurassic and Cretaceous lowstand-type stratigraphic traps on theLevant slope offshoreIsrael, where extensive exploration efforts are cur-rently occurring.

REFERENCES CITED

Arkin, Y., and M. Braun, 1965, Type sections of Upper Creta-ceous formations in the northern Negev, southern Israel:Jerusalem, Israel, Israel Geological Survey stratigraphicsection no. 2a, p. 119.

Bein, A., 1976, Rudistid fringing reefs of Cretaceous shal-low carbonate platform of Israel: AAPG Bulletin, v. 60,p. 258272.

Bein, A., and G. Gvirtzman, 1977, A Mesozoic fossil edge ofthe Arabian plate along the Levant coastline and its bear-ing on the evolution of the eastern Mediterranean, in B.Biju-Duval and L. Montadert, eds., Structural historyof the Mediterranean basins: Paris, Editions Technip,p. 95110.

Bein, A., and Y. Weiler, 1976, The Cretaceous Talme YafeFormation: A contour shaped sedimentary prism of cal-Gardosh et al. 1791

Oil Exploration (Investments) Ltd.: Jerusalem, Israel,Geological Survey of Israel report OD/3/79.

Buchbinder, L. G., 1981, Dolomitization, porosity develop-ment and late mineralization in the Jurassic Zohar (BrurCalcarenite) and Sederot formations in Ashdod-GanYavne: Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 30, no. 23,p. 6480.

Cohen, Z., 1971, The geology of the Lower Cretaceous in theHelez field, Israel: Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University ofJerusalem, Israel, 98 p.

Cohen, Z., 1976, Early Cretaceous buried canyon: Influenceon accumulation of hydrocarbons in the Helez oil field,Israel: AAPG Bulletin, v. 60, p. 108114.

Derin, B., 1974, The Jurassic of central and northern Israel:Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel,152 p.

Derin, B., 1979, Helez Deep 1A, Stratigraphic log: Israel In-stitute of Petroleum, report no. 1/79, scale 1:2000, 1 sheet.

Derin, B., S. Lipson, and E. Gerry, 1983, Biostratigraphy andpaleoenvironments of the Beeri West-1 borehole, south-ern coastal plain, Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel, Israel Instituteof Petroleum and Energy report 1/83, 20 p.

Derin, B., S. Lipson, E. Gerry, and S. Moshkovitz, 1988a,Biostratigraphy and paleoenvironments of the Ashkelon-2borehole, southern coastal plain, Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel,Israel Institute of Petroleum and Energy report 4/88,23 p.

Derin, B., S. Lipson, E. Gerry, and S. Moshkovitz, 1988b,Biostratigraphy and paleoenvironments of Bravo-1 well,offshore central Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel, Israel Institute ofPetroleum and Energy report 3/88, 24 p.

Derin, B., S. Lipson, and E. Gerry, 1990, Microbiostratigra-phy and environments of deposition of the Yam 2 off-shore well: Tel Aviv, Israel, Israel Institute of Petroleumand Energy report 5/90, 24 p.

Droxler, A. W., W. Schlager and C. C. Whallon, 1983,Quaternary aragonite cycles and oxygen-isotope recordin Bahamian carbonate ooze: Geology, v. 11, p. 235239, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1983)112.0.CO;2.

Druckman, Y., 1974, The stratigraphy of the Triassic se-quence in southern Israel: Geological Survey of IsraelBulletin, v. 64, 92 p.

Druckman, Y., 1984, Evidence for Early Middle Triassicfaulting and possible rifting from the Helez Deep bore-hole and the coastal plain of Israel, in J. E. Dixon andA. H. F. Robertson, eds., The geological evolution of theeastern Mediterranean: Geological Society (London)Special Publication 17, p. 203212.

Fleischer, L., and A. Varshavsky, 2002, A lithostratigraphicdatabase of oil and gas wells drilled in Israel: Ministry ofNational Infrastructure, Oil and Gas Unit Report OG/9/02: Jerusalem, Israel, Geological Survey of Israel, 280 p.

Flexer, A., 1968, Stratigraphy and facies development ofMount Scopus Group (SenonianPaleocene) in Israeland adjacent countries: Israel Journal of Earth Sciences,v. 17, p. 85114.

Flexer, A., A. Rosenfeld, S. Lipson-Benitah, and A. Honigstein,1986, Relative sea level changes during the Cretaceousin Israel: AAPG Bulletin, v. 70, p. 16851699.1792 Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in SouthGardosh, M. A., 2002, The sequence stratigraphy and petro-leum systems of the Mesozoic, southeastern Mediterra-nean continental margin: Ph.D. thesis, Tel Aviv Univer-sity, Israel, 159 p.

Gardosh, M., and Y. Druckman, 2006, Seismic stratigraphy,structure and tectonic evolution of the Levantine Basin,offshore Israel, inA. H. F. Robertson and D. Mountrakis,eds., Tectonic development of the eastern Mediterra-nean region: Geological Society (London) Special Publi-cation 260, p. 201227.

Garfunkel, Z., 1998, Constraints on the origin and history ofthe eastern Mediterranean Basin: Tectonophysics, v. 298,p. 535, doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00176-0.

Garfunkel, Z., and B. Derin, 1984, Permianearly Mesozoictectonism and continental margin formation in Israeland its implications for the history of the eastern Med-iterranean, in J. E. Dixon and A. H. F. Robertson, eds.,The geological evolution of the eastern Mediterranean:Geological Society (London) Special Publication 17,201 p.

Gelbermann, E., P. Thacker, and U. Amitai, 1980, Deep wellvelocity data, review and interpretation: Holon, Israel,Institute for Petroleum Research and Geophysics re-port 5/501/78.

Gilboa, Y., H. Fligelman, and B. Derin, 1990, Heletz-Brur-Kokhav field, Israel, southern coastal plain, in E. A.Beaumont and N. H. Foster, eds., Structural traps IV:Tectonic and nontectonic fold traps: AAPG Treatise ofPetroleum Geology, Atlas of Oil and Gas Fields, p. 319345.

Gill, D., B. H. Conway, Y. Eshet, S. Lipson, L. Perelis-Grossowicz, A. Rosenfeld, and R. Siman-Tov, 1995, Thestratigraphy of the YamWest 1 borehole: Jerusalem, Is-rael, Geological Survey of Israel report GSI/13/95,43 p.

Goldberg, M., and G. M. Friedman, 1974, Paleoenviron-ments and paleogeographic evolution of the Jurassic sys-tem in southern Israel: Geological Survey of Israel Bulle-tin, no. 61, 44 p.

Gvirtzman, G., and Z. Reiss, 1965, Stratigraphic nomencla-ture in the coastal plain andHashefela regions: Jerusalem,Israel, Geological Survey of Israel report OD/1/65, 14 p.

Gvirtzman, G., A. Almogi-Labin, S. Moshkovitz, Z. Lewy,A. Honigstein, and Z. Reiss, 1989, Upper Cretaceoushigh resolution multiple stratigraphy, northern marginof the Arabian platform, central Israel: Cretaceous Re-search, v. 10, p. 107135, doi:10.1016/0195-6671(89)90001-3.

Handford, C. R., and R. G. Loucks, 1993, Carbonate deposi-tional sequences and systems tracts: Responses of carbon-ate platforms to relative sea level changes, in R. G. Loucksand J. F. Sarg, eds., Carbonate sequence stratigraphy re-cent developments and application: AAPG Memoir 57,p. 341.

Haq, B. U., and A. M. Al-Qahtani, 2005, Phanerozoic cyclesof sea level change on the Arabian platform: GeoArabia,v. 10, no. 2, p. 127160.

Haq, B. U., J. Hardenbol, and P. R. Vail, 1988, Mesozoic andCenozoic chronostratigraphy and cycles of sea levelchanges, in C. K. Wilgus, B. S. Hastings, C. G. St. C.western Israel

Kendall, H. W. Posamentier, C. A. Ross, and J. C. VanWagoner, eds., Sea-level changes: An integrated ap-proach: SEPM Special Publication 42, p. 71108.

Hardenbol, J., J. Thierry, M. B. Farley, T. Jacquin, P. C. deGraciansky, and P. R. Vail, 1998, Mesozoic and Ceno-zoic sequence-chronostratigraphic chart, in P. C. deGraciansky, J. Hardenbol, T. Jacquin, and P. R. Vail,eds., Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy ofEuropean basins: SEPM Special Publication 60, 786 p.

Hirsch, F., J. P. Bassoullet, E. Cariou, B. Conway, H. R.Feldman, L. Grossowicz, A. Honigstein, E. F. Owen,and A. Rosenfeld, 1998, The Jurassic of the southern Le-vant: Biostratigraphy, paleogeography and cyclic events,in S. Crasquin-Soleau and E. Barrier, eds., Peri-TethysMemoir 4: Epicratonic basins of Peri-Tethyan platforms:Memoir of the Natural History Museum 179, p. 213235.

Lipson-Benitah, S., 1994, Cenomanian stratigraphical micro-paleontology of shelf deposits, Israel: Revista Espanolade Micropaleontologia, v. XXVI, no. 3, p. 83100.

Lipson-Benitah, S., A. Flexer, A. Rosenfield, A. Honigstein,B. Conway, and H. Eris, 1990, Dysoxic sedimentation inthe CenomanianTuronian Daliyya Formation, Israel:Deposition of organic facies, in A. Y. Huc, ed., AAPGStudies in Geology 30, p. 2740.

Mitchum Jr., R. M., and J. C. Van Wagoner, 1991, High-

Robertson, A. H. F., 1998, MesozoicTertiary tectonic evolu-tion of the easternmost Mediterranean area: Integrationof marine and land evidence, inA. H. F. Robertson, K. C.Eneis, C. Richter, and A. Camerlenghi, eds., Proceedingsof the Ocean Drilling Program, scientific results, no. 160,p. 723782.

Rosenfeld, A., F. Hirsch, A. Honigstein and M. Raab, 1998,The paleoenvironment of Early Cretaceous ostracods inIsrael: Bulletin du Centre de Recherches Elf ExplorationProduction Mmoire 20, p. 179195.

Sarg, J. F., 1988, Carbonate sequence stratigraphy, in C. K.Wilgus, B. S. Hastings, C. G. St. C. Kendall, H. W.Posamentier,C.A.Ross and J.C.VanWagoner, eds., Sea-level changes: An integrated approach: SEPM SpecialPublication 42, p. 155181.

Sass, E., and A. Bein, 1982, The Cretaceous carbonate plat-form in Israel: Cretaceous Research, v. 3, p. 135144,doi:10.1016/0195-6671(82)90014-3.

Sharland, P. R., D. M. Casey, R. B. Davies, M. D. Simmons,and O. E. Sutcliffe, 2004, Arabian Plate sequence stratig-raphy: GeoArabia, v. 9, no. 1, p. 199214 and 2 posters.

Shenhav, H., 1971, Lower Cretaceous sandstone reservoirs,Israel: Petrography, porosity, permeability: AAPG Bul-letin, v. 55, p. 21942224.

Sneh, A., Y. Bartov, T. Weisbrood, and M. Rosensaft, 1998,Geological map of Israel: Israel Geological Survey,stratigraphic evidence of high-frequency eustatic cycles:Sedimentary Geology, v. 70, p. 135144.

Ramsayer, G. R., 1979, Seismic stratigraphy: A fundamen-tal exploration tool: Proceedings of the Offshore Tech-nology Conference, Houston, Texas, v. 3, p. 18591867.

Read, J. F., 1985, Carbonate platform facies models: AAPGBulletin, v. 69, p. 121.1:2,000,000, 4 sheets.Watts, N. L., J. F. Lapre, F. S. Van Schijndel-Goester, and A.

Ford, 1980, Upper Creataceous and lower Tertiarychalks of the Albuskjell area, North Sea: Deposition ina slope and a base-of-slope environment: Geology, v. 8,p. 217221, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1980)82.0.CO;2.frequency sequences and their stacking patterns: Sequence-Gardosh et al. 1793

HOME:

NEXT:

PREVIOUS:

October:

CONTENTS:

SEARCH: