Erosion and uplift uncertainties in the Barents Sea, Norway

Abstract

Three different types of methods are used to assess the ability to determine erosion amounts and to provide estimates of uncertainty. In the situation of dynamical indicator methods, such as seismic velocity, sonic logs, density logs, or drilling exponent methods, intrinsic assumptions and parameter values used provide only a broad statement on the resolution of uplift/erosion events. None of the methods is more accurate, at best, to better than ± 1 km and likely much worse. For geological model procedures, exemplified by considerations of Airy isostasy and by bed upturning near a salt dome in the Nordkapp Basin of the Barents Sea, the uncertainties are again of the order of ± 500–1000 m. With thermal indicator procedures, the bulk of the constraint information from available data is needed to determine paleoheat flux with little left over to constrain the erosion, implying a minimum uncertainty of ± 500 m on erosion determinations. No method seems capable of resolving erosional events to better than a minimum uncertainty of ± 500 m, and likely no better than ± 1 km.