The Bouma Sequence and the turbidite mind set

Abstract

Conventionally, the Bouma Sequence [Bouma, A.H., 1962. Sedimentology of some Flysch Deposits: A Graphic Approach to Facies Interpretation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 168 pp.], composed of T a, T b, T c, T d, and T e divisions, is interpreted to be the product of a turbidity current. However, recent core and outcrop studies show that the complete and partial Bouma sequences can also be interpreted to be deposits formed by processes other than turbidity currents, such as sandy debris flows and bottom-current reworking. Many published examples of turbidites, most of them hydrocarbon-bearing sands, in the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea, offshore Nigeria, offshore Gabon, Gulf of Mexico, and the Ouachita Mountains, are being reinterpreted by the present author as dominantly deposits of sandy debris flows and bottom-current reworking with only a minor percentage of true turbidites (i.e., deposits of turbidity currents with fluidal or Newtonian rheology in which sediment is suspended by fluid turbulence). This reinterpretation is based on detailed description of 21,000 ft (6402 m) of conventional cores and 1200 ft (365 m) of outcrop sections. The predominance of interpreted turbidites in these areas by other workers can be attributed to the following: (1) loose applications of turbidity-current concepts without regard for fluid rheology, flow state, and sediment-support mechanism that result in a category of ‘turbidity currents’ that includes debris flows and bottom currents; (2) field description of deep-water sands using the Bouma Sequence (an interpretive model) that invariably leads to a model-driven turbidite interpretation; (3) the prevailing turbidite mind set that subconsciously forces one to routinely interpret most deep-water sands as some kind of turbidites; (4) the use of our inability to interpret transport mechanism from the depositional record as an excuse for assuming deep-water sands as deposits of turbidity currents; (5) the flawed concept of high-density turbidity currents that allows room for interpreting debris-flow deposits as turbidites; (6) the flawed comparison of subaerial river currents (fluid-gravity flows dominated by bed-load transport) with subaqueous turbidity currents (sediment-gravity flows dominated by suspended load transport) that results in misinterpreting ungraded or parallel-stratified deep-sea deposits as turbidites; and (7) the attraction to use obsolete submarine-fan models with channels and lobes that require a turbidite interpretation. Although the turbidite paradigm is alive and well for now, the turbidites themselves are becoming an endangered facies!