The Sequence Stratigraphy of Mesozoic Successions in The Levant Margin

CONTENTS
The sequence stratigraphy of

Mesozoic successions in the
Levant margin, southwestern
Israel: A model for the evolution
of southern Tethys margins
Michael Gardosh, Paul Weimer, and Akiva Flexer
ABSTRACT
The Levant margin, in the subsurface of the eastern Mediterranean area, formed during the early Mesozoic following
rifting and subsequent opening of the southern Tethys Ocean.
This work describes the stratigraphic evolution of the shelf
edge and slope for this margin in southwestern Israel and in
the adjacent Mediterranean Sea. The study is based on the
interpretation of 27 wells and 92 seismic reflection lines totaling 2000 km (1243 mi). Depositional sequences and sequence boundaries of the Jurassic and the Cretaceous age inferred from seismic reflection terminations, wireline-log stacking
patterns, lithofacies, and biostratigraphic data. Six low-order
and 22 high-order depositional cycles were identified. Their
stratigraphic architecture reflects shifts of depocenters from
the basin to its margin, controlled by eustasy and regional subsidence. Aggrading and backstepping of carbonate platforms in
the Levant shelf is associated with relative rises in sea level.
Progradation of siliciclastic and carbonate slopes toward the
basin is related to relative drops in sea level. The stratigraphic
framework of the Levant margin presented here is in accordance with recently published Mesozoic sequence stratigraphy of the Arabian platform, therefore, it may be used as a
working model for reconstructing other rifted Tethyan margins in the region. This study further emphasizes the reservoir
potential of Jurassic and Cretaceous deep-water lowstand
wedges offshore Israel, where extensive exploration efforts are
currently occurring.
Copyright 2011. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Manuscript received August 4, 2009; provisional acceptance November 4, 2009; revised manuscript
received October 18, 2010; final acceptance February 8, 2011.
DOI:10.1306/02081109135
AAPG Bulletin, v. 95, no. 10 (October 2011), pp. 17631793
1763
OCTOBER
SEARCH
AUTHORS
Michael Gardosh Oil and Gas Unit, Israel
Ministry of Infrastructures, 234 Jaffa St., Jerusalem 36148, Israel; gardoshim@gmail.com
Michael Gardosh received his Ph.D. in geophysics from Tel Aviv University. He worked for the
Israel National Oil Company from 1990 to 1997
and for the Geophysical Institute of Israel from
1997 to 2010. Presently, he is the director of
the Geophysical Section in the Israel Ministry
of Infrastructure. His research interests are the
stratigraphy, structure, tectonic evolution, and
petroleum systems of the eastern Mediterranean region.
Paul Weimer Energy and Minerals Applied
Research Center, Department of Geological
Sciences, Colorado University, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0399; paul.weimer@colorado.edu
Paul Weimer holds the Benson Endowed Chair
of the Department of Geological Sciences and
serves as the director of the Energy and Minerals
Applied Research Center. He is the president
of AAPG in 20112012.
Akiva Flexer Department of Geophysics
and Planetary Sciences, Tel-Aviv University,
Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel; akiva@terra.tau.ac.il
Akiva Flexer is professor (emeritus) of geology
in Tel Aviv University. For more than 40 yr,
he has studied the geology of Israel and adjacent
areas. His areas of interests are stratigraphy
and basin analysis, Cretaceous research, geology of the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean, geohydrology, and environmental studies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank S. Baker, Y. Druckman, I. Bruner, and
U. Frieslander for their help and useful comments during various stages of this study. Thanks
are due to the Geophysical Institute of Israel
staff and in particular to J. Steinberg, R. Gafso,
and Y. Menachem for technical assistance. The
continuous support of N. Silverman is greatly
appreciated. Comments by AAPG reviewers Nick
Fryer, George T. Bertram, and an anonymous
reviewer clarified many aspects of this work.
The AAPG Editor thanks the following reviewers
for their work on this paper: George T. Bertram,
Nick Fryer, and an anonymous reviewer.
5
4
3
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
The continental shelf and slope of the Mesozoic is
found in the subsurface of the eastern Mediterranean Sea, along the southwestern edge of the Levant region: a geographic area that encompasses
western Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and northern
Sinai (Figure 1A). This Mesozoic shelf and slope
that formed part of the southern continental margins
of the Tethys Ocean (Bein and Gvirtzman, 1977;
Garfunkel and Derin, 1984) are termed in this study
the Levant margin (LM). The evolution of the LM
followed continental breakup, rifting, and subsequent opening of the Tethys north of the Gondwana supercontinent (Figure 1B) (Garfunkel, 1998;
Robertson, 1998). Cenozoic plate collision resulted
with closure of the Tethys Ocean and widespread
destruction of Mesozoic marine basins. The southwestern Levant region remained, however, several
hundred kilometers south of the Africa-Eurasia collision front (Figure 1A) and was only mildly deformed. Because of its relatively shallow burial depth
(16 km) and the available extensive exploration
database, this area is an ideal location for studying
the Levant part of the Tethyan rifted margins.
The Mesozoic shelf edge of the Levant underlies the southeastern Mediterranean coastal area
(Figure 2A). Mesozoic rocks that crop out east
and south of the coast (Figure 2A) are composed
of coarse-grained siliciclastic and carbonate strata
of continental to shallow-marine origin (Figure 3).
In contrast, Jurassic and Cretaceous strata that were
penetrated by wells in the southeastern Mediterranean Sea are dominated by fine-grained deepwater deposits (Figure 3) (Bein and Gvirtzman,
1977). Most previous works provide descriptions
of either the shallow-marine (Arkin and Braun,
1965; Flexer, 1968; Druckman, 1974; Goldberg and
Friedman, 1974) or the deep-marine lithostratigraphic units (Cohen, 1971, 1976; Derin, 1974; Bein
and Weiler, 1976; Flexer et al., 1986). A systematic stratigraphic summary of the Mesozoic shelf
edge and slope environment in the Levant region
is, however, not yet available. The purpose of this
article is to present an integrated study of well and
seismic data that places previous lithostratigraphic
interpretation of the LM into a modern sequence1764
OCTOBER
SEARCH
stratigraphic framework. Our analysis provides a

working model for reconstructing the evolution of
other southern Tethys margins, thus, comprising an
important addition to the global Tethyan database.
The Jurassic and Cretaceous successions of
southwestern Israel host several hydrocarbon accumulations. Oil and gas were produced from the
Helez, Ashdod, and Sadot fields onshore (Figure 2B),
whereas significant oil and gas shows were found in
Yam-2 and Yam West-1 wells offshore (Figure 2B).
An additional purpose of this article is to identify
potential reservoir intervals within the studied Mesozoic depositional sequences.
DATA SET
The study covers an area of 100 100 km (62
62 mi) on the coastal plain and adjacent Mediterranean Sea, extending from central Israel to
northern Sinai (Figures 1A, 2A). Hydrocarbon exploration activity resulted in acquisition of a dense
seismic grid and about 150 wells in this area. Part
of this extensive data set was used in the present
analysis (Gardosh, 2002). The seismic data include
92 land and marine two-dimensional seismic reflection lines totaling 2000 km (1243 mi), acquired
during the 1970s to early 1990s. Borehole data
include 23 onshore wells and four offshore wells.
Most of the studied wells reached the Lower to
Upper Jurassic stratigraphic levels. The Helez
Deep-1 well (Figure 2B) penetrated the entire
Mesozoic succession. Well and seismic data were
integrated on an interpretation workstation through
synthetic seismograms and time-converted wireline logs (Gelbermann et al., 1980). Lithologic descriptions and biostratigraphic information were
taken from previously published composite logs,
well completion reports, and related studies.
TECTONIC SETTING AND

STRATIGRAPHIC EVOLUTION
The early evolution of the LM is associated with the
late Paleozoic to early Mesozoic breakup and rifting
of northern Gondwana (Garfunkel and Derin, 1984;
Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Figure 1. (A) Location map

of the study area showing the
shaded topography, bathymetry,
and main tectonic elements of
the eastern Mediterranean region. Major fault zones and plate
boundaries are shown in heavy
white lines. (B) A paleotectonic
reconstruction of the Tethyan rift
system during the early Mesozoic. Modified from Robertson
(1998) and Garfunkel (1998).
Garfunkel, 1998; Robertson, 1998). A regional horst

and graben system consisting of northeast to southwest striking sets of normal faults developed, more
or less parallel to the modern coastline throughout
the Levant onshore and offshore (Garfunkel, 1998;
Gardosh and Druckman, 2006). Well and seismic
data reveal thickness variations that indicate several kilometers of vertical offset on individual fault
blocks (Garfunkel and Derin, 1984; Garfunkel,
1998). The strata of the Triassic Ramon Group and
the Lower Jurassic lower part of the Arad Group
(Figure 3) found in southern and central Israel are
composed of limestone, dolomite, siliciclastic, and
evaporite successions (Druckman, 1974; Goldberg
and Friedman, 1974), indicating that at the time
of rifting, the southern Levant region was located
in a wide continental to shallow-marine platform.
Seismic reflection data further suggest that the
early Mesozoic platform extended into the modern
offshore area (Figure 4) (Gardosh and Druckman,
2006). Rifting was associated with extrusive and
intrusive magmatism, particularly during the Early
Jurassic and resulted in modification and thinning
of the Levant crust (Garfunkel, 1998).
By the Middle to Late Jurassic, faulting and
rifting activity in the Levant region mostly ceased
(Garfunkel and Derin, 1984; Garfunkel, 1998).

Cooling and thermal subsidence of the attenuated
crust was followed by the development of a deepmarine basin bordered to the east and south by a
shallow-marine shelf (Figure 5). The Middle Jurassic to middle Cretaceous paleogeography is
reflected by the distribution of lithostratigraphic
units. Jurassic and Cretaceous strata of the Arad,
Kurnub, and Judea groups found in outcrops inland are dominated by platformal carbonate and
siliciclastic strata (Figures 2A, 3, 5) (Arkin and
Braun, 1965; Cohen, 1971; Derin, 1974; Goldberg
and Friedman, 1974). The coeval strata of the
Delta, Gevaram, and Talme Yafe groups found
offshore are dominated by deep-marine shale and
marl (Figures 3, 5) (Cohen, 1971; Derin, 1974; Bein
and Weiler, 1976). In the southern coastal plain,
the depositional hinge belt that separates these facies belts is a 10- to 20-km (6.2- to 12.4-mi)-wide
zone located near the modern coastline (Figure 5).
A paleographic change associated with regional plate organization and closure of the Tethys
Ocean occurred during the Senonian to Paleogene. The middle Cretaceous carbonate platforms
of the LM were covered by the widespread deeper
marine chalk and marl of the Mount Scopus and
Gardosh et al.
1765
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Figure 2. (A) Schematic geologic map showing the distribution of Mesozoic strata in outcrops (modified from Sneh et al., 1998) and
location 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. The
locations 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 = Hof
Ashdod-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 Jurassic
Cretaceous shelf edge.
Hashefela groups (Figure 3) (Gvirtzman and Reiss,

1965; Flexer, 1968) present in outcrops and wells
throughout the Levant region.
SEQUENCE-STRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Methodology
The sequence-stratigraphic study of the Mesozoic
succession in the LM integrates seismic and well
1766
data. Onlap and truncation surfaces, interpreted as

potential sequence boundaries with regional extent, have been identified in seismic profiles through
seismic reflection terminations and internal reflection configuration patterns. On wireline logs, these
unconformity surfaces are correlated to the bottoms and tops of characteristic funnel-shaped and
bell-shaped log-stacking patterns. Exposure of the
Mesozoic shelf is indicated for some of the unconformity surfaces by paleosols and mineralization phenomena associated with karstification. Planktonic
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
5
4
3
SEARCH
Figure 3. Stratigraphic summary of the Levant margin showing depositional sequences that are described in this study. Chronostratigraphic ages are taken from Hardenbol et al. (1998), and global eustatic curve and supercycles are from Haq et al. (1988), calibrated
to the Hardenbol et al. (1998) time frame. Lithostratigraphic units for the Levant basin and shelf are adapted from the stratigraphic table
of Fleischer and Varshavsky (2002).
foraminifera and ostracod zonations, described in

biostratigraphic studies and well reports, were used
to establish the chronostratigraphic framework of
Jurassic and Cretaceous depositional cycles. Micropalentologic evidence for paleoenvironmental in-
terpretation is mostly unavailable, although several studies of Lower Cretaceous ostracods were
used to interpret paleowater depths.
The sequence analysis of the JurassicCretaceous shelf and slope shows two levels of cyclicity
Gardosh et al.
1767
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Figure 4. Composite seismic

profile across the Levant margin,
(A) uninterpreted or (B) interpreted, showing proposed loworder Mesozoic depositional sequences, six wireline-log ties,
and interpreted structures. Normal faults are associated with
the Paleozoic to early Mesozoic
extension; and high-angle reverse faults and folds are related
to latest Cretaceous to early
Cenozoic transpression. See
Figure 2B for location of seismic
profiles and Figure 3 for the
age of depositional sequences.
TWT = two-way traveltime.
(Figure 3). Following sequence-stratigraphic conventions, these are correlated with low-order cycles that reflect global tectonoeustatic sea level
changes of 10 to 40 m.y. time spans; and highorder cycles that are associated with environmental and tectonic events of 1 to 10 m.y. time spans
(Haq et al., 1988). The alphanumeric system used
here for low-order cycles (Figure 3) is a modified
version of time-stratigraphic units of Fleischer
and Varshavsky (2002). Cretaceous stratigraphic
units are referred to in this article by the terms
lower for the NeocomianAptian, middle for the
AlbianTuronian, and upper for the Coniacian
Maastrichtian (Figure 3). This informal subdivision
that is commonly used by local geologists (Flexer
1768
et al., 1986) reflects the three distinct lithologies

of the Cretaceous succession in the Levant area.
Jurassic Depositional Sequences
The Jurassic is associated with an early evolutionary stage of the LM. Shallow-marine carbonate
platforms that extended throughout the Levant
onshore and offshore characterize the Lower Jurassic (Figures 3, 5). Middle to Upper Jurassic
strata show a well-defined carbonate shelf edge
and slope east of a deep-marine basin (Figure 5).
Regional unconformities separate three low-order
depositional cycles of the Early, Middle, and Late
Jurassic.
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
5
4
3
SEARCH
Figure 5. Regional geologic section across the study area from the onshore to the offshore showing the structure, lithology, and
proposed low-order depositional sequences of the LM. The section illustrates the change in depositional setting from a TriassicEarly
Jurassic platform to Middle JurassicLate Cretaceous marine basin. A JurassicCretaceous carbonate shelf developed on the edge of the
basin that filled with fine-grained carbonate and siliciclastic strata. Folds and reverse fault are associated with the inversion of early
Mesozoic rift structures. The section is constructed from well and seismic data presented in Figure 4; see Figure 2B for location.
The Jr1 Depositional Sequence

(PliensbachianLower Aalenian)
The Jr1 low-order sequence (Figure 3) is a 1000to 1500-m (3281- to 4921-ft)-thick Lower Jurassic
succession. Coeval stratigraphic units crop out in
the Ramon area (Figure 2A) and were penetrated
by wells in central and southern Israel. East and
south of the study area, the Jr1 sequence comprises extensive platforms of shallow-marine carbonate, interlayerd with sandstone and evaporite
beds (Figure 3). The shallow-marine carbonate
platforms extend to the modern coastline and the
adjacent Mediterranean Sea (Figure 5).
The lower boundary of Jr1 is a regional unconformity surface of the Late Triassic to the Early
Jurassic (Figure 3) (Druckman, 1974; Goldberg
and Friedman, 1974). In the Helez Deep-1 well

(Figure 5), this unconformity is identified at the
base of shale that is several tens of meters thick
and is composed of red-brown claystone containing ferruginous pisolites and clay particles that
overlie Triassic limestone (4812 m [15,787 ft] in
Figure 6). Druckman (1984) correlates this red
shale with the Mishor Clay that crops out in the
Ramon area (Figure 2A, 3). This Lower Jurassic
continental unit is interpreted to have been deposited over a subaerially exposed and karstified
Triassic shelf (Druckman, 1974, 1984; Goldberg
and Friedman, 1974). On seismic profiles, the lower
sequence boundary of Jr1 appears as a continuous
high-amplitude reflection at the top of the Triassic
succession (Figure 7).
Gardosh et al.
1769
CONTENTS
1770
OCTOBER
SEARCH
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Figure 7. Composite seismic profile,

(A) uninterpreted or (B) interpreted,
across the shelf and upper slope area of
the JurassicCretaceous margin, showing
proposed high-order depositional sequences and the time-based gamma-ray
logs of the NirAm-4 and Ashkelon-3 wells.
Sequence boundaries (white lines) are
interpreted from onlapping and downlapping reflection terminations (black arrows) and well ties. See Figure 2B for
the location of the profile.
In the study area, the Jr1 sequence is composed

primarily of interbedded limestone and dolomite
(Figure 6). Micropaleontologic and sedimentologic
studies of the lithostratigraphic equivalents Ardon
and Qeren formations (Figure 3) indicate that the

carbonate was deposited on a low-energy shallowmarine 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 framework, 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-log
trends are interpreted as upward coarsening of the carbonate facies during highstands. Shale breaks overlying postulated sequence
boundaries are interpreted as lowstand to transgressive systems tracts. See location of well in Figure 2B. T.D. = total depth; K.B. = kelly
bushing.
Gardosh et al.
1771
5
4
3
CONTENTS
Jr1.1 and Jr1.2, are recognized within the Jr1

carbonate interval. These are characterized by
subtle funnel-shaped patterns of gamma-ray and
spontaneous potential (SP) logs that are interpreted as shallowing-upward trends of the carbonate facies (Figure 6). A change from lower to
higher energy depositional environment (mud to
grainstone) present in the carbonate strata corresponding to the upper part of Jr1.2 (Buchbinder,
1986; Buchbinder and Price, 1987) supports the
wireline-log interpretation. The strata of Jr1.1 contain the foraminifer O. primaeva of the Hettangian
Sinemurian to Pliensbachian (Derin, 1979; Hirsch
et al., 1998), whereas the Jr1.2 strata contain the
foraminifers O. praecurser, Mayancina, and D. cayeuxi, indicating the Pliensbachian to Aalenian
age (Derin, 1979).
The Jr1.2 lower sequence boundary is correlated to the bottom of the shale or argillaceous
carbonate bed found in the Helez Deep-1 and
Talme Yafe-4 wells (Figures 6, 8) that indicate
possible exposure of the shelf. In the Talme Yafe4 well, this shale (at 3970 m [13,025 ft]) overlies
traces of paleosol, thus suggesting a period of
emergence and subaerial weathering (Buchbinder
and Price, 1987). The shaly interval between Jr1.1
and Jr1.2 is likely correlative to an unconformity
of regional extent corresponding to the base of the
Lower Inmar Formation (Figure 3) (Goldberg and
Friedman, 1974). This siliciclastic unit of the Early
Jurassic found in outcrops in the Ramon area and
wells in northern Negev (Figure 2A) is interpreted
by Hirsch et al. (1998) as a regressive interval that
reflects a relative drop of sea level between early
Toarcian (Ardon Formation) and ToarcianAalenian
(Qeren Formation) highstands (Figure 3).
In the offshore, the Jr1 sequence comprises a
200-m (656-ft)-thick carbonate succession at the
bottom of the Yam West-1 well (Figures 5, 9, 10).
Foraminifera biozonation indicates Pliensbachian
to 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 thin
shale bed found in Yam West-1 at a depth of
5080 m (16,667 ft) (Figure 9). This postulated
upper sequence boundary corresponds to a continuous high-amplitude seismic reflection (Figure 4),
1772
OCTOBER
SEARCH
interpreted as the top of the Jr1 carbonate platform (Figure 5).

The Jr2 Depositional Sequence (Upper
AalenianBathonian)
The Jr2 low-order sequence is a 1000- to 1500-m
(3281- to 4921-ft)-thick Middle Jurassic succession (Figure 3). Coeval stratigraphic units crop out
in the Ramon area (Figure 2A) and were penetrated by wells in central and southern Israel. East
and south of the study area, the Jr2 sequence
comprises extensive platforms of shallow-marine
carbonate, interlayered with sandstones and shales
(Figure 3). Carbonate platforms extend to the
modern coastline. In the adjacent Mediterranean
Sea, the Jr2 sequence is dominated by shale and
carbonate slope deposits (Figure 5).
The lower boundary of Jr2 is a regional unconformity of the Middle Jurassic (Figure 3). In
the Helez Deep-1, Talme Yafe-1, and Helez-22
wells near the coastline, the boundary is correlated to the base of a several tens of meters thick
shale bed (Figures 6, 8), containing thin layers of
sandstone and limestone. Pervasive dolomitization
associated with paleokarst is found below the shale
(Buchbinder, 1986), possibly indicating exposure
of the shelf. On seismic profiles, the boundary is
a continuous high-amplitude reflection that is
probably associated with the velocity/density contrast between the shale and the underlying carbonate (Figure 7, between 2 and 2.8 s). The lower
boundary of Jr2 is likely coeval with the bases of
the Rosh Pina Formation found in the subsurface of northern and southern Israel and the upper Inmar Formation that crop out in the Negev
area (Figures 2A, 3) (Derin, 1974; Goldberg and
Friedman, 1974). In these areas, the two lithostratigraphic units comprise thick siliciclastic intervals that are interpreted to have been associated
with a relative drop of sea level and emergence of
the Jurassic platform during the Aalenian (Figure 3)
(Hirsch et al., 1998).
In the eastern part of the study area, the Jr2
strata are composed of limestone with some interbedded shale of the Daya, Barnea, and Shederot
formations (Figure 6). Micropaleontologic and
sedimentologic studies show that the carbonate
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Gardosh et al.
1773
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 Jurassic
Cretaceous shelf and upper slope area. Alternating progradational and onlapping stratal patterns within the Mesozoic sequences are projected from nearby seismic profiles. See Figure 2B
for the location of the profile and Figure 5 for the key. M.S.L. = mean sea level; V/H = vertical/horizontal.
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
SEARCH
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-stratigraphic
framework, chronostratigraphy (from Gill et al., 1995), and lithostratigraphic units (from Fleischer and Varshavsky, 2002). The Mesozoic
depositional sequences in this well (Jr13, Cr13) are dominated by fine-grained siliciclastic and carbonate strata that accumulated on
the lower slope and deep-marine basin. Cretaceous high-order sequence boundaries are correlated to the bases of bell-shaped wirelinelog trends interpreted as fining-upward turbidite systems. See Figure 2B for the location of the profile and Figure 6 for the key to log
trends and lithology. LST = lowstand systems tract; HST = highstand systems tract; TST = transgressive systems tract.
facies of these stratigraphic units were deposited in

shallow-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 sequence. In wireline logs, these three sequences form
1774
subtle funnel-shaped patterns of gamma-ray, SP,

and sonic logs (Figure 6) that are interpreted as
shallowing-upward trends of the carbonate facies.
High-energy reefoidal and oolitic limestone found
in the upper parts of these units in the Helez
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
5
4
3
SEARCH
Figure 10. Stratigraphic section from the Yam-2 to Yam West-1 well showing interpreted high-order depositional sequences of the
JurassicCretaceous deep-marine basin. Note the similarity in wireline-log stacking patterns between the two wells. The reverse faulting
and folding in the eastern part of the section is associated with the Late Cretaceous Syrian arc folding phase. See Figure 2B for the
location of the profile and Figure 3 for a lithology key.
Deep-1 well (Derin, 1979), supporting the paleogeographic interpretation. High-order sequence
boundaries are interpreted at the base of shale or
argillaceous limestone beds that separate the carbonate intervals of Jr2.12.3 (Figure 6). Regional
facies distribution indicates a regressive interval of
early Bathonian age that likely corresponds to the
base of Jr2.3 (Hirsch et al., 1998). Foraminifer biozones indicate an Aalenian to Bajocian or Bathonian
age for the Jr2.1 and Jr2.2 strata and Bathonian
age for the Jr2.3 strata (Figure 6) (Derin, 1974,
1979).
On seismic profiles, the Jr2.12.3 sequences
comprise parallel alternating high- and low-amplitude
reflection packages that show minor incision and
downlapping of mounded reflections (Figures 7, 11).
The three units terminate westward near the mod-
ern coastline, with moderate- to steep-angle slopes

that are onlapped by uppermost Jurassic to Lower
Cretaceous 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 Jurassic
succession (Figure 3). Coeval stratigraphic units
crop out in the Ramon and northern Negev area
and were penetrated by wells in central and southern Israel (Figure 2A, B). East and south of the
study area, the Jr3 sequence comprises extensive
platforms of shallow-marine carbonate, interlayerd
with shale and some sandstone beds (Figure 3).
Shallow-marine carbonate platforms extend to the
modern coastline. In the adjacent Mediterranean
Gardosh et al.
1775
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Figure 11. Seismic profile, (A) uninterpreted or (B) interpreted, in the southeastern part of the study area showing
proposed high-order depositional sequences
of the JurassicCretaceous margin and
wireline logs of the Beeri West-1 well. Sequence boundaries (white lines) are interpreted from onlapping and downlapping
reflection terminations (black arrows) and
well ties. See Figure 2B for the location
of the profile. TWT = two-way traveltime.
Sea, the Jr3 sequence is dominated by shale and

carbonate slope deposits (Figure 5).
The lower boundary of Jr3 is an unconformity
of the late Middle Jurassic (Figure 3). This surface
is correlated to the base of an interval several tens
of meters thick composed of shale, marl, siltstone,
and sandstone of the Karmon Formation, found
in wells throughout the southern coastal plain
(Figures 3, 6) (Derin, 1974). Postdepositional dolomitization and secondary porosity related to paleokarst in the carbonates below the Karmon shale
1776
(Buchbinder, 1979) indicate an exposure of the

Middle Jurassic shelf. The Jr3 lower boundary
likely corresponds to a late Bathonian to Callovian
relative drop in sea level interpreted from regional
lithofacies data (Hirsch et al., 1998).
Two high-order sequences, Jr3.1 and Jr3.2, are
recognized in the study area. These are characterized by conspicuous funnel-shaped patterns of
wireline logs formed by vertical transitions from
shale to limestone (Figures 6, 12). The upward
facies change from siliciclastic to carbonate in Jr3.1
5
4
3
CONTENTS
(Figure 6) corresponds, respectively, to the Karmon and Zohar formations (Derin, 1974); and in
Jr3.2 (Figure 12), with the Kidod and Beer Sheva
formations (Derin, 1974). In the Ashdod-3, Beeri
West-1, and Helez Deep-1 wells (Figure 2B), the
Jr3.1 strata contain the Bathonian to Callovian
foraminifer T. palastiniensis (Derin, 1974, 1979);
in the Kissufim-1 and Sadot-1 wells (Figure 2B),
OCTOBER
SEARCH
the Jr3.2 strata contains the foraminifer A. jaccardi

of the Oxfordian (Hirsch et al., 1998). The lower
boundary of Jr3.2 is indicated by karst-related dolomitization and mineralization at the top of the
Zohar limestone (Buchbinder, 1981; 1986). On
seismic profiles, the Jr3.1 and Jr3.2 sequences appear as a series of continuous high-amplitude reflections that terminate toward the west in moderateto steep-angle slopes that are onlapped by Lower
Cretaceous strata (Figures 7, 11, 13).
The Jr2 and Jr3 Depositional Sequences in the Offshore
In the offshore area, the Jr2 and Jr3 low-order sequences are composed of fine-grained strata that
were 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 succession found in the Yam-2 and Yam West-1 well
(Figures 9, 10) is composed of shale, fine-grained
and oolitic limestone, and some siltstone and finegrained sandstone. Planktonic foraminifera found
in the Yam-2 well indicate a probable Bathonian
age for the lowermost part, and Oxfordian to
Kimmeridgian age for most of this Jurassic succession (Figure 10) (Derin et al., 1990). In the Yam
West-1 well, foraminiferal biozonation indicates a
Bajocian to Bathonian age for the carbonate-rich
lower part (above the Jr1 sequence boundary) and
Callovian to Kimmeridgian age for the upper shaledominated 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, showing
from left to right: wireline logs (spontaneous potential [SP], resistivity, and sonic) and interpreted lithology, proposed sequencestratigraphic 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 beds
are found in the Lower Cretaceous depositional units (Cr1.31.5).
High-order sequence boundaries are correlated to the bases of
the siliciclastic intervals that are likely associated with relative drops
of sea level. Funnel-shaped wireline-log trends are interpreted as
upward coarsening of the carbonate facies during highstands. See
Figure 2B for the location of the profile and Figure 6 for the key to
log trends and lithology. TST = transgressive systems tract; HST =
highstand systems tract; LST = lowstand systems tract.
Gardosh et al.
1777
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Figure 13. Seismic profile, (A) uninterpreted or (B) interpreted, showing proposed high-order depositional sequences
of the JurassicCretaceous shelf and upper
slope, correlated to time-based wireline
logs of the Lior-1 and Masout Yizhaq-1
wells. Sequence boundaries (white lines)
are interpreted from onlapping and downlapping reflection terminations (black arrows) and well ties. The Mesozoic margin
shows a transition from aggradation
(Jr2.23.2, Cr1.31.5, Cr2.32.6) to progradation (Cr1.2, Cr2.12.2). See Figure 2B
for the location of the profile.
Derin et al. (1990) suggest that the Middle

Upper Jurassic dark, pyritic shale in Yam-2 was
deposited in deep-marine, partly anoxic conditions,
similar to the depositional environment of the Delta
Formation (Figure 3) found in the offshore Delta-1
well 60 km (37 mi) to the north. Petrographic study
of cutting samples taken from the Bathonian limestone at the bottom of Yam-2 (Figure 10) shows
planktonic foram-sponge spicule mudstones and
wackestones of deep-marine origin (Brady, 1990).
The depositional environment of the MiddleUpper
1778
Jurassic succession in Yam West-1 is less well defined. The upper Delta-type dark shale (Figure 9)
is likely of deep-marine origin. The lower part is
composed of shale and alternating oolitic, pelletoidal, and spiculitic limestone beds, as much as to
100 m (328 ft) thick (Figure 9). Gill et al. (1995)
describe this carbonate lithofacies as similar to the
MiddleUpper Jurassic shallow-marine platformal
strata found east of the modern coastline. Wireline logs display, however, cylindrical and bellshaped patterns (Figure 9) that may be interpreted
5
4
3
CONTENTS
as deep-marine gravity flows. In seismic profiles,

the MiddleUpper Jurassic succession correlates to
a reflection-free and occasionally discontinuous lowamplitude reflection package (Figure 4) (Gardosh,
2002). This seismic stratigraphic character further
supports a deep-marine depositional environment
for the Jr23 strata offshore.
Based on the biostratigraphic, sedimentologic,
and geophysical evidence, the MiddleUpper Jurassic rock succession found in the Yam-2 and Yam
West-1 wells is interpreted as slope and basinal
strata of deep-marine origin. This offshore rock
succession that is coeval to the Jr2 and Jr3 shallowmarine carbonate platforms found near the coastline (Figure 5) likely accumulated within the marine basin during high-frequency drops of sea level
and is therefore, onlapping the upper boundary of
the Jr1 sequence (Figures 5, 8). In Yam West-1,
the lower boundary of Jr3 is probably correlated
to the base of a Bathonian shale bed defined by
Fleischer and Varshavsky (2002) as the Karmon
Formation (Figure 9).
Cretaceous Depositional Sequences

The Cretaceous is associated with a late stage of
carbonate margin deposition along the LM. A
conspicuous, Jurassic shelf-edge was already present near the modern coastline on the edge of a
deep-marine basin (Figure 5). The regional depositional pattern progressively changed in time from
predominantly siliciclastic sediments during the
Early Cretaceous to predominantly carbonate sediments during the Late Cretaceous. Regional unconformities separate three low-order depositional
cycles of latest Jurassic to Early Cretaceous, middle 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 Jurassic to early Middle Cretaceous age (Figure 3).
Coeval stratigraphic units crop out in the northern
Negev and eastern Galilee area (Figure 2A) and
were penetrated by wells throughout Israel. East
and south of the study area, the Cr1 sequence is
OCTOBER
SEARCH
dominated by fluvial-eolian sandstone, siltstone,

and shale (Figure 3). Mixed carbonate-siliciclastic
platforms of shallow-marine origin are found near
the modern coastline. In the adjacent Mediterranean Sea, the Cr1 sequence is dominated by deepmarine dark shale (Figure 5).
The lower boundary of Cr1 is an unconformity
that is recognized at the top of the Jurassic strata
in outcrops and wells throughout the Levant region (Figure 3) (Flexer et al., 1986). In the eastern
part of the study area, the boundary correlates to
the hiatus found in wells between MiddleUpper
Jurassic (Jr3) and Neocomian strata (Figures 6,
12). On seismic profiles, the base of the sequence
is a prominent truncation and onlapping surface
(Figures 4, 7, 11, 13), where Cr1 strata overlie
the Lower and Middle Jurassic slopes (Jr12).
The Cr1 cycle is subdivided into six higher order sequences: Jr4.1, Cr1.1, Cr1.2, Cr1.3, Cr1.4,
and Cr1.5 (Figure 3). Near the coastline and offshore, these units are correlated to dark marine shale
of the Gevaram Group (Figure 3) (Cohen, 1971).
In the Ashkelon-2 well (Figure 8), a Gevaram-type
shale bed several tens of meters thick that overlies
Jurassic carbonate strata contains the Tithonian
foraminifers E. stelliocostata and E. uhligi (Derin
et al., 1988a). In the offshore Yam-2 and Yam West-1
wells, the same Tithonian planktonic foraminifera
was found in a 200- to 300-m (656- to 984-ft)-thick
interval composed of shale, limestone, and some
sandstone of the Yam Formation (Figures 3, 9, 10)
(Derin et al., 1990; Gill et al., 1995). It is proposed
that the Tithonian marine shale, which was deposited over the Middle to Upper Jurassic carbonate
slope, comprises the lowermost part of the Cr1
cycle. Because of its considerable thickness in the
offshore, the Tithonian strata are defined as a distinct high-order depositional sequence, termed Jr4.1
(Figures 3, 9, 10). The lower boundary of Jr4.1 is
correlated in Yam West-1 to the base of a thin sandstone bed at the base of a bell-shaped wirelinelog pattern interpreted as deep-water gravity flow
(Figure 9).
The Cr1.1 and Cr1.2 high-order sequences are
interbedded shale and siltstone intervals of Neocomian age found near the modern coastline and
offshore. In seismic profiles, the two sequences are
Gardosh et al.
1779
5
4
3
CONTENTS
characterized by parallel discontinuous to hummocky reflections that onlap the slopes and shelf
edges of MiddleUpper Jurassic carbonate platforms (Figures 7, 8). The lower sequence boundaries of these two units correlate to the bottoms of
bell-shaped fining-upward patterns of wireline logs
(Figures 9, 10) interpreted as deep-water gravity
flows. The ages of these units are constrained by
microfauna. In the Yam-2 well, Cr1.1 contains the
foraminifer T. elongate of the Berriasian to Valanginian (Derin et al., 1990), and Cr1.2 contains
the foraminifers E. caracoalla and E. Epistomina of
the HauterivianBarremian (Derin et al., 1990).
The same biostratigraphic age is estimated for the
Cr1.2 strata in the Yam West-1 well (Figure 9)
(Gill et al., 1995).
The Cr1.3 to Cr1.5 high-order sequences at
the upper part of Cr1 has wider distribution. East
of the modern coastline, these units comprise mixed
carbonate-siliciclastic platforms of the Neocomian
to Aptian (Figures 3, 5). On seismic profiles, these
units appear as series of parallel high-amplitude
reflections that downlap westward and terminate
in moderate- to steep-angle slopes (Figures 11, 13).
In well logs, the high-order sequences display funnelshaped wireline log patterns that are associated
with upward transition from sandstone and shale
to limestone (Figures 6, 12). The lower boundaries
for each sequence are correlated to the bases of
the siliciclastic intervals presumed to have been
deposited during relative drops of sea level. The
foraminifer Ch. Decipien, found in the Cr1.3 and
Cr1.4 strata, indicates the Hauterivian to Barremian age, whereas the Orbitulina species, found
in the Cr1.5 strata, indicate Aptian to Albian age
(Figure 12) (Derin et al., 1983). The lithostratigraphic equivalent of Cr1.5, the Telamim Formation (Figure 12), contains the shallow-marine Aptian ostracod Cythereis btaterensis (Rosenfeld et al.,
1998).
In the offshore area, the Cr1.31.5 cycles
comprise a 300- to 500-m (984- to 1640-ft)-thick
fine-grained siliciclastic interval that overlies the
Cr1.2 strata (Figures 8, 10). The Barremian to Aptian
foraminifers Ch. decipien and G. barremiana are
found within this interval in the Bravo-1, Yam-2,
and Yam West-1 wells (Derin et al., 1988b, 1990;
1780
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Gill et al., 1995). Wireline logs display a bell-shaped

upward-fining pattern (Figure 9), corresponding
to a transition from sandstone to shale. On seismic
profiles, this interval is a part of a series of parallel
discontinuous to hummocky reflections that onlap the Jurassic shelf edge (Figure 4) or the top of
the Cr1.2 sequence (Figure 8). Based on the biostratigraphic data and stratal pattern, the offshore
Barremian to Aptian fine-grained siliciclastic succession presumably include the deep-water equivalents of the Cr1.31.5 platforms found east of the
modern coastline (Figure 5).
The Cr2 Sequence (AptianAlbianTuronian)
(1640- to 3281-ft)-thick middle Cretaceous succession (Figure 3). Coeval stratigraphic units crop out
in southern, central, and northern Israel (Figure 2A).
East of the study area, the Cr2 sequence comprises
extensive platforms of shallow-marine carbonate
that extend to the vicinity of the modern coastline
(Figure 5). Near the coast and in the adjacent
Mediterranean Sea, the Cr2 sequence is dominated by detrital slope carbonate strata (Figure 5).
The lower boundary of the Cr2 sequence is
correlated to a late Aptian unconformity surface
recognized within the carbonate outcrops east of
the study area (Flexer et al., 1986; Braun and
Hirsch, 1994). In the offshore area, this boundary
is correlated to a pronounced lithologic break between the Cr1 shale (Gevaram Group) and the
overlying fine-grained carbonate (Talme Tafe Group)
(Figures 3, 10). On seismic profiles, this change
in lithology corresponds to an upward change in
seismic stratigraphic character from a chaotic or
reflection-free zone to continuous high- and lowamplitude seismic reflections (Figure 4). Near the
modern coastline, the base of Cr2 is recognized by
truncation underneath the sequence boundary and
onlapping and downlapping of seismic reflections
above it (Figures 7, 11, 13).
The Cr2 cycle is subdivided into six high-order
sequences: Cr2.1 to Cr2.6 (Figure 3). The two
lower units, Cr2.1 and Cr2.2, are wedge-shaped
sedimentary packages dominated by fine-grained
carbonate detritus that are recognized in seismic
and well data onshore and offshore (Figures 8, 13,
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
5
4
3
SEARCH
Figure 14. Stratigraphic section from Massout Yzhaq-1 to the Barnea-1 well, showing high-order depositional sequences and systems
tracts in the shelf and upper slope of the lower to middle Cretaceous margin. Alternating progradational and onlapping stratal patterns
that are projected from nearby seismic profiles reflect the internal composition of the Cr1.2, Cr2.1, and Cr2.2 sequences. See Figure 2B
for 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.
14). Their coeval lithostratigraphic unit, the Talme

Yafe Group (Figure 3) (Cohen, 1971), is found in
wells near the Mediterranean coastline. In seismic
profiles, the two units are separated by a minor
unconformity recognized by incision, onlapping,
and downlapping reflections (Figures 7, 11, 13).
In the Massout Yzhaq-1 well east of the modern
coastline, the Cr2.1 and Cr2.2 sequences are characterized by a funnel-shaped wireline-log pattern
and are interpreted as upward-shallowing trends of
carbonate lithofacies (Figure 12). A thin argillaceous unit termed the Yavne Shale (Figure 12)
(Braun and Hirsch, 1994) overlies the Cr2.1 lower
sequence boundary. Ostracod zonation suggests late
Aptian age for the Yavne strata (Rosenfeld et al.,
1998). The foraminifer biozones, Hedbergella and
Ticinela, indicate an Albian age for the Cr2.12.2
strata in the offshore Yam West-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 to
Cr2.6 (Figure 3), are identified only in the eastern
part of the study area. In seismic profiles, these
units comprise series of high amplitude parallel
reflections that terminate toward the west with
high-angle to vertical slopes onlapped by Tertiary
strata (Figures 7, 13). In wireline logs, the Cr2.3
to Cr2.6 sequences display funnel-shaped blocky
and irregular patterns of high resistivity and sonic
velocity values (Figure 12). Seismic stratigraphic
and wireline log character suggests that these units
comprise shallow-marine carbonate platforms. The
lithostratigraphic equivalents of Cr2.3 to Cr2.6 are
the limestone and dolomite of the Judea Group
(Figure 3) that crop out through central and
southern Israel (Figure 2A). High-order sequence
boundaries are correlated to sharp shifts of sonic
Gardosh et al.
1781
CONTENTS
and SP wireline logs within the carbonate section

(Figures 12, 14). These are interpreted as thin shale
or argillaceous limestone beds that are associated
with breaks of shallow-marine carbonate deposition during minor relative drops of sea level. The
ages of the Cr2.3 to Cr2.6 high-order sequences
are not well constrained because of lack of biostratigraphic information. The foraminifer biozones
R. globotrunacanoides, R. brotzeni, and M. Helvetica,
found in the Cr2.6 strata at the Massout Yzhak-1
well (Figure 12) (Lipson-Benitah, 1994), indicate
a Cenomanian to Turonian age for the upper part
of the Cr2 cycle.
OCTOBER
SEARCH
mation overlies a truncation surface of the upper

Senonian (Figure 3) (Gvirtzman et al., 1989). Although the origin of the chert in the offshore is
not established with certainty, Mishash chert fragments were likely transported from a shallower
platform into the deeper basin during a minor drop
of sea level at the beginning of the Cr3.2 cycle. In
the Yam West-1 well, the Cr3.1 is missing and the
upper SenonianMaastrichtian Cr3.2 sequence overlies Albian strata (Figure 10).
MARGIN EVOLUTION
The Cr3 Sequence (SenonianMaastrichtian)
(328- to 2297-ft)-thick Upper Cretaceous succession dominated by marl and chalk (Figure 3).
Stratigraphic units of this age crop out in southern,
central, and northern Israel (Figure 2A). The Cr3
strata are found in the offshore but are missing in the
eastern part of the study area onshore (Figures 4, 5),
where they were deposited and later eroded during the Tertiary. The lower sequence boundary
of Cr3 is correlated to a regional unconformity
found in outcrops throughout Israel, between the
middle Cretaceous carbonate of the Judea Group
and the Upper Cretaceous chalk of the Mount
Scopus Group (Figure 3) (Flexer, 1968). On seismic profiles, the boundary is characterized by onlapping of the Cr3 chalk on the Cr2 slope carbonate (Figures 4, 5). In the offshore Yam West-1 and
Yam-2 wells, the lithologic transition from Albian
marl and shale to Senonian chalk corresponds to a
pronounced change of wireline-log stacking patterns (Figures 9, 10).
Two high-order sequences, Cr3.1 and Cr3.2,
are recognized offshore (Figure 3). The Cr3.1 strata
contain the foraminifer species Globotruncana of
the Santonian to the Campanian, whereas Cr3.2
contains the Maastrichtian foraminifer species A.
mayaroensis (Figure 10) (Derin et al., 1988b, 1990).
A high-order sequence boundary between these
units is interpreted in the Yam-2 and Bravo-1 at
the base of a chalky bed containing chert fragments (Figures 8, 10). East of the study area, the
Campanian-Maastrichtian chert-rich Mishash For1782
Well and seismic reflection data show distinct

depositional patterns in the Jurassic and Cretaceous successions of the LM. Within a sequencestratigraphic framework, these are correlated to the
systems tracts of high-order depositional cycles.
The detailed sequence architecture reveals the relation between the paleogeographic evolution of
the margin from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous and
relative sea level changes of the southern Tethys
Ocean.
Early Jurassic Margin (Jr1)
The Jr1 strata were deposited on a northwest-facing
carbonate platform that evolved during several
relative sea level cycles (Figure 5). Lower Jurassic
sequences are dominated by shallow-marine limestone and dolomite, corresponding to the continuous parallel high- and low-amplitude reflections
found in seismic profiles (Figure 7). Thin shale and
argillaceous limestone intervals, characterized by
a high gamma-ray response, are found within the
carbonate sections. These terrigenous strata were
likely deposited following drops of sea level and
exposure of the shallow-marine platforms. An example is the iron-rich red claystone at the base of
Jr1.1 (Figure 6), considered being coeval to the
Lower Jurassic continental deposits of the Mishor
Formation (Druckman, 1984). The Mishor strata
mark a break in shallow-marine carbonate deposition followed by prolonged exposure of the
older Triassic shelf (Druckman, 1974; Goldberg
5
4
3
CONTENTS
and Friedman, 1974). This relative drop in Tethyan

sea level corresponds to a long-term latest Triassic
to 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 shale
bed at the base of the Jr1.2 sequence (Figure 6) may
have accumulated following an early Toarcian eustatic fall (Figure 3) (Haq et al., 1988; Hardenbol
et al., 1998).
The platformal limestone and dolomite beds,
comprising the Lower Jurassic Jr1.1 and Jr1.2 sequences near the coastline (Figures 6, 8), are dominated by wackestones and mudstones of shallowmarine to lagoonal environments (Derin, 1974;
Buchbinder, 1986). These strata were likely deposited during relative rises in sea level and subsequent aggradation and progradation of the shelf.
Downlapping and mounded seismic reflections
present in the Jr1.1 and Jr1.2 sequences (Figure 7)
are interpreted as prograding carbonate banks and
shoals. In the Talme Yafe-4 well (Figure 8), the
upper part of the Jr1.2 highstand contains oolitic
beds (Buchbinder and Price, 1987). Thus, the existence of a high-energy shelf edge near the presentday coastline, interpreted on the seismic data, is
further supported by the lithofacies distribution.
Middle and Late Jurassic Margin (Jr2, Jr3)
The high-order sequences of Jr2 and Jr3 show continued growth of carbonate platforms (Figure 5).
The lithology and stratal pattern of these units
reflect relative sea level changes of short duration
and their corresponding systems tracts, as shown
schematically in Figure 15A. In the offshore, Middle to Late Jurassic strata are composed of interbedded shale and limestone and some sandstone
beds. These strata are interpreted as the lowstand
systems tracts of the Jr2 and Jr3 high-order cycles
(Figure 15A). Wireline-log patterns (Figures 9,
10), seismic stratigraphic character (Figure 4), position in the depositional profile, and the presence
of deep-marine fauna (Brady, 1990) suggest that
the coarse-grained strata were transported by gravity flows and were deposited in submarine channels and fans on the slope and within the basin
(Figure 15A).
OCTOBER
SEARCH
In wells located east of the modern coastline,

the lower parts of Jr2.12.3 and Jr3.13.2 sequences are composed of shale, marl, and argillaceous carbonate beds several tens of meters thick
(Figures 6, 12). These strata are interpreted as
lowstand to transgressive systems tracts of the highorder cycles (Figure 15A). Exposure of the shelf
is indicated by karst-related dolomitization and
mineralization recognized in the shallow-marine
limestone at the top of the Jr1.2, Jr2.3, and Jr3.1
sequences (Figure 6). Terrigenous deposits that
overlie the sequence boundaries (Figure 15A) likely
accumulated during a late stage of relative drop to
early stage of relative rise in sea level. Hirsch et al.
(1998) noted the relation between MiddleUpper
Jurassic sedimentary units of the southern Levant
and global tectono-eustatic cycles. Specifically, these
authors noted that the Rosh Pina and Karmon
shale (lower parts of Jr2.1 and Jr3.1) are associated, respectively, with Aalenian and late Bathonian eustatic falls (Figure 3) (Haq et al., 1988;
Hardenbol et al., 1998).
Carbonate successions, up to several hundred
meters thick, comprise the Jr2.12.3 and Jr3.1
3.2 sequences landward of the modern coastline
(Figure 5). Well data from the Helez and Ashdod
areas show that the carbonates are composed of
oolitic, pelletal, spiculitc, bioclastic, and reefal
limestone (Derin, 1974; Buchbinder, 1979). These
aggradational carbonate platforms are interpreted
as highstand systems tracts that accumulated during
late stages of sea level rises (Figure 15A). Mounded
and downlapping seismic reflections (Figures 7,
11) are interpreted as high-energy ooid-pellet
shoals and fringing reef complexes that likely developed in outer-shelf to shelf-margin environments
(Figure 15A).
The shelf edges of the Jr2 and Jr3 high-order
sequences are located in a relatively narrow zone,
generally parallel to the present-day coastline
(Figure 2B). The overall margin geometry is of
aggrading and retrograding carbonate ramps in a
keep-up carbonate system (Sarg, 1988). This
configuration indicates limited bypass or shedding
and rapid buildup during highstand periods. At the
end of the Jurassic, a steep carbonate margin had
developed east of a deep-marine basin with a water
Gardosh et al.
1783
5
4
3
CONTENTS
1784
OCTOBER
SEARCH
5
4
3
CONTENTS
depth of about 2 km (1.2 mi) (see the geologic

cross sections in Figure 8).
Latest JurassicEarly Cretaceous Margin (Cr1)
The development of the Cr1 sequence is associated with cessation of Jurassic carbonate growth
and deposition of siliciclastic strata on the slope
and within the basin (Figure 5). A schematic depositional model for these units, based on the
composition of the Cr1.2 sequence, is shown in
Figure 15B. The lower boundary of the Cr1 sequence is a prominent truncation surface caused
by the 1000-m (3281-ft)-deep Gevaram Canyon
(Figure 16) (Cohen, 1971, 1976). Canyon incision
on the Jurassic shelf likely occurred during a relative drop of sea level during the Tithonian and
early Neocomian that corresponds with a prolonged
global 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 level
changes and their corresponding systems tracts. In
offshore wells, the Cr1.2 strata comprise a bellshaped log-stacking pattern containing sandstone
beds at its base (Figures 9, 10). This part of the
sequence is interpreted as a deep-marine turbidite
complex that accumulated on the lower slope
and basin floor during an early lowstand stage
(Figure 15B). Sands were likely transported basinward by submarine gravity flows through the
Gevaram Canyon system (Figure 16). Near the
modern coastline, the Cr1.2 sequence is dominated by shale, with only a minor amount of sandstone (Figure 8). Seismic profiles show mounded,
chaotic, and gull wing reflection configurations
(Figures 7, 13). This part of the sequence is interpreted as channel-fill and channel-levee complexes that compose the upper part of a lowstand
fan (Figure 15B). A zone of parallel to oblique
downlapping reflections that correlates with a thick
interval of silty shale in the Lior-1 well (Figures 13,
OCTOBER
SEARCH
14) is interpreted as a prograding mud-prone shelf

delta that developed at the end of the lowstand
stage (Figure 15B). Shallow-marine oolitic limestone found at the top of the Cr1.2 sequence in
the Massout Yizhaq-1 well (Figures 12, 14) is interpreted as a highstand systems tract, associated
with sea level rise at the end of the Cr1.2 cycle
(Figure 15B).
The evolution of the LM during the late Neocomian to Aptian is characterized by reestablishment
of a platformal shallow-marine carbonate deposition
(Figure 3). High-order cyclicity is recognized by
the composition of the mixed siliciclastic-carbonate
platforms that comprise the Cr1.31.5 sequences.
Sandstone, siltstone, and shale beds found below the carbonate are interpreted as lowstand to
transgressive systems tracts of the Cr1.31.5 cycles
(Figures 6, 12). Petrography and heavy mineral
assemblage indicate that the Neocomian sands were
eroded from older Nubian sandstone exposed on
the Arabian shield in the east (Shenhav, 1971). The
sands were redeposited near the Tethyan shoreline
in coastal dunes, shoals, and shelf deltas (Shenhav,
1971). The basinward flow of coarse-grained siliciclastic strata is likely associated with relative
drops of sea level at the beginning of each cycle.
Oolitic to sandy limestone and some interbedded dolomite in the upper parts of Cr1.31.5
(Figure 12) comprise the highstand systems tracts
of these sequences. The carbonate strata (of the
Helez and Telamim formations, Figure 3) accumulated as oolitic shoals and carbonate banks in the
outer-shelf areas of the Neocomian carbonate platforms (Shenhav, 1971). Upward facies transition,
from siliciclastic to carbonate strata (Figure 12),
likely associated with a relative rise in sea level. On
seismic profiles, the three sequences appear as parallel continuous reflections that terminate abruptly
toward the west (Figures 11, 13) and are, therefore,
interpreted as distally steepened carbonate ramps
(sensu Read, 1985). The shelf-edge areas of the
Cr1.31.5 ramps are located in a narrow zone,
Figure 15. Depositional and systems tract models for the high-order sequences of the LM during the Middle to Late Jurassic, Jr23
(A) latest Jurassic to lower Cretaceous Jr4.1Cr1.2 (B) and middle Cretaceous, Cr2.12.2 (C). The models, which are based on well and
seismic data, reconstruct the varying paleogeography of the Tethyan margin ranging from aggrading carbonate shelf (A), prograding
siliciclastic slope (B), to prograding carbonate slope (C). See discussion in text.
Gardosh et al.
1785
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Figure 16. Schematic

paleogeographic map
showing three facies belts
that comprise the lowstand systems tract (LST)
of the Neocomian Cr1.2
sequence. These belts
were defined on seismic
profiles using the twodimensional seismic
facies methodology of
Ramsayer (1979) where
abbreviations of reflection
configurations are C =
concordant; Hu = hummocky; Pdis = parallel,
discontinuous; T = truncation, erosional; On =
onlap; Dn = downlap;
M = mounded; Ch =
chaotic; P = parallel; Ob =
oblique.
generally subparallel to the present-day coastline

(Figure 2B).
Middle Cretaceous Margin (Cr2)
Deposition of carbonate detritus on the slope and
within the basin characterizes the LM during the
1786
early part of Cr2 (Figure 5). Relative sea level

changes of short duration are reflected by the internal structure of the Albian Cr2.1 and Cr2.2 sequences, shown schematically in Figure 15C. Thick
beds of carbonate breccias composed of angular
unsorted limestone fragments are found in the Albian strata near the modern coastline (Figures 8, 14)
5
4
3
CONTENTS
(Cohen, 1971). On seismic profiles, the breccias

correlate with high-amplitude discontinuous reflections that onlap and downlap onto the Cr2.1 and
Cr2.2 sequence boundaries (Figures 7, 13). These
are interpreted as debris flows that accumulated
on the slope during relative drops of late Aptian
and middle Albian sea levels (Figure 15C).
The highstand systems tracts of the Cr2.1 and
Cr2.2 sequences comprise two lithofacies belts
(Figure 15C). The eastern belt is a carbonate ramp
composed of limestone, dolomite, and some marl
and shale of the Yakhini Formation (Figure 3). An
ostracod assemblage found in the Yakhini strata
indicates a shallow, warm, marine environment
(Rosenfeld et al., 1998). On seismic profiles, the
Cr2.12.2 carbonate ramp is characterized by parallel continuous to hummocky discontinuous reflections (Figures 11, 13). The western lithofacies
belt is composed of fine-grained carbonate slope
detritus of the Talme Yafe Group (Figure 3). An
ostracod assemblage found in the Talme Yafe strata
indicates deposition in water depth of 200 to
500 m (6561640 ft) (Rosenfeld et al., 1998). On
seismic profiles, the carbonate slope is characterized by oblique downlapping reflection patterns
(Figures 11, 13).
The stratal relations between these two facies
belts (Figure 14) suggest that both comprise highstand systems tracts of the Cr2.12.2 cycles. An
eastern flat-topped carbonate shelf system (sensu
Handford and Loucks 1993) developed during a
relative rise of sea level. Carbonate material produced on the ramp was transported basinward by
turbidity currents and was redeposited on the slope
(Figure 15C). Droxler et al. (1983) described a
similar process in the Holocene carbonate systems
of the Bahamas. Their highstand shedding occurs
when the rate of carbonate production exceeds
the rate of creation of accommodation and is typically associated with considerable basinward progradation. This depositional model implies that
the Yakhini and Talme Yafe (Figure 3) are coeval
stratigraphic units that accumulated during Albian
highstands.
The upper AlbianCenomanian Cr2.3 to Cr2.5
sequences are platformal carbonate strata dominated
by shallow-marine limestone and dolomite that are
OCTOBER
SEARCH
found 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).
Seismic profiles show series of parallel reflections
that terminate westward with high-angle slopes
onlapped by upper Tertiary strata (Figures 7, 13).
The morphology of the margin during the late
AlbianCenomanian is that of a rimmed carbonate
platform (sensu Handford and Loucks, 1993). The
shelf edge is composed of carbonate buildups that,
in places, are eroded and form steep escarpments.
The carbonate beds are interpreted as the highstand systems tracts, whereas thin argillaceous intervals overlying the high-order sequence boundaries comprise lowstand systems tracts of the
corresponding cycles (Figures 12, 14). The pronounced aggrading and backstepping of the carbonate ramps suggest a keep-up pattern (Sarg,
1988) that is associated with a rapid rate of sea
level rise. The eustatic curve shows the highest
global sea level since the break-up off Pangea during
the late Albian to the Cenomanian time (Figure 3)
(Haq et al., 1988; Hardenbol et al., 1998).
The CenomanianTuronian (Cr2.6) sequence
is composed of dolomite, limestone, marl, and chalk
that correspond with the strata of the Negba and
Daliyya formations (Figures 3, 12) (Lipson-Benitah
et al., 1990; Lipson-Benitah, 1994). On seismic
profiles, this unit shows a continuous parallel reflection that downlaps onto the underlying sequence
boundary (Figures 13, 14). The morphology of
the margin is that of a homoclinal westward dipping carbonate ramp (sensu Handford and Loucks,
1993). Foraminifera and ostracod species found
in the Daliyya marl indicate an open-marine environment of 100 to 200 m (328 to 656 ft) of
water depth (Rosenfeld et al., 1998). Thus, a paleoenvironmental change in the LM is indicated at
the end of the Cr2 cycle.
Upper Cretaceous Margin (Cr3)
The Upper Cretaceous Cr3 sequence is composed
of interbedded chalk and marl (Figure 5). The
equivalent lithostratigraphic units, Mount Scopus
Gardosh et al.
1787
5
4
3
CONTENTS
and Hashefela groups (Figure 3), were deposited

throughout western Israel in an intermediate to
deep-marine environment (Sass and Bein, 1982;
Flexer et al., 1986; Gvirtzman et al., 1989). The
demise of the middle Cretaceous carbonate platforms and deposition of pelagic and hemipelagic
strata reflect drowning of the LM that is probably
associated with some relative rise in sea level and
change in oceanic sea-water composition (Sass and
Bein, 1982).
In the offshore area, the Cr3.1 and Cr3.2 sequences are characterized by onlapping seismic reflections on the preexisting slope (Figure 4), interpreted as gravity flows that were emplaced in a
deep-water, slope and base-of-slope setting. A similar depositional setting is interpreted by Watts
et al. (1980) in the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary
pelagic chalk of the North Sea, where large-scale
allochthonous units were deposited by debris and
turbidite flows. High-order cyclicity in Cr3.1 is
interpreted in the Yam-2 well. The lower part of
the sequence (2600- to 2730-m [8530- to 8957-ft]
depth in Figure 10) is composed of argillaceous
chalk and contains chert fragments that were likely
transported to the deep-marine basin by submarine
gravity flows during a lowstand. The clean pelagic
chalk at the upper part of the sequence (2490- to
2600-m [8169- to 8530-ft] depth in Figure 10) is
interpreted as the highstand systems tract of the
Cr3.1 sequence.
DISCUSSION
Several large-scale stratal stacking trends are present for the Jurassic and Cretaceous LM, alternating between aggradation, progradation, and backstepping (Figure 17A). The edge of the platform
margin for the Jr1.2 to Jr3.2 and Cr1.3 to Cr1.5
sequences shows an aggradational and backstepping pattern (Figure 17A). Concomitant to that
pattern is the overall onlap and infilling within the
slope and basinal deposits coeval to the Jr23 to
Cr1.3 to Cr1.5 platform deposits. Distinct progradation in the carbonate margin occurred in the
Cr2.1 to Cr2.2 sequences (Figure 17A). The geometry of this margin, in cross section, is markedly dif1788
OCTOBER
SEARCH
ferent from the underlying Jr1 to Cr1 sequences.

The platform edges of the Cr2.3 to Cr2.6 sequences show an overall aggradation and backstepping pattern similar to the Jr1Cr1 platforms
(Figure 17A). To the west, in the deep basin, the
Cr3 deposits onlap onto the eroded and folded
surface of the Cr2 sequences.
Where the overall stratal stacking patterns illustrated in Figure 17A are integrated with the
ages of the sequences, a distinct hierarchy of sequences and systems tracts can be interpreted,
consisting of lower and higher order cycles. In
this stratigraphic framework, the higher order sequence sets are the systems tracts of the lower
order sequences (Mitchum and Van Wagoner,
1991). For example, the Jr4.1, Cr1.1, and Cr1.2
high-order sequences are defined as the lowstand
sequence set (LSS) of the Cr1 low-order sequence;
and the Cr1.3 to Cr1.5 are its transgressive to
highstand sequence set (TSS-HSS) (Figure 17A).
During the time of deposition of the Cr1 sequence,
the main depocenter gradually shifted from the
basins center toward its eastern margin, although
some deposition occurred within the basin also during the TSS-HSS stage (Cr1.31.5) (Figure 17A).
The Cr2.1 and Cr2.2 high-order sequences are
defined as the LSS of the Cr2 low-order sequence,
and Cr2.3 to Cr2.6 high-order sequences are its
TSS-HSS (Figure 17A). Here, again, a shift from a
slope and basin depocenter toward the margin is
demonstrated.
The composite sequence hierarchy of the Jr1,
Jr2, and Jr3 low-order sequences is less clear presumably because of the lower resolution of seismic
and biostratigraphic data. The carbonate platforms
of the Jr1.11.2, Jr2.12.3, and Jr3.13.2 sequences are identified as the transgressive to highstand sequence sets of Jr1, Jr2, and Jr3, respectively
(Figure 17A). The low-order sequences probably
initiated with a considerable accumulation of sediments within the basin, where an LSS was developed (Jr23). Like at the upper part of Cr1,
some deposition within the basin may have occurred also during the TSS-HSS stages, although
the two types of sequence sets are not clearly separated within the basin. Similarly, the Cr3 probably started with a significant deposition within
5
4
3
CONTENTS
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Figure 17. (A) Schematic

reconstructed cross section, illustrating the stacking patterns of the Jurassic
and Cretaceous depositional cycles. High-order
sequences stack into systems tracts of low-order
composite sequences. Lowstand sequence sets (LSS)
show infilling and progradation, whereas transgressive to highstand sequence sets (TSS-HSS) show
backstepping and aggradation of the Tethyan margin. (B) Chronostratigraphic
(Wheeler) diagram illustrating shifts of depocenters
across the margins that are
predominantly controlled
by eustasy. See text for
discussion.
the basin. At a later stage, deposition occurred

across the entire margin and LSS, and TSS-HSS
types were not confined to a particular area.
The chronostratigraphic diagram in Figure 17B
further illustrates the shifts in the loci of the main
depocenters with time and highlight periods of
erosion and/or nondeposition that existed in various parts of the basin and margin throughout its
Mesozoic history. Particularly long periods of erosion or nondeposition (1020 m.y.) characterize
the proximal margin at the end of the Jr3 and Cr2

low-order cycles and the deep basin at the end of
the Jr1 and Cr2 low-order cycles (Figure 17B).
Shorter periods of erosion and nondeposition (1
5 m.y.) are interpreted for most of the high-order
sequence boundaries (Figure 17B). During a relative fall of sea level (lowstand stages), the shelf
and upper slope area of the margin were subjected to submarine or subaerial erosion, incision,
and occasional karstification. During a relative rise
Gardosh et al.
1789
5
4
3
CONTENTS
in sea level (transgressive to highstand stages),

the distal part of the basin was either sediment
starved or accumulated only thin condensed sections (Figure 17B).
Recent studies of Jurassic and Cretaceous
depositional sequences of the Arabian platform
(Figure 1B) reveal their relations to eustasy (Sharland
et al., 2004; Haq and Al-Qahtani, 2005). In the
study area, eustatic control is demonstrated by the
lower order sequence boundaries of Jr2, Cr1, and
Cr3 sequences. These correspond well with global
lowering 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 development of the carbonate margin during the Jr3
and Cr2 TSS-HSS (Figure 17A) corresponds to a
CallovianKimmeridgian and late AlbianTuronian
eustatic rise, respectively (Figure 3) (Hardenbol
et al., 1998; Haq and Al-Qahtani, 2005).
Tectonic activity played an additional role in
the stratigraphic evolution of the LM. The Jr1
lower boundary corresponds to a latest Triassic to
Early Jurassic erosional event of regional extent
that coincides with the time of Tethyan rifting in
the eastern Mediterranean area (Haq and Al-Qahtani,
2005). The thick accumulations of siliciclastic deposits on the Levant slope during the Neocomian
LSS (Cr1) likely related to magmatic activity, uplift, and erosion of the central Negev area (Figure 2A)
(Garfunkel, 1998). The Cr2 lower boundary corresponds to a late Aptian unconformity of regional
extent (Sharland et al., 2004; Haq and Al-Qahtani,
2005). This event was probably affected by a minor eustatic drop (Figure 3) (Hardenbol et al.,
1998) related to the last pulse of Tethyan rifting
in the northeastern Mediterranean.
A recently published relative sea level curve
for the Arabian platform by Haq and Al-Qahtani
(2005) shows 29 Jurassic and Cretaceous depositional cycles of short duration. The time of most of
these cycles coincides with the 22 high-order sequences recorded in the study area. Thus, the
Mesozoic stratigraphy of southwestern Israel represents the evolution of the entire southern Tethys margins that formed on the edges of Arabia
and Africa.
1790
OCTOBER
SEARCH
IMPLICATIONS FOR OIL AND

GAS EXPLORATION
Several onshore and offshore discoveries indicate
significant hydrocarbon potential in the Mesozoic
strata of western Israel. The sequence and stratal
stratigraphic pattern of the Tethyan margin presented here may be applied to explore potential
reservoirs and traps, as demonstrated in the following examples.
The Helez oil field, discovered in the 1950s, is
located near the JurassicCretaceous shelf edge
about 10 km (6.2 mi) east of the modern coastline (Figures 2B, 5). Since its discovery, the field
produced 17 million bbl oil (Gilboa et al., 1990).
The main reservoirs are Lower Cretaceous shallowmarine sandstones (Helez Formation) found near
the edges of the Cr1.3 and Cr1.4 mixed carbonatesiliciclastic platforms (Figures 12, 14). Although
the field is nearly depleted, about 2 million bbl
recoverable oil are estimated to be present (Gilboa
et al., 1990). Production in the Helez field is affected by discontinuity of reservoir beds as reflected by variations in pressure regimes (Gilboa
et al., 1990). Detailed analysis of high-frequency
sequences and sequence boundaries may result in
improved reservoir models and enhanced production from this field.
The Ashdod field is a smaller oil accumulation discovered in the 1970s northwest of Helez
(Figure 2B). Since its discovery, the field has
produced about 0.5 million bbl oil from Middle
Upper Jurassic carbonate bank lithofacies (Zohar
Formation) found at the edge of the Jr3.1 platform (Figures 5, 6). Carbonate banks and buildups
characterize the shelf edges of the Jr23 platforms
along the LM (Figure 5). Larger petroleum accumulations are likely found in this stratigraphic position northeast and southwest of the Ashdod area
(Figure 2B).
Significant reservoir potential is found in Jurassic and Cretaceous deep-marine strata offshore
(Figure 5). Lower Cretaceous turbidite sands and
Middle to Upper Jurassic mass-flow deposits were
penetrated by several offshore wells. These units
comprise parts of the lowstand systems tracts of
Jr23 and Cr1 depositional cycles. Gas shows were
5
4
3
CONTENTS
discovered in Lower Cretaceous sandstones, and

light oil was tested in the Middle Jurassic carbonate in the Yam West-1 and Yam-2 wells, respectively (Figure 5). Further study of sediment fairways and depositional elements on the Mesozoic
slope may contribute to successful exploration in
these types of reservoirs.
Finally, reservoir potential is found in carbonate breccias at the base of the Cr2.1 and Cr2.2
sequences near the modern coastline (Figures 7, 8,
15C). These mass-flow deposits accumulated on
the Levant slope during Albian relative drops of
sea level and were later covered by fine-grained
carbonate detritus (Figure 15C). High-porosity
and significant gas shows found in several wells
indicate good reservoir potential in these units.
OCTOBER
SEARCH
as the dominant control over the long-term depositional trends. The stratigraphic framework
presented here for the Tethyan shelf and slope is
in accordance with the recently published Mesozoic sequence stratigraphy of the Arabian platform. Therefore, the Levant margin may be taken
as a model for reconstructing the evolution of
other Tethyan margins in the region. The results
further predicts the depositional setting of reservoirs rocks in the Levant shelf and highlight the
potential for Jurassic and Cretaceous lowstandtype stratigraphic traps on the Levant slope offshore
Israel, where extensive exploration efforts are currently occurring.
REFERENCES CITED
CONCLUSIONS
Early Mesozoic breakup was followed by opening
of the southern Tethys Ocean and the development of continental margins along the northern
edge of Gondwana. The Mesozoic strata of the
proximal margin area, found in the Levant interior, have been previously extensively studied. This
study describes the shelf edge and slope of the
Tethyan marine basin in the subsurface of southwestern Israel and the adjacent Mediterranean Sea.
The JurassicCretaceous margins are characterized by a distinct hierarchy of low-order and highorder depositional cycles. Sequence boundaries
are inferred from seismic reflection terminations,
wireline-log stacking patterns, lithofacies data, and
correlation to regional unconformities recognized
inland. The architecture of depositional sequences
demonstrates periodic shifts of depocenters associated with relative changes in sea level. Aggradation and backstepping of carbonate platforms
characterize the MiddleLate Jurassic, late Early
Cretaceous, and late middle Cretaceous margin.
Progradation of siliciclastic and carbonate slopes
characterizes the latest JurassicEarly Cretaceous
and middle Cretaceous margin. Long periods of
shelf exposure and erosion are recognized in the
latest Jurassic and late middle Cretaceous. Eustasy,
combined with regional subsidence, is considered
Arkin, Y., and M. Braun, 1965, Type sections of Upper Cretaceous formations in the northern Negev, southern Israel:
Jerusalem, Israel, Israel Geological Survey stratigraphic
section no. 2a, p. 119.
Bein, A., 1976, Rudistid fringing reefs of Cretaceous shallow carbonate platform of Israel: AAPG Bulletin, v. 60,
p. 258272.
Bein, A., and G. Gvirtzman, 1977, A Mesozoic fossil edge of
the Arabian plate along the Levant coastline and its bearing on the evolution of the eastern Mediterranean, in B.
Biju-Duval and L. Montadert, eds., Structural history
of the Mediterranean basins: Paris, Editions Technip,
p. 95110.
Bein, A., and Y. Weiler, 1976, The Cretaceous Talme Yafe
Formation: A contour shaped sedimentary prism of calcareous detritus at the continental margin of the Arabian
craton: Sedimentology, v. 23, p. 511532, doi:10.1111
/j.1365-3091.1976.tb00065.x.
Brady, M., 1990, Petrographic description and interpretation
of cuttings from the Yam-2 well (52805325 m) offshore Israel: Colorado, Harme and Brady Geological
Consultants Inc., 4 p., 7 plates.
Braun, M., and F. Hirsch, 1994, Mid-Cretaceous (Albian
Cenomanian) carbonate platforms in Israel: Madrid,
Spain, Cuadernos de Geologia Iberica, v. 18, p. 5981.
Buchbinder, B., 1986, Sedimentology, diagenesis and genetic
subdivision of the Nirim Formation (Lower Jurassic) in
the Helez Deep 1A well: Jerusalem, Israel, Geological
Survey of Israel report GSI/23/86.
Buchbinder, B., and M. Price, 1987, Sedimentology and genetic 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 deposition
and correlation of the Zohar (Brur Calcarenite) Karmon
and Shderot formations in the Ashdod area, prepared for
Gardosh et al.
1791
5
4
3
CONTENTS
Oil Exploration (Investments) Ltd.: Jerusalem, Israel,

Geological Survey of Israel report OD/3/79.
Buchbinder, L. G., 1981, Dolomitization, porosity development and late mineralization in the Jurassic Zohar (Brur
Calcarenite) and Sederot formations in Ashdod-Gan
Yavne: Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 30, no. 23,
p. 6480.
Cohen, Z., 1971, The geology of the Lower Cretaceous in the
Helez field, Israel: Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Israel, 98 p.
Cohen, Z., 1976, Early Cretaceous buried canyon: Influence
on 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 Institute of Petroleum, report no. 1/79, scale 1:2000, 1 sheet.
Derin, B., S. Lipson, and E. Gerry, 1983, Biostratigraphy and
paleoenvironments of the Beeri West-1 borehole, southern coastal plain, Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel, Israel Institute
of Petroleum and Energy report 1/83, 20 p.
Derin, B., S. Lipson, E. Gerry, and S. Moshkovitz, 1988a,
Biostratigraphy and paleoenvironments of the Ashkelon-2
borehole, 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 of
Petroleum and Energy report 3/88, 24 p.
Derin, B., S. Lipson, and E. Gerry, 1990, Microbiostratigraphy and environments of deposition of the Yam 2 offshore well: Tel Aviv, Israel, Israel Institute of Petroleum
and Energy report 5/90, 24 p.
Droxler, A. W., W. Schlager and C. C. Whallon, 1983,
Quaternary aragonite cycles and oxygen-isotope record
in Bahamian carbonate ooze: Geology, v. 11, p. 235
239, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1983)11<235:QACAOR>2.0.CO;2.
Druckman, Y., 1974, The stratigraphy of the Triassic sequence in southern Israel: Geological Survey of Israel
Bulletin, v. 64, 92 p.
Druckman, Y., 1984, Evidence for Early Middle Triassic
faulting and possible rifting from the Helez Deep borehole and the coastal plain of Israel, in J. E. Dixon and
A. H. F. Robertson, eds., The geological evolution of the
eastern Mediterranean: Geological Society (London)
Special Publication 17, p. 203212.
Fleischer, L., and A. Varshavsky, 2002, A lithostratigraphic
database of oil and gas wells drilled in Israel: Ministry of
National Infrastructure, Oil and Gas Unit Report OG/9/
02: Jerusalem, Israel, Geological Survey of Israel, 280 p.
Flexer, A., 1968, Stratigraphy and facies development of
Mount Scopus Group (SenonianPaleocene) in Israel
and 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 Cretaceous
in Israel: AAPG Bulletin, v. 70, p. 16851699.
1792
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Gardosh, M. A., 2002, The sequence stratigraphy and petroleum systems of the Mesozoic, southeastern Mediterranean continental margin: Ph.D. thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel, 159 p.
Gardosh, M., and Y. Druckman, 2006, Seismic stratigraphy,
structure and tectonic evolution of the Levantine Basin,
offshore Israel, in A. H. F. Robertson and D. Mountrakis,
eds., Tectonic development of the eastern Mediterranean region: Geological Society (London) Special Publication 260, p. 201227.
Garfunkel, Z., 1998, Constraints on the origin and history of
the eastern Mediterranean Basin: Tectonophysics, v. 298,
p. 535, doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00176-0.
Garfunkel, Z., and B. Derin, 1984, Permianearly Mesozoic
tectonism and continental margin formation in Israel
and its implications for the history of the eastern Mediterranean, 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 well
velocity data, review and interpretation: Holon, Israel,
Institute for Petroleum Research and Geophysics report 5/501/78.
Gilboa, Y., H. Fligelman, and B. Derin, 1990, Heletz-BrurKokhav field, Israel, southern coastal plain, in E. A.
Beaumont and N. H. Foster, eds., Structural traps IV:
Tectonic and nontectonic fold traps: AAPG Treatise of
Petroleum Geology, Atlas of Oil and Gas Fields, p. 319
345.
Gill, D., B. H. Conway, Y. Eshet, S. Lipson, L. PerelisGrossowicz, A. Rosenfeld, and R. Siman-Tov, 1995, The
stratigraphy of the Yam West 1 borehole: Jerusalem, Israel, Geological Survey of Israel report GSI/13/95,
43 p.
Goldberg, M., and G. M. Friedman, 1974, Paleoenvironments and paleogeographic evolution of the Jurassic system in southern Israel: Geological Survey of Israel Bulletin, no. 61, 44 p.
Gvirtzman, G., and Z. Reiss, 1965, Stratigraphic nomenclature in the coastal plain and Hashefela 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 Cretaceous
high resolution multiple stratigraphy, northern margin
of the Arabian platform, central Israel: Cretaceous Research, v. 10, p. 107135, doi:10.1016/0195-6671(89)
90001-3.
Handford, C. R., and R. G. Loucks, 1993, Carbonate depositional sequences and systems tracts: Responses of carbonate platforms to relative sea level changes, in R. G. Loucks
and J. F. Sarg, eds., Carbonate sequence stratigraphy recent developments and application: AAPG Memoir 57,
p. 341.
Haq, B. U., and A. M. Al-Qahtani, 2005, Phanerozoic cycles
of 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 and
Cenozoic chronostratigraphy and cycles of sea level
changes, in C. K. Wilgus, B. S. Hastings, C. G. St. C.
5
4
3
CONTENTS
Kendall, H. W. Posamentier, C. A. Ross, and J. C. Van

Wagoner, eds., Sea-level changes: An integrated approach: SEPM Special Publication 42, p. 71108.
Hardenbol, J., J. Thierry, M. B. Farley, T. Jacquin, P. C. de
Graciansky, and P. R. Vail, 1998, Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence-chronostratigraphic chart, in P. C. de
Graciansky, J. Hardenbol, T. Jacquin, and P. R. Vail,
eds., Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy of
European 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 Levant: Biostratigraphy, paleogeography and cyclic events,
in S. Crasquin-Soleau and E. Barrier, eds., Peri-Tethys
Memoir 4: Epicratonic basins of Peri-Tethyan platforms:
Memoir of the Natural History Museum 179, p. 213235.
Lipson-Benitah, S., 1994, Cenomanian stratigraphical micropaleontology of shelf deposits, Israel: Revista Espanola
de Micropaleontologia, v. XXVI, no. 3, p. 83100.
Lipson-Benitah, S., A. Flexer, A. Rosenfield, A. Honigstein,
B. Conway, and H. Eris, 1990, Dysoxic sedimentation in
the CenomanianTuronian Daliyya Formation, Israel:
Deposition of organic facies, in A. Y. Huc, ed., AAPG
Studies in Geology 30, p. 2740.
Mitchum Jr., R. M., and J. C. Van Wagoner, 1991, Highfrequency sequences and their stacking patterns: Sequencestratigraphic evidence of high-frequency eustatic cycles:
Sedimentary Geology, v. 70, p. 135144.
Ramsayer, G. R., 1979, Seismic stratigraphy: A fundamental exploration tool: Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, v. 3, p. 18591867.
Read, J. F., 1985, Carbonate platform facies models: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 69, p. 121.
OCTOBER
SEARCH
Robertson, A. H. F., 1998, MesozoicTertiary tectonic evolution of the easternmost Mediterranean area: Integration
of marine and land evidence, in A. H. F. Robertson, K. C.
Eneis, C. Richter, and A. Camerlenghi, eds., Proceedings
of 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 in
Israel: Bulletin du Centre de Recherches Elf Exploration
Production 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. Van Wagoner, eds., Sealevel changes: An integrated approach: SEPM Special
Publication 42, p. 155181.
Sass, E., and A. Bein, 1982, The Cretaceous carbonate platform 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 stratigraphy: GeoArabia, v. 9, no. 1, p. 199214 and 2 posters.
Shenhav, H., 1971, Lower Cretaceous sandstone reservoirs,
Israel: Petrography, porosity, permeability: AAPG Bulletin, v. 55, p. 21942224.
Sneh, A., Y. Bartov, T. Weisbrood, and M. Rosensaft, 1998,
Geological map of Israel: Israel Geological Survey,
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 Tertiary
chalks of the Albuskjell area, North Sea: Deposition in
a slope and a base-of-slope environment: Geology, v. 8,
p. 217221, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1980)8<217
:UCALTC>2.0.CO;2.
Gardosh et al.
1793
5
4
3

The Sequence Stratigraphy of Mesozoic Successions in The Levant Margin

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Sequence Stratigraphy of Mesozoic Successions in The Levant Margin

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CONTENTS

The sequence stratigraphy of

AAPG Bulletin, v. 95, no. 10 (October 2011), pp. 17631793

stratigraphic framework. Our analysis provides a

TECTONIC SETTING AND

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

Figure 1. (A) Location map

Garfunkel, 1998; Robertson, 1998). A regional horst

(Garfunkel and Derin, 1984; Garfunkel, 1998).

Hashefela groups (Figure 3) (Gvirtzman and Reiss,

data. Onlap and truncation surfaces, interpreted as

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

foraminifera and ostracod zonations, described in

Figure 4. Composite seismic

et al., 1986) reflects the three distinct lithologies

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

The Jr1 Depositional Sequence

and Friedman, 1974). In the Helez Deep-1 well

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

Figure 7. Composite seismic profile,

In the study area, the Jr1 sequence is composed

and Qeren formations (Figure 3) indicate that the

Jr1.1 and Jr1.2, are recognized within the Jr1

interpreted as the top of the Jr1 carbonate platform (Figure 5).

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

facies of these stratigraphic units were deposited in

subtle funnel-shaped patterns of gamma-ray, SP,

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

ern coastline, with moderate- to steep-angle slopes

The Jr3 Depositional Sequence (BathonianKimmeridgian)

Sea, the Jr3 sequence is dominated by shale and

(Buchbinder, 1979) indicate an exposure of the

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

the Jr3.2 strata contains the foraminifer A. jaccardi

Figure 12. Stratigraphic summary of the Massout Yizhaq-1 well,

Derin et al. (1990) suggest that the Middle

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

as deep-marine gravity flows. In seismic profiles,

Cretaceous Depositional Sequences

dominated by fluvial-eolian sandstone, siltstone,

Gill et al., 1995). Wireline logs display a bell-shaped

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

14). Their coeval lithostratigraphic unit, the Talme

lower part of Cr2.1 in the Yam-2 well (Figure 10)

and SP wireline logs within the carbonate section

mation overlies a truncation surface of the upper

Well and seismic reflection data show distinct

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

and Friedman, 1974). This relative drop in Tethyan

In wells located east of the modern coastline,

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

depth of about 2 km (1.2 mi) (see the geologic

14) is interpreted as a prograding mud-prone shelf

Figure 16. Schematic

generally subparallel to the present-day coastline

early part of Cr2 (Figure 5). Relative sea level

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

(Cohen, 1971). On seismic profiles, the breccias

found east of the modern coastline (Figure 5).

and Hashefela groups (Figure 3), were deposited

ferent from the underlying Jr1 to Cr1 sequences.

Sequence-Stratigraphic Analysis of the Mesozoic in Southwestern Israel

Figure 17. (A) Schematic