A review of kinematic indicators from mass-transport complexes using 3D seismic data Suzanne Bull a, * , Joe Cartwright a , Mads Huuse b a 3D Lab, School of Earth Ocean and Planetary Sciences, Cardiff University, Main Building, Park Place, Wales, Cardiff CF10 3YE, UK b Department of Geology and Petroleum Geology, College of Physical Sciences, Meston Building, Kings College, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, UK article info Article history: Received 21 February 2008 Received in revised form 14 August 2008 Accepted 26 September 2008 Available online 26 October 2008 Keywords: 3D seismic Kinematic indicators MTCs Norway Levant Margin abstract Three-dimensional (3D) seismic reflection data have recently been shown to be an excellent tool in the study of submarine mass-transport complexes (MTCs), from which kinematic indicators can be identi- fied. Kinematic indicators are geological structures or features which may be analysed to allow the direction, magnitude and mode of transport to be constrained. The various indicator types have been classified according to where they may typically be found within the MTC body – the headwall domain, translational domain and toe domain. Aspects of their formation, identification using seismic data and their kinematic value are discussed, and illustrated using examples taken from 3D seismic data from the continental margin of Norway and the Levant Margin, both of which have been influenced by repetitive large-scale slope failure in the recent past. The imaging of kinematic indicators using seismic surveys which provide large areal coverage allows swift and confident evaluation of the direction of translation, and in many cases also allow the degree of translation of the displaced slide material to be constrained. Imaging of the basal shear surface, analysis of internal architectures and determination of transport direction are areas which are of particular benefit from the analysis of 3D seismic. The descriptions and applications of the various kinematic indicators detailed in this study should find broad applicability for seismic interpreters working on MTCs in many different settings and locations. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction MTCs are important in the evolution of the world’s continental margins, from where they are commonly recognised (Hampton et al., 1996). Many studies have demonstrated the power of modern geophysical techniques, such as two-dimensional (2D) and 3D seismic reflection data, multibeam bathymetry and sidescan sonar imaging in the study of MTCs as we work towards a better under- standing of these often large-scale, complex events (Canals et al., 2004 and references therein). In particular, 3D seismic data have proven to be a useful tool in the geological investigation of deep water settings (Posamentier and Kolla, 2003), and have been used to study both ancient and relatively recent MTCs in the offshore environment (Nissen et al., 1999; Huvenne et al., 2002; Haflidason et al., 2004; Frey Martinez et al., 2005, 2006; Moscardelli et al., 2006). Mapping of horizons across large areas in 3D allow the data to be used in a similar way to sidescan sonar or bathymetry data, facilitating the morphological analysis of surface and subsurface features. In addition, seismic time or horizon slices and attribute maps can be analysed from a geomorphic perspective to yield further characteristics of depositional units (Posamentier and Kolla, 2003). To date, many studies of submarine slope failures have identi- fied various kinematic indicators, using both geophysical methods (Prior et al., 1984; Masson et al., 1993; Bøe et al., 2000; Laberg et al., 2000; Laberg and Vorren, 2000; Haflidason et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2004; Frey Martinez et al., 2005, 2006; Gee et al., 2005; Schnellmann et al., 2005; Lastras et al., 2006) and the study of ancient outcrops (Farrell, 1984; Martinsen and Bakken, 1990; Trincardi and Argnani, 1990; Strachan, 2002a,b; Lucente and Pini, 2003). We define a kinematic indicator as a geological structure or feature which records information related to the type and direction of motion at the time of emplacement, and as such they are of great use to our understanding of the initiation, dynamic evolution and cessation of slope failures. When a submarine slope failure occurs, material is translated downslope above a basal shear surface which develops due to progressive shear failure (Varnes, 1978). Once failure initiates, the event may progress by means of a number of mass movement processes (see Martinsen, 1994). Although various subdivisions and classification schemes for these processes exist (Martinsen, 1994; Mulder and Cochonant, 1996), each process represents part of * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 1224 395 557; fax: þ44 1224 353 400. E-mail address: sbull@talisman-energy.com (S. Bull). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine and Petroleum Geology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpetgeo 0264-8172/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2008.09.011 Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 1132–1151