摘要：Inverted structures provide traps for petroleumexploration, typically four-way structural closures. As to the degree ofinversion, based on a large number of worldwide examples seen in variousbasins, the most preferred petroleum exploration targets are mild tomoderate inversion structures, defined by the location of the null points.In these instances, the closures have a relatively small vertical amplitude but are simple in a map-view sense and well imaged on seismic reflection data.Also, the closures typically cluster above the extensional depocenters whichtend to contain source rocks providing petroleum charge during and after theinversion. Cases for strong or total inversion are generally not that commonand typically are not considered as ideal exploration prospects, mostly dueto breaching and seismic imaging challenges associated with the trap(s)formed early on in the process of inversion. Also, migration may becometortuous due to the structural complexity or the source rock units may beuplifted above the hydrocarbon generation window, effectively terminating thecharge once the inversion has occurred.Cases of inversion tectonics can be grouped into two main modes. A structuredevelops in Mode I inversion if the syn-rift succession in the preexistingextensional basin unit is thicker than its post-rift cover including thepre- and syn-inversion part of it. In contrast, a structure evolves in ModeII inversion if the opposite syn- versus post-rift sequence thickness ratiocan be observed. These two modes have different impacts on the petroleumsystem elements in any given inversion structure.Mode I inversion tends to develop in failed intracontinental rifts andproximal passive margins, and Mode II structures are associated with back-arcbasins and distal parts of passive margins.For any particular structure the evidence for inversion is typicallyprovided by subsurface data sets such as reflection seismic and well data.However, in many cases the deeper segments of the structure are eitherpoorly imaged by the seismic data and/or have not been penetrated byexploration wells. In these cases the interpretation in terms of inversionhas to rely on the regional understanding of the basin evolution withevidence for an early phase of crustal extension by normal faulting. Downloadandlinks Article (PDF, 40328 KB) How to cite Back to top top How to cite. Tari, G., Arbouille, D., Schléder, Z., and Tóth, T.: Inversion tectonics: a brief petroleum industry perspective, Solid Earth, 11, 1865–1889, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-11-1865-2020, 2020. 1 Introduction Back to toptop While the concept of structural inversion has been around for a century(e.g., Lamplugh, 1919), the term was specifically used for the firsttime by Glennie and Boegner (1981) to explain the evolution of the Sole Pitstructure located in the UK sector of the southern North Sea. At the sametime, inversion structures called “Sunda-type folds” were described byEubank and Makki (1981) in Indonesia. The first generalized description ofstructural inversion was offered by Bally (1984) using a three-step cartoondepicting an extensional half-graben subjected to subsequent contraction.Both the concept and the term of inversion tectonics gained rapid acceptancein the petroleum industry and academia as shown by the large number ofpapers produced on this subject in the 1980s and 1990s. In the two “classic”volumes on inversion tectonics by Cooper et al. (1989) and Buchanan andBuchanan (1995), numerous case studies were published using data setsprovided by petroleum exploration companies (e.g., Roberts, 1989; Hayward andGraham, 1989; Badley et al., 1989; Cartwright, 1989). In addition, detailedoutcrop studies combined with a good understanding of the structural geologycontext, done almost exclusively in fold and thrust belts (e.g., Butler,1989; de Graciansky et al., 1989; McClay, 1989; Cooper et al., 1995;Flinch and Casas, 1996), offered an additional tool for recognizinginversion early on.During the last 30 years many facets of inversion tectonics were addressed,including physical modeling (e.g., McClay, 1989, 1995; Buchanan and McClay, 1991; Mitra and Islam,1994; Eisenstadt and Withjack, 1995; Keller and McClay, 1995; Yamada andMcClay, 2004; Panien et al., 2005; Amilibia et al., 2005; Bonini et al., 2011;Granado et al., 2017; Roma et al., 2018; Ferrer et al., 2017), numericalmodeling (e.g., Panien et al., 2006; Buiter et al., 2009; Granado andRuh, 2019 ), basin modeling (e.g., Neumaier et al., 2016, 2017;Omodeo-Salé et al., 2019) and crustal-scale geodynamics (e.g., Ziegler,1989; Ziegler et al., 1995; Cloetingh et al., 2008). Obviously, as 3D seismicreflection data became frequently used by the petroleum industry, moresubsurface case studies addressed inversion tectonics quantitatively (e.g., Davies et al., 2004; Jackson and Larsen, 2008; Jackson et al., 2013; Reillyet al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2020).Figure 1Extended version of Bally's (1984) original inversionmodel. This cartoon was redrafted after an unpublished figure made by AlbertW. Bally in the early 2000s at Rice University to show the progression ofinversion tectonics into the formation of an incipient folded belt.Specifically, he made this cartoon with the western High Atlas of Morocco inmind (e.g., Hafid et al., 2006); that is why salt is shown here as adetachment level accommodating some of the contraction.
