O A RIGINAL RTICLE

260
Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(2): 260-268, 2013
ISSN 1995-0756
This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Pattern of structural geology underground in eastern of north DEZFOL embayment
1
Mahdi Mashal, 1Mohsen Pour Kermani, 2Abbas Charchi, 1Mahmud Almasian, 3Mehran Arian
1
Department of Geology, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Geology, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran.
3
Department of Geology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2
Mahdi Mashal, Mohsen Pour Kermani, Abbas Charchi, Mahmud Almasian, Mehran Arian: Pattern of
structural geology underground in eastern of north DEZFOL embayment
ABSTRACT
The study area is located in the eastern region of Dezful Embayment division structure is known. It's part
one of richest belts Trust the world's. To study the structural regions of the field was studied by surface
structures and for subsurface structures by seismic data of eastern North Dezful Embayment region will be. It
was determined the geometry of the Zagros deformation front and front of the basin is controlled by minimum
two different structural parameters(1) Mechanical nature of the separation rule shortening ZFTB and(2)
Reactivation of basement faults effective in the tectonic model of crustal thickness. Structural style of the Dezful
Embayment associated is with faulting and folding sliding surface. In the area of the sliding surface to evaporate
a Gachsaran formation has created. It seems that the main reason for folding uncooperative is sliding between
Gachsaran and Asmari the by the difference in level viscosity.
Key word: structure, DEZFOL embayment, seismic data, surface study, Pattern
Introduction
The Zagros mountain belt of Iran, a part of the
Alpine–Himalayan system, extends from the NW
Iranian border through to SW Iran, up to the Strait of
Hormuz. This orogeny belt is the result of the
collision between the continental Arabian plate and
the so-called Iranian block belonging to Eurasia
[5,26]. These authors infer that the first compressive
movements across the belt began during the Late
Cretaceous due to the abduction of ophiolites on the
northeastern margin of the Arabian continent. These
movements accelerated and became more widespread
following the continent–continent collision in
Miocene times [8,25]. The convergence is still active
at the present day, in a roughly N–S direction at a
rate of approximately 25–30 mm yr21 at the eastern
edge of the Arabian plate [21]. This direction is
oblique to the NW–SE trend of the orogeny belt.
Earthquake focal mechanisms and the GPS velocity
field [27] suggest partitioning of this oblique
shortening along the faults in the Zagros [22].
The Zagros fold-and-thrust belt is the result of
continental collision between the Arabian and
Eurasian plates [26,5,13]. The onset of convergence
started with ophiolite abduction in Late Cretaceous
time [3] and continued with a main folding phase in
Late Miocene time [10].
The foredeep depression started to develop in
the inner Zagros after deposition of the widespread
Upper Oligocene platform carbonate (Lower Asmari
Formation) [23] and migrated southwestward down
to its present position in the Persian Gulf [1].
Despite the interest in Zagros folds due to their
major hydrocarbon reserves, and after extensive
drilling by oil companies, geophysical and geological
surveys, little has been published about the structural
behavior of the sedimentary cover, the structural
style and its relationship with sedimentary facies and
evolution of the belt since the Late Cretaceous.
O’Brien [19] was the first to divide the stratigraphic
column into five structural divisions. (1) Basement
group (Precambrian), (2) Lower mobile group
(Hormuz salt, decollement level), (3) Competent
group
(Cambrian to Lower Miocene), (4) Upper
mobile group (Miocene salt, decollement level), and
(5) In competent group (Lower Miocene to Plio Pleistocene, mostly clastic sediments) [22].
It has been suggested that a large proportion of
Gachsaran salt was re-precipitated from Hormuz salt,
extruded in diapirs east of the Kazerun Fault [19;17].
Diapirism in the Gachsaran was introduced by
O’Brien [19] to explain decoupling between the
preand post-Gachsaran level. Recently some authors
used his model to illustrate disharmonic folding [7].
Sherkati et al. [24], based on new available seismic
Corresponding Author
Mahdi Mashal, Department of Geology, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran,
Iran.
E-mail: [email protected]
261
Adv. Environ. Biol., 7(2): 260-268, 2013
profiles, illustrated the kinematic evolution of
Miocene salt layers. The principal aims of this paper
are to (1) describe the mechanical and physical
properties of the Gachsaran Formation, (2) describe
its thickness variations, (3) discuss the kinematics of
folding with regard to the plastic behavior of the
Gachsaran Formation, and (4) examine the control of
the Gachsaran Formation on sedimentation of the
post-Gachsaran syn-tectonic deposits [1].
2. Regional setting:
Folding in the Zagros involves practically
continuous series from Cambrian to Recent in age.
The thickness and faces of the Paleozoic are not well
controlled in the SW of the Izeh zone and Dezful
Embayment due to the lack of outcrops and deep
well data. In this study, Paleozoic thickness and faces
are inferred from the minimum visible thickness on
seismic lines and the extrapolation of few outcrops in
Zagros fold belt. presents new structural subdivisions
of the stratigraphic column, which consists of several
competent structural units that are separated by
incompetent levels resulting in a disharmonic fold
style in the study area (Fig 1). This disharmony is the
expression of the different mechanical behavior of
the units, which seems to be more complex than what
was described by O’Brien [19]. From the NE to the
SW of study area, our classification is based on data
such as the Dinar surface section (Lower Paleozoic
to Upper Cretaceous), the Mokhtar well (Middle
Cretaceous to Eocene), the Khami surface section
(Jurassic to Oligo- Miocene) and the Nemours well
data (Lower Cretaceous– Pleistocene) in addition to
regional seismic interpretation and field mapping.
The main basal decollement horizon is located in
Lower Paleozoic Hormuz salt or Cambrian Shale
beds, over the entire study area. The Hormuz
evaporitic series is known from outcrops along the
southern border of the High Zagros thrust [7], Fars
region and also from seismic data in the Persian
Gulf. Instead, there is no outcrop or seismic
halokinesis evidence for Hormuz salt in Izeh zone
and Dezful Embayment (Fig 1) [22].
In the Dezful Embayment , the Miocene
Gachsaran Fm. Is the main intermediate incompetent
horizon. Its thickness changes very rapidly from
several hundred to 2000 m. This thickness variation
is related to faulting, folding and diaprism after
deposition and also syntectonic sedimentation during
the folding (Fig 1). It consists of salt at the base,
which is overlaid by anhydrite, marls and thinbedded carbonates. Our observations show
differences in size, structural configuration and
tectonic complexity of the structures across the study
area which are interpreted as being related to
sedimentary faces variations [22].
Fig. 1: Satellite Image of North Dezful Embayment area (Landsat 7)
262
Adv. Environ. Biol., 7(2): 260-268, 2013
Fig. 2: Schematic picture of field in the east of North Dezful Embayment. pictures and π diagrams in Asmari
anticline, Izeh anticline, msjed solyman anticline, ramhormoz anticline
3. Structure Study:
This Section is in 2 parts. First, we describe the
Seismic data of the Dezful Embayment. Second, we
describe the structure of the Embayment based on
published accounts of the exposed and sub-surface
geology, and our own field observations. Finally, we
review the wider structure of the Zagros, with the
particular aim of highlighting those features that vary
along strike and may bear on the origin of the
Embayment itself.
3.1.Geomorphology and surface Study:
Anticlines within the Dezful Embayment
coincide with modest topographic highs, generally
only a few tens of metres above the surrounding
plains, which are themselves only a few metres
above sea level .Upper Cenozoic clastic rocks
assigned to the Agha Jari and Bakhtyari formations
are exposed at the fold crests (Fig 2). The fossil-poor,
terrestrial nature of these units means that
assignments are done mainly on the basis of the
lithologies, with little biostratigraphic control [12].
This practice means that some of the finer-grained
strata assigned to the Agha Jari Formation are
potentially time equivalent to coarser strata mapped
as Bakhtyari Formation. The Ahwaz structure is an
example of this: the uppermost exposed strata along
the fold crest are mapped as Agha Jari Formation
[18], which, if a strict layercake stratigraphy applies,
suggests that the fold has uplifted, exhumed and
eroded the entire Bakhtyari Formation since some
time in the Pliocene, or at least its non-deposition.
This seems unlikely, given that the structure has only
a few tens of meters of elevation above the
surrounding alluvial plains (Fig 2). Modern drainage
patterns and deposition make a similar point:
drainage across the Dezful Embayment is centripetal,
rising on all three mountainous margins and focusing
on the Tigris in the southwest. Rivers at the margins
of the Embayment are commonly braided and carry a
cobble-grade bedload. Their downstream equivalents
in the Embayment interior are typically meandering
(such as the Dez and Karun,)and carry more finegrained sediment (Fig 2). These two present settings
probably typify much of the upper Cenozoic clastic
sedimentation across the Zagros, with the finergrained ‘Agha Jari’ type passing upwards into
coarser ‘Bakhtyari’ sediments as deformation
advanced towards a given area, thereby increasing
relief and sediment grade (Fig 2). A further
implication is that interpretations of pulses of
deformation, based on unconformities beneath
conglomeratic facies [8], need to be treated with
caution. Such a sedimentary switch might represent
263
Adv. Environ. Biol., 7(2): 260-268, 2013
the local progradation of higher energy transverse
deposits over lower energy axial or centripetal
systems, not a Zagros wide pulse of deformation.
Individual folds interact with drainage systems,
typified by the Sardar Abad anticline. This is a
composite structure with four separate culminations
along its length [15]. The topographic relief above
surrounding plains is ∼40 m. The Dez River is
antecedent and cuts through the middle of the
anticline. Notably this is not at one of the relay zones
between the culminations, but in the middle of a
culmination, at least at the present exposure level,
which is mapped as the AghaJari Formation (Fig 2).
The river changes plan form from meandering to a
relatively straight reach as it crosses the fold,
reverting to a meandering plan form downstream,
which is a typical response of low gradient rivers as
they cross a zone of active surface uplift [9]. In
contrast, the Karun River is diverted around the
southeast tip of the fold, presumably tracking the
lateral growth of the fold tip in the same direction.
Lateral fold growth is preserved in higher relief
anticlines at the margins of the Dezful Embayment,
where wind gaps/dry valleys are preserved along fold
crests, e.g. near the eastern tip of the Kuh-e Chenareh
anticline. Such wind gaps are common in the Zagros
[4,20], and are useful indicators of the previous
patterns of drainage. The present drainage is diverted
around the fold, lying some 3 km further east, but
this channel also lies within the topographic
expression of the fold and so may in turn become
abandoned at some stage in the future. The rates of
surface uplift and lateral fold propagation are
unknown (Fig 5).
3.2. sub-surface Study:
Most events are located between the Dezful
Embayment Fault and the Mountain Front Fault
where topography is steepest (Fig 2). Higher regions
(>1000 m elevation) to the northeast are less
seismically active, although there are two oblique
and strike-slip events recorded close to the Main
Recent Fault and the Kazerun Line (Fig 3). One
thrust earthquake took place close to the High Zagros
Fault. Three events occurred close to the frontal
anticlines of the Dezful Embayment, suggesting that
these folds are underlain by thrusts similar to the
structures further northeast. Combining the
earthquake depths with depth-to basement maps
confirms that in places the Zagros basement is
actively thrusting [11,16,28,29], but at the same time
some seism genic faulting occurs purely within the
sedimentary cover(Fig 4) [14,2]. There is no
difference in the orientation, magnitude or dip of
events rupturing within the cover or basement, or
both. There is some evidence for low angle (<20◦
dip) thrusting in the seismicity record, especially in
the northeast of the Embayment, for example the 19
October 1980 event at32.70◦ N 48.58◦ E at 17 km
depth [16]. Other low-angle slip is likely to happen a
seismically, perhaps along weak detachment
horizons (Fig 3) [6].
Fig. 3: Schematic picture seismic profile of the subsurface structure in1-Naft sefid and 2- Lab sefid based on
information provided by NIOC
264
Adv. Environ. Biol., 7(2): 260-268, 2013
Fig. 4: Schematic picture seismic profile of the subsurface structure in eastern of north DEZFOL embayment
based on information provided by NIOC
4. Role of the Gachsaran evaporites in the dynamics of folding:
The stratigraphic column of the Zagros consists of several competent stiff layers that are separated by
evaporate or shale layers, involved in deformation as intermediate decollements [19,23] (Fig 5). Plastic behavior
of the incompetent units within the Gachsaran Formation favours development of disharmonic folding above it;
such folding can be completely decoupled from that of underlying formations. Generally folds above the
Gachsaran Formation are tight with short wavelengths in the Dezful Embayment. As explained before, the
Gachsaran Formation is considered a main detachment level (upper detachment) in the Dezful Embayment (Fig
4). Therefore, the geometry of folds is expected to be different above and below this detachment level. A twoway time map of the top of the Gachsaran Formation (based on seismic data in the time domain with sea level as
the datum plane) is presented in Figure 4 and 5 shows the location of the anticlines in both the top Asmari and
Gachsaran levels. Therefore, the location of structures in the top Gachsaran level is clearly different from
structures in the top Asmari.
5. Structures in the eastern Dezful Embayment:
In the Dezful Embayment, fold–thrust belt structures are expressed clearly both in subsurface and surface
data. A more extensive stratigraphic section is involved compared with the Abadan Plain, as deeper, weak
lithologies are utilized as detachments. Important detachment levels include the Hormuz Salt, and the Dashtak,
Sargelu–Gotnia, Garau, Kazhdumi, Gurpi, Pabdeh and the Gachsaran formations (Fig 5). The Dezful
Embayment contains many anticlines, of which most relate to deep detachment thrusting. Some could also be
caused by basement-rooted, steep faulting. These two contrasting mechanisms are not always possible to
distinguish, due to the depth of the structure in question. The well expressed, deep-rooted folds are open to
gentle and upright, with an overall elliptical shape in map view. This fold shape is probably related to strong,
265
Adv. Environ. Biol., 7(2): 260-268, 2013
thick limestones, such as the Upper Cretaceous Sarvak Formation. Three sub-parallel, NW–SE-trending
anticlines are shown in a migrated seismic profile. These anticlines are gentle, with rounded shape in crosssection(Fig 5). They also affect the Gachsaran Formation, which represents a main, upper detachment horizon.
This is illustrated by distinct differences in the style of folds above and below this unit. Internal wedge
geometries in the post-Gachsaran growth strata are related to growth of detachment or fault-propagation folds in
the syntectonic deposits, where associated uplift and subsidence have created unconformities and on lap
structures. Such features, when identified, suggest that the main folding phase was in the Late Pliocene. In some
seismic sections, thrust faults can be identified in the southwestern limb of the deeply rooted anticlines. These
faults die up-section, or sole out in the Mid-Miocene Gachsaran Formation. Detailed analyses of larger
anticlines reveal both steeper reverse faults and low-angle thrusts suggesting that the anticlines formed by
several mechanisms. These include: (1) fault-propagation folding as displacements on faults die up-section; (2)
fault-bend folding above flat-ramp-flat thrusts; and (3) roof folding above duplexes. The latter are hinterland
dipping or ant formal stack duplexes, as deeper thrusts ramp up to the Gachsaran Formation detachment.
Another characteristic feature is that as thrusts cut up-section towards the Gachsaran Formation detachment,
back-thrusts tend to form. This is especially clear in the thick, competent lime stones of the Sarvak Formation,
which accommodate minor folding before fracturing (Fig 5). The best example is represented by the Aghajari
Anticline, where several back-thrusts cut up from the master thrust into the Gachsaran detachment. In this case,
the back-thrusts assist in the formation of the major anticline that characterizes the Mesozoic–Early Tertiary
level.
Fig. 5: Schematic picture cross section of the subsurface structure in Izeh zone
Another striking feature of the region is the
complex nature of the Gachsaran Formation
detachment level. Both in-sequence and out-of-
sequence thrusts in syn-tectonic deposits can be seen
to cut up from this level.
266
Adv. Environ. Biol., 7(2): 260-268, 2013
6. Discussion:
7. Conclusions:
The greater part of the Zagros lies within the
Simply Folded Belt, but this region is not
homogeneous along strike, being an alternating
sequence of low relief, low elevation ‘embayment’
and high relief, high elevation ‘salient’ or ‘arcs’.
These quotation marks are advisable: the
deformation front is distinctly linear along the Zagros
west of the Kazerun Line, while the Fars region has
an arcuate deformation front that does not step
abruptly southwards of the eastern limit of the Dezful
Embayment.
Variations along strike in the High Zagros occur
at the same places as within the Simply Folded Belt,
and the intense imbrication of the Bakhtyari
Culmination is not matched by similar thrusting of
the Arabian plate margin in regions to the northwest
or southeast. This variation is consistent with an
original promontory at this point on the Arabian plate
margin, now smoothed
out by the collision. We further suggest that this
imbrication and thrust sheet loading resulted in
greater subsidence of the Dezful Embayment than
other areas of the Simply Folded Belt.
(1) Thickness variations of the Gachsaran
Formation, instead of sedimentary dynamism, are
mostly related to flow and thrusting of its
incompetent members(Fig 6).
(2) Usually conventional time-migrated seismic
sections are distorted and obscured owing to the
presence of Gachsaran ridges and related lateral
velocity Neogene salt and Zagros folding 865
variations. In such conditions, strong lateral velocity
variations, related to lithology contrasts between
steeply dipping layers, bend the seismic rays like an
optical lens and distort the sub-surface image (Fig 6)
(3) Syn-tectonic Agha Jari and Bakhtyari
deposits actively influenced the mechanical balance
and the kinematic evolution of the folds developed in
the Dezful Embayment.
(4) A possible mechanism for deformation of the
Gachsaran Formation is flow of salt and of other
incompetent rocks (members 2–5). Progressive
deformation accelerated this mechanism and blocked
incompetent sediments between pre-Gachsaran
anticlines and post-Gachsaran synclines, squeezed up
to the surface just after erosion of the superficial
crest of Fars anticlines (Fig 6).
Fig. 6: Model for eastern region North Dezful Embayment
References
1.
2.
ABDOLLAHIE FARD, I., M SEPEHR, & S.
SHERKATI, 2011. Neogene salt in SWIran and
its interaction with Zagros folding. Geological
Magazine., 148: 854-67.
ADAMS, A., R. BRAZIER, A. NYBLADE, A.
RODGERS, & A. AL-AMRI, 2009. Source
parameters for moderate earthquakes in the
3.
Zagros mountains with implications for the
depth extent of seismicity. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 99: 2044-9.
AGARD, P., J. OMRANI, L. JOLIVET, & F.
MOUTHEREAU, 2005. Convergence history
across Zagros (Iran): constraints from collisional
and earlier deformation. International Journal of
Earth Sciences, 94: 401-19.
267
Adv. Environ. Biol., 7(2): 260-268, 2013
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
BURBERRY, C.M., J.W. COSGROVE, & J.G.
LIU, 2008. Spatial arrangement of fold types in
the Zagros Simply Folded Belt, Iran, indicated
by landform morphology and drainage pattern
characteristics. Journal of Maps v, pp: 417-30.
BERBERIAN, M. & G.C.P. KING, 1981.
Towards a paleogeography and tectonic
evolution of Iran. Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences, 18: 210-85.
CASCIELLO, E., J. VERGES, E. SAURA, G.
CASINI, N. FERNANDEZ, E. BLANC, S.
HOMKE, & D.W. HUNT, 2009. Fold patterns
and multilayer rheology of the Lurestan
Province, Zagros Simply Folded Belt (Iran).
Journal of the Geological Society, London, 166:
947-59.
EDGELL, H.S., 1996. Salt tectonism in the
Persian Gulf basin. In Salt Tectonics (eds G. I.
Alsop, D. J. Blundell. & I. Davison), pp. 129–
51. Geological Society London, Special
Publication no. 100.
FALCON, N., 1974. Southern Iran: Zagros
mountains. In Mesozoic–Cenozoic Orogenic
Belts: Data for orogenic studies (ed. A.
Spencer), pp. 199–211. Geological Society of
London, Special Publication no. 4.
HOLBROOK, J. & S.A. SCHUMM, 1999.
Geomorphic and sedimentary response of rivers
to tectonic deformation: a brief review and
critique of a tool for recognizing subtle
epeirogenic deformation in modern and ancient
settings. Tectonophysics, 305: 287-306.
HOMKE, S., J. VERGÉS, M. GARCÉS, H.
EMAMI,
&
R.
KARPUZ,
2004.
Magnetostratigraphy
of
Miocene–Pliocene
Zagros foreland deposits in the front of the Pushe Kush Arc (Lurestan Province, Iran). Earth and
PlanetarymScience Letters, 225: 397-410.
JACKSON, J.A., 1980. Reactivation of
basement faults and crustal shortening in
orogenic belts. Nature, 283: 343-6.
JAMES, G.S. & J.G. WYND, 1965.
Stratigraphic nomenclature of Iranian Oil
Consortium Agreement Area. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,
49: 2182-245.
KOYI, H.A., 1988. Experimental modelling of
the role of gravity and lateral shortening in
Zagros mountain belt. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 72: 1381-94.
KOYI, H.A., K. HESSAMI, & A. TEIXELL,
2000. Epicenter distribution and magnitude of
earthquakes in foldthrust belts: insights from
sandbox models. Geophysical Research Letters,
27: 273-6.
LLEWELLYN, P., 1972. Ahwaz. Tehran:
Iranian Oil OperatingCompanies.
MAGGI, A., J.A. JACKSON, K. PRIESTLEY,
& C. BAKER, 2000. A re-assessment of focal
depth distributions in southern Iran, the Tien
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Shan and northern India: do earthquakes really
occur in the continental mantle? Geophysical
Journal International., 143: 629-61.
MOTIEI, H., 1995. Petroleum Geology of
Zagros. Treatise on the geology of Iran, vol. 1 &
2. Geological Survey of Iran Publications (in
Farsi), pp: 1009.
NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY, 1975.
Geological Map of Iran Sheet 4 South-West
Iran. Tehran: National IranianOil Company.
O’BRIEN, C.A.E., 1950. Tectonic Problems of
the Oilfield Belt of Southwest Iran. Proceedings
of the 18th International Geological Congress,
Great Britain, pt. 6: 45-58.
RAMSEY, L.A., R.T. WALKER, & J.
JACKSON, 2008. Fold evolution and drainage
development in the Zagros mountains of Fars
province, SE Iran. Basin Research, 20: 23-48.
Sella, G.F., T.H. Dixon, & A. Mao, 2002. A
model for recent plate velocities from space
geodesy. Journal of Geophysical Research,
107(11): 1-11.30.
SHERKATI, S. & J. LETOUZEY, 2004.
Variation of structural style and basin evolution
in the central Zagros (Izeh zone and Dezful
Embayment), Iran. Marine and Petroleum
Geology, 21: 535-54.
SHERKATI, S., J. LETOUZEY, & D. FRIZON
DE LAMOTTE, 2006. Central Zagros foldthrust belt (Iran): new insights from seismic
data, field observation, and sandbox modeling,
Tectonics
25,
TC4007,
doi:10.1029/2004TC001766, 27.
SHERKATI, S., M. MOLINARO, D.F. DE
LAMOTTE, & J. LETOUZEY, 2005.
Detachment folding in the central and eastern
Zagros fold-belt (Iran): salt mobility, multiple
detachments and final basement control. Journal
of Structural Geology, 27: 1680-96.
Stocklin, J., 1968. Structural history and
tectonics of Iran. A review. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,
52: 1229-1258.
TAKIN, M., 1972. Iranian geology and
continental drift in theMiddle East. Nature, 235:
147-51.
Talebian, M., & J. Jackson, 2002. Offset on
Main recent fault of NW Iran and implication for
the late Cenozoic tectonics of the Arabia–
Eurasia collision zone. Geophysical Journal
International., 150(2): 422-439.
TALEBIAN, M. & J. JACKSON, 2004. A
reappraisal of earthquake focal mechanisms and
active shortening in the Zagros mountains of
Iran. Geophysical Journal International., 156:
506-26.
TATAR, M., D. HATZFELD, & M. GHAFORIASHTIANY, 2004. Tectonics of the Central
Zagros (Iran) deduced from microearthquake
268
Adv. Environ. Biol., 7(2): 260-268, 2013
seismicity. Geophysical Journal International.,
156: 255-66.
30. VAN BUCHEM, F., D. BAGHBANI, L.
BULLOT, M. CARON, F. GAUMET, A.
HOSSEINI,
A.
IMMENHAUSER,
F.
KEYVANI, R. SCHROEDER, V. VEDRENNE,
& B. VINCENT, 2006. Aptian organic rich intra
shelf basin creation in the Dezful Embayment –
Kazhdumi and Dariyan Formations, South West
Iran. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Annual Convention, Houston.
Abstract.