This site attempts to summarise a change in our understanding of SE Asian geology. It is based on three decades of experience and unparalleled access to raw data. It is not a clever new theory, but an evidence-based framework that builds on work done by previous workers. A recurring theme is that we must move away from model-driven interpretations and go back to the evidence-based methods of the early workers. SE Asia is simply too complex and unique to be interpreted in the light of idealised models (which were mostly developed in tectonically passive areas).
Using evidence-based methods means there is a much greater emphasis on the quality of observations. Not all inputs are equal, and multiple lines of cross-referenced data are needed to make a robust case. As a result there is a lot of geologically nerdy detail in these posts. This type of approach differs from model-driven studies, such as seismic geometries based on an ideal model, which are used to guide a new interpretation. Such work often assumes that “we know the answer, we just haven’t found it in this area yet“. This contrasts with genuine scientific skepticism about a tectonically dynamic area, and the need to repeatedly re-build and validate a unique framework that describes and predicts unique geology.
Note: where I can I will try and explain jargon. In the paragraph below hover your pointer over the words autocyclic and allocyclic for a second and a short explanation should appear.
Working with other experienced people, the current initiative behind this blog is to:
- Review recent papers on SE Asia with some plain language explanations. In the old days there were experts on East Java and experts on Tarakan, and work in each area was not drawn into a single, big-picture model. Well, we now have a cross-referenced big-picture framework, and while it is undoubtedly flawed, it is exciting and comprehensive. For example work on the steady deposition of Group I in the Malay Basin has implications for the sequence stratigraphy of the Kujung Limestone deposition in Eastern Java (if there was no significant eustatic control in the Malay Basin at that time, then large “cycles” in the Kujung carbonates must be autocyclic not allocyclic).
- Explain the links between new work and the supporting data, particularly material that would not get published. No journal wants to include explanations of how environments of deposition are determined, yet there are no books on the subject, (see here and here for two introductions) yet it is important to establish how reliable this data is. This is part of the topic of data precision and trueness, which is not part of modern science writing but should be; like the hard sciences that routinely report their error bars and reliability. Clarification of terminology is also tedious but essential, as I explain in a quick overview of the “Cycles” of Sarawak (and also in this overview post).
- Errata, of which there are many, for instance the examples given in the link to environment of deposition from benthic foraminifera (because there was no textbook guiding interpretations). If these mistakes are not documented then new arguments can be appear to be undermined, but no journal wants to include such negative content, even though Charles Darwin stated “To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
- To present a new geology framework for SE Asia. This new, draft framework is very close to completion. As promised, it is an evidence-based framework not an idealised model. It ranges from the big scale that includes the end of the hypothesis of the Proto-South China Sea (also this post), to the new mechanism of compound break-up unconformities, and the fundamental control this has on primary sequences of stratigraphy. The confining model of eustasic sequence stratigraphy can be abandoned and replaced by this evidence-based framework (see also this link).
- How this new framework impacts hydrocarbon exploration (e.g. a first example here). It should be noted that hydrocarbons still need to be found. Renewables are not an option for SE Asia**. The region needs more energy to develop; and new discoveries to replenish reserves and maintain our present civilised life. What would happen for three or four days if a typhoon headed towards Manila or Tokyo? Windmills tied down, solar output zero. It does not bear thinking about!
** Most of SE Asia has no wind to speak of, and daytime-only solar power is limited by hazy to cloudy conditions and torrential rainy seasons. The expensive, so called renewables are not a viable option, even if people were willing to pay the huge subsidies needed until the next generation of nuclear power arrives. Natural gas is as green as energy gets. If you like using the elevator in your condo/office, or having a choice of working and sleeping with air-conditioners, you are, by definition anti-“renewables”. Geologically speaking we are living in a CO2 drought. Mankind is a blessing to the planet to correct the existential threat of CO2 starvation of plants, which the earth nearly reached during the last glacial maximum. Let’s not get carried away with optimism, but there certainly is no climate emergency.