EROSION AND UPLIFT UNCERTAINTIES IN THE BARENTS SEA, NORWAY

Three different types of methods are used to assess the ability to det ermine erosion amounts and to provide estimates of uncertainty. In the situation of dynamical indicator methods, such as seismic velocity, s onic logs, density logs, or drilling exponent methods, intrinsic assum ptions and parameter values used provide only a broad statement on the resolution of uplift/erosion events. None of the methods is more accu rate, at best, to better than ii km and likely much worse. For geologi cal model procedures, exemplified by considerations of Airy isostasy a nd by bed upturning near a salt dome in the Nordkapp Basin of the Bare nts Sea, the uncertainties are again of the order of +/- 500-1000 m. m . With thermal indicator procedures, the bulk of the constraint inform ation from available data is needed to determine paleoheat flux with l ittle left over to constrain the erosion, implying a minimum uncertain ty of +/- 500 m on erosion determinations. No method seems capable of resolving erosional events to better than a minimum uncertainty of +/- 500 m, and likely no better than +/- 1 km.