## 2 Data and Methodology  
A cube of raw 3D seismic data acquired and cropped for Inas and Melor fields was used in this study, which is located in the PM 313 block. The Inas and Melor 3D seismic survey covers an area of approximately 574 square kilometers. The data consists of 600 in-lines in the East-West directions and 3538 crosslines in the North-South direction. Data were recorded at a sampling rate of 2 milliseconds to 6.5 s of record length, with a line spacing of 25 m, while the Common Depth Point (CDP) spacing is 12.5 m, in-line length is 44,212.25 m, and the crossline length is about 14,975 m.  
Using the Pre-Stack Time Migration (PrSTM) data, including full-fold, near, far seismic cubes with reverse SEG-Y polarity, the data were resampled to 3 runs during the processing chain to expedite data delivery. Data quality is relatively good in the zone of interest (Groups A), with a dominant frequency of about 67 Hz, which occurs in the time interval starting from 0 to \(-507\) milliseconds. The minimum resolution is estimated at 25 m at the study succession. The seismic (16-bits SEG-Y) data (The SEG-Y (sometimes SEG Y) file format is one of several standards developed by the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) for storing geophysical data. It is an open standard, and is controlled by the SEG Technical Standards Committee, a non-profit organization) volume was loaded into Petrel 2019, Paleoscan 2019 to delineate the surfaces and boundaries. Generally, both horizontal and vertical resolutions depend on similar data, reliant on different factors (velocity, wavelength, frequency, and noise). Some of the observable depositional features such as scroll bars in any point bar are simpler to image, recognize, and then interpret in the perspective of the 3D map-view. However, the same geological features can be depicted in a perspective view of the seismic cross-section, but in low detail compared to the 3D map view. Commonly, inferring a geological description from a view of the plan is more manageable than from an image view of the section. The workflow followed in this research is summarized in Figure 4.  
The strata slices' interpretations for such geomorphological evaluations provide a more accurate understanding of the lithology allocation and geologic system, such as stratigraphic analyses. The fluvial channel is an example where map-view elements might  
Figure 4: The general workflow for this research. include sinuosity channel, meander scrolls, laterally incised, and crevasse splays. These are all possibly measurable in slice pictures, especially compared to even more restricted information accessible in view of the seismic section [41]. The seismic section might describe some other attributes, including reservoir architecture and channel asymmetry. However, the range and abundance of information that can be found in sectional views are limited compared to what is accessible in time slices. The optimal method, in general, should include incorporating observations from both views. However, time slices' images can facilitate and improve geological features' detection that cannot be identified using 2D seismic sections. The minimum thickness of strata to be detectable in seismic data is around 5.7 m [38]. Likewise, two different reflecting points in horizontal space must be roughly 11 m distance from each other to be observed as two different elements. Conversely, in this good condition set of data, which is close to the seafloor and consists of youthful deposits, geologic elements significantly smaller and laterally relatively close could even, therefore, be identified both in time slices and seismic crosslines. A successful study of seismic geomorphology depends on the knowledge of sedimentological, geomorphological principles, understanding the local geological setting and seismic geomorphological imaging quality [12].