## 5 Discussion  
The problem of integration well and seismic data for apparently homogeneous complexes of heterolithic formations with a large thickness has been quite often discussed in scientific papers. An example of this type of analysis is the work of [PERSON] et al. [66] regarding the Aptian (Lower Cretaceous) heterolithic strata of McMurray Formation from Alberta, Canada. The work focuses on defining the depositional model of formation using abundant well data (core, HMI, traditional well logs) and high-resolution seismic data combined with principles of process-based fluvial sedimentology. [PERSON] et al. [67], based on seismic and well log correlation, gained a considerable amount of new information for understanding paleogeographic development and reservoir geometry of the Jurassic Garm Formation in the Smorbukk area, mid-Norway. An integrated study of seismic, seismic  
Figure 9: Compilation of seismoststratigraphic and chemoststratigraphic interpretation results for the Well-2 analyzed: track A—depth, track B—chemoststratigraphic zones, track C—well logs, track D—dipmeter, track E—mineralogical profile, track F—synthetic seismogram and stick plot in the background of seismic section (fragment of InLine), track G—synthetic seismogram and stick plot in the background of seismic section (fragment of XLine), track H—stick plot in the background of systems tracts interpretation (fragment of XLine), track I—gamma-ray in the background of systems tracts interpretation (fragment of XLine), track J—stick plot in the background of tectonost stratigraphic (megasequences) interpretation (fragment of XLine), track K—depositional sequence numbers, track L—chemical composition analysis. attribute, core, and biostratigraphic data in this area indicate that the Garn Formation is strongly age and facies diachronous, often over short distances (5-10 km). Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that sediment dispersal and stratigraphic architecture were influenced by fault-created topography. Regarding Miocene formations of the Carpathian Foredeep, the problem of correlation between well data and seismic data interpretation for heterolithic formations has been discussed in publications by several authors (for example [12; 68; 69; 70; 71; 72; 73]). The use of borehole data in these works is mainly based on the correlation and interpretation of well logs, while the use of seismic data is based on standard structural interpretation or, less frequently, a lithofacial interpretation supported by the seismic image analysis or seismic attributes analysis. Whereas the results of chemostratigraphic interpretation for Miocene formations in the northern part of the Pannonian Basin System are presented i.a. in the works of [PERSON] et al. [74] or [PERSON] et al. [75], the set of chemostratigraphic markers is limited to just a few. The distribution of more elements was analyzed in the works of [PERSON] et al. [76] and [PERSON] [77], but the research in the second publication was carried out on a few tens of meters section of the Miocene profile from the boundary between Badenian and Sarmatian. Taking these aspects into account, it should be noted that it is difficult to find publications from the analyzed region in which chemostratigraphic results from wells are being compared with the seismostratigraphic interpretation of seismic data. The idea of integrating these data proposed in this paper represents a new approach to the interpretation of fine-grained and tectonically disturbed formations. The authors of several works have approached the issue of integrating chemostratigraphic data with paleoenvironmental analysis and with eustatic sea-level changes [78; 79; 80], as well as using the chemostratigraphic method to more precisely define the boundaries of depositional sequences [81; 82; 83; 84; 85]. The issues of integrating the results of chemostratigraphic and seismostrigraphic analyses have been attempted by research teams in other sedimentary basins around the world.