Difference between revisions of "Identifying depositional sequences in seismic sections"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Cwhitehurst (talk | contribs) m (added Category:Treatise Handbook 3 using HotCat) |
|||
| (20 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| part = Critical elements of the petroleum system | | part = Critical elements of the petroleum system | ||
| chapter = Sedimentary basin analysis | | chapter = Sedimentary basin analysis | ||
| − | | frompg = 4- | + | | frompg = 4-35 |
| − | | topg = 4- | + | | topg = 4-36 |
| author = John M. Armentrout | | author = John M. Armentrout | ||
| link = http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/beaumont/ch04/ch04.htm | | link = http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/beaumont/ch04/ch04.htm | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
==Analyzing seismic sections== | ==Analyzing seismic sections== | ||
| − | We identify depositional sequences in seismic sections by finding repetitive patterns of seismic reflections. To test the validity of the sequences identified from seismic reflection profiles, we compare the seismic sequences with sequences identified from biostratigraphic and well log data to see if they make geologic sense. Identifying depositional sequences can be complicated by postdepositional erosion and deformation. It is often helpful to begin a [[seismic sequence analysis]] using a grid of relatively few profiles with an area of relatively undeformed rocks. | + | We identify depositional sequences in seismic sections by finding repetitive patterns of seismic reflections. To test the validity of the sequences identified from seismic reflection profiles, we compare the seismic sequences with sequences identified from biostratigraphic and well log data to see if they make geologic sense. Identifying depositional sequences can be complicated by postdepositional erosion and [[deformation]]. It is often helpful to begin a [[seismic sequence analysis]] using a grid of relatively few profiles with an area of relatively undeformed rocks. |
==GOM basin example== | ==GOM basin example== | ||
| − | [[file:sedimentary-basin-analysis_fig4-19.png|thumb|{{figure number|1}}Modified. Copyright: Armentrout | + | [[file:sedimentary-basin-analysis_fig4-19.png|thumb|300px|{{figure number|1}}Seismic reflection profile from the East Breaks field area. Modified. Copyright: Armentrout;<ref name=Armentrout1993>Armentrout, J. M., 1993, Relative seal-level variations and fault-salt response: offshore Texas examples: Proceedings, Gulf Coast Section SEPM 14th Annual Research Conference, p. 1–7.</ref> courtesy Gulf Coast SEPM.]] |
In the shelf-margin facies of the East Breaks study area of the GOM basin, a depositional sequence in its simplest form is identified in seismic sections as a couplet consisting of two patterns: | In the shelf-margin facies of the East Breaks study area of the GOM basin, a depositional sequence in its simplest form is identified in seismic sections as a couplet consisting of two patterns: | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
* Regionally extensive parallel reflections | * Regionally extensive parallel reflections | ||
| − | Each clinoform package defines a locally thick progradational unit interpreted as a relative sea level lowstand delta.<ref name=ch04r92>Sutter, J. | + | Each clinoform package defines a locally thick [[Depocenter#Sediment_supply_rate_and_facies_patterns|progradational]] unit interpreted as a relative sea level lowstand delta.<ref name=ch04r92>Sutter, J. S., and H. L. Berryhill, Jr., 1985, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1984-85/data/pg/0069/0001/0050/0077.htm Late Quaternary shelf-margin deltas, northwest Gulf of Mexico]: AAPG Bulletin, vol. 69, p. 77–91.</ref> They are [[lateral]] to other clinoform packages and are bounded above and below by regionally extensive, parallel, often uniformly high-amplitude seismic reflections. The regionally extensive parallel reflections correlate across faults and have the same relative thickness on both sides of most outershelf and upper-slope faults. |
| − | The seismic reflection profile of [[:file:sedimentary-basin-analysis_fig4-19.png|Figure 1]], from the East Breaks field area, illustrates both clinoform and parallel reflection patterns in late Pleistocene sediments immediately below the sea floor (between two sets of bold arrows). Three listric growth | + | The seismic reflection profile of [[:file:sedimentary-basin-analysis_fig4-19.png|Figure 1]], from the East Breaks field area, illustrates both clinoform and parallel reflection patterns in late Pleistocene sediments immediately below the sea floor (between two sets of bold arrows). Three listric [[growth fault]]s (down arrows) cut through the clinoforms. These growth faults are part of the regional fault system bounding the shelf edge and upper slope salt-withdrawal basins in the High Island and East Breaks areas. |
| − | The arrow at the far left edge of [[:file:sedimentary-basin-analysis_fig4-19.png|Figure 1]] marks the trough (white) between parallel, high-amplitude, continuous reflections (black) that underlie the clinoforms (best expressed toward the left side of the figure). Two up arrows show the correlation of this trough across the faults. The clinoforms toplap to the right (north) against the sea floor reflection, defining the overlying transgressive surface above the clinoform tops and below the regionally extensive sea floor reflection. Additionally, the clinoform downlaps basinward, defining a downlap surface. In this case, the downlap surface coincides with the underlying sequence boundary.<ref name=ch04r7>Armentrout, J. | + | The arrow at the far left edge of [[:file:sedimentary-basin-analysis_fig4-19.png|Figure 1]] marks the trough (white) between parallel, high-amplitude, continuous reflections (black) that underlie the clinoforms (best expressed toward the left side of the figure). Two up arrows show the correlation of this trough across the faults. The clinoforms toplap to the right (north) against the sea floor reflection, defining the overlying transgressive surface above the clinoform tops and below the regionally extensive sea floor reflection. Additionally, the clinoform downlaps basinward, defining a downlap surface. In this case, the downlap surface coincides with the underlying sequence boundary.<ref name=ch04r7>Armentrout, J. M., 1991, Paleontological constraints on depositional [[modeling]]: examples of integration of biostratigraphy and seismic stratigraphy, Pliocene–Pleistocene, Gulf of Mexico, in P. Weimer, and M. H. Link, eds., Seismic Facies and Sedimentary Processes of Submarine Fans and Turbidite Systems: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 137–170.</ref> |
==Depositional cycle== | ==Depositional cycle== | ||
| − | The data from the High Island–East Breaks shelf-margin delta suggest that regionally extensive and uniform layers of mud occur above and below locally shingled clinoform packages. Couplets of these two depositional facies constitute a sequence of one depositional cycle. The position of the sequence at the shelf edge suggests that it is composed of a shelf margin systems tract and a condensed section. For criteria for recognizing depositional cycles in other settings, see Loucks and Sarg<ref name=ch04r58>Loucks, R. | + | The data from the High Island–East Breaks shelf-margin delta suggest that regionally extensive and uniform layers of mud occur above and below locally shingled clinoform packages. Couplets of these two depositional facies constitute a sequence of one depositional cycle. The position of the sequence at the shelf edge suggests that it is composed of a shelf margin systems tract and a condensed section. For criteria for recognizing depositional cycles in other settings, see Loucks and Sarg,<ref name=ch04r58>Loucks, R. G., and J. F. Sarg, eds., 1993, Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy: [http://store.aapg.org/detail.aspx?id=585 AAPG Memoir 57], 545 p.</ref> Steel et al.,<ref name=ch04r91>Steel, R. J., V. L. Felt, E. P. Johannessen, and C. Mathiew, eds., 1995, Sequence Stratigraphy on the Northwest European Margin: Elsevier, 608 p.</ref> Van Wagoner and Bertram,<ref name=ch04r104>Van Wagoner, J. C., and G. T. Bertram, eds., 1995, Sequence Stratigraphy of Foreland Basin Deposits: [http://store.aapg.org/detail.aspx?id=146 AAPG Memoir 64], 487 p.</ref> and Weimer and Posamentier.<ref name=ch04r78>Posamentier, H. W., and P. Weimer, 1993, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1992-93/data/pg/0077/0005/0700/0731.htm Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy and petroleum geology: where to from here?]: AAPG Bulletin, vol. 77, no. 5, p. 731–742.</ref> |
==Type 1 vs. type 2 sequences== | ==Type 1 vs. type 2 sequences== | ||
| − | The sequence stratigraphic model includes type 1 and type 2 sequences.<ref name=ch04r99>Vail, P. | + | The sequence stratigraphic model includes type 1 and type 2 sequences.<ref name=ch04r99>Vail, P. R., 1987, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/oversiz2/data/a188/a188/0001/0000/0001.htm Seismic stratigraphy interpretation procedure], in A. W. Bally, ed., Atlas of Seismic Stratigraphy: [http://store.aapg.org/detail.aspx?id=478 AAPG Studies in Geology No. 27], p. 1–10.</ref><ref name=ch04r79>Posamentier, H. W., and P. R. Vail, 1988, Eustatic controls on clastic deposition II—sequence and systems tract models: SEPM Special Publication 42, p. 125–154.</ref> A type 1 sequence boundary is interpreted to form when the rate of eustatic fall exceeds the rate of subsidence at the depositional break, producing a relative fall in sea level at that position. This usually results in an extensive erosional surface with stream incision landward of the depositional break. In contrast, a type 2 sequence boundary forms when the rate of eustatic fall is slightly less than or equal to the rate of basin subsidence at the depositional break. There is no relative fall in sea level at the depositional break, and erosion and stream incision is less than at type 1 boundaries. |
==Depositional break== | ==Depositional break== | ||
| − | In early publications the depositional break is referred to as the ''shelf break'', often uniquely imaged on seismic reflection profiles.<ref name=ch04r100>Vail, P. | + | In early publications the depositional break is referred to as the ''shelf break'', often uniquely imaged on seismic reflection profiles.<ref name=ch04r100>Vail, P. R., and R. G. Todd, 1981, North Sea Jurassic unconformities, chronostratigraphy and seal-level changes from seismic stratigraphy: Proceedings, Petroleum Geology of the Continental Shelf, Northwest Europe, p. 216–235.</ref><ref name=ch04r102>Vail, P. R., J. Hardenbol, and R. G. Todd, 1984, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/seismic1/data/a166/a166/0001/0100/0129.htm Jurassic unconformities, chronostratigraphy and sea-level changes from seismic stratigraphy and biostratigraphy] in J. S. Schlee, ed., Interregional Unconformities and Hydrocarbon Accumulation: AAPG Memoir 36, p. 129–144.</ref> More recently, the depositional break was referred to as the ''shoreline break'', a position coincident with the seaward end of a stream-mouth [http://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=136:8:0::::: bar] in a delta or the upper shoreface in a beach environment.<ref name=ch04r70>Mitchum, R. M., Jr., and J. C. Van Wagoner, 1990, High-frequency sequences and eustatic cycles in the Gulf of Mexico basin: Proceedings, Gulf Coast Section SEPM 11th Annual Research conference, p. 257–267.</ref> Shoreline breaks are well imaged on highresolution seismic profiles and in well-exposed [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outcrop outcrop] belts but are usually below resolution scale of most industry seismic reflection profiles. |
==Nomenclature problems== | ==Nomenclature problems== | ||
| − | These scale differences result in nomenclature problems. The High Island–East Breaks shelf-margin delta (Figures 4-19, 4-21) fits a type 2 sequence criterion of Vail and Todd<ref name=ch04r100 />) because it represents a lowstand prograding complex at the same position as preceding shelf-edge depositional breaks. As such, this lowstand is part of a type 2 depositional sequence and would be called a shelf-margin systems tract. If the criteria of Van Wagoner et al.<ref name=ch04r70 /> | + | These scale differences result in nomenclature problems. The High Island–East Breaks shelf-margin delta (Figures 4-19, 4-21) fits a type 2 sequence criterion of Vail and Todd<ref name=ch04r100 />) because it represents a lowstand [[Depocenter#Sediment_supply_rate_and_facies_patterns|prograding]] complex at the same position as preceding shelf-edge depositional breaks. As such, this lowstand is part of a type 2 depositional sequence and would be called a shelf-margin systems tract. If the criteria of Van Wagoner et al.<ref name=ch04r70 /> are used, the High Island–East Breaks shelf-margin delta would be called a type 1 lowstand prograding complex because the preceding shoreline break is tens of miles further north on the Texas shelf. Clarification of such scale-dependent reference points is critical to effective communication through the careful selection of precise labels for elements of depositional sequences. |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| − | + | ||
* [[Definitions of depositional system elements]] | * [[Definitions of depositional system elements]] | ||
* [[Identifying depositional sequences]] | * [[Identifying depositional sequences]] | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
[[Category:Critical elements of the petroleum system]] | [[Category:Critical elements of the petroleum system]] | ||
[[Category:Sedimentary basin analysis]] | [[Category:Sedimentary basin analysis]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Treatise Handbook 3]] | ||
Latest revision as of 21:47, 22 February 2022
| Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps | |
| |
| Series | Treatise in Petroleum Geology |
|---|---|
| Part | Critical elements of the petroleum system |
| Chapter | Sedimentary basin analysis |
| Author | John M. Armentrout |
| Link | Web page |
| Store | AAPG Store |
Analyzing seismic sections
We identify depositional sequences in seismic sections by finding repetitive patterns of seismic reflections. To test the validity of the sequences identified from seismic reflection profiles, we compare the seismic sequences with sequences identified from biostratigraphic and well log data to see if they make geologic sense. Identifying depositional sequences can be complicated by postdepositional erosion and deformation. It is often helpful to begin a seismic sequence analysis using a grid of relatively few profiles with an area of relatively undeformed rocks.
GOM basin example
Figure 1 Seismic reflection profile from the East Breaks field area. Modified. Copyright: Armentrout;[1] courtesy Gulf Coast SEPM.
In the shelf-margin facies of the East Breaks study area of the GOM basin, a depositional sequence in its simplest form is identified in seismic sections as a couplet consisting of two patterns:
- Sigmoidal clinoform packages
- Regionally extensive parallel reflections
Each clinoform package defines a locally thick progradational unit interpreted as a relative sea level lowstand delta.[2] They are lateral to other clinoform packages and are bounded above and below by regionally extensive, parallel, often uniformly high-amplitude seismic reflections. The regionally extensive parallel reflections correlate across faults and have the same relative thickness on both sides of most outershelf and upper-slope faults.
The seismic reflection profile of Figure 1, from the East Breaks field area, illustrates both clinoform and parallel reflection patterns in late Pleistocene sediments immediately below the sea floor (between two sets of bold arrows). Three listric growth faults (down arrows) cut through the clinoforms. These growth faults are part of the regional fault system bounding the shelf edge and upper slope salt-withdrawal basins in the High Island and East Breaks areas.
The arrow at the far left edge of Figure 1 marks the trough (white) between parallel, high-amplitude, continuous reflections (black) that underlie the clinoforms (best expressed toward the left side of the figure). Two up arrows show the correlation of this trough across the faults. The clinoforms toplap to the right (north) against the sea floor reflection, defining the overlying transgressive surface above the clinoform tops and below the regionally extensive sea floor reflection. Additionally, the clinoform downlaps basinward, defining a downlap surface. In this case, the downlap surface coincides with the underlying sequence boundary.[3]
Depositional cycle
The data from the High Island–East Breaks shelf-margin delta suggest that regionally extensive and uniform layers of mud occur above and below locally shingled clinoform packages. Couplets of these two depositional facies constitute a sequence of one depositional cycle. The position of the sequence at the shelf edge suggests that it is composed of a shelf margin systems tract and a condensed section. For criteria for recognizing depositional cycles in other settings, see Loucks and Sarg,[4] Steel et al.,[5] Van Wagoner and Bertram,[6] and Weimer and Posamentier.[7]
Type 1 vs. type 2 sequences
The sequence stratigraphic model includes type 1 and type 2 sequences.[8][9] A type 1 sequence boundary is interpreted to form when the rate of eustatic fall exceeds the rate of subsidence at the depositional break, producing a relative fall in sea level at that position. This usually results in an extensive erosional surface with stream incision landward of the depositional break. In contrast, a type 2 sequence boundary forms when the rate of eustatic fall is slightly less than or equal to the rate of basin subsidence at the depositional break. There is no relative fall in sea level at the depositional break, and erosion and stream incision is less than at type 1 boundaries.
Depositional break
In early publications the depositional break is referred to as the shelf break, often uniquely imaged on seismic reflection profiles.[10][11] More recently, the depositional break was referred to as the shoreline break, a position coincident with the seaward end of a stream-mouth bar in a delta or the upper shoreface in a beach environment.[12] Shoreline breaks are well imaged on highresolution seismic profiles and in well-exposed outcrop belts but are usually below resolution scale of most industry seismic reflection profiles.
Nomenclature problems
These scale differences result in nomenclature problems. The High Island–East Breaks shelf-margin delta (Figures 4-19, 4-21) fits a type 2 sequence criterion of Vail and Todd[10]) because it represents a lowstand prograding complex at the same position as preceding shelf-edge depositional breaks. As such, this lowstand is part of a type 2 depositional sequence and would be called a shelf-margin systems tract. If the criteria of Van Wagoner et al.[12] are used, the High Island–East Breaks shelf-margin delta would be called a type 1 lowstand prograding complex because the preceding shoreline break is tens of miles further north on the Texas shelf. Clarification of such scale-dependent reference points is critical to effective communication through the careful selection of precise labels for elements of depositional sequences.
See also
- Definitions of depositional system elements
- Identifying depositional sequences
- Identifying depositional sequences from biostratigraphic data
- Recognizing stacked depositional sequences in seismic profiles
- Recognizing stacked depositional sequences from well data
References
- ↑ Armentrout, J. M., 1993, Relative seal-level variations and fault-salt response: offshore Texas examples: Proceedings, Gulf Coast Section SEPM 14th Annual Research Conference, p. 1–7.
- ↑ Sutter, J. S., and H. L. Berryhill, Jr., 1985, Late Quaternary shelf-margin deltas, northwest Gulf of Mexico: AAPG Bulletin, vol. 69, p. 77–91.
- ↑ Armentrout, J. M., 1991, Paleontological constraints on depositional modeling: examples of integration of biostratigraphy and seismic stratigraphy, Pliocene–Pleistocene, Gulf of Mexico, in P. Weimer, and M. H. Link, eds., Seismic Facies and Sedimentary Processes of Submarine Fans and Turbidite Systems: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 137–170.
- ↑ Loucks, R. G., and J. F. Sarg, eds., 1993, Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy: AAPG Memoir 57, 545 p.
- ↑ Steel, R. J., V. L. Felt, E. P. Johannessen, and C. Mathiew, eds., 1995, Sequence Stratigraphy on the Northwest European Margin: Elsevier, 608 p.
- ↑ Van Wagoner, J. C., and G. T. Bertram, eds., 1995, Sequence Stratigraphy of Foreland Basin Deposits: AAPG Memoir 64, 487 p.
- ↑ Posamentier, H. W., and P. Weimer, 1993, Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy and petroleum geology: where to from here?: AAPG Bulletin, vol. 77, no. 5, p. 731–742.
- ↑ Vail, P. R., 1987, Seismic stratigraphy interpretation procedure, in A. W. Bally, ed., Atlas of Seismic Stratigraphy: AAPG Studies in Geology No. 27, p. 1–10.
- ↑ Posamentier, H. W., and P. R. Vail, 1988, Eustatic controls on clastic deposition II—sequence and systems tract models: SEPM Special Publication 42, p. 125–154.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Vail, P. R., and R. G. Todd, 1981, North Sea Jurassic unconformities, chronostratigraphy and seal-level changes from seismic stratigraphy: Proceedings, Petroleum Geology of the Continental Shelf, Northwest Europe, p. 216–235.
- ↑ Vail, P. R., J. Hardenbol, and R. G. Todd, 1984, Jurassic unconformities, chronostratigraphy and sea-level changes from seismic stratigraphy and biostratigraphy in J. S. Schlee, ed., Interregional Unconformities and Hydrocarbon Accumulation: AAPG Memoir 36, p. 129–144.
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Mitchum, R. M., Jr., and J. C. Van Wagoner, 1990, High-frequency sequences and eustatic cycles in the Gulf of Mexico basin: Proceedings, Gulf Coast Section SEPM 11th Annual Research conference, p. 257–267.
External links
| find literature about Identifying depositional sequences in seismic sections |
|
|
|
|