Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

t

Special section: Interpreting stratigraphy from geophysical data

New insights into seismic stratigraphy of shallow-water progradational sequences: Subseismic clinoforms
Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Hongliu Zeng1, Xiaomin Zhu2, and Rukai Zhu3


Abstract
Seismic clinoforms are the key building blocks for constructing the seismic stratigraphy of progradational depositional sequences. However, not all progradational systems are necessarily represented by seismic clinoforms. We evaluated the definition and interpretation of progradational systems that do not associate with seismic clinoforms. Nonclinoform (or subseismic clinoforms) seismic facies are mainly related to shallow-water deltas where the thickness of a prograding clinoform complex is too thin to be imaged as an offlapping reflection configuration. The clinoform detection limit for clinoform imaging is defined as one wavelength (the thickness of two seismic events) and is related to the predominant frequency of the seismic data and the velocity of the sediments. Three examples from the Songliao Basin of China and Gulf of Mexico illustrated ancient shallow-water deltas with various morphologies in lacustrine and marine environments by integrating the analysis of the core, wireline logs, and amplitude stratal slices made from nonclinoform seismic events. A seismic model of an outcrop carbonate clinoform complex in west Texas further demonstrated the seismic frequency control on clinoform seismic stratigraphy, including transitions between different types of clinoforms and between clinoforms and nonclinoform seismic facies. Ambiguity in interpreting nonclinoform seismic facies can be reduced by high-resolution acquisition, high-frequency enhancement processing, and seismic sedimentology.

Introduction The term clinoform is proposed by Rich (1951) to depict the shape of a depositional surface at the scale of the entire continental margin (Figure 1). A clinoform results from the varying rate of deposition and water depth, its upper end connecting to a flat, shallowwater undaform and its lower end graduating into a horizontal, deep-water fondoform. Multiple clinoformal depositional units compose a unique, easy-to-recognize stratigraphic pattern in the continental margin. Mitchum et al. (1977) adapt the term and use it to characterize a group of very special seismic reflections that are typically composed of topset, foreset, and bottomset (roughly corresponding to undaform, clinoform, and fondoform of Rich [1951], respectively). A clinoform was interpreted as strata in which significant deposition is produced by lateral outbuilding or basinward prograding, forming the gently sloping depositional surfaces (clinoforms). Although seismic clinoforms can result from any prograding depositional process, they are generally produced by deltas that prograded seaward

(Sangree and Widmier, 1977). Berg (1982) further establishes a relationship between some different deltaic facies and distinctive clinoform seismic facies. Seismic clinoform patterns are also common in ramp, bank, and platform carbonate depositional systems (e.g., Belopolsky and Droxler, 2004; Droste and Steenwinkel, 2004; Eberli et al., 2004; Isern et al., 2004). Widely recognized as among the most common depositional stratal patterns, clinoforms are one of the fundamental building blocks of seismic- and sequencestratigraphic models (e.g., Mitchum et al., 1977; Vail et al., 1977; Van Wagoner et al., 1988). However, most documented seismic clinoforms are related to large shelf-edge deltas developed in margins of deep-water basins where a clinoform may have significant (high tens to hundreds of meters) accommodation and therefore be readily apparent. In other environments, those having shallow water depth and less accommodation, the clinoforms are thinner and more difficult to identify using seismic data. Prograding deltaic systems developed in shallow-water environments, such as along the coast

1 The University of Texas at Austin, Jackson School of Geosciences, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, Texas, USA. E-mail: hongliu.zeng@beg .utexas.edu. 2 China University of Petroleum, Beijing, China. E-mail: xmzhu@cup.edu.cn. 3 Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina, Beijing, China. E-mail: zrk@petrochina.com.cn. Manuscript received by the Editor 25 February 2013; published online 6 August 2013. This paper appears in INTERPRETATION, Vol. 1, No. 1 (August 2013); p. SA35SA51, 18 FIGS., 1 TABLE.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/INT-2013-0017.1. 2013 Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

Interpretation / August 2013 SA35

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

in shallow-marine on-shelf, intracratonic basins, and in postrift continental basins, are especially hard to recognize using seismic data. In these areas, where sediments are only several meters to low tens of meters thick, seismic clinoform patterns are commonly poorly imaged. As a result, these clinoforms have received much less attention from seismic interpreters. In fact, except for some moderately thin sequences that can be recognized as shingled clinoform complexes (Mitchum et al., 1977), many thin deltaic sequences have probably been mistakenly interpreted as other facies because they lack distinctive seismic clinoforms. In this study, we define seismic nonclinoforms (or subseismic clinoforms) as seismic events produced by prograding depositional sequences that cannot be recognized visually as seismic clinoforms. The purpose of this study is to discuss and interpret thin deltas and prograding depositional systems below seismic detection power. Geologic and seismic indications of deltaic systems are discussed. The limits of using clinoform seismic facies to characterize deltaic systems are pointed out. Specific examples of subsurface delta sequences without clinoform geometry on seismic sections are described and evaluated. Seismic resolution control on imaging of clinoform seismic architecture is investigated. Seismic techniques that can be used to detect nonclinoform sequences are outlined. In this paper, carbonate progradational systems are discussed to a lesser degree. Although lithology and depositional processes in carbonate depositional sequences are different from those in clastic systems, links between clinoformal surfaces and depositional rate/water depth are similar, which leads to similar impedance architecture and comparable seismic facies. Therefore, our observations in deltas could safely be applied to carbonate systems, and vice versa. Indication of deltaic systems Deltaic systems show a wide complexity in the geologic record. Many of these systems can be interpreted in seismic data in certain situations. An understanding of the geologic conditions of delta sequence development is essential to predict their seismic responses. Following is a brief description of various deltaic systems and how they relate to seismic interpretability.

Deltas in modern and geologic record Galloway (1975) defines a delta as a contiguous mass of sediment, partly subaerial, deposited around the point where a stream enters a standing body of water. Galloway (1975) also classifies deltas into three basic types, or end members, on the basis of the energy source that dominates the deltaic building process: fluvial-dominated delta, wave-dominated delta, and tide-dominated delta. These basic delta types are characterized by significantly different landform geometry (Figure 2). Fluvial-dominated deltas are elongate to lobate in shape, whereas wave- and tide-dominated deltas are arcuate and funnel shaped, respectively. Facies patterns associated with each delta type are also different. Adding to the complexity, although a deltaic system may be controlled by one of the energy sources, other energy sources are usually also active to some degree, leading to mixed geometry and facies patterns among the end members. Postma (1990) further classifies fluvial-dominated deltaic systems on the basis of water depth in the receiving basin. Shallow-water deltas are developed in water depths of low tens of meters, which would include on-shelf, or shelf-type, deltas (Ethridge and Wescott, 1984) in marine basins and lacustrine and other deltas related to other shelves. Shallow-water deltas are normally represented by three physiographic zones delta plain, delta front, and prodelta similar to those in standard models of fluvial-dominated deltas (e.g., Galloway and Hobday, 1983). The slope near the river mouth and the delta-front can be gentle (shoal-water type) or steep (Gilbert-type), depending on the channel depth versus the basin depth. The

Fluvial dominated
0
10 mi

Lafourche (Mississippi) Lobate


0
10 mi

Modern Mississippi

Elongate

Tide dominated
Land Undaform Clinoform Fondoform
Sea surface
Undathem

Gulf of Papua

Wave dominated
Rhone River

Clinothem Basement

Depth of wave base

Fondothem
QAe1675

Cu Tid rr al en t
0
10 mi

10 mi
QAe1676

Figure 1. Diagram showing the original concept of the clinoform defined by Rich (1951). SA36 Interpretation / August 2013

Figure 2. Modern examples of three basic types of deltas (modified from Fisher et al., 1969).

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

general stratigraphic architecture of a fluvialdominated shallow-water delta is summarized in Figure 3a. In the dip (basinward) profile, individual delta lobes that formed in outbuilding deltaic episodes compose a clinoform complex, with sandy sediments mostly accumulated in the upper portion of the complex (topsets and upper foresets). The combination of the sandy sediments forms a lithostratigraphic unit having a relatively smooth top and probably an uneven base. In the strike section, multiple delta lobes formed at different times and accumulated as irregular-shaped mounds, rarely showing parallel internal stratal bedding in seismic sections. According to Postma (1990), deep-water deltas occur in water depths deeper than tens of meters to hundreds of meters and include shelf-edge deltas, slope-type deltas (Ethridge and Wescott, 1984), and other systems not necessarily related to true shelf breaks (e.g., in a fault-controlled deep lake). The biggest difference between deep-water deltas and shallow-water deltas is that in addition to the three physiographic zones found in shallow-water deltas, deep-water deltas also extend to a suspension settling and gravity-driven mass transport zone and a deep-water turbidite zone beyond the normal prodelta zone on the long, inclined, muddy basin floor (Figure 3b). Sands in this system would be preferentially distributed at the top (delta-plain and delta-front sands) and base (turbidites), separated by thick muddy sediments (prodelta and deep-water

mudstones). Internal stratal bedding is relatively smooth and easy to correlate in dip and strike sections. Shallow-water deltaic sedimentation is a common process in modern environments. Examples include Lena and Volga deltas in marine basins (Olariu and Bhattacharya, 2006) and Wax Lake, Atchafalaya (Olariu and Bhattacharya, 2006), and Poyang Lake deltas

a) Sigmoid

b) Oblique

c) Complex sigmoid-oblique

d) Shingled

QAe1679

a)

Figure 4. Reflection configurations of fluvial- and wavedominated deltas (modified from Mitchum et al. [1977]; initially interpreted by Mitchum et al. [1977] and Sangree and Widmier [1977] and reinterpreted by Berg [1982]).

Shallow-water delta Dip section


1 2 3

Strike section
140 140

Recognizable prograding seq. (Two-way time, ms)

Carbonates
120
20

Meters to low tens of meters

b)

Deep-water delta
1 2 3 4 5

100

Clastics
80

25
30

Hz
Hz

100

80

60

High tens to hundreds of meters

40 H

60

40

QAe1678

20

5 z 60 H 80 Hz 100 Hz

0 Hz

40

20

Sandstone

Shale
0 2000 3000 4000

200 Hz

Figure 3. Models of fluvial-dominated deltas illustrating their internal clinoform framework and gross sand distribution patterns: (a) Shallow-water delta; (b) deep-water delta; 1 delta plain, 2 delta front, 3 prodelta, 4 suspension settling and gravity-driven mass transport zone, and 5 = deep-water turbidite zone.

5 00 0

0 6000
QAe1680

Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5. H min in time and depth as a function of the predominant frequency of the seismic data and the velocity of prograding sediments. Interpretation / August 2013 SA37

Recognizable prograding seq. (m)

Hz

120

Deltas represented by clinoform seismic facies Mitchum et al. (1977) promote the use of external shape and internal configuration on seismic profiles to interpret stratal configuration, facies patterns, and depoTable 1. H min in meters as a function of the predominant frequency of the seismic data and the velocity of prograding sediments. Typical sitional environments of prograding industry data are characterized by a predominant frequency from 20 to stratigraphic sequences. In particular, 50 Hz. their recognition of sigmoid, oblique, complex, and shingled clinoform seismic f (Hz) V 2000 V 3000 V 4000 V 5000 V 6000 facies (Figure 4) and the general geologic ms m s m s ms ms interpretation of these facies establishes a foundation for stratigraphic evaluation 20 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0 of seismic clinoforms. A sigmoid clino25 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 form pattern (Figure 4a) refers to a rela30 33.3 50.0 66.7 83.3 100.0 tively low-energy sedimentary regime; 40 25.0 37.5 50.0 62.5 75.0 an oblique facies (Figure 4b) would oc50 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 cur in a relatively high-energy sedimen60 16.7 25.0 33.3 41.7 50.0 tary regime. A complex sigmoid-oblique 80 12.5 18.7 25.0 31.2 37.5 model (Figure 4c) results from alternating high- and low-energy sedimentary 100 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 regimes. Whereas these three types of 200 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 clinoforms are associated with deepwater basins, a shingled clinoform configuration (Figure 4d) represents depositional units prograding into shallow waters. 126 128 130 Berg (1982) further links different clinoform con50 figurations to some distinctive delta types. The sigmoid, oblique, and complex sigmoid-oblique patterns Songliao BEIJING Basin (Figure 4a4c) are representative seismic facies of a Peoples Republic of China deep-water fluvial-dominated delta. The sigmoid seismic pattern is composed of continuous and S-shaped 48 0 1200 km clinoforms (Figure 4a). Without toplapping, sigmoid patterns usually occur in low-energy, delta interlobe areas lacking sandy deposits. The oblique pattern (Figure 4b) Qiqihar Daqing Oilfield Study is characterized by clinoforms that terminate updip by area toplap and downdip by downlap that bound the deltaic 46 sequence. This pattern represents a high-energy delta where the sand-rich delta plain is coincident with the Harbin upper horizontal events (undaform). The seismic clinoform is equivalent to shale-prone prodelta facies. The absence of stacking of horizontal events in the delta plain suggests sediment bypassing on a stable shelf. The com44 Changchun plex sigmoid-oblique pattern (Figure 4c) is a result of alternate high-energy sandy deposition (oblique) and N low-energy shaly deposition (sigmoid) that occurred in delta-lobe shifting during delta system outbuilding. 124 122 The shingled pattern (Figure 4d) appears to indicate a wave-dominated delta in shallow water. Development 0 500 km of a wave-dominated delta seems to require a stable shalQAe1681 low depositional shelf. Less studied and documented, tide-dominated deltas are difficult to identify using simFigure 6. Cretaceous Songliao Basin of China showing the ple seismic clinoform patterns. study area in the Qijia Depression near the Daqing Oilfield.
SA38 Interpretation / August 2013

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

(Zou et al., 2008) in lacustrine basins. Several authors investigate many ancient subsurface examples of shallow-water deltas deposited in shallow intracratonic seaways (e.g., Busch, 1959, 1971; Cleaves and Broussard, 1980; Rasmussen et al., 1985; Bhattacharya and Walker, 1991; Li et al., 2011; Olariu et al., 2012) and in lacustrine basins (e.g., Cretaceous Songliao Basin, Lou et al., 1999; Triassic Ordos Basin, Zou et al., 2008). However, com-

pared with the large number of investigations of deepwater deltas or deltas at the shelf edge (e.g., Carvajal and Steel, 2009; Covault et al., 2009; Dixon et al., 2012), the number of shallow-water deltas described in ancient deposits is very limited.

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Limits of clinoform seismic facies Barring any data quality issues related to acquisition and processing, our ability to use clinoform seismic stratigraphy to recognize progradational depositional sequences is largely limited by seismic resolution. To visually identify a clinoform pattern within a seismic stratigraphic mapping unit, one has to recognize at least two seismic events with one offlapping the other. In other words, the unit has to be at least as thick as the width of two seismic events (one wavelength or cycle) in two-way traveltime. We call the thickness of such a seismic stratigraphic mapping unit clinoform detection limit: H min 1000f ; (1)

limit in depth is related to the predominant frequency of the seismic data and the velocity of the prograding sediments (Figure 5, Table 1): H min V 2f ; (2)

where f denotes the predominant frequency of the seismic data in hertz (Hz) and H min is the clinoform detection limit in milliseconds (ms). The clinoform detection

where V denotes velocity of the sediments in meters per second (ms) and H min is the clinoform detection limit in meters (m). Most modern seismic data sets are characterized by a predominant frequency ranging from 20 to 100 Hz, corresponding to H min (in time) from 10 to 50 ms. In a typical clastic basin, the velocity of sandstones and shales is usually between 2000 and 4000 ms, resulting in a H min (in depth) of 10 to 100 m; in a carbonate formation, rock velocity is significantly higher (mostly 5000 6000 ms) and H min (in depth) increases sizably (25150 m). These simple calculations reveal that seismic clinoform recognition is reserved to thicker prograding

a)
A
1200

Basinward
A

A
B B A

1300

Traveltime (ms)

1400

Figure 7. A dip well-seismic section illustrating the high-frequency depositional sequence framework and internal nonclinoform reflection pattern in the Cretaceous Qijia Depression (modified from Zeng et al., 2012). See Figure 7a for position. (a) Traveltime section showing wireline logs, sequence definition, and well-seismic correlation. (b) Wheelertransformed section flattened in relative geologic time for easy viewing of internal reflection characteristics. Positions of stratal slices in Figure 10 are labeled a, b, and c. SP spontaneous potential log; DT = sonic log.
T1
fifth fourth third

1500

1600

G11 SS6 G12 SQ3 G21 SS5 G22 G31 SS4 G32 SQ2 G41 SS3 G42 SS2 SQ1 SS1

1700

2 km

T2

b)
T1
fifth fourth third

Relative geologic time

c b a

G11 SS6 G12 SQ3 G21 SS5 G22 G31 SS4 G32 SQ2 G41 SS3 G42 SS2 SQ1 SS1

T2
Amplitude

SP

DT

Third-order seq. boundary

High-order sequence

Fault

QAe1682

+
Interpretation / August 2013 SA39

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

depositional sequences or the thicker part of a prograding depositional sequence. Sequences thinner than H min normally do not show as clinoforms on seismic profiles. Depending on the current status of seismic data quality in basins around the world, a large number of shallowwater deltas would fall below H min because they developed in water depths shallower than tens of meters.

These shallow-water deltas are good candidates to be reflected as nonclinoform seismic patterns. Accordingly, the interpretation of deltas needs to go beyond the recognition of seismic clinoforms. Lacking visible clinoforms, shallow-water deltas would routinely go unrecognized by seismic interpreters. Seismic facies of those nonclinoform sequences are our major concern in following sections. Examples of seismic nonclinoform deltas In this section, three investigations are presented as examples of seismic nonclinoform deltas. Without visible seismic clinoforms, seismic geomorphology patterns on amplitude stratal slices provide vital information for interpreting thin deltaic systems. The production of stratal slices has followed the procedure discussed in Zeng et al. (1998a, 1998b). Where available, conventional cores and wireline logs have been used to calibrate the interpretations in these studies. Qijia depression, Songliao Basin, China The Songliao Basin of China is a large-scale Mesozoic-Cenozoic lacustrine basin covering an area of more than 250,000 km2 (Figure 6). In lower through upper Cretaceous strata, postrift deposits as thick as 3000 to 4000 m unconformably overlie synrift strata and extend beyond the fault blocks to cover the whole basin (Feng et al., 2010). Lacking true shelf breaks, seismic clinoforms can be seen only along major delta axes where fluvial systems transported abundant sediment to the deep part of the lake in the center of the basin

50 ms

c b a

Amplitude

2 km

QAe1683

Figure 8. Strike seismic section showing the internal reflection pattern in the Cretaceous Qijia Depression. The expected mounded seismic configuration for a normal deltaic system (Figure 3b) does not exist. The regional structural trend is corrected for a better view of internal reflection characteristics. Positions of stratal slices in Figure 10 are labeled a, b, and c. See Figure 7a for position.

2124 2125 2126 2127 2128

Delta front

Figure 9. Description of a cored section in a well in the Qijia Depression showing Cretaceous fluvial-dominated shallow-water delta deposits. Arrows denote upward-coarsening grain-size trends. (a) Shallow-lake Ostracoda limestone; (b) trough-cross-stratified (arrow), fine-grained distributary-channel sandstone; (c) medium-grained, blocky sandstone with shale lag (arrow) on the scoured distributarychannel base. Cores are oriented up (shallower) to the left.

Cored section
GR DT Depth (m)
2120 2121 2122 2123

Subfacies

a)

Core photos

c)

b)

b)

Shallow lake

2129 2130 2131 2132

Sandstone Shale Limestone

c)

a)

10 m

2133

QAe1684

SA40 Interpretation / August 2013

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

(e.g., in the Daqing Oilfield area). Much of the deltaic sediment was deposited in very gentle slopes around the basin margin in shallow waters lacking welldeveloped clinoforms. In the Qijia Depression (Figure 6), deltaic sediments consist of gray and dark-gray mudstone interbedded with sandstone and siltstone. A wireline-log-based sequence-stratigraphic correlation (Figure 7a) revealed multiple higher order sequences (G11 through SS1) in three third-order sequences (SQ1 through SQ3) in the Qingshankou Formation (Zeng et al., 2012). In this 22-km-long dip-oriented section, thickness changes from updip to downdip are minor, revealing a very gentle slope at the time of deposition. Each of the higher order sequences has an average thickness of approximately 40 m, which is composed of a relative lowstand systems tract (LST) at the bottom and a relative highstand systems tract (HST) at the top with roughly equal thickness (20 m).

A Wheeler-transformed equivalent of Figure 7a is realized with stratal slicing processing (Figure 7b), which shows a good correlation between well-based depositional sequences and seismic events. The 3D seismic data have a frequency range of 10 to 80 Hz and a dominant frequency of 50 Hz. In this formation, average velocity is 4000 ms, and the calculated H min is 40 m (Table 1). This doubles the H min in this formation for seismic imaging of clinoform complexes in either LST or HST. As a result, seismic clinoforms are not imaged. Instead, these seismic events can be classified as subparallel to discontinuous, variableamplitude seismic facies. Each pair of seismic events (peak at bottom and trough at top) in each of the high-frequency sequences roughly represents a highfrequency sequence composed of a relative LST at the bottom and a relative HST at the top. A strike seismic section (Figure 8) shows a seismic facies distribution similar to that in the dip section (Figure 7) and fails

a)

b)

Figure 10. Three amplitude stratal slices (a, c, and e) at three high-frequency sequences (G31, G41, and SS2, respectively, in Figure 7b, and labeled as a, b, and c in Figures 7b and 8). These slices interpreted as shallow-water deltas are shown in (b, d, and f), respectively. Shorelines interpreted in (d and f) refer to position of the successive shorelines during progradation.
2 km

c)

d)

e)

f)

Amplitude

Fault

Shoreline Channel/ lobe

Delta plain

Delta front

Prodelta/ Direction of lake progradation


QAe1685

Interpretation / August 2013 SA41

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

to reveal any seismic reflection configuration that resembles the mound geometry associated with typical prograding delta clinoforms (Figure 3b). Lithology, grain-size trend, and sedimentary structure were observed in conventional cores, providing more direct evidence for classifying depositional facies. By describing more than 1300 m of core in 11 wells in the area, we recognized that most subfacies in the core are related to fluvial-dominated deltaic deposition. For example, in a long cored section (Figure 9), a typical facies cycle (from bottom to top) includes gray shale and thin limestone (Figure 9a) representing shallowlake deposition, trough-cross-stratified, fine-grained sandstone (Figure 9b) from the distributary channel, and medium-grained, blocky sandstone with shale-clast lag (Figure 9c) on the scoured distributary-channel base in the delta front. There are abundant ostracod fossils (e.g., Cypridea, Candona, Mongolocypris, and Ziziphocypris) identified in the limestones and shales, all indicative of a shallow-water environment. Ranging from 4- to 15-m thick, the upward-coarsening sequences are a result of progradational processes in a shallow-water deltaic system (e.g., Olariu and Bhattacharya, 2006).

TEXAS MISSISSIPPI LOUISIANA

A set of stratal slices was constructed in the interval between reference events T 1 and T 2 from stacked and migrated data (Figure 7a). All the stratal slices roughly follow individual seismic events that are parallel to one another. Selected slices (Figure 10a, 10c, and 10e) represent three thin LST deltaic depositional systems in high-order sequences. The most striking seismic geomorphologic features in these stratal slices are numerous channel patterns and associated amplitude anomalies of different shapes, representing various deltaic environments (Figure 10b, 10d, and 10f). Differences in the facies patterns reflect relative margin-to-basin positions in the gentle slope of a postrift lacustrine basin. During deposition of the highfrequency sequence SS2 (Figure 10a and 10b), the lake was at its maximum depth and extent and the study area was a delta front. Distributary channels extended far into the basin and were rarely exposed before burial. A fringing sandy delta front was lacking. Later, during deposition of the high-frequency sequences G41 (Figure 10c and 10d) and G31 (Figure 10e and 10f), the lake diminished in area after repeated deltaicdeposition episodes. The study area is located in the shoreline area, which has a narrower delta-front zone. The deltaic system prograded on a smaller scale, with deltaic lobes forming one in front of another, attached to shorter distributary channels, which terminated at the shoreline at the time of deposition. Multiple shoreline positions can be determined on the basis of channel terminations (Figure 10c and 10d) or amplitude zoning (Figure 10e and 10f), showing a general direction of deltaic progradation. Miocene deltas at the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana, United States Starfak and Tiger Shoal fields of offshore Louisiana, United States (Figure 11), lie along the western periphery of the ancestral Mississippi River area. Located in the Oligocene-Miocene Detachment Province of the north Gulf Coast continental margin (Diegel et al., 1995), Miocene deposits are largely controlled by down-to-the-basin, listric growth faults that sole on a regional detachment zone above the Oligocene section. Salt tectonics and growth faulting resulted in a great thickness of deltaic and other on-shelf sediments during a period of high sedimentation rates. Interpreted depositional environments include lowstand prograding wedge, slope fan, and basin-floor fan beyond the shelf edge; incised valley, highstand delta, and transgressive facies; and coastal plain, coastal delta, and inner-shelf marine deposits in the coastal area (Hentz and Zeng, 2003). All these Miocene depositional systems are composed of interbedded sandstone and shale units, with sandstones varying widely in thickness and ranging from 1 to 40 m. Although the study area is situated in a passive continental margin, a representative dip seismic section across the area (Figure 12) demonstrates mostly parallel to divergent seismic facies,

LOUISIANA North Light House Point Light House Point Starfak C MARSH ISLAND

A
Mound Point

C'
Tiger Shoal
N

B' B
Fig. 13

Trinity Shoal

A'
Amber Complex

VERMILION AREA Field

SOUTH MARSH ISLAND AREA 3D surveys


0 0 5 mi 8 km
QAe1686

Figure 11. Location of Starfak and Tiger Shoal fields, 3D seismic surveys, and wells in the Louisiana Gulf Coast. SA42 Interpretation / August 2013

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

lacking large-scale clinoform configurations. Most of the study interval was deposited on the on-shelf area. In particular, most of the thin, on-shelf deltaic sediments are interbedded with incised valley fills (IVFs), without displaying shingled clinoforms that are representative of shallow-water deltas (Figure 4d). With a predominant frequency of around 35 Hz, it is understandable that the seismic data are not able to image clinoform complexes from deltas thinner than a calculated H min of 43 m (with 3000 ms velocity). A strike seismic profile (Figure 12b) demonstrates similar parallel to subparallel reflection events with variable amplitude and continuity, without any indication of mounded facies (Figure 3b). An amplitude stratal slice (Figure 13a) that samples one of the parallel and variable amplitude events (Figure 12) reveals multiple channel forms and associated amplitude anomalies of varying shapes, which can be referred to as distributary channels and delta lobes. Upward-coarsening wireline-log patterns in one of the lobes indicate the sandy and prograding character of the 30- to 35-m-thick delta system (Figure 13b). Because of the digitate shape of the an-

cient landform, it is interpreted as a fluvial-dominated delta having limited wave modification. This delta system is so big that it obviously exceeds the 350-mi2 study area. Miocene Oakville deltas at the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, United States In a 3D seismic survey in the Corpus Christi Bay area of south Texas (Figure 14), the Miocene Oakville Formation is bounded below by the upper Oligocene Anahuac Formation. Sediments of the Oakville interval form one of many thick offlapping wedges of terrigenous sediment that were deposited in the deep Gulf of Mexico Basin during the late Tertiary (Brown and Loucks, 2009). Oakville strata make up part of a second-order regressive sequence of interbedded sandstones and shales that followed a basinwide secondorder transgression represented by the Oligocene Anahuac Formation (Brown and Loucks, 2009). Dip (Figure 15a) and strike (Figure 15b) seismic sections across the study area demonstrate a mostly parallel seismic configuration in the Oakville interval, which is the on-shelf portion of the thick Oakville off-

a)
1600

Basinward

A'

1800

2000

Figure 12. Seismic sections in Starfak and Tiger Shoal area showing the lack of clinoforms in Miocene on-shelf deltaic sediments. Dashed lines refer to position of the stratal slice in Figure 13. (a) Northsouth dip section A-A (modified from Zeng and Hentz, 2004). (b) Westeast strike section B-B. See Figure 11 for position.

Traveltime (ms)

2200

2400

2600

2800

b)
Traveltime (ms)

B
2000

B'

2200

2400

2600 0 0 2 km 2 mi Amplitude
14

Fault

IVF at highfreq sequence


QAe1695

Interpretation / August 2013 SA43

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

lapping wedge. The dominantly deltaic and shore-zone sediments exhibit a different depositional style from that in the offshore Louisiana study area (Figure 11), where a primary deltaic depocenter existed during the Miocene. Instead, multiple small streams transported enormous volumes of locally derived sediments across the coastal plain of Texas (Galloway, 1986; Galloway et al., 2000). Galloway et al. (2000) and Loucks et al. (2011) find the older Oligocene shelf edge to be 20 to 25 mi seaward (downdip) of the study area. An amplitude stratal slice made inside the Oakville Formation (Figure 16) illustrates a unique channel-lobe system that resembles some elongate branches of the modern Mississippi delta (e.g., Figure 2) in geometry and in size, except for its inner-shelf location. At least eight mouth-bar lobes are seen attached to a sinuous distributary-channel system. Wireline log patterns in wells show that channel-filled sandstones do not exceed 10 m at this interval, falling below seismic resolution. Outside the channels and in between delta lobes, shaly sediments dominate. No seismic clinoforms are observed along the depositional surface represented by the stratal slice (Figure 16), an indication of a shallow-water origin of the deltaic system. The thickness of the delta complex should not exceed the calcu-

lated H min , or 33 m, based on a predominant frequency of the seismic data of 35 Hz and a formation velocity of 2300 ms. Frequency control on clinoform seismic stratigraphy A detailed outcrop-based acoustic impedance (AI) model (Figure 17a) of the Abo carbonate sequence at Apache Canyon, Sierra Diablo, west Texas (Courme, 1999) provides a realistic stratigraphic and facies reference to study factors that control the transition between seismic clinoforms and nonclinoforms of a prograding carbonate depositional system. The modeled high-frequency sequence is composed of multiple interbedded, high-AI mudstone/ packstone and low-AI grainstone clinoforms, dipping at 1020 (average 15). Measured beds or bed sets range in thickness from 3 to 10 m (landward) to 20 to 60 m (basinward). The clinoforms can be characterized as oblique (Figure 4b) because of the gradually reduced slope downdip and a bypassed or slightly eroded toplap surface beneath a thin, irregular paleokarst system. The whole Abo clinoform complex is encased in flat-lying host carbonate units (Wolfcamp and Clear Fork). Judging from the geometry of component beds

Figure 13. A nonclinoform, highstand onshelf delta in a high-frequency sequence in Starfak and Tiger Shoal seismic surveys (modified from Hentz and Zeng, 2003). (a) A representative amplitude stratal slice illustrating multiple channel forms and associated amplitude anomalies of varying shapes in an on-shelf shallow-water delta. (b) Well section C-C showing high-frequency sequence correlation and stratal position of the stratal slice (modified from Hentz and Zeng, 2003). Refer to Figure 11 for the positions of the stratal slice and the well section.

a)

2 km

Amplitude + Fault Channel/ lobe


W14 DATUM D ATUM
GR SP ILD GR

b)

Direction of progradation C
South
W8
SP ILD GR

C
North
W2
GR SP ILD GR SP

W17
ILD GR

W9
SP ILD

W4
SP ILD

Upper Miocene

SB 3

ft m
2 200 60 0 0

MFS 4 SB 4

SYSTEMS TRACT
Fourthorder Highland (HST) Transgressive (TST) Lowstand (incised valley) (LST)

Thirdorder Fourthorder

MFS 4 SB 4

Maximum flooding surface Sequence boundary Maximum flooding surface Transgressive surface g Sequence boundary

QAe1701

SA44 Interpretation / August 2013

and the stacking pattern of the clinoforms, the impedance layering of this system is comparable to that of a deltaic system at a similar scale. A set of synthetic seismic models (Figure 17b17f) constructed from the AI model (Figure 17a) illustrate how this clinoform complex responds to Ricker wavelets of different predominant frequencies. The 300-Hz model (Figure 17b) has more than enough resolution to resolve all modeled clinoform beds or bed sets. As a result, the seismic clinoform configuration is an accurate duplication of a geologic clinoform complex. In the 200-Hz model (Figure 17c), resolution is still good enough to resolve most of the clinoforms, but clinoform images start to blur in the thinnest beds and the thinnest parts of the clinoform complex (e.g., box a in Figure 17c). A further reduction of the predominant frequency to 100 Hz (Figure 17d) results in the disappearance of seismic clinoforms in some segments of the complex (e.g., box a, part of box b). In the 75-Hz model (Figure 17e), the seismic clinoforms are gone except in the thickest part of the clinoform complex (box c). Finally, seismic clinoforms disappear altogether in the 50-Hz model (Figure 17f); instead, we see a mostly flat event having variable amplitude and continuity. A more quantitative analysis suggests that the first occurrence of seismic clinoforms in this set of seismic models is closely related to H min (equations 1 and 2). A thinner clinoform complex needs data of higher predominant frequency to image. The clinoform complex shown in box a (Figure 17a) is about 1520 m (57 ms) thick, which requires seismic data of 150 200 Hz to image (box a in Figure 17c). For a clinoform complex of 30 m (10 ms), 100-Hz data are barely adequate to show recognizable seismic clinoforms (box b in Figure 17d). If a clinoform complex is 45 m (15 ms) thick, it will show up in a 75-Hz section (box c in Figure 17e). It seems that the type of seismic clinoform configuration may also be related to data frequency. An oblique clinoform seismic configuration in higher frequency data (e.g., 300-Hz section, Figure 17b) tends to become a shingled configuration in the lower frequency data (e.g., box b in Figure 17d, box c in Figure 17e). As a result, shingled facies observed in seismic data are not necessarily truly representative of geologic clinoform architecture. The merging of seismic responses of the thinner, low-angle downdip portion of clinoforms with that from underlying flat host rocks in lowfrequency data appears to distort the seismic facies. Biddle et al. (1992) document in their outcrop modeling study that the seismic downlap surfaces do not correspond to discrete stratal surfaces but to the toe-of-slope position where major bedding units thin below seismic resolution. Likewise, seismic sigmoidal clinoforms may be distorted by seismic toplaps corresponding to lithofacies changes in sigmoidal geologic units. Readers are referred to Zeng and Kerans (2003, Figure 1) for a fielddata example.

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Reducing ambiguity of seismic interpretation Seismic nonclinoforms of prograding depositional systems pose a challenge to exploration and production geologists using seismic data. The lack of a recognizable clinoform configuration may lead to misinterpretation of a prograding system as a different facies. For example, without well data and stratal slice mapping, the subparallel, variable-amplitude reflections that correlated with shallow-water deltas in Figures 7, 12, and 15 could easily be misinterpreted as floodplain, shore-zone, or shallow-water lake/shallow-water marine facies; the nonclinoform reflection in lowfrequency seismic models of a shelf-edge carbonate clinoform complex (e.g., Figure 17f) could mistakenly be interpreted as flat inner-shelf mudstones. This ambiguity in seismic interpretation may have significant consequences. the most serious misinterpretation would be to drill a shallow-water delta play on the basis of a false impression about the continuity of shingled reservoirs that actually pinch out at multiple toplap points. A simulation model based on flat and continuous reservoir bedding instead of clinoforms would further hinder development of remaining hydrocarbons in heterogeneous reservoirs.

N
TEXAS

Nueces Bay Corpus Christi Portland


us y Corp a sti B i r h C

B'
Aransas Pass

B
Laguna Madre

A'
Redfish Bay

Padre Island

Mustang Island

Port Aransas

Gulf of Mexico
0 10 km

QAe1700

Figure 14. Corpus Christi Bay area in south Texas and location of 3D seismic survey used in the study. Interpretation / August 2013 SA45

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

The ultimate solution to these problems is to promote acquisition of high-resolution seismic data. Based on equation 2 and Table 1, in a data set of 200-Hz predominant frequency H min will reduce to 5 m (for 2000 m/s clastic rocks) to 15 m (for 6000 m/s carbonate rocks), which would greatly enhance our ability to visually interpret thin-bedded seismic clinoforms. Some new technologies in high-resolution acquisition have been developed in recent years. Among them, Q technology (Goto et al., 2004) and high-density 3D technology (Ramsden et al., 2005) have probably met with the most success. Where the current high cost of acquisition of highresolution seismic data may not be suitable, a highfrequency enhancement processing of available seismic data would help. Spectral balancing (Tufekcic et al., 1981), spectral decomposition (Partyka et al., 1999), inverse spectral decomposition (Portniaguine and Castagna, 2004), and wavelet transform (e.g., Smith et al., 2008; Devi and Schwab, 2009) are some of the

most useful methods. Figure 18 shows an example in the Abo Kingdom carbonate field of west Texas of using the spectral balancing method to increase the predominant frequency of data for better clinoform imaging. The original stacked and migrated seismic data (Figure 18a) are characterized by a frequency range of 10 to 70 Hz and a predominant frequency of 30 Hz. Some toplaps are seen terminated against a nonclinoform, flat reflection of strong amplitude. Following a spectral balancing process (Figure 18b), the predominant frequency of the data increases to 45 Hz, resulting in a breakup of the flat event in the original data (Figure 18a) into several clinoforms. It appears that these newly imaged clinoforms are part of a large sigmoidal clinoform complex that lacks an inside toplap surface. However, the process of high-frequency enhancement inevitably lowers the signal-to-noise ratio of the data and therefore has its limit. Caution should be taken not to artificially push the predominant frequency beyond the bandwidth of the data. For many

Figure 15. Seismic sections in the Corpus Christi area showing the lack of clinoforms in Miocene Oakville on-shelf deltaic sediments. Dashed lines refer to position of the stratal slice in Figure 16. (a) Dip section A-A. (b) Strike section B-B. Refer to Figure 14 for position.

a)
A

Basinward

B'

1000

Oakville
Traveltime (ms)

1500

Anahuac

Frio
2000

b)

B'

Traveltime (ms)

1000

Amplitude

1 km

QAe1696

Fault

SA46 Interpretation / August 2013

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

areas where only low-frequency data are available or the clinoform complexes are too thin (e.g., the shallow-water deltas investigated in this paper), an integrated approach that combines the use of core, wireline logs, production data, and seismic geomorphology should be adapted. Unique landforms on seismic stratal slices that are representative of various deltaic systems can alert interpreters to the possible existence of shingled reservoir architecture in the form of nonclinoform reflections. Multiple long terminal distributary-channel forms (Figure 10a), stepwise termination of distributary-channel forms (Figure 10b), amplitude zoning (Figure 10c), and digitate (Figure 13a) and elongate (Figure 16) areal geometries are good examples of indicators of the presence of thin, below-seismic-resolution deltas. For detailed reservoir prediction and characterization, seismic lithology should also be investigated so that a 3D seismic volume can first be converted into a log lithology volume. In a lithology volume, lithology logs (e.g., gammaray and spontaneous potential) at well locations are tied to nearby seismic traces within a small tolerance, ensuring the best possible well integration with seismic data at the reservoir level. Using seismic geomorphology, researchers can convert seismic data further

into depositional facies images with lithologic identification. Such an approach is called seismic sedimentology (Zeng and Hentz, 2004).

500 m -

Amplitude + Fault Channel/ lobe Well SP/Res logs

QAe1697

Direction of progradation

Figure 16. A representative amplitude stratal slice revealing a nonclinoform, on-shelf delta in the Miocene Oakville Formation in the Corpus Christi seismic survey.

a)

AI

b)

300 Hz

b Wolfcamp

Clear Fork Abo


Hmin

Figure 17. An AI model of the Abo carbonate clinoform complex at Apache Canyon, Sierra Diablo, west Texas (Courme, 1999), and its synthetic seismic responses with Ricker wavelets of various frequencies. For better comparison with field data, the predominant frequency is used in modeling, which is equal to 1.3 times the peak frequency for Ricker wavelet. Clinoform detection limits are calculated from equation 1. Boxes a, b, and c denote relatively thin, moderate, and thick clinoform complexes in the model, respectively.

c)

200 Hz

d)

100 Hz

Hmin

Hmin

e)

75 Hz

f)

50 Hz

Hmin

Hmin
QAe1698

Interpretation / August 2013 SA47

a)

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

b)

Ancient nonclinoform shallow-water deltas developed in lacustrine and marine environments have been interpreted from low-frequency stacked and migrated seismic data by integrated use of core, wireline logs, and amplitude stratal slices. The diagnostic seismic geomorphologic patterns include, but are not limited to, multiple long terminal distributary-channel forms, stepwise termination of distributary-channel forms, amplitude zoning, and digitate and elongate areal landform geometries. Our outcrop seismic modeling shows the seismic frequency control on clinoform seismic stratigraphy. When the predominant frequency of a seismic wavelet decreases, an oblique clinoform pattern tends to become a shingled clinoform configuration, and when the thickness of a clinoform complex reaches H min , a transition from seismic clinoforms to seismic nonclinoforms occurs. The interpretation of progradational depositional sequences needs to go beyond the recognition of seismic clinoforms using traditional seismic facies analysis of low-frequency seismic data. Ambiguity in interpreting nonclinoform seismic facies can be effectively reduced by high-resolution acquisition, high-frequency enhancement processing, and seismic sedimentology. Acknowledgments We thank Q. Zhang, Y. Sun, R. Wang, C. Zhou, and B. Bai for their contribution to the study. The authors also extend gratitude to PetroChina and Chevron for providing well and seismic data. Landmark Graphics Corporation provided software via the Landmark University Grant Program for the interpretation and display of seismic data. The authors thank INTERPRETATION reviewers C. Olariu and R. Loucks for their constructive comments and suggestions. Figures were prepared by C. Brown and J. Lardon. S. Doenges edited the text. Publication was authorized by the director, Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin. References
Belopolsky, A. V., and A. W. Droxler, 2004, Seismic expressions of prograding carbonate bank margins: Middle Miocene, Maldives, Indian Ocean, in G. P. Eberli, J. L. Masaferro, and J. F. Sarg, eds., Seismic imaging of carbonate reservoirs and systems: AAPG Memoir 81, 267290. Berg, O. R., 1982, Seismic detection and evaluation of delta and turbidite sequences: Their application to exploration for the subtle trap: AAPG Bulletin, 66, 12711288. Bhattacharya, J. P., and R. G. Walker, 1991, River- and wave-dominated depositional systems of the Upper Cretaceous Dunvegan Formation, northwestern Alberta: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, 39, 165191. Biddle, K. T., W. Schlager, K. W. Rudolph, and T. L. Bush, 1992, Seismic model of a progradational carbonate

25 ms

500 m

Amplitude +

QAe1699

Figure 18. Reducing ambiguity in interpreting nonclinoform prograding sequences by spectral balancing. (a) Original stacked and migrated seismic section in Abo Kingdom carbonate field of west Texas, with a flat (dashed line) event and some toplapped events (arrows) underneath. (b) The same section after spectral balancing processing. The flat event in the original data has been broken up into clinoforms (dashed lines) having slopes similar to those of surrounding events. The toplaps disappear.

Conclusions The seismic configuration of a prograding depositional sequence is related to the water depth of the receiving basin. Although deep-water (shelf-edge) deltas that were deposited in water depths of high tens to hundreds of meters can easily be resolved by seismic data as seismic clinoforms, the clinoforms in shallow-water deltas developed in water depths of meters to low tens of meters tend to be unrecognized by their seismic responses in the form of seismic nonclinoforms. The clinoform detection limit (H min ) can be defined as one wavelength (width of two seismic events) and is related to the predominant frequency of the seismic data and the velocity of the prograding sediments.
SA48 Interpretation / August 2013

platform, Picco di Vallandro, the Dolomites, Northern Italy: AAPG Bulletin, 76, 1430. Brown, L. F., Jr., and R. G. Loucks, 2009, Chronostratigraphy of Cenozoic depositional sequences and systems tracts: A Wheeler chart of the northwest margin of the Gulf of Mexico Basin: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations 273. Busch, D. A., 1959, Prospecting for stratigraphic traps: AAPG Bulletin, 43, 28292843. Busch, D. A., 1971, Genetic units in delta prospecting: AAPG Bulletin, 55, 11371154. Carvajal, C., and R. J. Steel, 2009, Shelf-edge architecture and bypass of sand to deep water; influence of shelfedge processes, sea level, and sediment supply: Journal of Sedimentary Research, 79, 652672, doi: 10.2110/jsr .2009.074. Cleaves, A. W., and M. C. Broussard, 1980, Chester and Pottsville depositional systems, outcrop and subsurface, in the Black Warrior Basin of Mississippi and Alabama: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 30, 4960. Courme, B., 1999, Forward seismic modeling of a shelf-toslope carbonate depositional setting from outcrop data, the Abo Formation of Apache Canyon, West Texas, and comparison to its subsurface equivalent, Kingdom Abo field, Midland Basin: M.S. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, p. 200. Covault, J. A., B. W. Romans, and S. A. Graham, 2009, Outcrop expression of a continental-margin-scale shelfedge delta from the Cretaceous Magallanes Basin, Chile: Journal of Sedimentary Research, 79, 523539, doi: 10.2110/jsr.2009.053. Devi, K. R. S., and H. Schwab, 2009, High-resolution seismic signals from band-limited data using scaling laws of wavelet transforms: Geophysics, 74, no. 2, WA143 WA152, doi: 10.1190/1.3077622. Diegel, F. A., J. F. Karlo, D. C. Schuster, R. C. Shoup, and P. R. Tauvers, 1995, Cenozoic structural evolution and tectonostratigraphic framework of the northern Gulf Coast continental margin, in M. P. A. Jackson, D. G. Roberts, and S. Snelson, eds., Salt tectonics: A global perspective: AAPG Memoir 65, 109151. Dixon, J. F., J. F. Dixon, R. J. Steel, and C. Olariu, 2012, River-dominated, shelf-edge deltas; delivery of sand across the shelf break in the absence of slope incision: Sedimentology, 59, 11331157, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3091 .2011.01298.x. Droste, H., and M. V. Steenwinkel, 2004, Stratal geometries and patterns of platform carbonates: The Cretaceous of Oman, in G. P. Eberli, J. L. Masaferro, and J. F. Sarg, eds., Seismic imaging of carbonate reservoirs and systems: AAPG Memoir 81, 185206. Eberli, G. P., F. S. Anselmetti, C. Betzler, and J. V. Konijnenburg, 2004, Daniel Bernoulli carbonate platform to basin transitions on seismic data and in

outcrops: Great Bahama Bank and the Maiella platform margin, Italy, in G. P. Eberli, J. L. Masaferro, and J. F. Sarg, eds., Seismic imaging of carbonate reservoirs and systems: AAPG Memoir 81, 207250. Ethridge, F. G., and W. A. Wescott, 1984, Tectonic setting, recognition and hydrocarbon reservoir potential of fandelta deposits, in E. H. Koster, and R. J. Steel, eds., Sedimentology of gravels and conglomerates: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 10, 217235. Feng, Z. Q., C. Z. Jia, X. N. Xie, S. Zhang, Z. H. Feng, and T. A. Cross, 2010, Tectonostratigraphic units and stratigraphic sequences of the nonmarine Songliao Basin, northeast China: Basin Research, 22, 7995, doi: 10 .1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.x. Fisher, W. L., L. F. Brown, Jr., A. J. Scott, and J. H. McGowen, 1969, Delta systems in the exploration for oil and gas A research colloquium: The University of Texas at Austin. Galloway, W. E., 1975, Evolution of deltaic systems, in Deltas, models for exploration: Houston Geological Society, 8, 789. Galloway, W. E., 1986, Reservoir facies architecture of microtidal barrier systems: AAPG Bulletin, 70, 787808. Galloway, W. E., P. E. Ganey-Curry, X. Li, and R. T. Buffler, 2000, Cenozoic depositional history of the Gulf of Mexico Basin: AAPG Bulletin, 84, 17431774, doi: 10 .1306/8626C37F-173B-11D7-8645000102C1865D. Galloway, W. E., and D. K. Hobday, 1983, Terrigenous clastic depositional systems: Springer-Verlag, p. 423. Goto, R., D. Lowden, P. Smith, and J. O. Paulsen, 2004, Steered-streamer 4D case study over the Norne field: 74th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 22272230. Hentz, T. F., and H. Zeng, 2003, High-frequency Miocene sequence stratigraphy, offshore Louisiana: Cycle framework and influence on production distribution in a mature shelf province: AAPG Bulletin, 87, 197230, doi: 10 .1306/09240201054. Isern, A. R., F. S. Anselmetti, and P. Blum, 2004, A Neogene carbonate platform, slope, and shelf edifice shaped by sea level and ocean currents, Marion Plateau (Northeast Australia), in G. P. Eberli, J. L. Masaferro, and J. F. Sarg, eds., Seismic imaging of carbonate reservoirs and systems: AAPG Memoir 81, 291308. Li, W., J. P. Bhattacharya, Y. Zhu, D. Garza, and E. L. Blankenship, 2011, Evaluating delta asymmetry using three-dimensional facies architecture and ichnological analysis, Ferron Notom Delta, Capital Reef, Utah, USA: Sedimentology, 58, 478507, doi: 10.1111/j.13653091.2010.01172.x. Lou, Z. H., X. Lan, Q. M. Lu, and X. Y. Cai, 1999, Controls of the topography, climate and lake level fluctuation on the depositional environment of a shallow-water delta: (in Chinese) Acta Geologica Sinica, 73, 8392. Loucks, R. G., B. T. Moore, and H. Zeng, 2011, On-shelf lower Miocene Oakville sediment-dispersal patterns

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Interpretation / August 2013 SA49

within a three-dimensional sequence-stratigraphic architectural framework and implications for deep-water reservoirs in the central coastal area of Texas: AAPG Bulletin, 95, 17951817. Mitchum, R. M., Jr., P. R. Vail, and B. Sangree, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global change of sea level. Part 6: Stratigraphic interpretation of seismic reflection patterns in depositional sequences, in C. E. Payton, ed., Seismic stratigraphy: AAPG Memoir 26, 117134. Olariu, C., and J. P. Bhattacharya, 2006, Terminal distributary channels and delta front architecture of river-dominated delta systems: Journal of Sedimentary Research, 76, 212233, doi: 10.2110/jsr.2006.026. Olariu, M. I., C. R. Carvajal, C. Olariu, and R. J. Steel, 2012, Deltaic process and architectural evolution during cross-shelf transits, Maastrichtian Fox Hills Formation, Washakie Basin, Wyoming: AAPG Bulletin, 96, 1931 1956, doi: 10.1306/03261211119. Partyka, G., J. Gridley, and J. Lopez, 1999, Interpretational application of spectral decomposition in reservoir characterization: The Leading Edge, 18, 353360, doi: 10 .1190/1.1438295. Portniaguine, O., and J. P. Castagna, 2004, Inverse spectral decomposition: 74th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 17861789. Postma, G., 1990, An analysis of the variation in delta architecture: Terra Nova, 2, 124130, doi: 10.1111/j.13653121.1990.tb00052.x. Ramsden, C., G. Bennett, and A. Long, 2005, High resolution 3D seismic imaging in practice: The Leading Edge, 24, 423428, doi: 10.1190/1.1901397. Rasmussen, D. L., C. J. Jump, and K. A. Wallace, 1985, Deltaic systems in the Early, Cretaceous Fall River Formation, southern Powder River Basin, Wyoming: Wyoming Geological Association, 36, 91111. Rich, J. L., 1951, Three critical environments of deposition, and criteria for recognition of rocks deposited in each of them: Geological Society of America Bulletin, 62, 120, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2 .0.CO;2. Sangree, J. B., and J. M. Widmier, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level. Part 9: Seismic interpretation of clastic depositional facies, in C. E. Payton, ed., Seismic stratigraphy: AAPG Memoir 26, 165184. Smith, M., G. Perry, A. Bertrand, J. Stein, and G. Yu, 2008, Extending seismic bandwidth using the continuous wavelet transform: First Break, 26, 97102. Tufekcic, D., J. F. Claerbout, and Z. Rasperic, 1981, Spectral balancing in the time domain: Geophysics, 46, 11821188, doi: 10.1190/1.1441258. Vail, P. R., R. M. Mitchum, Jr., and S. Thompson III, 1977, Relative change of sea level from coastal onlap. Part 3: Stratigraphic interpretation of seismic reflection patterns in depositional sequences, in C. E. Payton, ed., Seismic stratigraphy: AAPG Memoir 26, 6382. Van Wagoner, J. C., H. W. Posamentier, R. M. Mitchum, P. R. Vail, J. F. Sarg, T. S. Loutit, and J. Hardenbol,
SA50 Interpretation / August 2013

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

1988, An overview of the fundamentals of sequence stratigraphy and key definitions, in C. K. Wilgus, B. S. Hastings, H. Posamentier, J. V. Wagoner, C. A. Ross, and C. Kendall, eds., Sea-level changes: An integrated approach: SEPM, Special publication no. 42, 12711288. Zeng, H., M. M. Backus, K. T. Barrow, and N. Tyler, 1998a, Stratal slicing. Part I: Realistic 3-D seismic model: Geophysics, 63, 502513, doi: 10.1190/1.1444351. Zeng, H., S. C. Henry, and J. P. Riola, 1998b, Stratal slicing. Part II: Real seismic data: Geophysics, 63, 514522, doi: 10.1190/1.1444352. Zeng, H., and T. F. Hentz, 2004, High-frequency sequence stratigraphy from seismic sedimentology: Applied to Miocene, Vermilion Block 50, Tiger Shoal area, offshore Louisiana: AAPG Bulletin, 88, 153174, doi: 10.1306/ 10060303018. Zeng, H., and C. Kerans, 2003, Seismic frequency control on carbonate seismic stratigraphy: A case study of the Kingdom Abo sequence, West Texas: AAPG Bulletin, 87, 273293, doi: 10.1306/08270201023. Zeng, H., X. Zhu, R. Zhu, and Q. Zhang, 2012, Guidelines for seismic sedimentologic study in non-marine postrift basins: (in Chinese) Petroleum Exploration and Development, 39, 275284, doi: 10.1016/S1876-3804(12)60045-7. Zou, C. N., W. Z. Zhao, X. Y. Zhang, P. Luo, L. Wang, L. H. Liu, S. H. Xue, X. J. Yuan, R. K. Zhu, and S. H. Tao, 2008, Formation and distribution of shallow-water deltas and central-basin sandbodies in large open depression lake basins: (in Chinese) Acta Geologica Sinica, 82, 813825.

Hongliu Zeng received a B.S. (1982) and an M.S. (1985) in geology from the Petroleum University of China and a Ph.D. (1994) in geophysics from the University of Texas at Austin. He is a senior research scientist for the Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include seismic sedimentology, seismic interpretation, and attribute analysis. He won the Pratt Memorial Award from AAPG in 2005.

Xiaomin Zhu received B.S. (1982), M.S. (1985), and Ph.D. (1990) degrees in petroleum geology from the Petroleum University of China. He is a professor in the College of Geosciences, China University of Petroleum at Beijing, China. His research interests include lacustrine sedimentology, sequence stratigraphy, and seismic sedimentology. He won the Li Siguang Award from the foundation of Li Siguang geological scientific award in 2009.

Downloaded 01/07/14 to 203.162.41.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Rukai Zhu received a B.S. (1988) in geology from Hunan University of Science and Technology, an M.S. (1991) in geology from China University of Geosciences, and a Ph.D. (1994) in geology from Peking University. He is a senior geologist for the Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development PetroChina. His research interests include sedimentology, reservoir characterization, and unconventional petroleum geology.

Interpretation / August 2013 SA51

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi