Post on 04-Jun-2018
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
1/17
New insights into seismic stratigraphy of shallow-waterprogradational sequences: Subseismic clinoforms
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 clino-
forms. We evaluated the definition and interpretation of progradational systems that do not associate with seis-
mic 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 analy-
sis 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.
IntroductionThe term clinoform is proposed by Rich (1951) to
depict the shape of a depositional surface at the scale
of the entire continental margin (Figure1). A clinoform
results from the varying rate of deposition and waterdepth, its upper end connecting to a flat, shallow-
water 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 bot-
tomset (roughly corresponding to undaform, clinoform,
and fondoform of Rich [1951], respectively). A clino-
form was interpreted as strata in which significant dep-
osition is produced by lateral outbuilding or basinward
prograding, forming the gently sloping depositional sur-faces (clinoforms). Although seismic clinoforms can re-
sult from any prograding depositional process, they are
generally produced by deltas that prograded seaward
(Sangree and Widmier, 1977). Berg (1982) further estab-
lishes 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 sequence-
stratigraphic 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 ba-
sins 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 clino-forms are thinner and more difficult to identify using
seismic data. Prograding deltaic systems developed in
shallow-water environments, such as along the coast
1The University of Texas at Austin, Jackson School of Geosciences, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, Texas, USA. E-mail: hongliu.zeng@beg
.utexas.edu.2China University of Petroleum, Beijing, China. E-mail: xmzhu@cup.edu.cn.3Research 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 I NTERPRETATION, 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.
tSpecial section: Interpreting stratigraphy from geophysical data
Interpretation / August 2013 SA35
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
2/17
in shallow-marine on-shelf, intracratonic basins, and inpostrift continental basins, are especially hard to recog-nize using seismic data. In these areas, where sedimentsare only several meters to low tens of meters thick, seis-mic clinoform patterns are commonly poorly imaged. Asa result, these clinoforms have received much less atten-tion from seismic interpreters. In fact, except for somemoderately thin sequences that can be recognized as
shingled clinoform complexes (Mitchum et al., 1977),
many thin deltaic sequences have probably been mistak-enly interpreted as other facies because they lack dis-tinctive seismic clinoforms. In this study, we defineseismic nonclinoforms (or subseismic clinoforms) asseismic events produced by prograding depositional se-quences that cannot be recognized visually as seismicclinoforms.
The purpose of this study is to discuss and interpretthin deltas and prograding depositional systems belowseismic detection power. Geologic and seismic indica-tions of deltaic systems are discussed. The limits of
using clinoform seismic facies to characterize deltaicsystems are pointed out. Specific examples of subsur-
face delta sequences without clinoform geometry onseismic sections are described and evaluated. Seismicresolution control on imaging of clinoform seismic ar-chitecture is investigated. Seismic techniques that canbe used to detect nonclinoform sequences are outlined.
In this paper, carbonate progradational systemsare discussed to a lesser degree. Although lithologyand depositional processes in carbonate depositionalsequences are different from those in clastic systems,links between clinoformal surfaces and depositionalrate/water depth are similar, which leads to similarimpedance architecture and comparable seismic facies.Therefore, our observations in deltas could safely be
applied to carbonate systems, and vice versa.
Indication of deltaic systemsDeltaic systems show a wide complexity in the geo-
logic record. Many of these systems can be interpretedin seismic data in certain situations. An understandingof the geologic conditions of delta sequence develop-ment is essential to predict their seismic responses.Following is a brief description of various deltaic sys-tems and how they relate to seismic interpretability.
Deltas in modern and geologic recordGalloway (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 char-
acterized by significantly different landform geometry(Figure 2). Fluvial-dominated deltas are elongate to
lobate in shape, whereas wave- and tide-dominated del-
tas are arcuate and funnel shaped, respectively. Facies
patterns associated with each delta type are also differ-
ent. 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 re-
ceiving basin. Shallow-water deltas are developed in
water depths of low tens of meters, which would in-
clude on-shelf, or shelf-type, deltas (Ethridge and
Wescott, 1984) in marine basins and lacustrine and
other deltas related to other shelves. Shallow-water del-
tas 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
QAe1675
Undathem
Clinothem
Basement
Undaform ClinoformLand
Fondothem
Fondoform
Depth ofwave base
Seasurface
Figure 1. Diagram showing the original concept of the clino-form defined by Rich (1951).
Fluvial dominated
Tide dominated
Wave dominated
Tidal
Lafourche(Mississippi)
Lobate
Elongate
Rhone River
ModernMississippi
Gulf of Papua
0 10 mi
QAe1676
Current
0 10 mi
0 10 mi
0 10 mi
Figure 2. Modern examples of three basic types of deltas(modified fromFisher et al., 1969).
SA36 Interpretation / August 2013
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
3/17
general stratigraphic architecture of a fluvial-dominated shallow-water delta is summarized inFigure 3a. In the dip (basinward) profile, individual
delta lobes that formed in outbuilding deltaic episodescompose a clinoform complex, with sandy sedimentsmostly accumulated in the upper portion of the com-
plex (topsets and upper foresets). The combinationof the sandy sediments forms a lithostratigraphic unit
having a relatively smooth top and probably an uneven
base. In the strike section, multiple delta lobes formedat different times and accumulated as irregular-shaped
mounds, rarely showing parallel internal stratal beddingin seismic sections.
According to Postma (1990), deep-water deltas occurin water depths deeper than tens of meters to hundredsof meters and include shelf-edge deltas, slope-typedeltas (Ethridge and Wescott, 1984), and other systemsnot necessarily related to true shelf breaks (e.g., in afault-controlled deep lake). The biggest difference be-tween deep-water deltas and shallow-water deltas isthat in addition to the three physiographic zones
found in shallow-water deltas, deep-water deltas also
extend to a suspension settling and gravity-driven masstransport zone and a deep-water turbidite zone beyondthe normal prodelta zone on the long, inclined, muddybasin floor (Figure 3b). Sands in this system wouldbe preferentially distributed at the top (delta-plainand delta-front sands) and base (turbidites), separatedby 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
Figure 4. Reflection configurations of fluvial- and wave-dominated deltas (modified from Mitchum et al. [1977];initially interpreted by Mitchum et al. [1977] and Sangreeand Widmier [1977] and reinterpreted byBerg [1982]).
25Hz
100Hz
50Hz
60Hz
30Hz
40Hz
Velocity (m/s)
Recognizableprogradingseq.
(m)
80Hz
4000 000600050002 3000
20
0
40
60
80
100
120
140
20
0
40
60
80
100
120
140
Recognizablep
rogradingseq.
(Two-waytime,ms)
20Hz
Clastics
Carbonates
200Hz
QAe1680
Figure 5. Hmin in time and depth as a function of the pre-dominant frequency of the seismic data and the velocity of
prograding sediments.
Shallow-water delta
Deep-water delta
Dip section
Strike section
Meters to low tens of meters
High tens to hundreds of meters
1
5
4
32
1
32
Sandstone Shale
QAe1678
a)
b)
Figure 3. Models of fluvial-dominated deltas illustratingtheir internal clinoform framework and gross sand distribu-tion patterns: (a) Shallow-water delta; (b) deep-waterdelta; 1 delta plain, 2 delta front, 3 prodelta, 4 suspension settling and gravity-driven mass transport zone,and 5 = deep-water turbidite zone.
Interpretation / August 2013 SA37
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
4/17
(Zou et al., 2008) in lacustrine basins. Several authors
investigate many ancient subsurface examples of shal-
low-water deltas deposited in shallow intracratonic sea-
ways (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 deep-
water 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 an-
cient deposits is very limited.
Deltas represented by clinoform seismic faciesMitchum et al. (1977) promote the use of external
shape and internal configuration on
seismic profiles to interpret stratalconfiguration, facies patterns, and depo-
sitional environments of prograding
stratigraphic sequences. In particular,
their recognition of sigmoid, oblique,
complex, and shingled clinoform seismic
facies (Figure 4) and the general geologic
interpretation of these facies establishes
a foundation for stratigraphic evaluation
of seismic clinoforms. A sigmoid clino-
form pattern (Figure4a) refers to a rela-
tively low-energy sedimentary regime;
an oblique facies (Figure4b) would oc-cur in a relatively high-energy sedimen-
tary regime. A complex sigmoid-oblique
model (Figure4c) results from alternat-
ing high- and low-energy sedimentary
regimes. Whereas these three types of
clinoforms are associated with deep-
water basins, a shingled clinoform
configuration (Figure4d) represents depositional units
prograding into shallow waters.
Berg (1982) further links different clinoform con-
figurations to some distinctive delta types. The sig-
moid, oblique, and complex sigmoid-oblique patterns
(Figure 4a4c) are representative seismic facies of adeep-water fluvial-dominated delta. The sigmoid seismic
pattern is composed of continuous and S-shaped
clinoforms (Figure4a). Without toplapping, sigmoid pat-
terns usually occur in low-energy, delta interlobe areas
lacking sandy deposits. The oblique pattern (Figure4b)
is characterized by clinoforms that terminate updip by
toplap and downdip by downlap that bound the deltaic
sequence. This pattern represents a high-energy delta
where the sand-rich delta plain is coincident with the
upper horizontal events (undaform). The seismic clino-
form is equivalent to shale-prone prodelta facies. The ab-
sence of stacking of horizontal events in the delta plain
suggests sediment bypassing on a stable shelf. The com-plex sigmoid-oblique pattern (Figure 4c) is a result of
alternate high-energy sandy deposition (oblique) and
low-energy shaly deposition (sigmoid) that occurred in
delta-lobe shifting during delta system outbuilding.
The shingled pattern (Figure 4d) appears to indicate a
wave-dominated delta in shallow water. Development
of a wave-dominated delta seems to require a stable shal-
low depositional shelf. Less studied and documented,
tide-dominated deltas are difficult to identify using sim-
ple seismic clinoform patterns.
Table 1. Hmin in meters as a function of the predominant frequency ofthe seismic data and the velocity of prograding sediments. Typicalindustry data are characterized by a predominant frequency from 20 to50 Hz.
f(Hz) V 2000ms
V 3000ms
V 4000ms
V 5000ms
V 6000ms
20 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0
25 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
30 33.3 50.0 66.7 83.3 100.0
40 25.0 37.5 50.0 62.5 75.0
50 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
60 16.7 25.0 33.3 41.7 50.0
80 12.5 18.7 25.0 31.2 37.5
100 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
200 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0
0 1200 km
BEIJING
Peoples Republicof China
0 500 km
48
46
44
50126 128 130
124122
Qiqihar
Harbin
Changchun
DaqingOilfieldStudy
area
Songliao
Basin
QAe1681
N
Figure 6. Cretaceous Songliao Basin of China showing thestudy area in the Qijia Depression near the Daqing Oilfield.
SA38 Interpretation / August 2013
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
5/17
Limits of clinoform seismic faciesBarring 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 seis-
mic 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:
Hmin 1000f ; (1)
wherefdenotes the predominant frequency of the seis-
mic data in hertz (Hz) and Hmin is the clinoform detec-
tion limit in milliseconds (ms). The clinoform detection
limit in depth is related to the predominant frequency of
the seismic data and the velocity of the prograding sedi-
ments (Figure5, Table1):
Hmin V2f ; (2)
where Vdenotes velocity of the sediments in meters persecond (ms) andHmin is the clinoform detection limit
in meters (m). Most modern seismic data sets are char-acterized by a predominant frequency ranging from
20 to 100 Hz, corresponding to Hmin (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 Hmin (in depth) of 10 to100 m; in a carbonate formation, rock velocity is signifi-
cantly higher (mostly 5000 6000 ms) and Hmin (indepth) increases sizably (25150 m).
These simple calculations reveal that seismic clino-
form recognition is reserved to thicker prograding
AA
G21
G42
G41
G32
G31
G22
G12
SQ1SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
SS5
SS6
SQ2
SQ3
G11Tra
veltime(ms)
T1
T2
a)Basinward
2 kmkm
b)
SQ1
SQ2
SQ3
T1
T2
Relativegeologictime
a
b
c
SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
SS5
SS6
G21
G42
G41
G32
G31
G22
G12
G11
Third-orderseq. boundary
SP DT High-ordersequence
Fault
fifth fourth third
fifth fourth third
- +
Amplitude
A
A
BB
QAe1682
2 km
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
Figure 7. A dip well-seismic section illustrat-ing the high-frequency depositional sequenceframework and internal nonclinoform reflec-tion pattern in the Cretaceous Qijia Depres-sion (modified from Zeng et al., 2012). SeeFigure 7a for position. (a) Traveltime sectionshowing wireline logs, sequence definition,and well-seismic correlation. (b) Wheeler-transformed section flattened in relativegeologic time for easy viewing of internalreflection characteristics. Positions of stratalslices in Figure 10 are labeled a, b, and c. SP spontaneous potential log; DT = sonic log.
Interpretation / August 2013 SA39
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
6/17
depositional sequences or the thicker part of a prograd-
ing depositional sequence. Sequences thinner thanHminnormally 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 shallow-
water deltas would fall below Hmin because they devel-
oped in water depths shallower than tens of meters.
These shallow-water deltas are good candidates to bereflected as nonclinoform seismic patterns. Accord-ingly, the interpretation of deltas needs to go beyondthe recognition of seismic clinoforms. Lacking visibleclinoforms, shallow-water deltas would routinely gounrecognized by seismic interpreters. Seismic faciesof those nonclinoform sequences are our major concernin following sections.
Examples of seismic nonclinoform deltasIn this section, three investigations are presented
as examples of seismic nonclinoform deltas. Withoutvisible seismic clinoforms, seismic geomorphologypatterns on amplitude stratal slices provide vital infor-mation for interpreting thin deltaic systems. The pro-duction of stratal slices has followed the procedurediscussed in Zeng et al. (1998a, 1998b). Where available,conventional cores and wireline logs have been used tocalibrate the interpretations in these studies.
Qijia depression, Songliao Basin, China
The Songliao Basin of China is a large-scaleMesozoic-Cenozoic lacustrine basin covering an areaof more than 250,000 km2 (Figure6). In lower throughupper Cretaceous strata, postrift deposits as thick as3000 to 4000 m unconformably overlie synrift strataand extend beyond the fault blocks to cover the wholebasin (Feng et al., 2010). Lacking true shelf breaks, seis-mic clinoforms can be seen only along major delta axeswhere fluvial systems transported abundant sedimentto the deep part of the lake in the center of the basin
B B
+-
Amplitude2 km
50ms
5ms
QAe1683
50ms
a
b
c
Figure 8. Strike seismic section showing the internal reflec-tion pattern in the Cretaceous Qijia Depression. The expectedmounded seismic configuration for a normaldeltaic system(Figure 3b) does not exist. The regional structural trend is cor-rected for a better view of internal reflection characteristics.Positions of stratal slices in Figure10 are labeled a, b, and c.See Figure7a for position.
QAe1684
10m
Deltafront
Shallow
lake
Depth(m)
Limestone
Shale
Sandstone
sotohperoCseicafbuSnoitcesderoC
GR DT
a)
b)
c)
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2120
2133
a)
b)
c)
Figure 9. Description of a cored section in awell in the Qijia Depression showing Creta-ceous fluvial-dominated shallow-water deltadeposits. Arrows denote upward-coarseninggrain-size trends. (a) Shallow-lake Ostracodalimestone; (b) trough-cross-stratified (arrow),fine-grained distributary-channel sandstone;(c) medium-grained, blocky sandstone withshale lag (arrow) on the scoured distributary-channel base. Cores are oriented up (shal-lower) to the left.
SA40 Interpretation / August 2013
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
7/17
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
8/17
to reveal any seismic reflection configuration that
resembles the mound geometry associated with typical
prograding delta clinoforms (Figure3b).
Lithology, grain-size trend, and sedimentary struc-
ture 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 typicalfacies cycle (from bottom to top) includes gray shale
and thin limestone (Figure 9a) representing shallow-
lake 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 ina shallow-water deltaic system (e.g., Olariu and Bhatta-
charya, 2006).
A set of stratal slices was constructed in the intervalbetween reference events T1 and T2 from stacked andmigrated data (Figure7a). All the stratal slices roughlyfollow individual seismic events that are parallel to
one another. Selected slices (Figure 10a, 10c, and10e) represent three thin LST deltaic depositional sys-tems in high-order sequences. The most striking seismic
geomorphologic features in these stratal slices are nu-merous channel patterns and associated amplitude
anomalies of different shapes, representing variousdeltaic environments (Figure 10b, 10d, and 10f).Differences in the facies patterns reflect relative mar-
gin-to-basin positions in the gentle slope of a postriftlacustrine basin. During deposition of the high-
frequency sequence SS2 (Figure10aand10b), the lakewas at its maximum depth and extent and the studyarea was a delta front. Distributary channels extendedfar into the basin and were rarely exposed before burial.
A fringing sandy delta front was lacking. Later, duringdeposition of the high-frequency sequences G41(Figure 10c and 10d) and G31 (Figure 10e and 10f),
the lake diminished in area after repeated deltaic-
deposition episodes. The study area is located in theshoreline area, which has a narrower delta-front zone.The deltaic system prograded on a smaller scale, withdeltaic lobes forming one in front of another, attached
to shorter distributary channels, which terminated atthe shoreline at the time of deposition. Multiple shore-line positions can be determined on the basis of channelterminations (Figure10c and 10d) or amplitude zoning
(Figure 10e and 10f), showing a general direction ofdeltaic progradation.
Miocene deltas at the Gulf of Mexico,Louisiana, United States
Starfak and Tiger Shoal fields of offshore Louisiana,United States (Figure11), lie along the western periph-
ery of the ancestral Mississippi River area. Located inthe Oligocene-Miocene Detachment Province of thenorth Gulf Coast continental margin (Diegel et al.,
1995), Miocene deposits are largely controlled bydown-to-the-basin, listric growth faults that sole on aregional detachment zone above the Oligocene section.Salt tectonics and growth faulting resulted in a great
thickness of deltaic and other on-shelf sediments duringa period of high sedimentation rates. Interpreted depo-
sitional environments include lowstand progradingwedge, slope fan, and basin-floor fan beyond the shelfedge; incised valley, highstand delta, and transgressive
facies; and coastal plain, coastal delta, and inner-shelfmarine deposits in the coastal area (Hentz and Zeng,
2003).All these Miocene depositional systems are com-
posed of interbedded sandstone and shale units, withsandstones varying widely in thickness and ranging
from 1 to 40 m. Although the study area is situatedin a passive continental margin, a representative dipseismic section across the area (Figure 12) demon-strates mostly parallel to divergent seismic facies,
TEXAS
LOUISIANA
MISSISSIPPI
3D surveysField
N
VERMILIONAREA
SOUTH MARSHISLAND AREA
North LightHouse Point
TigerShoal
Starfak C
LOUISIANA
MARSH ISLAND
C'
A
A'
0
0
5 mi
8 km
B
B'
LightHousePoint
Trinity Shoal
Amber Complex
Mound Point
Fig. 13
QAe1686
Figure 11. Location of Starfak and Tiger Shoal fields, 3Dseismic surveys, and wells in the Louisiana Gulf Coast.
SA42 Interpretation / August 2013
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
9/17
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 (Figure4d).
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 Hmin 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 indica-
tion of mounded facies (Figure 3b).
An amplitude stratal slice (Figure 13a) that sam-
ples one of the parallel and variable amplitude events
(Figure 12) reveals multiple channel forms and asso-
ciated 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 sys-
tem 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 For-
mation is bounded below by the upper OligoceneAnahuac Formation. Sediments of the Oakville interval
form one of many thick offlapping wedges of terrig-
enous 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 sand-
stones and shales that followed a basinwide second-
order transgression represented by the Oligocene
Anahuac Formation (Brown and Loucks, 2009).
Dip (Figure15a) and strike (Figure15b) seismic sec-
tions 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-
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
Basinwarda)
b) 2000
2200
2400
2600
Traveltime(ms)
B B'
Amplitude
+2 km0
0 2 mi 14
Fault IVF at high-freq sequence
A A'
Traveltime(ms)
QAe1695
Figure 12. Seismic sections in Starfak andTiger Shoal area showing the lack of clino-forms in Miocene on-shelf deltaic sediments.Dashed lines refer to position of the stratalslice in Figure13. (a) Northsouth dip section
A-A (modified from Zeng and Hentz, 2004).(b) Westeast strike section B-B. SeeFigure 11 for position.
Interpretation / August 2013 SA43
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
10/17
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 (Figure16) 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 ex-
ceed 10 m at this interval, falling below seismic resolu-
tion. Outside the channels and in between delta lobes,
shaly sediments dominate. No seismic clinoforms are
observed along the depositional surface representedby the stratal slice (Figure 16), an indication of a
shallow-water origin of the deltaic system. The thick-
ness of the delta complex should not exceed the calcu-
latedHmin, or 33 m, based on a predominant frequencyof the seismic data of 35 Hz and a formation velocityof2300 ms.
Frequency control on clinoform seismicstratigraphy
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 andfacies reference to study factors that control thetransition between seismic clinoforms and non-clinoforms of a prograding carbonate depositionalsystem. The modeled high-frequency sequence is com-
posed of multiple interbedded, high-AI mudstone/packstone and low-AI grainstone clinoforms, dippingat 1020 (average 15). Measured beds or bed setsrange in thickness from 3 to 10 m (landward) to 20to 60 m (basinward). The clinoforms can be character-ized as oblique (Figure4b) because of the gradually re-duced slope downdip and a bypassed or slightly eroded
toplap surface beneath a thin, irregular paleokarst sys-tem. The whole Abo clinoform complex is encased inflat-lying host carbonate units (Wolfcamp and ClearFork). Judging from the geometry of component beds
SB 4
Third-order
Fourth-order
Fourth-order
SYSTEMS TRACT
UpperMiocene SB 3
W2North
C C
SouthW17 W9 W14 W8 W4
GR SP ILD GR SP SPILD GR ILD ILD
MFS 4
SPGR ILDSPGR ILDSPGR
200
0 0
60ft m
DATUM
Highland (HST)
Lowstand (incised valley) (LST)
Transgressive (TST)
Maximum flooding surfaceSequence boundaryMaximum flooding surfaceTransgressive surfaceSequence boundary
MFS 4
SB 4
QAe1701
a)
b)
2 km
Direction ofprogradation
B 4
Third-rder
Fourth-or er
ourt -or er
SYSTEMS TRACT
UpperMiocene B
W2Nort
C C
outhW1 W9 W14 W8 W4
S IL SIL IL IL
MFS 4
SG ILG ILSPR
00 0m
ighland (H T)
owstand (incised val ey) (L T
ransgressive (TST
aximum flooding surfaceSequence boundaryMaximum flooding surface
ransgress ve sur aceSequence oun ary
MFS 4
SB 4
Ae1701
)
)
2 km
Direction ofprogradation
Channel/lobe
- +
Amplitude
Fault
Figure 13. A nonclinoform, highstand on-shelf delta in a high-frequency sequence inStarfak and Tiger Shoal seismic surveys(modified fromHentz and Zeng, 2003). (a) Arepresentative amplitude stratal slice illustrat-ing multiple channel forms and associatedamplitude anomalies of varying shapes in an
on-shelf shallow-water delta. (b) Well sectionC-C showing high-frequency sequence corre-lation and stratal position of the stratal slice(modified fromHentz and Zeng, 2003). Referto Figure 11 for the positions of the stratalslice and the well section.
SA44 Interpretation / August 2013
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
11/17
and the stacking pattern of the clinoforms, the imped-
ance 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 wave-
lets 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 accu-rate 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 (Figure17d) results in the disappearance of seis-
mic 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(Figure17f); 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 Hmin (equations1and2). A
thinner clinoform complex needs data of higher
predominant frequency to image. The clinoform com-
plex 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 Figure17c). For a clinoform
complex of 30 m (10 ms), 100-Hz data are barely
adequate to show recognizable seismic clinoforms
(box b in Figure17d). 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 configu-
ration may also be related to data frequency. An oblique
clinoform seismic configuration in higher frequency
data (e.g., 300-Hz section, Figure17b) 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 clino-
form architecture. The merging of seismic responses
of the thinner, low-angle downdip portion of clinoforms
with that from underlying flat host rocks in low-frequency data appears to distort the seismic facies.
Biddle et al. (1992)document in their outcrop modeling
study that the seismic downlap surfaces do not corre-
spond 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 lithof-
acies changes in sigmoidal geologic units. Readers are
referred toZeng and Kerans (2003, Figure 1) for a field-
data example.
Reducing ambiguity of seismic interpretationSeismic nonclinoforms of prograding depositional
systems pose a challenge to exploration and produc-
tion 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 flood-plain, shore-zone, or shallow-water lake/shallow-water
marine facies; the nonclinoform reflection in low-
frequency seismic models of a shelf-edge carbonate
clinoform complex (e.g., Figure 17f) could mistakenly
be interpreted as flat inner-shelf mudstones. This ambi-
guity in seismic interpretation may have significant con-
sequences. 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 sim-
ulation model based on flat and continuous reservoir
bedding instead of clinoforms would further hinderdevelopment of remaining hydrocarbons in hetero-
geneous reservoirs.
B
B'A
A'
Laguna Madre
Padre IslandMustang
Island
PortlandCorpus Christi
NuecesBay
N
TEXAS
Port Aransas
G u l f o f M e x i c o
C o r pu s
C h r is t i B
a y
Redfish Bay
AransasPass
10 km0
QAe1700
Figure 14. Corpus Christi Bay area in south Texas and loca-tion of 3D seismic survey used in the study.
Interpretation / August 2013 SA45
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
12/17
The ultimate solution to these problems is to pro-mote acquisition of high-resolution seismic data. Based
on equation 2 and Table 1, in a data set of 200-Hz
predominant frequency Hmin 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 3Dtechnology (Ramsden et al., 2005) have probably met
with the most success.Where the current high cost of acquisition of high-
resolution seismic data may not be suitable, a high-
frequency 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., Smithet al., 2008; Devi and Schwab, 2009) are some of the
most useful methods. Figure 18 shows an example inthe Abo Kingdom carbonate field of west Texas of using
the spectral balancing method to increase the pre-
dominant frequency of data for better clinoform imag-
ing. 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 non-
clinoform, flat reflection of strong amplitude. Following
a spectral balancing process (Figure18b), the predomi-nant frequency of the data increases to 45 Hz, resulting
in a breakup of the flat event in the original data (Fig-
ure 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 enhance-
ment 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 fre-quency beyond the bandwidth of the data. For many
- +
Amplitude
a)
b)
Basinward
1 km
Fault
Anahuacnahuac
Friorio
Oakvilleakville
A
B B'
B'
QAe1696
Anahuacnahuac
Friorio
Oakvilleakville
Traveltim
e(ms)
Traveltime(ms)
1000
1500
2000
1000
Figure 15. Seismic sections in the CorpusChristi area showing the lack of clinoformsin Miocene Oakville on-shelf deltaic sedi-ments. Dashed lines refer to position of thestratal slice in Figure 16. (a) Dip section
A-A. (b) Strike section B-B. Refer to Figure 14for position.
SA46 Interpretation / August 2013
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
13/17
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 vari-
ous deltaic systems can alert interpreters to the pos-
sible existence of shingled reservoir architecture in
the form of nonclinoform reflections. Multiple longterminal distributary-channel forms (Figure 10a),
stepwise termination of distributary-channel forms
(Figure 10b), amplitude zoning (Figure 10c), and dig-
itate (Figure13a) and elongate (Figure16) areal geom-
etries are good examples of indicators of the presence
of thin, below-seismic-resolution deltas. For detailed
reservoir prediction and characterization, seismic lith-
ology should also be investigated so that a 3D seismic
volume can first be converted into a log lithology vol-
ume. In a lithology volume, lithology logs (e.g., gamma-
ray and spontaneous potential) at well locations are
tied to nearby seismic traces within a small tolerance,ensuring the best possible well integration with seis-
mic data at the reservoir level. Using seismic geomor-
phology, researchers can convert seismic data further
into depositional facies images with lithologic identifi-
cation. Such an approach is called seismic sedimentol-
ogy (Zeng and Hentz, 2004).
QAe1697
SP/Reslogs
Channel/lobe
Direction ofprogradation
WellFault
N
Amplitude500 m
- +
Figure 16. A representative amplitude stratal slice revealinga nonclinoform, on-shelf delta in the Miocene Oakville Forma-tion in the Corpus Christi seismic survey.
QAe1698
ba
c
AboboWolfcamplfcampClear Forklear Fork
a)AI
b)300 Hz
f) 50 Hze)
75 Hz
d)100 Hz
c)200 Hz
Hmin
Hmin Hmin
Hmin Hmin
ba
c
AboboWolfcamplfcampClear Forklear Fork
ba
cba
cba
c
ba
cba
cba
c ba
cba
cba
c
Figure 17. An AI model of the Abo carbonateclinoform complex at Apache Canyon, SierraDiablo, west Texas (Courme, 1999), and itssynthetic seismic responses with Ricker wave-lets of various frequencies. For better com-
parison with field data, the predominantfrequency is used in modeling, which is equalto 1.3 times the peak frequency for Rickerwavelet. Clinoform detection limits are calcu-lated from equation 1. Boxes a, b,and c denoterelatively thin, moderate, and thick clinoformcomplexes in the model, respectively.
Interpretation / August 2013 SA47
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
14/17
8/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
15/17
platform, Picco di Vallandro, the Dolomites, Northern
Italy: AAPG Bulletin, 76, 1430.
Brown, L. F., Jr., and R. G. Loucks, 2009, Chronostratigra-
phy 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 Inves-
tigations 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 shelf-
edge 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 subsur-
face, in the Black Warrior Basin of Mississippi and Ala-
bama: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies
Transactions, 30, 4960.Courme, B., 1999, Forward seismic modeling of a shelf-to-
slope 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, Out-
crop expression of a continental-margin-scale shelf-
edge 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 seis-mic 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 sys-
tems: AAPG Memoir 81, 185206.
Eberli, G. P., F. S. Anselmetti, C. Betzler, and J. V.
Konijnenburg, 2004, Daniel Bernoulli carbonate plat-
form 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 fan-
delta deposits,inE. H. Koster, and R. J. Steel, eds., Sed-
imentology 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 strati-
graphic 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 mi-crotidal 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 clas-
tic 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 Miocenesequence stratigraphy, offshore Louisiana: Cycle frame-
work and influence on production distribution in a ma-
ture 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 sys-
tems: AAPG Memoir 81, 291308.
Li, W., J. P. Bhattacharya, Y. Zhu, D. Garza, and
E. L. Blankenship, 2011, Evaluating delta asymmetry us-
ing three-dimensional facies architecture and ichnologi-
cal analysis, Ferron Notom Delta, Capital Reef, Utah,
USA: Sedimentology, 58, 478507, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
3091.2010.01172.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
Interpretation / August 2013 SA49
http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.074http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.074http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.053http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3077622http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1306/8626C37F-173B-11D7-8645000102C1865Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1306/8626C37F-173B-11D7-8645000102C1865Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1306/09240201054http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/09240201054http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2010.01172.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1306/09240201054http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/09240201054http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/8626C37F-173B-11D7-8645000102C1865Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1306/8626C37F-173B-11D7-8645000102C1865Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00445.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01298.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3077622http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3077622http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3077622http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.053http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.053http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.053http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.053http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.074http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.074http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.074http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.0748/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
16/17
within a three-dimensional sequence-stratigraphic ar-
chitectural 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, Seis-
mic stratigraphy and global change of sea level. Part 6:
Stratigraphic interpretation of seismic reflection pat-
terns in depositional sequences, in C. E. Payton, ed.,
Seismic stratigraphy: AAPG Memoir 26, 117134.
Olariu, C., and J. P. Bhattacharya, 2006, Terminal dis-
tributary 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 char-
acterization: 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 ar-
chitecture: Terra Nova, 2, 124130, doi:10.1111/j.1365-
3121.1990.tb00052.x.
Ramsden, C., G. Bennett, and A. Long, 2005, High resolu-
tion 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, Del-
taic systems in the Early, Cretaceous Fall River Forma-
tion, southern Powder River Basin, Wyoming: WyomingGeological 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 stratigra-
phy and global changes of sea level. Part 9: Seismic inter-
pretation 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, Spec-
tral 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 pat-
terns 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,
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: Geo-
physics, 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 Bulle-
tin, 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 ba-sins: (in Chinese) Petroleum Exploration and Develop-
ment, 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 anda 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 sedimentol-
ogy, seismic interpretation, and attribute analysis. He won the
Pratt Memorial Award from AAPG in 2005.
Xiaomin Zhureceived 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.
SA50 Interpretation / August 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.026http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/03261211119http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1438295http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1438295http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1901397http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441258http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444351http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444352http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10060303018http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10060303018http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/08270201023http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(12)60045-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(12)60045-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(12)60045-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/08270201023http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/08270201023http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10060303018http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10060303018http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10060303018http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444352http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444352http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444352http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444351http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444351http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444351http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441258http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441258http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441258http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1901397http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1901397http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1901397http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00052.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1438295http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1438295http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1438295http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/03261211119http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/03261211119http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.026http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.026http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.026http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.0268/13/2019 New Insights Into Seis Stratigraph
17/17
Rukai Zhu received a B.S. (1988) in
geology from Hunan University of Sci-
ence and Technology, an M.S. (1991) in
geology from China University of Geo-
sciences, 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