Page 1 of 5
Bounding Surface
Resulting Sequence
Sequence boundary SB
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SB~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Highstand Systems
Tract - HST
Tansgressive Systems
Tract - TST
Transgressive surface TS
Lowstand Systems Tract
- LST
Sequence boundary SB
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SB~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://sww-irm.shell.com/rmkb/clastics/correl/hierarchy/seqstrat.htm
1/15/2009
Page 2 of 5
In the subsurface flooding surfaces and maximum flooding surfaces are the geologically most important
correlation tools. Flooding surfaces are excellent for correlation because:
They are geologically synchronous and approximate timelines. For example in the Cretaceous
Blackhawk Formation (Book Cliffs) fourth order flooding surfaces represent about 5,000 to 10,000
years while each parasequence represents about 40,000 years.
Flooding surfaces are expected to be laterally continuous, with more or less uniform thickness, and
can be easily identified from log trends (see below).
Flooding surfaces often form almost near horizontal surfaces with little or no erosion during
transgression.
Flooding surfaces are also important because they typically extend beyond the field scale and therefore
compartmentalise the reservoir by thin shales or cemented sand-on-sand contacts. Thus, these
mudstones also provide top reservoir seals and consistent well-developed seismic events.
In order to correlate using flooding surfaces, the following steps must be followed (1-3 and 4):
a) Identify the flooding surfaces using lowest shale resistivity values and neutron-density log
data. The neutron-density log data should be plotted on sandstone scale and disregarding the zones
affected by washouts. The flooding surfaces within marine shales are identified by locating the point of
maximum separation between the neutron and density porosities. This point also corresponds to the
lowest shale resistivity value (2 and 4). However, care must be taken if using resistivity logs alone, as
water-bearing sands can exhibit even lower resistivities than the shales, and can have high Gamma Ray
readings. Mark on all the flooding surfaces over the interval of interest.
b) Identify the maximum flooding surfaces over the interval. They represent the time when the
delta shoreline was at its furthest landward position relative to other flooding surfaces. They can be
recognised from logs as those flooding surfaces which show the highest relative neutron porosity values
and the corresponding lowest resistivity values relative to the surrounding flooding surfaces.
c) Identify the flooding surface trends. It is helpful to draw lines joining up the resistivity lows and
peak porosity separations. Trends of upwards-increasing flooding surface resistivity and upwardsdecreasing flooding surface neutron porosity correspond to forward-stepping (progradation) of delta
cycles. In contrast, trends of decreasing flooding surface resistivity and increasing flooding surface
neutron porosity correspond to a back-stepping (retrogradation) of the delta (2 & 3). These two stacking
patterns are separated by a surface which contains the time of maximum basinward shift of the shoreline
position within the cycle, and thus defines the position of the sequence boundary (3).
d) Join up the MFS and FS in all the wells, using the trends (stacking patterns) to guide you.
Maximum flooding surfaces can be recognised from logs as those flooding surfaces which show the lowest
shale resistivity log value and corresponding highest neutron porosity values relative to the surrounding
flooding surfaces.
Sequence boundaries can be identified by analysing stacking patterns of flooding surfaces. Trends of
upward-increasing flooding surface resistivity log values correspond to forward-stepping (progradation)
of the shoreline. In contrast, trends of decreasing flooding surface resistivity correspond to back-stepping
(retrogradation) of the delta. These two different stacking pattern trend of para-sequence sets are
separated by a surface which represents the time of maximum basinward shift of the shoreline within the
relative sea level cycle, and define the position of the sequence boundary (H. Williams et al., 1997). If
any lowstand deposits are developed, they will be associated with this, potentially erosive surface.
http://sww-irm.shell.com/rmkb/clastics/correl/hierarchy/seqstrat.htm
1/15/2009
Page 3 of 5
4) Recognising of flooding
surfaces in the Champion
Field
http://sww-irm.shell.com/rmkb/clastics/correl/hierarchy/seqstrat.htm
1/15/2009
Page 4 of 5
http://sww-irm.shell.com/rmkb/clastics/correl/hierarchy/seqstrat.htm
1/15/2009
Page 5 of 5
terminology because:
Calling a surface one of maximum flooding gives the impression that it is a well defined timeline and a
strong correlation.
Using this label incorrectly stops the interpreter thinking about other possibilities e.g. the loop may
actually consist of a series of shingled and backstepping shorefaces separated by shales are consisting
of different compartments.
The loop may be a poor one to hang seismic sections from in the seismic workstation if the sand-shale
contacts it represents are strongly diachronous.
Mainly based on SPDC/SRCW/3, 1997: A guide for modelling shoreface and estuarine reservoirs in the
Tertiary Niger delta
Hierarchy:
Hierarchy | Main reservoir types | Sequence stratigraphic approach
See also: Sequence-stratigraphy principles | Correlation tools |
Exploration Bulletin Special Issue Summer 1992
Clastic RMKB - Restricted
http://sww-irm.shell.com/rmkb/clastics/correl/hierarchy/seqstrat.htm
1/15/2009