Seismic Stratigraphy Interpretations

SUBMITTED BY:

Sabahat Fatima (01-161171-096)

CLASS:

BS Geology 8A

DATE OF SUBMISSION:

January 13 ,2021.

INSTRUCTORS:

Sir Muyyassar Hussain

DEPARTMENT OF EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL

SCIENCES
BAHRIA UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN
 SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND STEPS FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF SEQUENCE
STRATIGRAPHIC

SEISMIC INTERPRETATION:

Its goal is to define genetic reflection packages through surfaces enveloping seismic sequences and
system tracts. These bounding discontinuities are defined on the basis of reflection termination patterns
and their continuity.

In this assignment, the seismic section taken from the AAPG Atlas will be interpreted and is one of many
other related examples that Soekor (Pty) Ltd originally interpreted during their exploration of potential
cretaceous low-stand hydrocarbon traps offshore South Africa.

Fig 1; Its Non-interpreted seismic section.

 These steps of seismic interpretation are being applied to interpret the seismic section as shown
above.
The Seismic Section Marking Up:

The vertical as well as  horizontal scale determination of the seismic section would be the first
step in the stratigraphical interpretation of the seismic line.

Fig 2; Seismic Sections.

As should be obvious, the reflection is noticeable on the information on the correct side, which is
evident on the figure, crossing the edge at o.3 sec. This is basically a different impression of the
water floor, brought about by sound waves as it bobs twice between the outside of the ocean and
the ocean bed and records TWT (Two-way travel time). This reflection can be ignored because
of no topographical significance, during understanding.

We will presently separate the seismic information into the discrete stratigraphic bundles that
make up the whole seismic section, going up to the following stage in understanding. We will
initially perceive and check the end for it that can be refined with the pencil or pointed stone.
Reflection may likewise seem, by all accounts, to be blending, and can't recognize which ends,
so it's not in every case straight forward. We ought to thusly start by dismissing zones of broken
or muddled reflection and focusing on explicit territories of reflection for better arrangement.
Reliable end of the reflection delivers a line known as seismic surface. With the guide of the red
pointed stone, the following stage is to characterize and stamp the seismic surfaces. By choosing
the seismic surfaces, we have partitioned the seismic information into depositional sets.

Arranging Reflection Terminations:

On a seismic line, limits are set up by characterizing the end of seismic reflectors at the surfaces
of brokenness. Such terminations occur

• Below an intermittence and the meaning of the upper grouping limit. Instances of this
incorporate

1. Toplap:
Layers end against an overlying base, which is the result of non-affidavit and
additionally slight disintegration.

2. Truncation:
This recommends the statement of layers along a surface of non-similarity and their
ensuing inclining and expulsion. The most solid top-grating measure of a succession limit
is this end. This truncation may likewise be brought about by erosional surface end, for
example, a channel, for instance.

• Above a brokenness and the meaning of the lower arrangement limit.

3. Onlap:
A base-dissonant relationship in which flat layers at first step by step end facing an at
first slanted surface, or in which at first slanted layers progressively end facing a surface
of higher introductory tendency.

4. Downlap:
A relationship where seismic impressions of slanted layers wind up falling against a
slanted or even surface. A top bowl floor fan surface, a top incline fan surface, and a most
extreme flooding surface are a few instances of downlap surfaces.
In the event that onlap can't be recognized from downlap due to aftereffect twisting, the
term baselap is utilized.
Order seismic groupings :

Suggested systems for performing seismic succession examination include:

• Identifying the unconformities in the territory of interest. Unconformities are perceived as surfaces
onto which reflectors combine.

• Mark these terminations with bolts.

• Draw the unconformity surface between the onlapping and downlapping reflections above; and the
shortening and toplapping reflections beneath.

• Extend the unconformity surface over the total area. On the off chance that the limit gets similar,
follow its situation across the part by outwardly connecting the reflections.

• Continue distinguishing the unconformities on all the leftover seismic segments for the bowl.

• Make sure the translation ties effectively among all the lines.

• Identify the sort of unconformity:

5. Sequence Boundary:

It is portrayed by local onlap above and truncation beneath.

6. Downlap surface:
It is portrayed by local downlap.

Suggested shading codes:

Red:
Reflection examples and reflection terminations.

Green:
Downlap surfaces

Blue:
Transgressive surfaces

Different tones:
Sequence limits

On the off chance that utilizing just high contrast:

Flimsy strong lines:

Reflection designs

Thicker strong lines:

Sequence limits
Run lines:
Downlap surfaces

Spotted lines:
Transgressive surfaces

This order of surfaces currently gives a structure to the reflectors. Be as unbiased as conceivable
while distinguishing the intermittence surfaces of the part. Where conceivable base your
perceptions more on the mathematical connections of the reflectors than on a translation of their
birthplace.

Arrangement of Framework Origin :

Deciphering the inception of this framework is your following stage in the work process. A
proposed arrangement is to presume that the framework is the result of the age of continued
housing and dregs filling progressions (the convenience progression of Neal and Abreu, 2009).
The size and length of these seismic units of the convenience progressions contrast and can be
deciphered as results of sedimentary bundles that amassed on a depositional profile. Progressions
can be believed to comprise of segment incomplete progression sets that are modified to aggrade,
retrograde, and aggrade to corrupt projects successively.

Neal and Abreu, 2009 recommend that when deciphering seismic it is expected that statement has
reacted to convenience progressions that range across time sizes of 10–105 ka and have stacking
designs that are results of vectors of convenience rate (δA)/sedimentation rate (δS). Along these
lines:

• δA/δS < 1 and expanding = Progradation to aggradation stacking (PA or lowstand).

• δA/δS < 1 and diminishing = Aggradation to progradation to corruption stacking (APD or
highstand).
• δA/δS > 1 = Retrogradation stacking (R or intrusive).

Arrangement of Internal Geometry-A-B-C Mapping :

Seismic facies planning was completely clarified in Ramsayer's (1979), in light of 2D seismic
segments deciphered before the coming of seismic workstations. This is alluded to as the "A-B-
C" planning approach, as perceptions are made upon the upper limit (A), the lower limit (B), and
inner reflection character (C). For instance, a prograding

seismic bundle with sideways clinoforms, toplap at its upper surface and downlap at its base
would be noted as Top-Dwn/Ob (Figure 4A). The three classifications (A-B-C) of Ramsayer's
(1979) seismic facies codes each incorporate five sorts, consequently giving 15 distinct varieties
to a given seismic timespan (Table 1). Despite the fact that the procedure was grown generally
from 2D seismic information, it tends to be utilized on present day 2D and 3D areas showed on
customary industry workstations. Figures 8 and 9 show utilization of the Ramsayer (1979) A-B-C
seismic facies planning approach on a progression of 2D areas deciphered utilizing a workstation.
In the Paleogene part of the North Sea, five or six depositional arrangements were perceived,
related, and planned (Armentrout et al., 1993). The rack edge break is indicated by a pink
triangle. Thick lowstand wedge prograding buildings (orange) shaped in the rack edge position,
offshore of the highstand frameworks plots and meager inserted offensive frameworks parcels
(blue). Four seismic facies were recognized in arrangement 30, as demonstrated in Figure 4B.
The workstation technique is to appoint each extraordinary seismic facies to various pieces of the
vertical time or profundity scale.

Table; Seismic facies mapping codes (modified from Ramsayer, 1979).

Categorization basin fill deposition:

Depositional arrangement understanding from a generally similar unit will rely upon the goal of
the information and the parallel degree of the inclusion. Stacking examples will be believed to be
rehashed across a scope of convenience progression spans and sizes. Frameworks plots,
depositional groupings, arrangement sets, composite arrangements, composite grouping sets, and
super successions can be connected to the depositional settings of these convenience
progressions and used to depict and decipher the depositional fill of a bowl. In this manner, the
convenience progression system gives a straightforward, target perception based, prescient, time
or ocean level wording free, adaptable for all information scales and resulting improvement in
information goal, and gives a manual for consolidate groundbreaking perceptions and make
expectations somewhere else of already unrecognized multifaceted nature.

Acknowledgment Of The Stratigraphic Surface:

Arrangement limits break stratigraphy into structure lots that are offensive surfaces, greatest
flood surface, marine onlap/downlap, low-stand and fan surface, and high-stand wedge surface.

By high alleviation truncation surface creation and by beach front onlap downwards change
across the limit, we can recognize grouping limit. High alleviation disintegration surface is
obvious at about 0.2 to 0.3s in fig 1, mirroring the grouping limits related with the frigid
lowstand and fluvial disintegration.

Lowstand progradation is set apart before the finish of the offensive surface and doesn't need any
cooperation with the terminations of reflections and will check a limit between timespans topset
clinoform. On the seismic outcomes, the distinguishing proof of greatest flooding surface where
clinoforms downlap on to basic topsets indicating obvious truncation. At the base of the
lowstand prograding wedge clinoforms, a top lowstand fan surface is planned, yet the solitary
contrast is the beneath downlap surface facies that are not topsets yet basinal stores.

Acknowledgment Of Lowstand System Tract:

A plot of low stand systems is confined by a progression limit, or more by an intrusive surface.
These surfaces are deciphered again by the recently referred to controls. The lower line is known
by the waterfront front onlap of three topset reflections against a more seasoned clinoform as an
Sequence Border.

Recognition Of Transgressive System Tract:

Transgressive system tracts are restricted by a most extreme flooding surface below a
trangressive surface or more and consist of retrograde topset parasequences. Tracts of
Trangrassive systems are often extremely meager, and can occur close to one reflection
Fig 7: Showing transgressive system tract.

Recognition Of High Stand System Tract:

High stand system tract are bounded by a maximum flooding surface and above a
sequence boundary exhibit progradational boundaries. It consist of prograding topsets
and clinoform representing a progradation and it overlies a maximum flooding surface.

Showing high stand system tract on seismic data.

After all of these steps the interpretation of seismic section taken from the AAPG
Atlas exploration for potential Cretaceous lowstand hydrocarbon traps offshore
South Africa is shown below
References:

 Boggs, S. Jr., 2001, Principles of Sedimentology and stratigraphy, 3rd Ed.,

Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 726 p.

 Sequence stratigraphy By D. Emery and K.J. Myers.

 Neal, J., and Abreu, V., 2009, Sequence stratigraphy hierarchy and the
accommodation succession method, Geology, v. 37, p. 779-782

 Vail, P. R., 1987, Seismic stratigraphy interpretation procedure, in Bally, A.W.

(ed.), Atlas of seismic stratigraphy: AAPG Studies in Geology No. 27, Vol. 1, p.
1-10.

 L.F. Brown, Jr., J. M. Benson, G. J. Brink, S. Doherty, A. Jollands, E. H. A.

Jungslager, J. H. G. Keenan, A. Muntingh, and N. J. S. van Wyk, 1996, Sequence
stratigraphy in Offshore South African Divergent basins: An Atlas on Exploration for
Cretaceous Lowstand Traps by Soekor (Pty) Ltd, AAPG Studies in Geology #41,
ISBN#0-89181-049-8, 184 page

 Embry, A.F., Johannessen, E.P., 1992, T–R Sequence stratigraphy, facies analysis
and reservoir distribution in the uppermost Triassic- Lower Jurassic succession,
western Sverdrup basin, Arctic Canada. In: Vorren, T.O., Bergsager, E., Dahl-
Stamnes, O.A., Holter, E., Johansen, B., Lie, E., Lund, T.B. (Eds.), Arctic Geology
and Petroleum Potential, vol. 2 (Special Publication). Norwegian Petroleum Society
(NPF), pp. 121–146.