Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SCALE LITHOFACIES PREDICTION, SIERRA DEL TORO, CERRO TORO
FORMATION, MAGALLANES BASIN, CHILE: A PROGRESS REPORT
Lisa Stright, Zane R. Jobe
CA, 94305
ABSTRACT
The Cerro Toro Formation on Sierra del Toro in the Magallanes Basin,
Chile outcrop records at least three discrete episodes of conglomerate deposition
within the northernmost exposed part of an axial channel belt that occupied the
foredeep of the Magallanes Basin during the Late Cretaceous. Forward seismic‐
complex; the Wildcat complex. The models were based on detailed measured
sections representing greater than 300 m of stratigraphic section over a distance
more than 6 km and an interpretation of the channel belt evolution determined
by correlation of measured sections and photomosaic mapping.
which was built by interpolating the channel‐fill lithofacies between stratigraphic
zero‐phase wavelets to create synthetic seismic models. The resulting models
were then interrogated with RMS amplitude extractions. The RMS amplitudes
showed that the correlation between RMS amplitude and lithofacies is
dependent on the RMS window location and the dominant frequency of the
seismic‐reflection model.
INTRODUCTION
Given the poor resolution of seismic‐reflection data in many basins,
seismic‐reflection volumes (Slatt, 2000). In order to make this transition, an
outcrop must be large enough to include not only the sub‐seismic scale of
heterogeneity, which all outcrops exhibit, but the larger scale context of this
on the large‐scale geometries that are easily identifiable in seismic‐reflection
profiles (Batzle and Gardner, 2000; Campion et al., 2001; Coleman et al., 2000;
generally assigned constant or smoothly varying rock properties. However, fine‐
scale information affects the resulting seismic signal and should be included
channel‐fill deposits for forward seismic modeling can provide insight into
reflection profiles. These forward seismic‐reflection models can then be used to
infer the impact of interpretation of channel‐fill architecture and large‐scale
geometries. As the quality and resolution of industry seismic‐reflection data
increase, the seismic response of these finer‐scale architectural features becomes
increasingly relevant.
This paper presents a forward seismic‐reflectivity model of a seismic‐scale
25 and 50 Hz dominant frequency and their correlation with the underlying
lithofacies are presented. Amplitude extractions along the model are used to
changing the window thickness used for the amplitude map may alter the
interpretation of the channel‐fill.
STUDY AREA
The Upper Cretaceous outcrops of the Cerro Toro Formation on Sierra del
Toro in the Magallanes Basin of southern Chile record a seismic‐scale, deep‐
water channel belt (4‐8 km wide by > 100 km long) that occupied the axis of this
than 1000 m of vertical section record three complexes of conglomeratic channel
fill; the Condor, the Guanaco, and the Wildcat (Barton et al., 2008; Jobe et al.,
2007) (Fig. 2). Each channel complex is composed of pebble to small boulder
conglomerate and medium to coarse grained sandstone, and channel complexes
The focus of this study is on the uppermost complex; the Wildcat.
Lithofacies of the Wildcat channel complex
lithofacies: conglomeratic mudstone (WL1), clast supported conglomerate (WL2),
(Fig. 3). Conglomeratic mudstone (WL1) are on average 7 m thick and contain
clast supported base made up of extrabasinal clasts and muddy matrix‐
extrabasinal clasts, including volcanic and meta‐volcanic cobbles (sometimes up
to 40 cm boulders). Amalgamated sandstones (WL3) are on average 75 cm thick,
and mudstone (WL4) and mudstone with thin sandstone interbeds (WL5) (Fig. 3;
(Jobe et al., 2007), the main difference being the percentage of sand (i.e., WL4
NTG is ~40% while WL5 NTG is <10%). The interbedded sandstone and
mudstone (WL4) consist of fine‐grained sandstone units ranging from 5 – 50 cm
in thickness interbedded with commonly bioturbated mudstone (NTG is ~40%).
rhythmic, laminated to thin‐bedded mudstone units. Very thin to thin‐bedded
sandstone units occur seemingly at random within this succession and are
commonly cross laminated.
Channel Complex Interpretation
WL1 units are interpreted to have been deposited by slurry flows and
debris flows. WL2 and WL3 units are interpreted to be the deposits of high
were deposited largely by muddy, low‐density turbidity currents (sensu Bouma,
1962). Lithofacies WL4 is locally developed along the eastern margin of the
complexes are deposited and may include distal levee/overbank deposits and/or
intervals deposited when little or no coarse sediment was reaching the basin
intervals near the margins with non‐amalgamated, heterolithic channel‐fill facies
in the central part of the complex, in direct contrast to most channel‐fill models
trend represents the fill of a single, broad channel or multiple, discrete channels
that may have been active at different times.
METHODOLOGY
Stratigraphic sections measured Sierra del Toro were used to build a
detailed lithologic model as a base for forward seismic modeling. Eleven
measured sections were aligned in a plane, to match the channel complex
interpretation as shown in Figure 4. The measured sections represent greater
than 300 m of stratigraphic section over a distance more than 6 km and this
interpretation of the channel belt evolution, were used to build the model
framework and channel fill architecture. Channel fill architecture was controlled
by stratigraphic surfaces and interpolation of lithofacies and rock properties
between measured sections.
The five lithofacies (WL1‐5) were coded into eleven categories (with slight
distinctions within each lithofacies category) to capture the heterolithic nature of
the channel‐fill (Fig. 5). Each of the eleven rock property groups were assigned
rock properties porosity (φ) and volume of shale (Vshale) (Fig. 6a; Tab. 1). Acoustic
and elastic rock properties were calculated using Han (1986) for compressional
velocity (VP) and shear‐wave velocity (Vs) as a function of φ and Vshale (Fig. 6b):
Vp = 5.59 ‐ 6.93 * φ ‐ 2.18 * VShale (km/s)
Vs = 3.52 ‐ 4.91 * φ ‐ 1.89 * VShale (km/s)
Whereas a simple volumetric average of densities was used to calculate
the bulk density (ρb) of rock and fluid (in this case water) constituents together:
ρb = ρfluid * φ + ( 1.0 ‐ φ) [ VShale * ρclay + ( 1.0 ‐ VShale) * ρquartz ] (g/cm3)
where, ρfluid is 1.0 g/cm3, ρclay is 2.55 g/cm3 and ρquartz is 2.65 g/cm3.
properties from a subsurface analog to ascertain their validity (Fig. 7). The
subsurface data used for validation is from the Upper Cretaceous Cerro Toro
Formation, Magallanes Basin, Chile, which has been suggested to as an outcrop
analog of the Puchkirchen deep‐water channel system (Hubbard et al., in press;
and variation in the subsurface rock properties due to the heterogeneous nature
of the subsurface and the result of measuring the rock properties with wireline
logging tools. However, the synthetic rock properties generated with the above
equations can represent average values of the main categories from the
subsurface data.
An impedance model was generated from VP and ρb. The model was then
convolved with 15 Hz, 25 Hz and 50 Hz zero‐phase, Ricker wavelets using
Zoeppritz equations (Zoeppritz, 1919). The convolution was performed on the
Central Canyon measured section in 1D (Fig. 8) and in 2D using the measured
sections and interpolated rock properties (Fig. 9).
DISCUSSION
Base model generation
that we make; whether at the outcrop or in the subsurface. As such, we are often
hindered by geologic‐based modeling decisions; such as what and how many
lithofacies categories to use and the methods we use to assign rock properties to
each lithofacies for the forward seismic model. Choosing an appropriate grid
(grid size, type of stratigraphic layering between surfaces, number of surfaces)
significantly impacts the model output. Finally, outcrop modeling is not
immune to one of the main questions of subsurface modeling—how do we
populate the grid with properties?
When forward seismic modeling is performed on small outcrops or larger
outcrops at low dominant frequencies, these issues are less important. However,
as the outcrop becomes larger and dominant frequencies higher, the finer scale
details are increasingly important and more realistic approaches for model
building are required to properly represent the data. In this paper, impedance
values were interpolated on grids that were conformable between surfaces (Fig.
gridding, such as unrealistic lateral lithofacies changes and channel‐fill patterns.
This rough gridding and interpolation of properties is sufficient for a first pass;
however, a more robust approach is required for a more realistic final product.
An example of this approach is shown in Stright et al. (2008) with more realistic
photomosaics and outcrop observations.
Impact of fine scale architecture on seismic‐reflection profile
RMS amplitude maps are routinely used for interpretation of plan‐view
geomorphology from seismic data. To demonstrate the utility of these simple
models for understanding what is being interpreted in an RMS amplitude map,
RMS amplitude extractions were generated with two separate windows, (A)
from the top of channel datum plus 20 ms (Fig. 10) and (B) a 20 ms window
around the top of channel datum (Fig. 11).
An RMS amplitude from the top of the channel datum (Fig. 10) plus 20 Hz
(approximately 80 m) shows strong tuning effects on the eastern edge of the
channel complex and in the region where the uppermost channel erodes into the
older channel underneath (near the SV1 and SV2 sections). The tuning effects are
weaker on the eastern edge of the same channel complex where the margin is
steeper. The tuning effects are largest in the 15 Hz model. A RMS amplitude
window was then taken around a selected horizon; top of the channel datum +/‐
10 Hz. The 15 Hz model still shows the strongest tuning effects; however, the
changed, so have the proportions of the lithofacies within the window. RMS
amplitudes from 50 Hz model detects the small channel above the main channel
belt (at the Central Canyon section in the top of the RMS window). Due to the
strong acoustic impedance values of the conglomerate, it was expected that
amplitude values reveal regions with a higher proportion of conglomerate.
To test this hypothesis, the proportion of each lithofacies by trace was
extracted from the model within the specified window (Figs. 10 and 11). RMS
amplitudes and lithofacies proportions were then compared on a trace by trace
basis. The first goal was to discern whether RMS amplitude values are correlated
to lithofacies proportions within the window (i.e., will a high proportion of
sandstone result in high RMS amplitudes at all frequencies?) The second goal
was to test whether the window selection effected the correlation.
The results show that there is a weak correlation of RMS amplitude with
lithofacies and that the correlation is frequency‐dependent (Fig. 12). However,
only two window sizes were analyzed. This approach could be used to test for
the most appropriate window size and location for imaging lithofacies using
RMS amplitude maps.
Implications for interpretation
bounding stratigraphy and often conclude that at higher dominant frequencies,
better accuracy is achieved in this interpretation. For this example, the major
channel complex surfaces are interpretable at each of the modeled dominant
2000; Schwab et al., 2007), the higher frequency (50 Hz) is more difficult to
interpret the surfaces in the main channel belt complex. Instead, at this high
frequency, internal impedance changes create reflectors that drown out the main
surfaces.
CONCLUSIONS
The forward seismic models generated herein were based on the Wildcat
conglomeratic channel complex from the Cerro Toro Formation on Sierra del
Toro, Chile. The model from eleven measured sections was greater than 300 m
thick and 6 km wide. This seismic scale outcrop and outcrop model provided an
excellent opportunity to better understand how seismic‐reflection profiles image
internal channel architecture and the associated bounding surfaces.
On all models (15, 25 and 50 Hz) the primary bounding surfaces were
interpretable. However, the highest dominant frequency model (50 Hz) displays
showed mostly tuning effects (larger at smaller frequencies) and a poor
correlation of RMS amplitudes with lithofacies.
This study shows that as more fine scale detail is included in forward
seismic models the more difficult it becomes to interpret internal channel‐fill
surfaces. As the quality and resolution of industry seismic‐reflection surveys
increase, the seismic response of these finer scale architectural features becomes
value to interpreting higher‐resolution seismic‐reflection data.
FUTURE WORK
Architecture of the Wildcat and Guanaco channel complexes
At this point, the internal architecture of the Wildcat complex remains
unclear, and will be the focus of future field investigation by Z. Jobe. The
Wildcat complex likely represents two or more offstacked channels that were
progressively cut and filled. The Guanaco conglomeratic channel complex that
underlies the Wildcat channel complex on the north side of Sierra del Toro (Fig.
2) is not present on the south (downdip) side. It is possible that either the
Guanaco complex represents the early stages of coarse grained influx and the
evolution of a single channel complex that widens and aggrades, or the Wildcat
complex erodes down into and amalgamates the Guanaco complex in a downdip
direction.
Forward seismic modeling
Currently, the rock properties in the forward seismic model are discrete in
that there is a single value of impedance for each lithofacies. To better mimic
rock properties from subsurface data, a small variance will be added to each rock
type. The result will be a “cloud” of data that translates into more realistic
forward seismic models. This is a superior approach to simply adding
types will be included to focus on problems encountered in the subsurface
analog in delineating gas sands, water sands and soft (organic‐rich) shales.
data (deviated measured sections, complex erosion and amalgamation surfaces)
and models it in two‐dimensions. Three‐dimensional modeling can aid not only
in clarifying the interpretation, but it can also be used to build a more realistic
model. Structural information (faults, folds, dips, etc.) can be included and
be aided by draping photomosaics on three‐dimensional topographic surface of
the outcrop or by using photogrammetry (Pringle et al., 2004) which positions
location of the measured sections can be digitized along the three‐dimensional
topography.
Sub‐seismic scale facies prediction: Downscaling
Outcrop models offer an excellent opportunity to test sub‐seismic scale
facies prediction algorithms. Because outcrop models can be treated as the
reference case, more data is always available to test the predictions (e.g., “drill” a
well at a new location and measure difference in modeled to predicted values).
Advantages of using outcrop models over subsurface datasets include having a
realistic reference model of true geology and modeled, noise‐free seismic at
many frequencies. This seismic‐scale outcrop and outcrop model will be used to
test downscaling at varying seismic frequencies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is possible through the support of the SPODDS affiliates,
Armitage, Chris Mitchell, Katie Maier and Abby Temeng, and professors Steve
Graham and Don Lowe.
REFERENCES CITED
Barton, M. D., Steffens, G. S., and O'Byrne, C. J., 2008, Facies architecture of a submarine-slope
channel complex, Condor West Channel, Cerro Toro Formation, Chile, in Atlas of Deep-
Water Outcrops, p. 149-153, Edited by Tor H. Nilsen, Roger D. Shew, Gary S. Steffens,
and Joseph R. J. Studlick, Co-Published by the American Association for Petroleum
Geologists and Shell Exploration & Production.
Batzle, M., and Gardner, M. H., 2000, Lithology and Fluids: Seismic Models of the Brushy Canyon
Formation, West Texas, in A. H. Bouma and C. G. Stone, eds., Fine-grained turbidite
systems, AAPG Memoir 72/SEPM Special Publication 68, p. 127-142.
Bouma, A. H., 1962, Sedimentology of some Flysch deposits; a graphic approach to facies
interpretation, Elsevier Publishing, Amsterdam, 162 p.
Campion, K. M., Sprague, A. R., Sullivan, M. D., Mohrig, D. C., Ardill, J. A., Lovell, R. W., and
Drzewieck, P. A., 2001, Outcrop expression of confined channel complexes (abs),
Proceedings GSA Annual Meeting, Abstracts with program.
Castro, S., 2007, A probabilistic approach to jointly integrate 3d/4d seismic, production data and
geological information for building reservoir models, Stanford University, [Ph.D. Thesis],
245 p.
Coleman, J. L., Sheppard, F. C., and Jones, T. K., 2000, Seismic Resolution of Submarine Channel
Architecture as Indicated by Outcrop Analogs, in A. H. Bouma and C. G. Stone, eds.,
Fine-grained turbidite systems, AAPG Memoir 72/SEPM Special Publication 68, p. 119-
126.
Han, D., Nur, A., and Morgan, D., 1986, Effects of porosity and clay content on wave velocities in
sandstones, Geophysics, v. 51, no. 11, p. 2093-2107.
Hodgetts, D., and Howell, J. A., 2000, Synthetic seismic modelling of a large-scale geological
cross-section from the Book Cliffs, Utah, USA, Petroleum Geoscience, v. 6, no. 3, p. 221-
229.
Hubbard, S. M., Romans, B. W., and Graham, S. A., in press, Deep-water foreland basin deposits
of the Cerro Toro Formation, Magallanes basin, Chile: architectural elements of a sinuous
basin axial channel belt, Sedimentology.
Jobe, Z. R., Bernhardt, A., and Lowe, D. R., 2007, Temporal and spatial evolution of the Montés
conglomeratic submarine channel complex at Sierra del Toro, Cerro Toro Formation,
Magallanes Basin, Chile: a progress report, in SPODDS Affiliates Meeting Volume,
Stanford University.
Lowe, D. R., 1982, Sediment gravity flows; II, Depositional models with special reference to the
deposits of high-density turbidity currents, Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 52, no. 1,
p. 279-297.
Pickering, K. T., Clark, J. D., Smith, R. D. A., Hiscott, R. N., Ricci Lucchi, F., and Kenyon, N. H.,
1995, Architectural element analysis of turbidite systems, and selected topical problems
for sand-prone deep-water systems, Atlas of Deepwater Environments: Architectural
Style in Turbidite Systems (eds Pickering, KT, Hiscott, RN, Kenyon, NH, Ricci Lucchi F.
and Smith, RDA), p. 1–10.
Pringle, J. K., Westerman, A. R., Clark, J. D., Drinkwater, N. J., and Gardiner, A. R., 2004, 3D high-
resolution digital models of outcrop analogue study sites to constrain reservoir model
uncertainty: an example from Alport Castles, Derbyshire, UK, Petroleum Geoscience, v.
10, no. 4, p. 343-352.
de Ruig, M. J., and Hubbard, S. M., 2006, Seismic facies and reservoir characteristics of a deep-
marine channel belt in the Molasse foreland basin, Puchkirchen Formation, Austria,
AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 5, p. 735-752.
Schwab, A. M., Cronin, B. T., and Ferreira, H., 2007, Seismic expression of channel outcrops:
Offset stacked versus amalgamated channel systems, Marine and Petroleum Geology, v.
24, no. 6-9, p. 504-514.
Slatt, R. M., 2000, Why Outcrop Characterization of Turbidite Systems, in A. H. Bouma and C. G.
Stone, eds., Fine-grained turbidite systems, AAPG Memoir 72/SEPM Special Publication
68, p. 181-186.
Stright, L., Stewart, J., Farrell, M., and Campion, K. M., 2008, Geologic and Seismic Modeling of a
West African Deep-Water Reservoir Analog (Black’s Beach, La Jolla, Ca.) (abs.), in
Proceedings American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention,
Abstracts with Programs, San Antonio, Texas.
Takahashi, I., 2000, Quantifying Information and Uncertainty of Rock Property Estimation from
Seismic Data, Stanford University, [Ph.D. Thesis], 208 p.
Weimer, P., Slatt, R. M., Dromgoole, P., Bowman, M., and Leonard, A., 2000, Developing and
managing turbidite reservoirs: case histories and experiences: results of the 1998
EAGE/AAPG research conference, AAPG Bulletin, v. 84, no. 4, p. 453-465.
Zoeppritz, K., 1919, Erdbebenwellen VIIIB, On the reflection and propagation of seismic waves,
in Gottinger Nachrichten, p. 66-84.
50˚ 30’ S
A B
Chile-Argentina
Lago Sarmiento
Int’l border
0
Flame
500
Central Canyon Thrust
750
Laguna Azul CZM 1-5
Snowy Cliff
1000
South Side Margin
1200
Cordillera
Waterfall
del Paine
R ocas
51˚ 00’ S
Sierra del Toro
Lago del Toro
0 1 2 3 4 5 10 km
Map in Fig. 1B N
Silla Generalized Cerro Toro Fm.
Syncline Lago del Toro C Period Lithology Stratigraphy
Dorotea
Tertiary
1100
1000
70 Ma
Tres Pasos
51˚ 30’ S
Upper Cretaceous
Purto
Natales
80
Seno Ultima
Esperanza
South
America
52˚ 00’ S Cerro
Chile
Rotonda
90
1000 km
0m
10 km
Jurassic - U. Cretaceous Backarc Basin Deposits
70˚ 00’ W 72˚ 30’ W
Figure . Study area showing (A) landsat image of the Ultima Esperanza District in
southern Chile. Red areas denote locations where Cerro Toro Formation conglomerate
(Lago Sofia Member) outcrops, box denotes location of contour map in Fig. 1B. (B)
Detailed contour map of Sierra del Toro with locations of measured sections. (C)
Magallanes Basin stratigraphy (after Katz, 1963; Fildani et al., 2003; Hubbard et al., 2008).
A
Fig
ure
2C Fig
ure
2B
N 3 km S
Figure 2C
B 20 0 m
W 0 .5 km E
20 m
(A) Depositional cross section showing the eastward offstacking nature of the
Condor, Guanaco, and Wildcat complexes (although internally, the Condor shows
westward offstacking). (B) Oblique dip view, showing the Wildcat complex on the
south side of Sierra del Toro and the location of (C), a seismic-scale erosional surface
Figure . Lithofacies of the Wildcat channel complex. WL1 - WL3 are channel
fill lithofacies and WL4 and WL5 are interpreted as overbank deposits.
Lago Sarmiento
Flame
500
Central Canyon Thrust
750
CZM 1-5
Snowy Cliff
1000
South Side Margin
1200
Waterfall
R ocas
0 1 2 3 4 5 10 km
N
Complex. Location of cross section is shown with a red line on the inset map.
The eastern margin of the complex is well constrained due to exposure. The
western margin of the complex is inferred and less well constrained, again due to
exposure.
Top of Channel
Belt Datum
CZM5 CZM2 CZM3 CZM4
Thrust CZM1
SV2
0.9
0.8
0.5 Flow
Thin bedded
0.4 SS/MS/Conglomerate
B Total Porosity
2.0 Mud
1.9
Thin bedded Mud matrix
SS/MS top of slurry
V p /V s
1.8 Debris
Thin bedded
SS/MS/Congl Flow
Clast supported
1.7 sing
d e crea ze base of slurry
SS si
grain
Sandy matrix Clast supported
top of conglomerate conglomerate
1.6
8 .0
9 .0
7 .0
1 0 .0
1 1 .0
1 2 .0
A I (g /cm 3 km /s)
porosity values were assumed, and (B) Vp and Vs were calculated using Han (1986)
and density was calculated using a volumetric average of mineral and fluid densities.
lithofacies with high porosity low Vshale have low Vp/Vs values. Poorly sorted
conglomerate has high impedance, while muds and thin-beds have low impedance.
A
1
0.6
VShale
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
B Total Porosity
2.0
1.9
V p /V s
1.8
1.7
1.6
8 .0
9 .0
7 .0
1 0 .0
1 1 .0
1 2 .0
A I (g /cm 3 km /s)
ascertain the validity of synthetic rock properties. Ovals show lithofacies that
differentiating lithofacies.
Top Ch A1 15 Hz 25 Hz 50 Hz
Base Ch A1 180
200
Top Ch B1
220
Top of Channel
Belt Datum 240
Internal 2
260
280
300
320
340
Internal 1 360
380
400
440
460
dominant frequency of the seismic wavelet increases, the seismic trace becomes
more complex. Major bounding surfaces are less apparent and internal channel
AI (g/cc m/s)
8400
8100
400
7800
7500
7200
Acoustic Impedance model
600 6900
0 1
B
200
Amplitude
0
400
600 15 Hz -1
0
C
200
400
600 25 Hz
0
D
200
400
600 50 Hz
Figure . (A) Detailed acoustic impedance model used for forward seismic
Porosity
Top Channel + 20ms 0.18
0.15
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.03
0 .1 8
50H z
0 .1 6
25H z
(Top Channel + 20ms)
0 .1 4 15H z
RMS Amplitude
0 .1 2
0 .1
0 .0 8
0 .0 6
0 .0 4
0 .0 2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Trace N um ber
1 W L2: C last S upported C onglom erate
W L2: C last S upported C onglom erate base of slurry
Proportion of each lithofacies in selected window
0
1 W L1: S andy M atrix S upported Top of C ongl
W L1: M ud M atrix S upported top of slurry
W L1: D ebirs Flow
0
1 W L3: C oarse G rained S andstone
W L3: M ed G rained S andstone
W L3: Fine G rained S andstone
W L3: Thin beds - S andstone and C ongl
0
1 W L4: Thin beds - S andstone only
0
1
W L5: M ud
Figure 10. RMS amplitude extractions for a window from the top of the channel
and limited visual correlation with facies proportions within the same window on
Porosity
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.03
0 .1 8
50H z
0 .1 6
(Top Channel +/- 10ms)
25H z
0 .1 4 15H z
RMS Amplitude
0 .1 2
0 .1
0 .0 8
0 .0 6
0 .0 4
0 .0 2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Trace N um ber
1 W L2: C last S upported C onglom erate
W L2: C last S upported C onglom erate base of slurry
Proportion of each lithofacies in selected window
0
1
W L1: S andy M atrix S upported Top of C ongl
W L1: M ud M atrix S upported top of slurry
W L1: D ebirs Flow
0
1 W L3: C oarse G rained S andstone
W L3: M ed G rained S andstone
W L3: Fine G rained S andstone
W L3: Thin beds - S andstone and C ongl
0
1 W L4: Thin beds - S andstone only
0
1 W L5: M ud
Figure 11. RMS amplitude extractions for a window around the top of the channel
but still show limited visual correlation with facies proportions within the same
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
p ro p o rtio n
0
15 25 50
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
Fr e q u e n cy o f Fo r w ar d Se is m ic M o d e l (Hz )
0.6
C o rrelatio n o f R M S A m p litu d e valu es w ith lith o facies
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
p ro p o rtio n
0
15 25 50
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3 M ud
-0.4 M TD
C o n g lo m e r ate
-0.5
San d s to n e
-0.6 T h in b e d s
-0.7
Fr e q u e n cy o f Fo r w ar d Se is m ic M o d e l (Hz )
Figure 12. Correlation of RMS amplitude with the proportion of lithofacies for
(A) the 20Hz window below the channel datum (Fig. 10), and (B) the 20Hz window
around the channel datum (Fig. 11) Sand proportions are representative of net-to-
gross, and are negatively correlated at low frequency (i.e., high proportion of sand
yields a low RMS amplitude) and are positively correlated at high frequency (i.e.,
Vp Vs Density
Porosity Vshale (km/s) (km/s) (g/cm3)
WL2 Clast Supported Conglomerate 0.175 0.05 4.27 2.57 2.36
WL1 Sandy Matrix Supported Top of Conglomearte 0.225 0.1 3.81 2.23 2.27
WL2 Clast Supported Conglomerate - Base of Slurry 0.15 0.15 4.22 2.50 2.39
WL1 Mud Matrix Supported - Top of Slurry 0.075 0.6 3.76 2.02 2.47
WL1 Debris Flow 0.05 0.6 3.94 2.14 2.51
WL3 Coarse Grained Sandstone 0.3 0.05 3.40 1.95 2.15
WL3 Medium Grained Sandstone 0.275 0.1 3.47 1.98 2.19
WL3 Fine Grained Sandstone 0.25 0.15 3.53 2.01 2.23
WL3 Thin Beds - Sandstone/Mudstone/Conglomerate 0.125 0.5 3.63 1.96 2.40
WL4 Thin Beds - Sandstone/Mudstone 0.15 0.6 3.24 1.65 2.35
WL5 Mud 0 1 3.41 1.63 2.55