Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
-
Upload
fabricetoussaint -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
1/23
Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems*
Kristy Milliken1, Mike Blum
2, and John Martin
1
Search and Discovery Article #30245 (2012)**Posted August 20, 2012
*Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Long Beach, California, April 22-25, 2012
**AAPG 2012 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.
1ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Houston, TX
2ExxonMobil Upstream Research, Houston, TX ([email protected])
Abstract
Fluvial systems possess a range of scaling relationships that reflect drainage-basin controls on water and sediment flux. In
hydrocarbon exploration and production, scaling relationships for fluvial deposits can be utilized to constrain environmental and
sequence-stratigraphic interpretations, as well as predict the lateral extent of fundamental reservoir flow units. This study documentsthe scales of channel fills, point and channel bars, channel belts, and coastal-plain incised valleys from well-constrained Quaternary
fluvial systems.
Data on channel-fill and point-bar to channel-belt scales were compiled from published thicknesses for sinuous single-channel
systems, with spatial dimensions measured from GoogleEarth. Fluvial systems included in this database span 3 orders of magnitude in
drainage area, from continental-scale systems to small tributaries, and span tropical to sub-polar climatic regimes. Channel-fill andchannel-belt scales were measured upstream from backwater effects, so as to minimize inclusion of distributive, highly avulsivesystems. Scales of incised valleys were derived from well-constrained published examples that are known to have formed during the
last 100 kyr glacio-eustatic cycle.
All scaling relationships are represented by statistically-significant power laws, with absolute dimensions that scale to drainage area,
but distinct clustering occurs between channel fills, point bars and channel belts, and incised valleys. Mean width-to-thickness ratiosfor channel fills are ~10:1, whereas point bars commonly range from 70-250:1. Coastal-plain incised valleys from the last glacio-
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
2/23
eustatic cycle range from 25-150 m in thickness, and a few kilometers to more than 80 km in width, with width-to-thickness ratios of~600-800.
Scales of Quaternary examples compare well with previous compilations of channel-belt scales interpreted in the ancient record, and
with theory. However, the smallest Quaternary incised valleys in our database reside in the uppermost part of the domain of publishedcompilations of ancient incised valleys, with ancient examples overlapping significantly with both interpreted channel fills andchannel belts. When interpreted within the context of this database from modern systems, we suggest many ancient examples may
have been overinterpreted, which in turn suggests a persistent lack of objective criteria for differentiating channel fills, channel belts,
and incised valleys.
References
Blum, M.D., M.J. Guccione, D.A. Wysocki, P.C. Robnett, and E.M. Rutledge, 2000, Late Pleistocene evolution of the lowerMississippi River valley, southern Missouri to Arkansas: GSA Bulletin, v. 112/2, p. 221-235.
Blum, M.D., J.H. Tomkin, A. Purcell, and R.R. Lancaster, 2008, Ups and downs of the Mississippi Delta: Geology, v. 36/9, p. 675-678.
Jackson, R.G., II, 1976a, Depositional model of point bars in the lower Wabash River: Journal of Sedimentary Petroleum, v. 46, p.
579-594.
Jackson, R.G., II, 1976b, Large scale ripples of the lower Wabash River: Sedimentology, v. 23, p. 593-632.
Kolla, V., H.W. Posamentier, and L.J. Wood, 2007, Deep-water and fluvial sinuous channels; characteristics, similarities and
dissimilarities, and modes of formation, in R.B. Wynn, and B.T. Cronin, (eds.), Sinuous deep-water channels; genesis, geometry andarchitecture: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 24/6-9, p. 388-405.
Miall, A.D., 2002, Architecture and sequence stratigraphy of Pleistocene fluvial systems in the Malay Basin, based on seismic time-
slice analysis: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86/7, p. 1201-1216.
Reijenstein, H.M., H.W. Posamentier, and J.P. Bhattacharya, 2011, Seismic geomorphology and high-resolution seismic stratigraphy
of inner-shelf fluvial, estuarine, deltaic, and marine sequences, Gulf of Thailand: AAPG Bulletin, v. 95/11, p. 1959-1990.
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
3/23
Rittenour, T.M., R.J. Goble, and M.D. Blum, 2005, Development of an OSL chronology for late Pleistocene channel belts in theLower Mississippi Valley, USA: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 24/23-24, p. 2539-2554.
Rittenour, T.M., M.D. Blum, and R.J. Goble, 2007, Fluvial evolution of the lower Mississippi River valley during the last 100 k.y.
glacial cycle; response to glaciation and sea-level change: GSA Bulletin, v. 119/5-6, p. 586-608.
Willis, B.J., S.L. Dorobek, and Y. Darmadi, 2007, Three-dimensional seismic architecture of fluvial sequences on the low-gradient
Sunda Shelf, offshore Indonesia: JSR, v. 77/3-4, p. 225-238.
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
4/23
KT Milliken*, MD Blum, JM Martin
Exxonmobil Upstream ResearchHouston, TX 77252
* now at Chevron
Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depositional Systems
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
5/23
Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Travis Peak Fm., Zone 1, original interpretation by R.S. Tye
reinterpretation by Miall (2006) using scaling relationships
50
m
well-spacing ranges from 0.8-2.2 km, with a mean of 1.54 km
50 km
7 m deep and 420 m wide
7 m deep and 1750 m wide
Channel-Belt Sand Bodies Significance of Scaling Relationships
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
6/23
Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Motivations Recent Compilation by Gibling (2006)
Compilation of scalesin published literature
Scale domains are
very different from
modern systems,
much larger range
Raises issue of how
original data were
interpreted, and
criteria that were used
Need to cross-check
with modern systems,
where dimensions are
an observation, not
interpretation
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
7/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Goals Quantify Scales of 1stOrder Fluvial Elements
Construct a database of modern channel-belt and channel-fill scales
Google Earth Approach: Scour literature and global landsat / DEM mature point bars, recently cutoff or close to cutoff
point bars with thickness measurement, i.e. core through deposit,
measure width, thickness, asymetry
Construct dataset of Late Quaternary incised-valley scales
coastal-plain valleys with robust geochronological control
channel fills andchannel-belt margins
are fundamental barriers
to flow
after Jordan and Pryor 1992)
basal scoursurface
point-bar
sands
channel-fill
muds
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
8/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Bar Accretion and Large-Scale Inclined-Strata Sets
5-7 m
exhumed acrretionary topography,
Triassic Chinle Formation,, Arizona
1 km
LIDAR Image,
False River,
Louisiana
large-scale incl ined strata set,
lower Eocene, Tremp-Graus basin
3d seismic slice, illustrating
accretionary signature
20 m
1 km
from Reijenstein et al. (2011)
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
9/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
bankfull
channel
channel fill
(a deposit)
Definitions Channels, Channel Fills, and Channel Belts
Qbf
large-scale incl ined strata sets
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
10/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Channel-belt and channel-fill scales from 38 modern rivers
periglacial to tropical drainage areas = 250 to 3,000,000 km2
124 measured meanders
Incised-valley Scales from 10 Late Quaternary Systems
drainage areas = 50,000 to 3,000,000 km2
Dataset
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
11/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Methodology: Wabash River Example
Thickness: 9 m
Point bar areal extent: 0.8 km
2
Abandoned Channel Width: 190 m
Translation Length: 1450 m
Non-translation length: 650 m
Drainage Basin: 75,700 km2
Jackson (1976)
GRAPHICCOLUMN
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
12/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Drainage Area (km2)
1stOrder Relationship
BankfullDischarge(m
3/s)
Bankfull Discharge (m3/s)
1stOrder Relationship
Point-BarThickness
(m)
(bankfullchanneldepth)
Drainage Area (km2)
Point-BarThick
ness(m)
Point-Bar Thickness (m)
Point-BarWidth(m)
Derivative Relationship Production ScaleDerivative Relationship Exploration Scale
Scaling of Channel Belts
w/t ~ 200:1
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
13/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
1 m
Kolla et al., 2007Donselaar and Overeem, 2008Blackhawk Fm
Examples from other studies
Heterolithic Abandoned Channel Fills
ChannelWidth(m)
Seismic examplesKolla et al. 2007,
Willis et al. 2007,
Miall, 2002;
Reijenstein et al. 2011
Castlegate-Blackhawk
Channel Depth (m)
w/t ~ 10-15:1
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
14/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Low-Net End Member
High-Net End Member
Highly heterolithic Ribbon sands and thin sheet sands
encased in muds
Dominated by avulsion processes
Highly aggradational stacking
Amalgamated sand bodies
Channel fills and channel-belt margins
are dominant barriers to flow
Dominated by channel-belt migration
Fluvial processes confined to discrete
valley
Degradational or low aggradationalstacking
Fundamental Contrasts in Channel-Belt Scales: Why??
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
15/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Fundamental Contrasts in Channel-Belt Scales: Backwater Effects
15 4520 25 3530 40
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
upstream
R2= 0.91
channelbeltwidth
channel belt thickness
1
23
4
5
6
14
12
13
7
11
88
9
downstream
R2= 0.76
back-
water
limits
10 km
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
16/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Low-Net End Member
High-Net End Member
Highly heterolithic
Dominated by avulsion processes within
backwater length
Highly aggradational stacking
Distributary channel belts w/t = 20-50:1
Amalgamated sand bodies
Channel fills and channel-belt margins
are dominant barriers to flow
Dominated by channel-belt migration
Fluvial processes confined to discrete
valley
Degradational or low aggradational
stacking Channel belts w/t = 200:1, channel fi lls 15:1
Fundamental Contrasts in Channel-Belt Scales: Why??
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
17/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Gibling (2006) data
Scales of Incised Valleys Published Ancient
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
18/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Significance of Incised-Valley Scales to Interpretation
10 km
Vicksburg
Baton Rouge
New Madrid
Memphis
New Orleans
Mississippi
incised valley
lease
size
lease
size
50 km
LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEYTRINITY VALLEY
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
19/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Coastal-Plain Incised Valleys - Lower Mississippi River
based on Blum et al. (2000), Rittenour et al. (2005, 2007), and Blum et al. (2008)
Vicksburg
Baton Rouge
New Madrid
Memphis
New Orleans
Mississippi
incised valley
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
20/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
A A
50-35 ka
33-24 ka
22-18 ka
>80 ka
Coastal-Plain Incised Valleys - Lower Trinity River, Texas
EJf onMobii
Upstream esearch
I
I
20
I
I High I
Modern
I
Middle
I Deweyville I
5
Alluvial
I
Deweyville
Terrace
m
I
r
Ridge
Terrace
I
10
'
g
::0
0
5
0
km
10
I I
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
21/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Scales of Incised Valleys Published Ancient vs. Late Quaternary
-
E
.c
+ -
0
-
10000
1000
100
. --
EJf onMobii
Upstream esearch
Mississippi River -
Parana/Rio de la Plata -
I
Rhine River -
Colotcldo River Texas USA) _
-
o
River -
Trinity River Texas USA)
coastal/alluvial valleys
bedrock valleys
1 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1
10 100
Thickness
m)
1000 10000
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
22/23Milliken et al. (2012) AAPG Annual Meeting
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Scales of Incised Valleys, Channel Belts, and Channel FIlls
100000
10000
E
' - '
..c
1000
0
:
100
1
EJf onMobii
Upstream esearch
-:::;;
modern/coastal-platn
.
.
.
.
1 1
incised
valleys
/
{w t
700) / /
.
- :...
modern chaonei
belts
w:t.
..
/70-300)
. /
fIII
. modern
channel
fills w:t
-:.10:20)
/ Gibling 2006) Data
/ fistributary channel belts
/ meandering channel belts _
coastal/alluvial valleys
bedrock valleys
100
Thickness m)
1000 10000
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
-
8/12/2019 Scaling Relationships in Fluvial Depostional Systems
23/23
FLUVIAL SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Summary
Fluvial stratigraphic elements exhibit scaling relations that
are consistent across a range of r iver system scales Channel-belt sand bodies range from ~100-300:1, with a mean of ~200
Distr ibutary channel-belts range from ~20-50:1
Abandoned channel-fills range from 10-30:1
Each element occupies the same thickness domain, because of scaling to
bankfull discharge, but differ in width domains due to lateral migration
Coastal-plain incised valleys range from 500-800:1
Scaling relations defined from modern systems commonly
differ from scales interpreted in the stratigraphic record Scaling relationships from modern systems are observations, not
interpretations, and tied to process-based understanding of system
parameters (discharge, sediment f lux)
Can be used as an additional set of recognit ion criteria to guide, cross-
check, or calibrate interpretations in outcrop or subsurface data