Seismic Stratigraphy

Seismic Stratigraphy is basically a geologic

approach to the stratigraphic interpretation
of seismic data.
Seismic reflections allow the direct
application of geologic concepts based on
physicl stratigraphy.
Primary seismic reflections are generated by
physicl surface in the rocks, consisting
mainly of stratal surface and unconformities
with volocities-density contrasts.
Therefore, primary seismic reflections
parallel stratal surface and unconformities.
A seismic section is a record of
chronostratigraphic (time-stratigraphic)
depositional and structural patterns and not
a record of the time-transgressive
lithostratigraphy (rock-stratigraphy).
Because seismic reflections follow chronostratigraphic
correlations, it is not only possible to interpret
postdepositional deformation, but also it is possible to
make the following types of stratigraphic interpretation
from the geometry of seismic reflections correlation
patterns:
Geologic time correlations
Definition of genetic depositional units
Thickness and depositional environment of genetic units
Paleobathymetry
Burial history
Relief and topography on unconformities
Paleogeography and geologic history
However, lithofacies and rocktype can
not be determined directly from the
geometry of reflection patterns.
To accomplish these geologic objectives
you follow three step interpretational
procedure:
1 seismic sequence analysis
2 seismic facies analysis
3 analysis of relative changes of sea-level
Seismic sequence analysis is based on the
identification of stratigraphic units
composed of a relatively conformable
sucession of genetically related starta
termed depositional sequence.
The upper and lower boundaries of
depositional sequences are unconformities
or their correlative conformities.
Depositional sequence boundries are
recognized on seismic data by identifying
refelctions caused by lateral terminations of
strata termed:
Onlap
Downalp
Toplap
truncation
Sequence stratigraphy arrived on the geologic stage in 1977 when
Vail and his co-workers published on techniques they had developed
at Esso Production Research to interpret seismic cross-sections.
They assumed that continuous seismic reflectors on acoustic
geophysical cross-sections are close matches to the
chronostratigraphic surfaces, or time boundaries like bedding planes
and unconformities.
They had established that unconformities were clearly recognizable
on marine seismic sections and assumed that like the unconformities
of the Paleozoic identified by Wheeler (1958), Sloss (1963, 1972) and
Sloss and Speed (1974) were the products of worldwide changes in
sea level or eustasy.
They noted that the unconformities enveloped packages of reflectors
and called these seismic sequences.
They demarked these with seismic reflectors onlapping and
terminating either against the lower unconformity surface or against
each other.
Eustasy and Peter Vails revolution in stratigraphic analysis
From USC Sequence Startigraphy Web
(http://strata.geol.sc.edu/history/vial.html)
Using techniques developed by Schuchert (1916),
Umbgrove (1939) and Wheeler (1958), they assumed that
the position of onlapping seismic reflectors was controlled
by the base level of the mean high water mark. Thus a
sediment (or seismic) encroachment chart could be drawn
that shows how far the sediment wedge of submarine,
coastal and alluvial sediment (represented by the seismic)
has onlapped a basin margin (Vail et al., 1977).
A sediment (or seismic) aggradation chart was also
constructed that shows the vertical component by which
onlapped seismic reflectors had climbed or fallen (Fig. 4c)
(Vail et al., 1977).
They then correlated the cycles of relative changes of sea
level at multiple locations and construct charts that
incorporated the occurrence of global sediment (or seismic)
onlap cycles.
Using the aggradational measurements from the seismic,
Vail et al, estimated the magnitude of relative sea-level
excursions. However it was recognized the position of an
eustatic event had on the continent is complicated by the
local effects of tectonic subsidence (Bally, 1981; Watts,
1982; Thorne and Watts, 1984). This may explain why sea-
level curves for the Jurassic compiled by Hallam (1981) and
Vail and Todd (1981) from different data sources record
different positions for the same sea-level stands.
Posamentier and Allen (1999) confirm this effect of local
tectonism with a block diagram of a margin that has
different tectonic signals along its length and consequently
different relative sea level positions.