|
|
|
|
Exercise
2
Sequence
stratigraphic interpretation - Offset in Sigmoids and Reef Crest
Trajectory

Objectives
Two and then three measured sections are correlated
using a combination of erosion
surfaces (SB), (or their correlative conformities), their
depositional facies patterns and the trajectory taken by the
shelf margin crests and reef core that form a "sigmoid".
The exercise shows how the trajectory of the reef crest can
change and how this change in geometric position, or offset,
of the sigmoid, can be used to establish how much of the section
has accumulated or has been eroded, so enhancing ones ability
to correlate high frequency carbonate cycles.
Data
Set
Two cross sections, one involving the closely spaced
measured sections at Cap Blanc and Sa Torre and the
other cross section through measured sections at Sa
Torre, Cala Carril, and Punta Negra are used in this
exercise. These have been previously described by Pomar
and Ward, (1999). The secret to this interpretation
is to examine the cross section of the prograding reef
margin crest, the associated linked diagrams and photographs
assembled by Pomar and Ward, (1999), and on this site.
You should also print out the .pdf file of their paper
accessed on the page
listing the literature. As before you should also
view the attached movie and read the earlier sections
that introduce the geologic setting of the Late Miocene
Llucmajor platform complex and its sequence stratigraphy.
Click on
the thumbnail below to view the movie that will enable
you to recognize how the reef margin sigmoids change
their position in response to changing sea level! Don't
forget to use the left and right keyboard arrows to
control the forward and backward motion of the movie
so you can review this as you view it!

Movie
|
|
Interpretation
Strategy and Techniques
Using a combination
of your understanding of the regional geology with your
understanding of the changing trajectory of the vertical,
lateral facies relationships in this near shore carbonate
settings (eg. the depositional setting of these rocks
including lagoon, reef crest, downslope reef, distal
slope and offshore shelf) and Walther's
Law, you will build a depositional model and a sequence
stratigraphic interpretation of the measured sections.
|


|
| We reiterate
once more that as you progress through the various exercises
for the Late Miocene carbonate shelf margins of Mallorca
you will see erosion surfaces, or their correlative surfaces,
that represent the best means to separate this particular
vertical association of facies types into packages of
relatively conformable successions of genetically related
beds or bedsets.
These surfaces envelope the high frequency carbonate cycles
that form the basic accretional unit of the section, particularly
the building blocks of the different orders of sigmoid
(Pomar, 1991) (sigmoid-sets, sigmoid-cosets and megasets).
As Pomar indicated these erosion surfaces separate the
younger strata above from older strata below. The hierarchy
of these surfaces bounding the accretional units was established
by determining which erosion surface truncates other erosion
surfaces. These surfaces often also show evidence of subaerial
erosion over which an abrupt marine transgression and
increase in water depth was accompanied by minor submarine
erosion and/or nondeposition, minor hiatuses are often
indicated.
As indicated earlier one of the key characteristics
of this Late Miocene Reef Complex is that it composed
of high-frequency carbonates sequences, not parasequences.
While the parasequence is the common building block
of many carbonate depositional sequences, this is not
the case for this Late Miocene Reef Complex. Here, the
basic building block is the simple depositional sequence
or high frequency carbonate cycle. Sets of sigmoids,
cosets of sigmoids and megasets also form truncated
depositional sequences.
There are at least two reasons for this:
One is the differing capacity of diverse depositional
settings to record high frequency cycles of sea level.
The modern to Miocene coral reefs, unlike reefs older
than the Miocene, have the potential to construct a
rigid framework up to the highest wave-energy level
(sea level). Consequently, Holocene to Miocene carbonate
platform settings have the capacity to build cemented
wave resistant deposits to sea level. Any fall in sea
level (even a minimum of a few meters) causes this rock
to be truncated, and a visible and clearly identifiable
erosion surface results. Associated with this sea-level
fall is a basinward shift in the locus of "reefal-rock"
accumulation. In other carbonate depositional systems,
particularly those dominated by grains, the sediments
can only accumulate up to a certain energy level (the
base of wave action). A fall of sea level and its concomitant
lowering of base level will increase sediment mobilization
and basinward transference (shedding), forcing the sedimentary
body to prograde. Although this fall will create an
erosion surface, it tends not to be as prominent as
when truncating a "rock". The amount of removal
during fall cannot be ascertained and the basinward
shift of sedimentation locus is not so clearly recognized.
Moreover, this "regressive surface of erosion"
will be often modified during subsequent transgression
(ravinement surface). This eclectic array of causes
will make it almost impossible (or at least very difficult)
to recognize the effects falls in sea level have in
modifying the upper boundary of a prograding sequence
so that consequently, a parasequence will be interpreted.
Secondly in most "grain-dominated" depositional
systems (and particularly those related to siliciclastic
systems with high grain-density and clay content), the
"pure" eustatic fall of sea level is commonly
obliterated by the effect of compaction + subsidence.
In this case, the fall in sea level (eustatic fall =
compaction + subsidence) results in a "relative
sea-level stillstand" and, a eustatic, high-frequency
cycle of sea level becomes a paracycle of "relative
sea level". In this situation, a parasequence is
formed in relation to high-frequency eustatic cycles
of sea level. In the Upper Miocene reefs of the Balearic
Islands, however, compaction was negligible and subsidence
was minimum.
|







|
Thus for this
exercise and others associated with Mallorca each of these
particular basic accretional units is a shoaling upward
cycle bounded by an erosion surface. Transgressive
surfaces (TS) and maximum
flooding surfaces (mfs) do occur in the Llucmajor
platform complex, but their occurrence is the exception
rather than the rule. Though these surfaces exist it is
not easy to identify them as they are not marked by changes
in facies stacking patterns. This is because the carbonate
production and accommodation changes are interdependent
of each other. In contrast for siliciclastics the mfs
marks the turnaround of the depocenter when it migrates
landward during transgression and basinward during regression.
The mfs expresses a turnaround from a deepening to shallowing
upward succession of parasequences. In contrast the modern
reefal system shows no landward migration of the depocenter
during transgression, since the carbonate accumulation
keeps pace with sea level and there is no consequent shallowing-upward
trend in the vertically-stacked facies but instead, though
each of the carbonate cycles shoal up, the overall trend
remains shallow for the complete low frequency cycle of
fill unlike the clastics that trend from deep to shallow,
though the overall character or each cycle is to shoal
up. Though the lower surface of the sequences cycle is
the base of the deeper lithofacies that overlies, the
upper surface of the underlying shallowing upward cycle,
the high frequency cycles can be offset from one another
forming the sigmoids of Pomar (1991). Stacking
patterns of of shoaling upward cycle sets are used
in conjunction with bounding surfaces and their position
within a sequence to define the trajectories of the platform
margin studied in this exercise and the next. The upper
boundary is the top of a shallowing upward lithofacies
layer, which in the Late Miocene of Mallorca was often
eroded and then overlain by a deeper lithofacies layer.
You can determine how much from the reef crest trajectory.
In fact, the backreef lagoonal sediments are characterized
by top-truncated, deepening-upward successions: very-shallow
water (inner lagoon) lithofacies overly the erosion surface
and is overlain by deeper-water (open marine) lagoonal
lithofacies bounded at top by the erosion surface (sequence
boundary). This facies & boundaries arrangement can
be seen at the level of the basic accretional unit (sigmoid),
and also at the level of the set- and coset of sigmoids.
This reason for this is in part related to the position
of base level up to which the sediment to accumulates.
As the reef constructed a barrier up to sea level, the
reef crest acts as an "wave-energy dam" and
the lagoon was able to fill most of the available space
up to sea level. Consequently, the shallow-water (inner,
restricted) sediments accumulated onto the erosion surface
as soon as the carbonate factory started to produce just
after the flooding. As sea level continued to rise, the
lagoon became deeper and the factory evovled from open
marine to outer lagoon. When sea level stopped rising,
the sediment infilled the available space and the factory
progressively built a shallower, restricted lagoon. Nevertheless,
a minor sea-level drop would develope subaerial conditions
on the platform top, removing the shallow-water lagoonal
cap and creating the erosion surface (SB). Remember that
these carbonate platforms were the products of a variety
of biotic associations that had different capacities to
record the high-frequency sea-level cyclicity and to construct
internal architecture heterogeneities. In building a rigid
framework up to sea level, this reefal system had a great
potential to accurately record sea-level fluctuations.
The different orders in the reef-crest curve or trajectory
based on outcrops from the Llucmajor Platform of Mallorca
are the key to correlating the high frequency carbonate
cycles. Click on the adjacent image of the simulation
to see an interpreted reef crest trajectory and sketch
this in on the cross sections to determine how you should
correlate the sections. Remember that the sections record
the following depositional settings. |
|
-
Lagoon
-
Reef
crest
-
Reef
slope
- Basin
slope
-
Basin
shelf
|
|
| When you apply
the techniques you have learnt in this exercise to other
carbonate successions you should realize that the sequence
boundary surface also often marks the boundary between
the prograding Highstand
System Tract and the overlying of the Transgressive
System Tract. In carbonates the latter surface is
also often characterized by the presence of hardgrounds
and burrows, matching the underlying transgressed surface
formed during or just after the initial transgressive
phase that immediately follow sea level lowstands. In
some cases Glossifungites burrows may occur within this
surface and the surface may be cemented by carbonates.
When these occur you can use these associations to subdivide
the sediments of measured section into their depositional
settings. |
|
Exercise
2 - The tasks
Identify basic accretional units in the measured section
sections. Do not worry about identification of the
right (absolute) order of the accretional units. It
is relative. Remember that all orders of accretional
units have similar characteristics and are alike.
Consequently, the volume of the basic accretional
units, which depends of the sediment production rate,
is what is significant in terms of reservoir characterization,
and it is partially independent of the periodicity.
When the sedimentation rate is low, 3rd-order sequences
will only be relevant in terms of reservoir heterogeneity,
although with high rates of carbonate production the
fifth-order sequences (coset of sigmoids) determine
the most important heterogeneity at reservoir scale.
You can examine the Llucmajor platform map and the
two cross-sections to show that in the Palma basin.
Here the platform has prograded less than 2 km and
the 3rd-order sequence is the only relevant, whereas
to the south, where the platform has prograded 20
km during the same time and the key accretional units
controlling reservoir-scale heterogeneities (reservoir
compartmentalization) are the coset of sigmoids (2
km of progradation each)
Your interpretation process should be divided into
several steps:
-
Examine the cross sections and the associated diagrams
that show how the hierarchies of sigmoidal shapes
are offset from each other and change with sea level
position. Check in the previous section that introduced
you to the Late Miocene carbonates of Mallorca and
the information that Pomar and Ward (1999) provided
to explain the origins of the offset sigmoids and
their response to change sea-level.
-
Identify
bounding surfaces in the sections provided for the
Exercise and use these to separate the high frequency
carbonate cycles and enable them to be and correlated
from section to section.
- Avoid
your first impulse to correlate facies tops and bases,
tracing lines top-to-top and base-to-base: this would
be a "physical" correlation. Try to think
in terms of processes and the heterogeneities in the
facies and their geometries created by these processes
and, just then, trace your correlation lines. They
will provide you the key to predict permeability baffle-
or barrier surfaces.
-
Track
the reef crest trajectory or path from section to
section and complete the exercise.
|




|
| Remember that
unlike Mallorca other, but not all, shallow carbonate
sections may contain maximum
flooding surfaces (mfs) or Transgressive
surfaces (TS). Where these occur they are often used
to identify and bound the parasequences since these surfaces
are normally more extensive and so better correlation
tools than the SB. Needless to say such surfaces are not
common in the Late Miocene platform shelf of Mallorca
but after you finish the correlation exercise you can
identify them. The movie above highlights the sequence
boundaries (SB) so you can see why they are so important
to this suite of rocks. Thus in this exercise each high
frequency carbonate cycle is identified by the sequence
boundary (SB) which caps horizons and are equated with
surfaces of erosion formed when sea level dropped below
the section, and mark a sediment surface that was reworked
when sea level rose following a sea level low. Once again
your task will be to identify the base and top of the
carbonate cycle units and identify the depositional facies
within each of the high frequency cycles of the measured
sections! |
|
| From your
examination of the cross-sections establish how the hierarchies
of sigmoids behave and track the trajectory of the reef
crest as it prograded to the south east. Use this "trajectory"
path to establish how the reef core migrates through time
and space and use this to confirm the solution that Pomar
and Ward (1999) have provided. |
|
Solution
to Exercise 2
As you can see in the Reef Complex, stratigraphic
heterogeneities derive from the hierarchical stacking
of high frequency accretional units that represent high
frequency depositional sequences (in this case up to
fifth and sixth order) within a third-order depositional
sequence. The basic accretional unit or building block
used in this exercise is the `sigmoid' (Pomar, 1991;
Pomar and Ward, 1994; 1999). As you can see sigmoids
stack into progressively larger-scale accretional units,
forming sets, cosets, and megasets of sigmoids reflecting
hierarchical orders of sea-level cycles. Each of the
orders of accretional units are composed of horizontal
lagoonal beds passing basinward into reef-core lithofacies
with sigmoidal bedding, then into fore-reef slope clinobeds,
and then into flatlying open shelf (or shallow basin)
beds. As you saw in the first exercise the lagoonal
and reef-core units, boundaries are erosional surfaces
(submarine and subaerial) which pass basinward into
correlative conformities. The overall platforms show
the same vertical succession of lithofacies : open-shelf
lithofacies, composed of coarse-grained red-algal grainstone
and fine-grained packstone/wackestone are overlain by
progradational forereef-slope and reef-core and, locally,
by back-reef lagoon lithofacies. This exercise confirms
that patterns in the stacking of high frequency cycle
sets (in this case sigmoids) can be used in conjunction
with bounding surfaces and their position within a sequence
to define how a carbonate platform progrades and how
heterogeneous, though ordered, the facies patterns can
be (Pomar and Ward, 1999). |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|