Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Szerbiak 1583
Szerbiak 1583
ABSTRACT
Ideally, characterization of hydrocarbon reservoirs requires information about heterogeneity at a submeter scale in three dimensions.
Detailed geologic information and permeability data from surface
and cliff face outcrops and boreholes in the alluvial part of the Ferron Sandstone are integrated here with three-dimensional (3-D)
ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data for analysis of a near-surface
sandstone reservoir analog in uvial channel deposits. The GPR survey covers a volume with a surface area of 40 16.5 m and a depth
of 12 m. Five architectural elements are identied and described in
outcrop and well cores, using a sixfold hierarchy of bounding surfaces. Internally, the lower four units consist of ne-grained,
parallel-laminated sandstone, and the upper unit consists of
medium-grained, trough cross-bedded sandstone. The same sedimentary architectural elements and associated bounding surfaces
are distinguished in the GPR data by making use of principles developed in seismic stratigraphic analysis.
To facilitate comparison of geologic features in the depth domain and radar reectors in the time domain, the radar data are
depth migrated. The GPR interpretation is carried out mainly on
migrated 100 MHz data with a vertical resolution of about 0.5 m.
Measures of the spatial continuity and variation of the rst- and
second-order bounding surfaces are obtained by computing 3-D experimental variograms for each architectural element (each radar
Copyright 2001. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Manuscript received October 27, 1999; revised manuscript received September 14, 2000; nal acceptance
November 9, 2000.
1583
AUTHORS
Rucsandra M. Corbeanu University of
Texas at Dallas, 2601 N. Floyd Road, Richardson, Texas,
75080; rcorbeanu@hotmail.com
Rucsandra M. Corbeanu received her B.Sc. degree in
geoscience from the University of Bucharest, Faculty of
Geology and Geophysics, Romania, in 1991 and is
currently working toward her Ph.D. in geology at the
University of Texas at Dallas. Rucsandras interests include
all aspects of reservoir characterization, geostatistics, and
ground-penetrating radar applications.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research leading to this article was funded primarily
by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DEFG03-96ER14596 to McMechan and Soegaard with auxiliary support from the University of Texas at Dallas
Ground-Penetrating Radar Consortium. The migrated GPR
data were interpreted using the PC-based seismic interpretation software WinPICS of Kernel Technologies Ltd.
The geostatistical analysis was done using the Geostatistical Software Library (GSLIB) programs. The outcrop
gamma-ray scintillometer was provided by ARCO, and
gamma-ray measurements on split cores and Hassler cell
permeability/porosity testing were performed by Terra
Tek Labs in Salt Lake City.
Gerard Neil Gaynor initiated the use of GPR on outcrop of the Ferron Sandstone for reservoir analog studies.
We thank John S. Bridge for his insight into the uvial
barform in the upper 5 m of the channel complex and
Coco van den Bergh and Jim Garrison from The Ferron
Group Consultants for discussions in the eld and for
providing insight into the position of the Coyote basin site
in the greater depositional framework of the Ferron Sandstone. We acknowledge Marie D. Schneider for help in integrating geologic outcrop and geophysical data. We also
thank Janok Bhattacharya for his review of an earlier version of the manuscript. AAPG reviewers Bruce S. Hart,
Peter J. McCabe, and Keith W. Shanley provided many
comments that improved the nal version of the article.
This article is contribution No. 927 from the Geosciences
Department of the University of Texas at Dallas.
1584
INTRODUCTION
Over the past 15 years an acute realization of the limitations of onedimensional (1-D) facies models (i.e., from measured sections, core
descriptions, and well logs) in reconstruction of depositional systems architecture has led to studies of continuous two-dimensional
(2-D) outcrop facies maps (Miall and Tyler, 1991). Facies mapping
of outcrop analogs yields reliable sedimentologic and stratigraphic
detail that, in conjunction with outcrop permeability and porosity
information, may be used for characterizing subsurface reservoirs
in three dimensions (e.g., Flint and Bryant, 1993). As is the case for
1-D stratigraphic sections, however, 2-D outcrop facies maps also
fall short of providing continuous empirical information regarding
sedimentary deposits in the third dimension.
A new technology for characterizing sedimentary rocks in three
dimensions is now emerging through the use of ground-penetrating
radar (GPR) (Baker and Monash, 1991; Gawthorpe et al., 1993).
A high-resolution geophysical technique, GPR can provide indirect
information on lithologic and petrophysical properties of shallow
subsurface rock units. The vertical resolution of GPR is on the order
of a few decimeters, and the depth of penetration is in the range of
meters to tens of meters (Davis and Annan, 1989). The GPR antennas send electromagnetic pulses into the ground to image the
subsurface through the energy reected and diffracted by spatial
changes in electromagnetic properties. Depending on the desired
resolution and depth of penetration, frequencies from 25 MHz to
1 GHz can be used. The maximum penetration depth depends on
the attenuation of the GPR signal, which is inversely proportional
to the effective electrical resistivity. The propagation velocity and
amount of reected energy depend mainly on the complex dielectric permittivities of the materials encountered (Davis and Annan,
1989).
The data from GPR have the same potential for describing
stratigraphic geometries in specic depositional environments as
seismic data have had in providing understanding of larger-scale
stratigraphic sequences (Vail, 1977; Posamentier and Vail, 1988;
Van Wagoner et al., 1990; Weimer and Posamentier, 1993). Unlike
conventional seismic data used in oil exploration, which generally
have vertical and horizontal resolutions no better than upward of
5 and 25 m, respectively, GPR is capable of resolving sedimentary
features at the decimeter scale necessary for describing and interpreting depositional paleoenvironments. To date, most GPR surveys have been performed on unconsolidated, recent sediments
rather than on consolidated sedimentary sequences in which hydrocarbon accumulations occur (e.g., Bridge et al., 1995). In nearsurface settings, a shallow water table is signicant because the GPR
Coyote basin, in the Cretaceous upper Ferron Sandstone Member of the Mancos Shale in east-central
Utah. The procedure for, and utility of, applying 3-D
GPR data to ancient siliciclastic rocks is demonstrated.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The Coyote basin eld site is located in east-central
Utah, in the upper part of the Cretaceous Ferron Sandstone known as the Last Chance Delta (Garrison et
al., 1997) (Figure 1). The Ferron Sandstone crops out
along the southwestern ank of the San Rafael swell
and is the product of a series of uvial-deltaic complexes that prograded toward the northeast. Excellent
exposures are present along vertical cliffs parallel with
the progradational direction. Exposures perpendicular
to the progradation direction are afforded by eastwestoriented canyons. The outcrop at Coyote basin
includes a cliff face oriented northwest-southeast and
extends approximately 45 m laterally and approximately 12 m vertically. The surface above the cliff face
is a relatively at and barren mesa top favorable to GPR
surveys. Seismic surveys near cliff faces typically contain strong reections from features at the cliff face;
however, GPR acquisition design, with dipole antennas
oriented perpendicular to the acquisition lines that are
parallel with the cliff face, produces and records energy
that is polarized near the plane below the survey line
and discriminates against energy coming from the sides
of the line. Thus cliff face reections are less of a problem in GPR data than in seismic data.
Stratigraphic Setting
The Cretaceous Ferron Sandstone Member is one of
several northeastward-thinning clastic wedges that
prograded into the Mancos Sea along the western margin of the Cretaceous Interior Seaway during the middle to late Turonian (Ryer, 1981; Gardner, 1992). The
upper part of the Ferron Sandstone is a thick uvialdeltaic complex deposited during a third-order sea
level rise combined with a progressively decreasing rate
of sedimentation (Gardner, 1992, 1995).
The Ferron Sandstone is subdivided into seven discrete delta lobes (genetic sequences GS1 to GS7)
(Ryer, 1981) or major stratigraphic cycles (SC1 to
SC7) (Gardner, 1992, 1995). The lower three sequences (SC1 to SC3) are interpreted as progradational with sea level constant or slowly falling, and
exceeded by sediment input. The following two
Corbeanu et al.
1585
FIELD DATA
The Coyote basin site contains a surface area of 40
16.5 m on the mesa top (Figure 3) and 45 12 m
vertical exposure at the adjacent cliff face. The data
consist of detailed sedimentologic, stratigraphic, and
petrophysical data and 3-D GPR data. A leveling survey provided accurate topographic corrections and a
reference datum for all data sets. For reference, the
volume extent of the survey is roughly equal to the size
Corbeanu et al.
Figure 2. Generalized cross section of upper part of the Ferron Sandstone clastic wedge (modied from Garrison et al., 1997). Stratigraphic location of survey site at Coyote
basin is illustrated. See Figure 1 for location of cross section. Letters A to M identify marker coal horizons; SB1 to SB5 are sequence boundaries; FS1 to FS4 are fourth-order
sequences; 1a to 8b are parasequence sets.
1587
Figure 3. Surface geology of the GPR survey site at Coyote basin. Heavy black lines represent conjugate fracture set oriented
northwest-southeast and northeast-southwest, and the cliff face. CB1 through CB5 are locations of measured stratigraphic sections at
the cliff face. A through D are locations of boreholes from which cores were extracted. The map shows the location of the cliff face
(Figure 4), trough cross-bed outcrop (Figure 12), the 3-D grid, and a 200 MHz GPR crossline at x 31.5 m (Figure 13). The origin
(x,y) (0,0) is at the southeast corner of the GPR grid; the total grid size is (x,y) (40.0,16.5) m.
1588
GEOSTATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
Geostatistics is used to estimate the spatial variability
of different geologic and GPR parameters, based on the
assumption that properties in the earth are not random, but have spatial continuity and are correlated
over some distance. Variogram modeling has been successfully used by Rea and Knight (1998) to quantify
the correlation length of radar reections to characterize heterogeneities of the subsurface in two dimensions. The main assumption is that there exists a link
between the lithology of layers and their electrical
properties, and thus a relationship between the correlation structure of radar reections and lithology. This
spatial relationship is expressed through standard
variograms (Rea and Knight, 1998).
An essential assumption in the calculation of the
variograms is that the data are stationary in space,
which means that any subset of the data has the same
statistics as any other subset. For GPR data, the stationarity requirement is not satised because of the
Corbeanu et al.
1589
1590
300
200
100
600
800
600
800
400
300
200
100
CB1
400
300
200
100
CB3
800
600
CB2
400
600
800
300
200
100
CB4
400
600
800
300
200
100
NORTH
CB5
400
UNIT 5
UNIT 4
D
UNIT 3
C
UNIT 2
B
A
400
GAMMA RAY
(Total Count)
800
600
PERMEABILITY
(md)
300
150
SOUTH
10 meters
UNIT 1
1 meter
Mudstone-Intraclast Conglomerate
Mudstone
Ripple Cross-Laminated Siltstone
Figure 4. Sedimentary facies map of the cliff face at Coyote basin. Higher-order bounding surfaces (A through E, in red) outline major architectural elements (units 1 through
5). Surface F is the topographic surface. Less-signicant, lower-order bounding surfaces are in black. Exposed surfaces are shown as solid lines; dashed lines are inferred where
outcrop is covered. Also shown are ve measured stratigraphic sections (CB1 through CB5) in which primary sedimentary structures, textural information, permeability, and
gamma-ray data were recorded. The position of the outcrop relative to the 3-D GPR grid is shown in Figure 3.
c(h)
(xi yi)2
2N(h)
(1)
1591
variogram values in all directions is achieved by computing variogram volumes. A variogram volume is a
3-D plot of the sample variogram c(h) computed in all
directions for all available separation vectors h
(hx,hy,hz). The lowest values of c(h) generally form an
ellipsoid centered at the value c(o) 0, which is also
the symmetry center (Deutsch and Journel, 1998).
Variogram volumes are used to determine the orientation and dip of vector h for which data sets show best
spatial continuity. Directions and amount of anisotropy are given by the orientation of the major and
minor axes of the ellipsoid. The major axis is coincident with the maximum correlation direction.
GPR Facies
Interfaces that generate GPR reections can include
bedding planes, fracture planes, or any other boundary
separating rock types with different electrical properties. Electrical properties of a rock correlate mainly
with lithologic composition (sand/clay ratio, grain size,
sorting, etc.) and water saturation (Knight and Nur,
1987; Annan et al., 1991). Generally, saturation is a
measure of permeability and porosity of rocks, which
in turn, are generally consistent with lithology (Rea and
Knight, 1998).
Identication of bounding surfaces using GPR reections is based not only on the contrast in electrical
properties above and below surfaces that produce signicant reection amplitudes, but also on the hierarchy
of reection terminations, reection continuity, and
geometrical congurations above and below the surface (see the radar facies of Gawthorpe et al. [1993]).
First-order surfaces separate similar lithofacies below
and above the surface and present a contrast in electrical properties only if there is a change in petrophysical properties (e.g., permeability, porosity) across the
surface (e.g., due to a change in grain size). In this case
a rst-order surface correlates with a single continuous
GPR reection that truncates against higher-order
bounding surfaces. If no contrast is present, the position of the bounding surface does not correspond to a
reector and must be inferred from the attributes previously listed. Second-order surfaces separate different
lithofacies above and below and are thus more likely
to have disparate electrical properties. Therefore, a
second-order bounding surface is almost everywhere
represented by a continuous GPR reection (see Gawthorpe et al., 1993). First- and second-order surfaces
are generally several decimeters to several meters in
length (Miall, 1985, 1988). Third- and fourth-order
surfaces should give rise to continuous GPR reections
where different electrical properties are encountered
above and below the surface but commonly are dened
by characteristic reection terminations (truncation,
onlap or downlap) against a surface, and also by the
existence of different radar facies (specic patterns of
reection continuity, conguration, amplitude, and
frequency) above and below the surface (see Gawthorpe et al., 1993; Alexander et al., 1994; Bridge et
al., 1998). Third- and fourth-order surfaces are generally several tens of meters in length (Miall, 1985,
1988). Fifth-order surfaces are represented by continuous, through-going reections where they are characterized by sharp contacts but may be more complex
or completely obscured where gradational contacts occur. Fifth-order surfaces clearly separate different radar sequences (see Gawthorpe et al., 1993). No sixthorder surfaces are present in the study volume.
GPR Data Preprocessing
Several processing steps were applied to the 3-D GPR
data before depth migration. Preparation and preprocessing of the GPR data consisted of trace editing,
time-zero corrections, air-wave removal (to reduce
near-surface interference), bandpass lter analysis (to
discriminate high-frequency events associated with
small sedimentary structures from the high-amplitude
energy near the median signal frequency), gain analysis, and predictive deconvolution. Detailed information on this processing was given by Szerbiak et al. (in
press).
The most important step in processing GPR data
is 3-D depth migration, which allows direct and accurate comparison (in 3-D space) between geologic
data and radar data, especially where velocity varies
signicantly in three dimensions (Szerbiak et al., in
press). An initial migration, using a single average interval velocity function, produced a poorly migrated
GPR image and also poor ties with the borehole depth
control points. These poor results are explained by signicant lateral variation in velocity that is produced,
not only by the spatial variation of lithologic facies, but
also by the fracture systems at the site. The fracture
systems are oriented northwest-southeast and northeast-southwest (Figure 3) and inuence the amount
and pattern of weathering in each block bounded by
the fractures. Depending on the amount and type of
weathering, different parts of the same lithologic unit
can have different electrical properties, which in turn,
may substantially change the GPR propagation velocity. Also, the permeability values at the outcrop are
determined to be signicantly higher than permeability
values in well cores because of increased weathering at
the cliff face (Snelgrove et al., 1998). Because surface
waters have been moving along the fractures in recent
times, the rock adjacent to the fractures has likely been
exposed to weathering in a way similar to the rock at
the present cliff face.
Velocity Model Building and Migration
The 3-D velocity model was obtained in two steps:
(1) obtaining vertical velocity proles at control points,
and (2) spatially interpolating between these velocities
by kriging (Deutsch and Journel, 1998).
In the rst step, synthetic GPR traces are simulated to estimate vertical velocity functions at the four
wells and the ve stratigraphic sections. Bounding surface depths and two-way reection traveltimes were
available at the wells, but only depths were available
at the cliff face stratigraphic sections. Reection travel
times were estimated at the cliff face by extrapolation
of the two-way traveltime surface observed in the 3-D
grid to the cliff face. Each 1-D model was parameterized by electrical properties based on correlation of
lithology and permeability, and lab measurements of
dielectric permittivity (which is the main determinant
of the velocity of the GPR wave) and electrical resistivity (which is the main determinant of GPR signal
attenuation). The nite-difference modeling algorithm used was described in detail by Xu and McMechan (1997). Figure 6 shows the simulated GPR
response at well A; the synthetic radargrams have
matched the reection amplitude, polarity, and frequency content of the main events in the 3-D data.
This modeling procedure yields a robust velocity estimate in depth at the control sections in the survey
and also provides a direct correlation of major bounding surfaces identied at the cliff face and in boreholes, with reections in GPR proles in the time domain (Figure 6).
The second step in building the 3-D velocity
model consisted of spatially interpolating and extrapolating the vertical velocity proles obtained by modeling. The interpolation procedure was based on
building 3-D experimental variograms from two main
average velocity facies (one facies above surface E and
the other one between surfaces E and A/B in Figure
6), and then simulating 2-D velocity surfaces at regular depth intervals from the vertical velocity control
proles. The complete procedure of building a smooth
3-D velocity model based on geologic control and geostatistical techniques was discussed by Szerbiak et al.
(in press).
A 3-D Kirchhoff algorithm (Epili and McMechan,
1996) was used to migrate the GPR data into a depth
image. Depth migration provided high-resolution images of the sedimentary features and also relative amplitude data for the geostatistical correlation analysis.
Because 3-D GPR data volumes have a format similar
to that of 3-D seismic data, 3-D seismic interpretation
software provides a exible and efcient means for
display, attribute computation, and analysis of the
3-D GPR data. Figure 7 shows representative slices
through the 3-D GPR data volume, without and with
interpretive labels.
Corbeanu et al.
1593
1594
Geostatistical Analysis
Figure 8A shows three orthogonal slices from the variogram volume of the GPR relative amplitudes from the
uppermost interpreted unit (unit 5 in Figure 7) of the
migrated GPR volume. The azimuth, dip, and plunge
of the maximum correlation direction (the longest axes
of the ellipsoid) can be computed from the projections
onto the three orthogonal planes of the variogram volume (the red arrows in Figure 8A). The dip angles extracted from the variogram volumes for each unit were
also compared with the dip of GPR reections from
the migrated GPR volume. The resulting parameters
for each unit are presented in Table 1.
The experimental variograms were computed
along the maximum and minimum correlation directions for each radar facies identied in the GPR volume
(units 2 to 5). Satisfactory tting of the experimental
variograms commonly requires use of nested structures containing a linear combination of two basic
models, rather than a single model (Isaaks and Srivastava, 1989). Each model in the nested structure provides different contributions to the nal composite
model. The tting was done by iterative manual trials
until the best nested structure tting was obtained. Figure 8B shows an example of an experimental variogram and the nested model tted to it, from the uppermost unit of the GPR volume. The results from
modeling the experimental variograms in each unit are
also given in Table 1 and are interpreted in the following section.
INTEGRATED INTERPRETATION OF
SEDIMENTOLOGIC AND GPR DATA
Five architectural elements are identied in the outcrop at Coyote basin and referred to as units 1 to 5 in
ascending stratigraphic order. Five bounding surfaces
separate these units and are referred to as surfaces A
to E, also in ascending order (Figure 4). The same units
and bounding surfaces are mapped in the GPR
migrated-data volume, except for units 1 and 2, which
Figure 6. Input and output of the synthetic radargram modeling at well A. Panel (A) shows details 1 m from the core emphasizing
the correlation between lithology and permeability. Panel (B) shows the lithofacies model and the permeability prole on which the
synthetic radargram was built, together with the interval velocity prole resulting from the radargram modeling. Panel (C) contains
the synthetic radargram for well A (in the middle) and ve traces from the 3-D GPR volume adjacent to well A (on either side). E and
A/B are two major bounding surfaces interpreted in outcrop and boreholes and identied using GPR reections in time proles. These
two surfaces provide ties that control the average velocity facies from which velocity correlation functions were obtained.
Corbeanu et al.
1595
N
Well C
Well D
Well B
10
10
12
12
14
14
16
16
Relative
amplitude
13.1
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Well A
6.66
Well A
Well C
Well D
Well B
Unit 5
E
6
8
Unit 4
10
Unit 3
12
Unit 2
8
10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
1596
-6.66
12
A/B
14
16
14
16
-13.1
x 1000
10 meters
Figure 7. Uninterpreted (upper panel) and interpreted (lower panel) GPR proles from the migrated 3-D 100 MHz volume, connecting wells A, C, D, and B. Lithologic columns
and permeability proles from each well are shown for correlation with the GPR reectors. Colored lines in the lower panel show the interpreted bounding surfaces (A/B to E);
red arrows below interpreted surfaces C to E show the truncation of the GPR reections against the third- and fourth-order erosional surfaces. The dashed rectangle in the lower
right corner shows the location of the area analyzed using instantaneous frequency in Figure 9. The dashed red line marks the continuous, strong GPR event tracked from wells
A, C, and D, which correlates with the top of unit 1 (surface B) and obscures below the reection corresponding to the upper bounding surface of the ood-plain mudstone
(surface A). The black arrow in the upper panel marks the reduced amplitude reection correlated with surface A.
(A)
(h)
1.60
0.2
0.0
(XZ)
-0.2
-0.4
(XY)
1.20
0.80
3.0
0.40
(YZ)
2.0
1.0
0.00
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-3.0 -4.0
-2.0
0.0
-1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
(B)
Nested structure = gaussian + exponential
(h)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
h (m)
15.0
20.0
4.0
8.0
h (m)
12.0
16.0
Figure 8. Example of variogram analysis in unit 5. (A) three orthogonal slices through the center of symmetry of the variogram
volume displaying the variogram values computed along all directions and for all available separation lags. The direction of the
maximum correlation of the GPR amplitudes projects on the three slices along the longest axis of the central dark blue ellipses (red
arrows) dened by the lowest values of c as a function of the separation vector (blue colors on the color bar). These projections
indicate the azimuth, dip, and plunge of the direction of maximum correlation. Azimuth is measured in the horizontal symmetry plane
clockwise from the y axis; dip and plunge are measured in the vertical symmetry planes clockwise toward the z axis (Deutsch and
Journel, 1998). The parameters inferred from the variogram volume analysis are given in Table 1. (B) Experimental variograms along
directions of maximum and minimum correlation of the GPR amplitudes in the uppermost unit interpreted in the GPR volume. The
red squares are data points of the experimental variograms, whereas the green continuous lines are the nested model tted to each
variogram; the results of the variogram analysis are presented in Table 1. For denitions of symbols used in the gure see equation
1 in the text.
Corbeanu et al.
1597
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Facies
Correlation Direction*
Model
Range
Nugget
Sill
Trough cross-bed
Maximum Azimuth 90
Dip 7
Minimum Azimuth 0
Dip 0
Maximum Azimuth 90
Dip 0
Minimum Azimuth 0
Dip 0
Maximum Azimuth 90
Dip 0
Minimum Azimuth 0
Dip 0
Maximum Azimuth 90
Dip 0
Minimum Azimuth 0
Dip 0
Spherical exponential
5.75
15.00
3.40
8.00
5.00
12.50
3.00
10.00
4.00
15.00
3.00
8.00
4.20
15.00
4.00
10.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.70
0.35
0.80
0.30
0.70
0.30
0.65
0.45
0.70
0.35
0.65
0.32
0.65
0.35
0.80
0.40
Scour and ll
Scour and ll
Scour and ll
Gaussian exponential
Gaussian exponential
Gaussian exponential
Gaussian exponential
Gaussian exponential
Gaussian exponential
Gaussian exponential
Anisotropy Factor
0.59
0.53
0.6
0.8
0.75
0.53
0.95
0.67
*By convention the azimuth is measured clockwise from the y axis, whereas dip is measured clockwise toward the z axis (Deutsch and Journel, 1998).
unit 1 pinches out or is thinner than the vertical resolution and is no longer resolved by the 100 MHz GPR
data.
The contour map with the depths of surface A/B
(Figure 9) shows a general dip of the surface toward
the northwest and an erosional depression in the northern part of the survey, more accentuated around well
B where the scour-and-ll element 1 has its maximum
thickness.
Fine-Grained, Parallel-Laminated Sandstone Facies
Association: Units 1 to 4
Sedimentologic Description
Units 1 to 4 cover approximately the lower 7 m of
the channel complex and consist of ne-grained lenticular sandstone bodies that pinch out over distances
of several tens of meters parallel to the cliff face (Figure 4). Internally, these architectural elements consist
of low-angle, parallel-laminated, ne-grained sandstone that scour into underlying, similar parallellaminated sandstone. The base of each of unit (1 to
4) is erosional and commonly has mudstone intraclast
conglomerate along the basal scour. Locally, the erosional scours can have a steep cut relief of almost 1
m lled with mudstone intraclast conglomerate (see
Figure 4 near section CB1 at depths of 9 and 12 m)
resulting in abrupt lateral changes in thickness of
conglomerate layers. The upper part of units 1 to 4
Corbeanu et al.
Figure 9. Depth contour maps of the four surfaces (A/B to E) that bound the major architectural elements in the uvial sandstone at Coyote basin; depths are in meters, and
the depth contour increment is 0.25 m. These contours maps are generated from the 100 MHz migrated GPR data and are relative to the GPR horizontal datum. A to D are
locations of the wells inside the GPR grid. Notice the abrupt erosional depression around well B on surface A/B, the relatively at character of surfaces C and D, and the erosional
scour oriented parallel with the paleoow on surface E.
1599
7.5
7.5
10.0
10.0
12.5
12.5
150.00
B
15.0
17.5
20.0
(B)
111.00
15.0
17.5
25.0
30.0
X (m)
35.0
40.0
72.00
N
7.5
7.5
10.0
10.0
12.5
12.5
A/B
5.88
15.0
15.0
17.5
17.5
20.0
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
33.10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
(A)
25.0
30.0
X (m)
35.0
40.0
Figure 10. Instantaneous frequency displays of the northern half and lower 10 m of two GPR proles. (A) The GPR prole through
well B at y 12.0 m; (B) the prole at y 7.0 m. The continuous line in (A) is the interpretation of the A/B surface revealed as
a composite reection due to the gradational character of the contact; the dashed line marks the continuous GPR reector, which is
interpreted as the top of unit 1 (see also Figure 6). In panel (B) the two continuous lines show complete coincidence as apparently
unit 1 is pinched out or thins beyond the vertical resolution of the GPR data.
Table 2. Characterization of Major Units of Fluvial Channel by Means of Lithofacies, Permeability Values, and Range, and the
Corresponding Radar Facies
Units
Sedimentologic Description
Permeability Statistics
Radar Facies
~ 1 to 270 md
Medium- to large-scale, trough crossUnit 5
~ 1 to 80 md
Unit 4
Unit 3
Low-angle, parallel-laminated,
Mean ~20 md
Std ~10 md
~ 1 to 90 md
Mean ~30 md
Std ~13 md
~ 1 to 80 md
Unit 2
Mean ~30 md
Std ~15 md
GPR Interpretation
GPR reections in approximately the lower 7 m of
the data volume correlate well with second-order
bounding surfaces between sandstone layers and
mudstone or mudstone intraclast conglomerate layers because these correspond to a signicant change
in electrical properties between the three lithologies.
The irregularity in thickness and shape of these
mudstone and conglomerate layers is evident in the
GPR images as discontinuous, irregular reections
(Figures 7, 11). Many layers that are signicantly
thinner than 0.5 m are not resolved using the 100
MHz GPR data (see Figure 7 at 10.5 m depth
around wells C and D).
Third-order bounding surfaces C and D, interpreted in the GPR proles, are continuous surfaces
dened by downlap or truncation of second-order
reections above and below the third-order surfaces,
respectively (Figures 7, 11). Both surfaces C and D
dip gently toward the north, following the regional
1601
1602
Depth (m)
5.0
Relative
amplitude
1.0
10.0
Uni
0.5
t5
C
A/B
0.0
Un
it 4
15.0
0.0
-0.5
10.0
Uni
t3
-1.0
X (m)
20.0
15.0
Unit
2
10.0
30.0
5.0
Y (m)
40.0
Figure 11. Cube display of the 3-D GPR data, made of two lines at y 1.5 m and y 10.5 m, two crosslines at x 18 m and x 40 m, and two horizontal slices at z
4 m and z 9.5 m. The x and y axes coincide with the long and short axes of the GPR grid (Figure 3). Red, blue, orange, and green labels on the left side of the cube mark
the interpreted A/B, C, D, and E bounding surfaces, respectively. Inside the vertical GPR proles, the purple arrows mark downlap, onlap, and truncation of the GPR reections
against the major bounding surfaces. The relation between high-GPR-amplitude zones on the horizontal slice and the inclined reections on the vertical proles in unit 5 is
illustrated using thin black lines portraying the climbing cross-beds in the vertical plane and their shape on the surface. In unit 5, the black arrows show paleoow direction, and
in unit 3 they show the dip direction of the mudstone and mudstone intraclast conglomerate layers.
Geostatistical Interpretation
To quantify the lateral extent of mudstone and conglomerate layers, from the continuity of the corresponding GPR reections, experimental variograms are
computed for each unit from the GPR relative amplitude data, along both maximum and minimum correlation directions. The maximum correlation directions
of the GPR amplitude data coincide with the long side
of the GPR grid in all units (Table 1). The data in the
experimental variogram are tted with a nested structure composed of two basic models: Gaussian and
exponential.
The correlation lengths (or ranges) of the Gaussian
contribution range from 4 to 5 m in the maximum
correlation direction and from 3 to 4 m in the minimum correlation direction (Table 1). These correlation
lengths are interpreted as characterizing the lateral
continuity of the mudstone or mudstone intraclast conglomerate layers with thicknesses comparable to vertical resolution of the GPR (0.5 m), and enveloped
by second-order bounding surfaces, inside each unit.
The anisotropy factors of these short-wavelength structures are 0.95, 0.75, and 0.6, respectively, for units 2,
3, and 4. These anisotropies imply that mudstone and
mudstone intraclast conglomerate inside the channel
lls have more elongated shapes toward the upper part
of the channel (unit 4) and more isometric shapes at
the base of the channel (unit 2), but all have a maximum lateral extent of 5 m. These results compare fairly
well with the facies map at the cliff face, especially the
mudstone intraclast conglomerates in units 2 and 3.
Where making direct comparisons of the mudstone
and mudstone intraclast conglomerate layers with the
GPR reections, one should consider the limitation of
the 100 MHz GPR data on resolving features signicantly thinner than about 0.5 m. Sometimes mudstone
layers are interpreted in the outcrop to be laterally continuous over more than 10 m (e.g., at the base of unit
4 and the top of unit 2 in the southern part of the
outcrop in Figure 4) but are relatively thin and irregular
in thickness and may not be well resolved by the GPR
reections. These layers are described by longer correlation lengths (the exponential model in the nested
structure), but they have a smaller contribution to the
combined model (Table 1).
Medium-Grained Trough Cross-Bedded Sandstone Facies
Association: Unit 5
Sedimentologic Description
Unit 5 (the uppermost 4.55.5 m of the sandstone
1603
Figure 12. Detailed outcrop map of trough cross-beds on two orthogonal outcrop faces in unit 5 immediately southeast of the GPR
survey area (Figure 3). The north-south panel shows the geometry of trough cross-beds parallel with ow direction, whereas the eastwest panel is perpendicular to ow. Heavy lines mark the coset bounding surfaces that are most likely resolved by GPR data; these
are compared in the text with the maximum correlation lengths from the geostatistical analysis.
The 100 MHz data are a good compromise between vertical resolution (0.5 m) and depth of penetration (15 m) for the scale and detail studied at the
outcrop. The 200 MHz GPR data have a better vertical
resolution (0.3 m) but are not useful at depths
greater than 910 m where the signal is strongly attenuated. The bulk of our interpretation was carried out
on migrated 100 MHz GPR data, and only our interpretation of the upper 5 m of the stratigraphic succession used information from the migrated 200 MHz
GPR 3-D images.
To effectively integrate geologic and GPR data,
3-D migration of the GPR data from the time domain into the depth domain was essential. A good
depth migration was obtained only after constructing
a detailed velocity model containing both vertical
and lateral changes in electrical properties of the
rock volume surveyed. Synthetic radargrams were
generated to estimate vertical velocity proles and
to correlate key GPR reections in the time domain
to geologic boundaries in the depth domain. Kriging
was used to interpolate the lateral distribution of the
velocity.
To identify and separate architectural elements
and bounding surfaces in outcrop and well cores, the
sixfold hierarchy of bounding surfaces developed by
Miall (1985) was used together with techniques for
interpreting stratigraphic sequences from seismic data.
Five architectural elements, referred to as units 1
through 5 in ascending stratigraphic order, and their
bounding surfaces, referred to as surfaces A through
E, were correlated in outcrop and well cores. Units 1
through 4 are scour-and-ll elements deposited during
ood events within a uvial channel, and unit 5 is a
channel barform accreting in both upcurrent and
downcurrent directions. The same architectural elements and bounding surfaces were interpreted in the
migrated GPR data.
Radar facies characteristic to each element were
interpreted based on the internal conguration and
continuity of reections as well as reection termination patterns against higher-order bounding surfaces. First- and second-order surfaces generally correlate directly with the GPR reections. Where the
contact between two elements is gradational rather
than sharp, the GPR expression is a composite reection that can be resolved using information from additional attributes such as instantaneous frequency.
Abrupt lateral changes in lithofacies (e.g., unit 1
around well B in Figure 10) are effectively addressed
through instantaneous frequency attribute analysis.
Corbeanu et al.
1605
1606
Y (m)
0.0
16.5
Y (m)
E
0.0
1.6
W
Depth (m)
3.2
4.8
E
6.4
1 meter
W
16.5
1 meter
8.0
(A)
(B)
(C)
Figure 13. Upper 7 m of the uninterpreted (A) and interpreted (B) versions of the migrated 200 MHz GPR prole, at x 31.5 m (Figure 3). Cross-bed sets and cosets can be
interpreted as upward-concave reections in the GPR data and are marked with continuous orange lines in (B). For comparison, (C) shows the cliff face map of trough crossbeds from unit 5, perpendicular to ow as illustrated in Figure 12, for comparison. The sketch of trough cross-beds appears distorted because of a two-time vertical exaggeration
for direct comparison with the GPR proles. The dashed lines at the top of (A) and (B) represent the topographic surface.
REFERENCES CITED
Alexander, J., J. S. Bridge, M. R. Leeder, R. E. L. Collier, and R. L.
Gawthorpe, 1994, Holocene meander-belt evolution in an active extensional basin, southwestern Montana: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. B64, p. 542559.
Allen, J. R. L., 1983, Studies in uviatile sedimentation: bars, barcomplexes and sandstone sheets (low-sinuosity braided
streams) in the Brownstones (L. Devonian) Welsh Borders:
Sedimentary Geology, v. 33, p. 237293.
Annan, A. P., S. W. Cosway, and J. D. Redman, 1991, Water table
detection with ground-penetrating radar (abs.): Society of Exploration Geophysicists Annual International Meeting and Exposition Program with Abstracts, p. 494497.
Baker, P. L., and U. Monash, 1991, Fluid, lithology, geometry, and
permeability information from ground-penetrating radar for
some petroleum industry applications: Society of Petroleum
Engineers, paper SPE 22976, p. 277286.
Barton, M. D., 1994, Outcrop characterization of architecture and
permeability structure in uvial-deltaic sandstones, Cretaceous
Ferron Sandstone, Utah: Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, Texas, 260 p.
Beres, M., A. Green, P. Huggenberger, and H. Horstmeyer, 1995,
Mapping the architecture of glaciouvial sediments with three
dimensional georadar: Geology, v. 23, p. 10871090.
Bridge, J. S., 1986, Paleochannel pattern inferred from alluvial deposits; a critical review: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology,
v. 55, p. 579589.
Bridge, J. S., J. Alexander, R. E. L. Collier, R. L. Gawthorpe, and J.
Jarvis, 1995, Ground-penetrating radar and coring used to study
the large-scale structure of point-bar deposits in three dimensions: Sedimentology, v. 42, p. 839852.
Bridge, J. S., R. E. L. Collier, and J. Alexander, 1998, Large-scale
structures of Calamus River deposits (Nebraska, U.S.A.) revealed using ground-penetrating radar: Sedimentology, v. 45,
p. 977986.
Bristow, C. S., 1995, Internal geometry of ancient tidal bedforms
revealed using ground penetrating radar, in B. W. Flemming and
A. Bartholoma, eds., Tidal signatures in modern and ancient
sediments: International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication 24, p. 313328.
Brown, A. R., 1996, Interpretation of 3-dimensional seismic data:
AAPG Memoir 42, 4th ed., 444 p.
Corbeanu, M. R., M. C. Wizevich, X. Zeng, G. A. McMechan, J. P.
Bhattacharya, S. H. Snelgrove, and C. B. Forster, 2000, 3-D
internal geometry of delta plain channel deposits, Cretaceous
Ferron Sandstone, Utah (abs.): AAPG Annual Convention Abstracts with Programs, v. 9, p. A31.
Davis, J. L., and A. P. Annan, 1989, Ground penetrating radar for
high resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy: Geophysical Prospecting, v. 37, p. 531551.
Corbeanu et al.
1607
Deutsch, C. V., and A. G. Journel, 1998, GSLIB Geostatistical Software Library and Users Guide: Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 340 p.
Epili, D., and G. A. McMechan, 1996, Implementation of 3-D prestack Kirchhoff migration, with application to data from the
Ouachita frontal thrust zone: Geophysics, v. 61, p. 14001411.
Fisher, E., G. A. McMechan, and P. A. Annan, 1992a, Acquisition
and processing of wide-aperture ground-penetrating radar data:
Geophysics, v. 57, p. 495504.
Fisher, E., G. A. McMechan, and P. A. Annan, 1992b, Examples of
reverse-time migration of single-channel ground-penetratingradar: Geophysics, v. 57, p. 577586.
Flint, S. S. and D. Bryant, eds., 1993, The Geological modeling of
hydrocarbon reservoirs and outcrop analogs: International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication 15, 269 p.
Gardner, M. H., 1992, Sequence stratigraphy of the Ferron Sandstone, east-central Utah, in N. Tyler, M. D. Barton, and R. S.
Fisher, eds., Architecture and permeability structure of uvialdeltaic sandstones: a eld guide to selected outcrops of the Ferron Sandstone, east-central Utah: University of Texas at Austin,
Bureau of Economic Geology Guidebook, p. 112.
Gardner, M. H., 1995, Tectonic and eustatic controls on the stratal
architecture of mid-Cretaceous stratigraphic sequences, central
Western Interior foreland basin of North America, in S. L. Dorobek and G. M. Ross, eds., Stratigraphic evolution of foreland
basins: SEPM Special Publication 52, p. 243281.
Garrison Jr., J. R., T. C. V. van den Bergh, C. E. F. Barker, and D. E.
Tabet, 1997, Depositional sequence stratigraphy and architecture of the Cretaceous Ferron Sandstone: implications for coal
and coalbed methane resourcesa eld excursion, in P. K. Link
and B. J. Kowallis, eds., Mesozoic to recent: Geological Society
of America Field Trip Guidebook for 1997 Annual Meeting,
Brigham Young University Geological Studies, v. 42, part 2,
p. 155202.
Gawthorpe, R. L., R. E. L Collier, J. Alexander, J. S. Bridge, and
M. R. Leeder, 1993, Ground penetrating radar: application to
sandbody geometry and heterogeneity studies, in C. P. North
and D. J. Prosser, eds., Characterization of uvial and aeolian
reservoirs: Geological Society Special Publication 73, p. 421
432.
Isaaks, E. H., and R. M. Srivastava, 1989, An introduction to applied
geostatistics: Oxford, Oxford University Press, 561 p.
Knight, R. J., and A. Nur, 1987, The dielectric constant of sandstones, 60kHz to 4MHz: Geophysics, v. 52, p. 644654.
McMechan, G. A., G. C. Gaynor, and R. B. Szerbiak, 1997, Use of
ground-penetrating radar for 3-D sedimentological characterization of clastic reservoir analogs: Geophysics, v. 62, p. 786
796.
Miall, A. D., 1985, Architectural-element analysis: a new method of
facies analysis applied to uvial deposits: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 22, p. 261308.
Miall, A. D., 1988, Reservoir heterogeneities in uvial sandstones:
lessons from the outcrop studies: AAPG Bulletin, v. 72, p. 682
697.
1608