- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
NARROW
GeoRef Subject
-
all geography including DSDP/ODP Sites and Legs
-
Asia
-
Far East
-
China
-
Xinjiang China
-
Tarim Basin (3)
-
-
-
Indonesia
-
Java (1)
-
-
-
Middle East
-
Turkey (2)
-
-
-
Europe
-
Western Europe
-
Scandinavia
-
Norway (1)
-
-
-
-
Franklin Mountains (1)
-
Glass Mountains (2)
-
Guadalupe Mountains (5)
-
Marathon Basin (1)
-
Mexico (1)
-
Permian Basin (6)
-
United States
-
Central Basin Platform (1)
-
Delaware Basin (4)
-
New Mexico
-
Eddy County New Mexico
-
Lechuguilla Cave (1)
-
-
-
Texas
-
Culberson County Texas (1)
-
Medina County Texas (1)
-
Midland Basin (2)
-
Sterling County Texas (1)
-
West Texas (7)
-
-
-
-
commodities
-
oil and gas fields (1)
-
petroleum
-
natural gas (1)
-
-
-
elements, isotopes
-
trace metals (1)
-
-
fossils
-
Chordata
-
Vertebrata (1)
-
-
Invertebrata
-
Echinodermata (1)
-
Mollusca
-
Bivalvia
-
Heterodonta
-
Rudistae (1)
-
-
-
Gastropoda (1)
-
-
Protista
-
Foraminifera (2)
-
-
-
microfossils
-
Conodonta (1)
-
-
Plantae
-
algae (1)
-
-
-
geochronology methods
-
U/Pb (1)
-
-
geologic age
-
Cenozoic
-
Tertiary
-
Neogene
-
Miocene
-
lower Miocene
-
Aquitanian (1)
-
-
middle Miocene
-
Serravallian (1)
-
-
-
-
Paleogene
-
Oligocene
-
lower Oligocene
-
Rupelian (1)
-
-
upper Oligocene
-
Chattian (1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mesozoic
-
Cretaceous
-
Comanchean
-
Edwards Formation (1)
-
Glen Rose Formation (1)
-
-
Lower Cretaceous
-
Albian (2)
-
Edwards Formation (1)
-
Glen Rose Formation (1)
-
-
Upper Cretaceous
-
Cenomanian (1)
-
-
-
-
Paleozoic
-
Carboniferous
-
Pennsylvanian
-
Upper Pennsylvanian (2)
-
-
-
Ordovician (2)
-
Permian
-
Guadalupian
-
Brushy Canyon Formation (1)
-
Grayburg Formation (2)
-
Queen Formation (1)
-
-
Khuff Formation (1)
-
Lower Permian
-
Cisuralian (1)
-
Leonardian
-
Bone Spring Limestone (3)
-
-
Wolfcampian
-
Hueco Limestone (1)
-
-
-
-
-
Precambrian
-
Archean (1)
-
upper Precambrian
-
Proterozoic (1)
-
-
-
-
metamorphic rocks
-
turbidite (2)
-
-
minerals
-
silicates
-
orthosilicates
-
nesosilicates
-
zircon group
-
zircon (1)
-
-
-
-
sheet silicates
-
clay minerals (1)
-
-
-
sulfides
-
pyrite (1)
-
-
-
Primary terms
-
absolute age (1)
-
Asia
-
Far East
-
China
-
Xinjiang China
-
Tarim Basin (3)
-
-
-
Indonesia
-
Java (1)
-
-
-
Middle East
-
Turkey (2)
-
-
-
Cenozoic
-
Tertiary
-
Neogene
-
Miocene
-
lower Miocene
-
Aquitanian (1)
-
-
middle Miocene
-
Serravallian (1)
-
-
-
-
Paleogene
-
Oligocene
-
lower Oligocene
-
Rupelian (1)
-
-
upper Oligocene
-
Chattian (1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chordata
-
Vertebrata (1)
-
-
continental slope (1)
-
diagenesis (2)
-
Europe
-
Western Europe
-
Scandinavia
-
Norway (1)
-
-
-
-
folds (1)
-
fractures (1)
-
geophysical methods (13)
-
ground water (2)
-
Invertebrata
-
Echinodermata (1)
-
Mollusca
-
Bivalvia
-
Heterodonta
-
Rudistae (1)
-
-
-
Gastropoda (1)
-
-
Protista
-
Foraminifera (2)
-
-
-
Mesozoic
-
Cretaceous
-
Comanchean
-
Edwards Formation (1)
-
Glen Rose Formation (1)
-
-
Lower Cretaceous
-
Albian (2)
-
Edwards Formation (1)
-
Glen Rose Formation (1)
-
-
Upper Cretaceous
-
Cenomanian (1)
-
-
-
-
metasomatism (1)
-
Mexico (1)
-
oil and gas fields (1)
-
paleoclimatology (1)
-
paleogeography (4)
-
Paleozoic
-
Carboniferous
-
Pennsylvanian
-
Upper Pennsylvanian (2)
-
-
-
Ordovician (2)
-
Permian
-
Guadalupian
-
Brushy Canyon Formation (1)
-
Grayburg Formation (2)
-
Queen Formation (1)
-
-
Khuff Formation (1)
-
Lower Permian
-
Cisuralian (1)
-
Leonardian
-
Bone Spring Limestone (3)
-
-
Wolfcampian
-
Hueco Limestone (1)
-
-
-
-
-
petroleum
-
natural gas (1)
-
-
Plantae
-
algae (1)
-
-
plate tectonics (2)
-
Precambrian
-
Archean (1)
-
upper Precambrian
-
Proterozoic (1)
-
-
-
reefs (1)
-
sea-level changes (6)
-
sedimentary rocks
-
carbonate rocks
-
grainstone (2)
-
packstone (2)
-
wackestone (1)
-
-
clastic rocks
-
mudstone (3)
-
sandstone (1)
-
shale (1)
-
siltstone (1)
-
-
-
sedimentary structures
-
biogenic structures
-
bioherms (1)
-
-
planar bedding structures
-
bedding (1)
-
laminations (1)
-
-
-
sedimentation (1)
-
tectonics (3)
-
United States
-
Central Basin Platform (1)
-
Delaware Basin (4)
-
New Mexico
-
Eddy County New Mexico
-
Lechuguilla Cave (1)
-
-
-
Texas
-
Culberson County Texas (1)
-
Medina County Texas (1)
-
Midland Basin (2)
-
Sterling County Texas (1)
-
West Texas (7)
-
-
-
-
rock formations
-
San Andres Formation (4)
-
-
sedimentary rocks
-
contourite (1)
-
sedimentary rocks
-
carbonate rocks
-
grainstone (2)
-
packstone (2)
-
wackestone (1)
-
-
clastic rocks
-
mudstone (3)
-
sandstone (1)
-
shale (1)
-
siltstone (1)
-
-
-
siliciclastics (2)
-
turbidite (2)
-
-
sedimentary structures
-
sedimentary structures
-
biogenic structures
-
bioherms (1)
-
-
planar bedding structures
-
bedding (1)
-
laminations (1)
-
-
-
-
sediments
-
contourite (1)
-
siliciclastics (2)
-
turbidite (2)
-
Stratal surfaces honoring seismic structures and interpreted geologic time surfaces
Identification of fossil contourite drifts in the Delaware Basin, U.S.A.
Seismic characterization of carbonate platforms and reservoirs: an introduction and review
Abstract Improved seismic data quality in the last 10–15 years, innovative use of seismic attribute combinations, extraction of geomorphological data and new quantitative techniques have significantly enhanced understanding of ancient carbonate platforms and processes. 3D data have become a fundamental toolkit for mapping carbonate depositional and diagenetic facies, and associated flow units and barriers, giving a unique perspective on how their relationships changed through time in response to tectonic, oceanographic and climatic forcing. Sophisticated predictions of lithology and porosity are being made from seismic data in reservoirs with good borehole log and core calibration for detailed integration with structural, palaeoenvironmental and sequence stratigraphic interpretations. Geologists can now characterize entire carbonate platform systems and their large-scale evolution in time and space, including systems with few outcrop analogues such as the Lower Cretaceous Central Atlantic ‘pre-salt’ carbonates. The papers introduced in this review illustrate opportunities, workflows and potential pitfalls of modern carbonate seismic interpretation. They demonstrate advances in knowledge of carbonate systems achieved when geologists and geophysicists collaborate and innovate to maximize the value of seismic data from acquisition, through processing to interpretation. Future trends and developments, including machine learning and the significance of the energy transition, are briefly discussed.
Paleokarst reservoirs: Efficient and flexible characterization using point-spread-function-based convolution modeling
Carbonate-shelf evolution during the Oligocene to early Miocene: insights from shelf architecture, lithofacies, and depositional models of the Kujung Formation, offshore East Java, Indonesia
Grain assemblages and diagenesis in organic-rich mudrocks, Upper Pennsylvanian Cline shale (Wolfcamp D), Midland Basin, Texas
Trace-elemental and petrographic constraints on the severity of hydrographic restriction in the silled Midland Basin during the late Paleozoic ice age
Orogen proximal sedimentation in the Permian foreland basin
Seismic chronostratigraphy at reservoir scale: Lessons from a realistic seismic modeling of mixed clastic-carbonate strata in the Permian Basin, West Texas and New Mexico, USA
Improving three-dimensional high-order seismic-stratigraphic interpretation for reservoir model construction: An example of geostatistical and seismic forward modeling of Permian San Andres shelf–Grayburg platform mixed clastic–carbonate strata
Sediment gravity-flow deposits and three-dimensional stratigraphic architectures of the linked Cutoff, upper Bone Spring, and upper Avalon system, Delaware Basin
Matrix microcrystalline structure and acoustic properties of oomoldic dolograinstone
Abstract The Permian strata on the shelves around the Delaware Basin represent more than 1000 meters of carbonates and mixed carbonate/siliciclastic deposits. These strata host vast amount of hydrocarbon, and their stratigraphic architecture is very well understood based on numerous studies form the outcrop in the northern and western part of the basin and a wealth of subsurface data in and around the basin. The stratigraphic evolution of the early to middle Permian mixed carbonate-siliciclastic system is the combined result of a waning tectonic activity and a transition from an ice-house to greenhouse climatic-eustatic signal. Comparing two classic outcrop localities between the south (Glass Mountains) and the north (Guadalupe Mountains) of the basin shows some striking difference in the overall stratigraphic architecture of the Woflcampian, Leonardian, and Guadalupian strata. The Woflcampian and Leonardian in the Glass Mountains is about 75% the thickness of the similar interval in the north and has an overall retrograding architecture compared to an overall prograding motif in the north. In the Glass Mountains, the Leonardian slope (Bone Spring Fm. equivalent) is dominated by silt and coarse-grained gravity flow deposits (turbidites and megabreccia) compared to the huge volume of muddy dilute carbonate turbidites in the Bone Spring Formation of the Guadalupe Mountains. The thinner and mostly retrograding architecture of the Leonardian in the south compared to the northern margins indicates a larger accommodation space versus sediment supply ratio. This difference may be due to either an increased subsidence due to waning tectonic activity or a reduced sediment production and accumulation compared to the north, or a combination of the two. A potential explanation for a reduced sediment production rate might be the large amount of siliciclastics mixed into the carbonate system in the south due to the proximity of the orogenic front compared to a larger mostly purely carbonate Leonardian shelf in the north that produced huge amount of carbonate mud that is exported to the slope and allows for the shelf margin to prograde by more effectively infilling the basin topography. The Guadalupian interval and especially the section from the Vidrio Formation to the end of the Capitan Formation is much more prograding (17 km of basinward step for 500m of thickness) compared to the similar interval in the Guadalupe Mountains (6 km of basinward step from Goat Seep Formation to end Tansill Formation for 300m of thickness). That equates to a P/A ratio of 34 in the Glass Mountains compared to 20 in the Guadalupe Mountains. We hypothesize that the strong influx of sand on the slope and in the basin allowed the Guadalupian reef in the south to build outward in a similar fashion that the mud exported in the basin during the Bone Spring time promoted the progradation of the northern Leonardian shelf in the Guadalupe Mountains. These two overall architecture differences between the south and northern part of the basin point toward a strong control of the overall sediment production rate and accumulation of sediment on the slope combined with antecedent topography and subsidence rate on the stratigraphic architecture of those carbonate shelves experiencing the same eustatic and climatic signal.
Mut Basin, Turkey: Miocene carbonate depositional styles and mixed systems in an icehouse setting
Large-Scale Inflections in Slope Angle Below the Shelf Break: A First Order Control On the Stratigraphic Architecture of Carbonate Slopes: Cutoff Formation, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, West Texas, U.S.A.
Ground-penetrating radar imaging of Albian rudist buildups, central Texas
Carbonate reservoir characterization using seismic diffraction imaging
Abstract The Late Carboniferous strata exposed in the Sacramento Mountains in Southern New Mexico, USA, have long been considered classic exposures documenting reciprocal high-frequency mixed carbonate–siliciclastic cyclicity and shelf-edge algal-mound growth. The growth style and internal architecture of these phylloid algae mounds depend on their position on the shelf and are controlled by potential accommodation space, depth of the photic zone and hydrodynamic energy. The combination of these parameters results in a laterally variable amount of reworked phylloid algae debris and in-situ mound core facies along the depositional profile. This variable architecture can be observed on the outcrop and results in a complex distribution of these two lithofacies in three dimensions that is challenging to reproduce in a 3D geocellular model. Two geostatistical estimation algorithms are used to stochastically model carbonate buildups: surface-based and multipoint statistics (MPS)-based. The surface-based model uses two-point statistics and is built by first recreating the overall geometry of the mound and then reproducing the internal architecture using indicator Gaussian simulation, but requires strong secondary trend data to reproduce the correct facies architecture. The MPS model successfully recreates both the geometry and internal architecture of the mound, but requires a complicated training image and complex multigrid simulation that would be hard to implement in subsurface. This comparison demonstrates that modelling carbonate buildup geometry and internal architecture is not trivial and requires complex workflow with secondary trends. These secondary trends require a significant amount of prior knowledge that is easily extracted from outcrop observations, but would be difficult to assess in subsurface data.