1887
Volume 62, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The seismic imaging of salt diapirs in the Nordkapp Basin gave rise to considerable problems in defining their shape and volume. Independent information was added by integrating the interpretation with high resolution gravity and magnetic data. We developed a novel, iterative workflow, separated into sub‐categories: sediments, salt structures, basement and Moho. Distinctions between the sources of the anomalies from different depths was achieved by utilizing the different decay characteristics of gravity, gravity gradiometry and high resolution magnetic anomalies. The workflow was applied to the southern part of the Nordkapp Basin. It started with the sedimentary model derived from seismics, populated with measured densities and magnetic susceptibilities and a starting model for the base salt. The residual after the removal of this model was interpreted in terms of a crustal model, including flexural isostatic calculations for the Moho with the sedimentary load. The residual after the removal of crustal and early sedimentary model was used to tune the salt model. As these major and minor modelling steps depend on each other, an iterative process was applied to stepwise improve the density and magnetic susceptibility model. The first vertical gradient of gravity and the magnetic field were found to give most information about the cap rock of the diapirs. The improvement in salt imaging, integrated with results from controlled‐source electromagnetic and magneto‐telluric modelling is shown for the salt diapir Uranus, where a well, terminated in the salt, constrains the minimum of the depth to base salt.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12101
2014-01-27
2020-04-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AllenP.A. and AllenJ.R.2005. Basin Analysis: Principles and Applications. 2nd ed., Wiley‐Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BainJ.E., WeyandJ., HorscroftT.R., SaadA.H. and BullingD.N.1993. Complex Salt Features Resolved by Integrating Seismics, Gravity, and Magnetics. 1993 EAEG/EAPG Annual Conference and Exhibition, expanded abstract.
  3. BarrèreC., EbbingJ. and GernigonL.2009. Offshore prolongation of Caledonian structures and basement characterisation in the western Barents Sea from geophysical modelling. Tectonophysics470 (1–2), 71–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BowinC., ScheerE. and SmithW.1986. Depth estimates from ratios of gravity, geoid, and gravity gradient anomalies. Geophysics51 (1), 123–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BraitenbergC., WieneckeS. and WangY.2006. Basement structures from satellite‐ derived gravity field: South China Sea ridge. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, B05407.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BreivikA.J., MjeldeR., GroganP., ShimamuraH., MuraiY., NishimuraY. and KuwanoA.2002. A possible Caledonide arm through the Barents Sea imaged by OBS data. Tectonophysics355, 67–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BuggeT., ElvebakkG., FanavollS., MangerudG., SmelrorM., WeissM.H., GjelbergJ., KristensenS.E. and NilsenK.2002. Shallow stratigraphic drilling applied in hydrocarbon exploration of the Nordkapp Basin, Barents Sea. Marine and Petroleum Geology19, 13–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. EinseleG.2000. Sedimentary Basins: Evolution, Facies and Sediment Budget. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. FailsT.G., O'BrienG.D. and HartmanJ.A.1995. Exploration and Exploitation of Coastal Salt Basin Diapiric Structures in the Lower Pliocene through Eocene Trends: Geology and Techniques. Houston Geological Society and the New Orleans Geological Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. FichlerC., RueslåttenH., GramC., IngebrigtsenA. and OlesenO., 2007. Salt interpretation with special focus on magnetic data, Nordkapp Basin, Barents Sea. 2007 EGM International Workshop. Innovation in EM, Grav and Mag Methods: a new Perspective for Exploration Capri, Italy, extended abstract.
  11. FossenH., PedersenR.‐B., BerghS. and AndresenA.2007. En fjellkjede blir til. In: Landet blir til; Norges Geologi ( I. B.Ramberg , I.Bryhni , A.Nøttvedt , eds.), Norsk Geologisk Forening, 178–229.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. GabrielsenR.H., FærsethR.B., JensenL.N., KalheimJ.E. and RiisF.1990. Structural elements of the Norwegian continental shelf – Part 1: The Barents Sea region. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) Bulletin6, 33.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GernigonL., BrönnerM., FichlerC., LøvåsL., MarelloL. and OlesenO.2011. Magnetic expression of salt diapir‐related structures in the Nordkapp Basin, western Barents Sea. Geology39 (2), 135–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GunnP.J.1997. Application of aeromagnetic surveys to sedimentary basin studies. AGSO17 (2), 133–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HatchD. and AnnecchioneM.2010. Gravity Gradient Interpretation of Salt Bodies in Nil‐Zone Regimes. SEG Expanded Abstracts29, 1127.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HaugenJ.A., MispelJ., and ArntsenB.2009. Seismic imaging below „dirty“ salt. 71st Conference & Exhibition, EAGE, Expanded Abstract,
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HokstadK., MyrlundE.A., FotlandB., WesterdahlH., MasnaghettiL., HogstadK., IngebrigtsenA. and UriL.2009. Salt imaging in the Nordkapp Basin with electromagnetic data. Preprint to appear in SEG monograph on electromagnetic methods.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HokstadK., FotlandB., MackenzieG., AntonsdottirV., FossS.‐K., StadtlerC., FichlerC., HaverlM., Traub WaaganB. M., MyrlundE. A., MasnaghettiL., CeciF. and RayaP. Y.2011. Joint imaging of geophysical data: Case history from the Nordkapp Basin, Barents Sea. SEG, Extended Abstract, 18–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HustonH.H. and SestakH.1999. Methodology for interpreting 3‐D marine gravity gradiometry data. The leading Edge, 482–485.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. JensenL.N. and SørensenK.1992. Tectonic framework and halokinesis of the Nordkapp Basin, Barents Sea. In R.M.Larsen et al., eds., structural and tectonic modelling and its application to petroleum geology, NPF Special Publication1, 109–120Elsevier, Amsterdam
    [Google Scholar]
  21. LahtinenR., GardeA.A. and MelezhikV.A.2008. Paleoproterozoic evolution of Fennoscandia and Greenland. Episodes, 31 (1), 21–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. LauritsenT., BlomstrandL.B., OlesenO. and MørkA.2007. OSRAM II – Origin of sediment‐related AeroMagnetics II: Magnetic susceptibility measurements on shallow stratigraphic cores form the Finnmark Platform, Nordkapp Basin and Svalis Dome. Geological Survey of Norway (NGU) report2007.028, 109.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. LiX.2001. Vertical resolution: Gravity versus vertical gravity gradient. The Leading Edge20 (8), 901–904.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. MilleganP.2005. The art of collaboration. The Leading Edge, 380–382.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. MillerH.G. and SinghV.J.1994. Potential field tilt – a new concept for location of potential field sources. Applied Geophysics, 32, 213–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. MørkM.B.E., McEnroeS.A. and OlesenO.2002. Magnetic susceptibilities of Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments off Mid Norway and the role of siderite: implications for interpretation of high resolution aeromagnetic anomalies. Marine and Petroleum Geology19, 1115–1126.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. NilsenT.N., VendevilleB.C. and JohansenJ.‐T.1995. Influences of regional tectonics on halokinesis in the Nordkapp Basin, Barents Sea. In: Salt tectonics: a global perspective: (eds. M.P.A.Jackson , D.G.Roberts and S.Snelsen ), AAPG memoir65, 413–436.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. O'BrienJ., RodriguezA., SixtaD., DaviesM.A. and HoughtonP.2005. Resolving the K‐2 structure in the Gulf of Mexico: An integrated approach using prestack depth imaging and full tensor gravity gradiometry. The leading Edge, 404–409.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. OlesenO., RobertsD., HenkelH., LileO.B. and TorsvikT.H.1990. Aeromagnetic and gravimetric interpretation of regional structural features in the Caledonides of West Finnmark and North Troms. NorwegianGeology Survey Bulletin419, 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. ParkerR.L.1972. The rapid calculation of potential anomalies. Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society31, 447–455.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. PratsonL.F., BellR.E., AndersonR.N., DoschD., WhiteJ., AffleckC., GriesonA., KornB.E., PhairR.L., BiegertE.K. and GaleP.E., 1998. Results from a high resolution, 3‐D marine gravity gradiometry survey over a buried salt structure, Mississippi Canyon Area, Gulf of Mexico. In: Geologic applications of gravity and magnetics: Case histories ( R.I.Gibson and P.S.Millegan , eds.), SEG Geophysical Reference Series8, AAPG Studies in Geology 43, 137–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. PrietoC.1998. Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope – Understanding the magnetic response due to the salt intrusion. In: Geologic applications of gravity and magnetics: Case histories ( R.I.Gibson and P.S.Millegan , eds.), SEG Geophysical Reference Series8, AAPG Studies in Geology43, 14–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. RitzmannO. and FaleideJ. I.2007. Caledonian Basement of the western Barents Sea. Tectonics26 (5), TC5014.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. RobertsA.2001. Curvature attributes and their application to 3D interpreted horizons. First Break, 19(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  35. RobertsD. and SiedleckaA.2002. Timanian orogenic deformation along the northeastern margin of Baltica, Northwest Russia and Northeast Norway, and Avalonian–Cadomian connections. Tectonophysics352 (1–2), 169–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. RobertsD., TorsvikT.H., AndersenT.B. and RehnströmE. F.2003. The early Carboniferous Magerøy dykes, northern Norway: palaeomagnetism and palaeogeography. Geological Magazine140, 443–451.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. RønnevikH.C. and JacobsenH.P.1984. Structural highs and basins in the western Barents Sea. In: Petroleum Geology of the Northwest European Margin ( A.M.Spencer , E.Holter , S.O.Johnsen , A.Mørk , E.Nysæther , P.Songstad and Å.Spinnanger , eds.), Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF),, 19–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. SaadA.H.2006. Understanding gravity gradients – a tutorial. The Leading Edge, 942–949.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. SlagstadT., BarréreC., DavidsenB. and RamstadR.K.2008. Petrophysical and thermal properties of pre‐Devonian basement rocks on the Norwegian continental margin. Geological Survey of Norway Bulletin448, 1–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. SmelrorM., PetrovO.V., LarssenG.B. and WernerS.2009. Geological history of the Barents Sea. Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).
    [Google Scholar]
  41. SolliA. and NordgulenØ.2007. Berggrunnskart over Norge og kaledonidene i Sverige og Finnland – M 1:2 000 000. Geological Survey of Norway.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. StadtlerC., FichlerC. and WieneckeS.2008. Improved resolution of Moho geometry from modelled internal crustal load variations via a novel analytical solution (ASEP) – Norwegian Barents Sea. Eos Trans. AGU, 89(53), GP43B‐0806.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. TorsvikT. and CocksR.M.2005. Norway in space and time: A centennial cavalcade. Norwegian Journal of Geology85, 73–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. WieneckeS., BraitenbergC. and GötzeH.‐J.2007. A new analytical solution estimating the flexural rigidity in the Central Andes. Geophysical Journal International169, 789–794.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. WieneckeS., EbbingJ. and GernigonL.2007b. 3D gravity modelling, isostasy and elastic thickness calculation in the Barents Sea, Geological Survey of Norway (NGU), 2007.022.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12101
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12101
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Gravity gradiometry , Magnetics and Salt imaging
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error