1st-2nd Order
Cycles
3rd Order Cycles (Composite Sequences)
4th-5th Order Cycles (High-frequency Sequences, Cycle Sets, Cycles)
Terminology
of Cyclicity
Defining a
hierarchy of cyclicity is considered a basic step for constructing
a stratigraphic framework. The construction of this hierarchy
must be done as a conscious effort and must include data that
many times is considered non-standard for reservoir characterization.
Establishment of the longer-term signal requires incorporation
of data on the regional stratigraphic framework. For example,
many carbonate core descriptions recognize cycle tops only where
tidal-flat lithofacies are present, leaving all subtidal cycles
uninterpreted. This can create an inconsistent view of the cycle
hierarchy, with a few very thick cycles and a few very thin cycles
and no transitional cycles. Establishing a stratigraphic hierarchy
must entail looking at both big picture and detailed data Building
a robust sequence framework does not necessarily save time, but
instead gives a more predictive and useful end result.
The terminology advocated for cyclostratigraphy is a relative
one. In two-dimensional sequence parlance, the terms applied here
are composite sequence, high-frequency sequence, and high-frequency
cycles, discussed above. In the one-dimensional world of cyclostratigraphy
this hierarchy tends to be a numbered order system (1st = longest
term, 5th = shortest term). In most Precambrian through early
Cenozoic data sets it is not possible to constrain the time element
sufficiently to determine the average cycle duration. Still, most
workers find that a first-pass evaluation of their cycle hierarchy
in terms of this stratigraphic ordering is a useful exercise.
As better resolution techniques for absolute dating of stratigraphic
successions become available, it will be possible to improve the
current technique of finding upper and lower bounding surfaces
that are loosely constrained radiometrically and dividing the
elapsed time implied by the number of cycles in the interval to
arrive at a average cycle duration that is then matched to the
closest Milankovitch frequency.
1st-2nd
Order Cycles
Standard terminology
of cyclicity developed by Haq et al. (1987) and Goldhammer et
al. (1990) is still in a state of flux. The terminology of cyclicity
is extremely simple. The application of this terminology to the
real world, and the normalization of this terminology is more
difficult. A more important scale of cyclicity for regional exploration
and for thorough understanding of the stratigraphic hierarchy
of the reservoir setting is the 2nd order or 10-100 my event.
These packages include stacks of seismically resolvable depositional
sequences in an Exxon sense, and have predictable changes within
each. The Exxon term for these packages is supersequence. Typically
the condensed section at the supersequence scale forms the key
regional hydrocarbon source bed.
3rd Order
Cycles (Composite Sequences)
The 3rd-order
scale of stratigraphic packaging and it's use in interpretation
of seismic datasets is important and forms the basis of the original
Exxon global cycle chart (Vail et al. 1977). Third-order cycles
are 1-3 my (Haq et al. 1987) or 1-10 my (Goldhammer et al. 1991)
units that are representative of the classic Exxon-type depositional
sequences.
The origin of these cycles and their global synchroneity are problematic.
Whereas a general consensus exists regarding the longer term units
of clear tectono-eustatic origin, and the higher-frequency units
that are more defensibly of glacio-eustatic origin, no such agreement
exists for third-order units (Miall 1986, Miall and Tyler 1991).
The ability to demonstrate global synchroneity with biostratigraphic
techniques is typically not available, and in cases where precise
dating is available, significant variations exist in timing and
character of sequences in different basins as a result of syndepositional
tectonism and flux in sediment supply. Possible mechanisms are
changing rates of sea-floor spreading and long-term climatic/glacio-eustatic
variations. Regardless of origin, our experience working with
40 Hz regional seismic data illustrates that, in comparison with
our outcrop-defined sequence hierarchy, the 3rd-order or composite
sequence scale is that which is resolvable on this quality of
data.
4th-5th
Order Cycles (High-frequency Sequences, Cycle Sets, Cycles) (after
van Wagoner, 1990)
Sea-level
cycles in the 20-400 ky duration range are the "bread and
butter" of carbonate reservoir characterization. General
consensus is that most of these cycles are forced by Milankovitch-band
glacio-eustacy (e.g. Koershner and Read 1989; Goldhammer et al.
1990) or productivity/oxygenation (Fischer and Bottjer, 1991).
Milankovitch-band changes are generated by cyclic variations in
the shape of the earth's orbit, and in the tilt and wobble of
the axis. The earth cycles are precession (19-23 ky), obliquity
(41 ky), and eccentricity (100-400 ky). The Milankovitch signal
must be viewed in the context of the icehouse/greenhouse cycles
of the Phanerozoic (Sandberg 1983), which are roughly in-sync
with first-order tectono-eustatic cycles.
Milankovitch icehouse-greenhouse settings are fundamental to the
way that cycles are developed in carbonate platforms. Major differences
in lithofacies continuity, preservation of depositional topography,
and formation of diagenetically enhanced porosity can be tied
to these changes. During icehouse periods, including the late
Proterozoic, late Ordovician, the later half of the Carboniferous
through Permian, and the Cenozoic, major ice sheets existed and
melting and reformation of these sheets, largely tied to eccentricity
cycles, yielded 100-400 ky (4th order) cycles with up to 100 m
sea level amplitudes. During greenhouse periods, including the
Late Cambrian through Devonian, and middle Triassic through Cretaceous,
warmer climates prevailed, ice caps were minimal, and a 20 ky
sea-level cycle with a low-amplitude (10 m), high-frequency signal
dominated. Read (1994) notes that the Milankovitch band glacio-eustatic
signal may be enhanced during third-order lowstands, which are
presumably periods of greater ice volume overall. These relationships
are summarized in Figures 1.13 and 1.14.