Discussion on Tectonic and Climatic Control of Triassic Sedimentation in the Beryl Basin, Northern North Sea Journal, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 150, 1993, pp. 796-798, Printed in Northern Ireland Discussion on tectonic and climatic control of Triassic sedimentation in the Beryl Basin, northern North Sea Journal, Vol. 149, 1992, pp. 13-26 P. Richards writes: Frostick et al. (1992) provide a very provided include part of the Lunde Formation, and the readable and concise account of the Triassic evolution of the thickness of the Lomvi Formation should probably be Beryl Embayment area. The account is an analysis of a revised to a range of about 50 m to a maximum of about 110 sedimentary succession often glossed over by previous m (in well 9/19-2 of their fig. 4). workers, and they should be commended for attempting to Frostick et al. state that the Triassic succession generally explain the nature of these sediments. However, I have thickens westwards towards the fault zone. However, serious reservations concerning some of their lithostrat- correct correlation of the wells on their fig. 4 shows that: (a) igraphic correlations, and the assumptions that they make no assertions can be made about the thickness variations of from them and from some of their other data. Most the Teist Formation based on well data because of the seriously, their correlation of Lomvi Formation sediments termination of most wells within the Formation; (b) the appears to lead Frostick et al. to erroneous implications and Lomvi Formation does not thicken in a wedge towards the assumptions. fault, but actually appears to thicken from west to east Firstly, I would like to draw attention to Frostick et al.'s rather than from east to west on line B-B'; and (c) that the misrepresentation of the Triassic lithostratigraphic scheme Lunde Formation does thicken to the west on line A-A', postulated by Lervik et al. (1989; not 1990 as Frostick et al. but it is noted by Frostick et al. that such thinning of Lunde quote), since this has profound implications for many other to the east may be a result of erosion. No assumptions aspects of the paper. In their fig. 2, Frostick et al. depict the concerning the tectonic evolution of the basin should Lervik et al. view of Triassic lithostratigraphy as showing therefore be made based on this well-data as presented. two divisions of the Lomvi Formation, labelled Upper Frostick et al. also suggest that seismic sections show Lomvi and Lower Lomvi formations on the figure. Lervik et evidence of thickening of the succession towards the west. al. (1989) did not make such a subdivision of the Lomvi However, their fig. 6, seismic line C-C', does not go Formation. Frostick et al. appear to have erroneously through any wells, and the label they use to pin-point base interpreted Lervik et al.'s Unit 4 (on Lervik et al.'s fig. 9) as Triassic totally obscures the seismic section; no well part of the Lomvi Formation whereas Lervik et al. (p. 182) evidence is proferred to constrain the seismic interpretation, clearly stated that this unit formed the lowest part of the and no opportunity is presented for the reader to check overlying Lunde Formation. independently the validity of their base Triassic pick. Extending their miscorrelation of the lowermost Lunde Frostick et al. claim to be able to reconstruct a Triassic Formation with the Lomvi Formation, Frostick et al. depict, fault pattern derived (partly) from their isopach data. The on their fig. 4 line A-A' and B-B', a Lomvi Formation change of scale between their isopach and fault maps (figs 5 comprising a lowermost interval of clean sand with a low and 7 respectively) does not make it easy to compare the gamma ray response, and an uppermost interval of two, but superimposition of the two figures suggests that interbedded sediment with an erratic gamma ray log some of their derived assumptions/inferences are wrong. response. Such subdivision of the Lomvi Formation is Firstly, there is no justification for their statement that, incorrect; the top of the Lomvi Formation as defined by 'movement on the East Shetland Fault is evident on... the Vollset & Dor6 (1984) is actually the top of the lowermost, isopach map'; the thickest sections are apparently unrelated clean sand/low gamma ray interval, and the overlying to the basin bounding fault and occur in the central parts of interbedded deposits are Lunde Formation. The miscor- the embayment. Secondly, they refer to the faults on their relation of the top of the Lomvi Formation is made in wells fig. 7 as 'faults that were active.., during the Triassic', and 9/13-13, 9/13-22, 9/12-1, 9/13-4 and 9/13-4a on line B-B' thus could reasonably be expected to have affected the Furthermore, the log break that Frostick et al. pick as the isopach distribution. However, superimposition of the two top of their Lomvi Formation is, on well 9/13-22 in their fig. maps does not appear to indicate any significant degree of 4, merely an artefact of the fact that logging run 1 ended control by these faults on the thickness distributions; most and logging run 2 started at that level; the apparent break is of the faults cut right through isopach contours without any not geologically valid, and is certainly not the formation apparent causal effect. boundary, which occurs 110 m lower in that well. These Moving on to Frostick et al.'s discussion of sedimenta- correlations affect assumptions and inferences made later in tion models inevitably brings up the problems of their their paper. lithostratigraphic correlations again. They present a series A further point by Frostick et al. regarding the use of of graphs (their fig. 10) depicting the variation in shale existing lithostratigraphic terms is that they suggest that volume, total percentage of coarsening-up beds and mean Vollset & Dor6 (1984) made three subdivisions of the Lunde bed thickness for the Lomvi and Lunde formations in a Formation; this is not the case. Lervik et al. (1989) did, number of wells on their west to east sections A-A' and however, make two subdivisions of the Formation. B-B'. From these graphs they draw conclusions relating to Frostick et al. state that the Lomvi Formation varies in the evolution of the depositional system through time at thickness from 50m to 205m. However, the figures various localities. However, the graphs and the results 796 Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/jgs/article-pdf/150/4/796/4892598/gsjgs.150.4.0796.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 DISCUSSION 797 pertaining to them are virtually meaningless as shown, from well to well, a decision that is seemingly acceptable to because their Lomvi Formation in many, but not all the Richards in the eastern part of the basin and further up on wells used, incorporates a large part of the Lunde the hanging wall. In well 9/13a-22, this signature involves Formation because of the original lithostratigraphic API values for the natural GR log which average 44 in the miscorrelation. Wells on the right side of the Lomvi undisputed part of the Lomvi Fm. The undisputed Lunde Formation graphs probably correctly depict Lomvi Fm has an average API value of 87 (roughly double), while Formation sequences, but those on the left side may depict the average API of the disputed rock--Upper Lomvi Lomvi plus part of Lunde Formation successions. This according to us, Lunde according to Richards--lies at 54, invalidates at least the upper parts of the curves shown on only 20% higher than the undisputed Lomvi but 40% lower each of the Lomvi Formation graphs and the comparisons than the undisputed Lunde. In terms of the GR log, the made between the Lomvi and Lunde graphs; it also means disputed rock is obviously much closer in character to Lomvi that the implied increase in amount of shale, in bed than to Lunde. thickness and in percentage of coarsening up beds towards Besides this, Richards would have us draw our top the platform in the Lomvi Formation may be totally Lomvi boundary in 9/13a-22 underneath 110 m of erroneous. It may not reflect, therefore, as stated by the interdigitated sandstone and mudstone (our Upper Lomvi) authors, the effects of a large river system draining to an in which the pronounced basal kicks towards high API enclosed lake in the hangingwall. values are undoubtedly a part-function of the granitic Frostick et al. point out the existence of supposed conglomeratic fragments reported by the mudlogger. There foresets within the Lomvi Formation, and explain them as is no suggestion that the fine-grained flood-basin conditions evidence of delta growth (presumably into a lacustrine of Lunde have been achieved at this stage. In any case, a system). However, these supposed foresets are in the order transition would be expected rather than an abrupt change of 50-100 m thick as shown on their fig 6; although no depth in conditions, and this is what we note as the reason for the conversion of this seismic interval is made by Frostick et al. interbedding of coarse and finer sediment in our Upper to illustrate the foreset thickness, rough comparison with the Lomvi. Furthermore, because of environmental inertia and two-way-time v. depth profiles produced by Swallow (1987) the lag that we know can mean great persistence of for the Beryl Embayment suggests that the supposed land-systems in present-day arid zones even as climate foresets are of the order of 100 m to 200 m thick. This changes (Wolman & Gerson 1978; Reid 1993), it is our seems an inordinately thick foreset deposit for a river fed contention that rocks of such a transition will inevitably hold delta prograding into a lake within such a small basin; the more of the characteristics of the old regime than those of streams draining the hangingwall blocks would have been the new.