Lyell Collection
Geological Society, London, Special Publications
Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help

Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Giles, M. R.
Right arrow Articles by James, D. M. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 1998; v. 141; p. 15-43;
DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.141.01.02
© 1998 Geological Society of London

Compaction — the great unknown in basin modelling

M. R. Giles, S. L. Indrelid & D. M. D. James1

Shell International Exploration & Production BV, RTS Rijswijk, Volmerlaan 8, 2280 AB Rijswijk, The Netherlands
1 , 3 Finedon Hall, Finedon NN9 5NL, UK

Decompaction routines are used in basin modelling packages to calculate sediment thickness and material properties such as thermal conductivity. However, compaction in nature is dependent on initial porosity, composition, and effective stress, and a considerable range of porosity-depth trends exists. Simple thermal modelling demonstrates that significant uncertainties (up to VRE ± 0.5) arise in predicted maturities due to this variation. Furthermore, the validity of using porosity loss as a measure of compaction is questionable because changes in solid volume can occur. Chemical reaction may increase or decrease porosity without changing sediment thickness, although an apparently smooth transition occurs from dominantly mechanical processes of porosity loss (e.g. grain rearrangement) at shallow levels to dominantly chemical processes (e.g. grain dissolution/cementation) at depth. That compaction and porosity loss are processes dependent upon effective stress, time and temperature is illustrated by the observation of overpressuring in the subsurface, comparison of experimental and natural compaction rates and analysis of porosity-depth trends for sediments of different ages. Mechanistic models of the processes involved in compaction (e.g. pressure solution) also indicate time dependency. Time-dependent models of compaction can be constructed, but these are difficult to incorporate into basin models as they cannot be run in a simple backstripping mode.





This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Geological Society, London, Special PublicationsHome page
S. P. Holford, P. F. Green, J. P. Turner, G. A. Williams, R. R. Hillis, D. R. Tappin, and I. R. Duddy
Evidence for kilometre-scale Neogene exhumation driven by compressional deformation in the Irish Sea basin system
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 2008; 306: 91 - 119.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Geological Society, London, Special PublicationsHome page
S. M. Clarke, S. D. Burley, G. D. Williams, A. J. Richards, D. J. Meredith, and S. S. Egan
Integrated four-dimensional modelling of sedimentary basin architecture and hydrocarbon migration
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 2006; 253: 185 - 211.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Geological Society, London, Special PublicationsHome page
P. D. Ware and J. P. Turner
Sonic velocity analysis of the Tertiary denudation of the Irish Sea basin
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 2002; 196: 355 - 370.
[Abstract] [PDF]