T he AniLTicari Assn^'iLitinn of Petroleum ticologisis Bullelin

V. 6 y , N o , 1 (.lanuarv )9S5), P. 92-105. 1.1 Figs., 3 Tables

Basin Evaluation Using Burial History Calculations: an Overview*

T. M. GUIDISH/ C. G. ST. C. KENDALL,' L LERCHE/ D. J. TOTH,' and R. E YARZAB'

ABSTRACT improve an explorationist's ability to assess the hydrocar-

bon potential of plays or prospects. The technical key to
Burial history calculations available to the petroleum this burgeoning mode of exploration is the recent develop-
geologist include plots of burial history and geohistory, ment of "user-friendly" computer software that can easily
porosity, and conductivity as a function of depth and manipulate both well and seismic data. Data input
lithology, as well as the results obtained from algorithms includes depths of formation tops, ages of formation
to handle unconformities and backstripped crustal subsi- tops, lithologies of formations, and, where available,
dence, calculations that predict the breakdown of kerogen depths of water at time of deposition of each formation,
to hydrocarbons in terms of time and temperature, and porosities of formations as a function of depth, bottom-
methods for determining heat flow from geologic models hole and/or formation temperatures, percentages and
and vitrinite reflectance. Data inputs required for these kinds of kerogen present with depth, and vitrinite reflec-
calculations include depths of formation tops, ages of for- tance values from at least 10 well-spaced specific depths.
mation tops, lithologies of formations, depths of water at Sources of these data may be geophysical logs, cuttings
deposition of the different formations, porosities of the from wells, well reports, and/or stratigraphically inter-
formations as a function of depth, bottom-hole tempera- preted seismic sections that have had two-way traveltime
tures and/or formation temperatures, and any kerogen converted to depth and have been tied to the wells.
content and vitrinite reflectance values as functions of Burial history and thermal history can be used to deter-
depth. Sources of many of these data may be well logs, mine the oil and gas potential of reservoir rocks and their
well reports, geologic papers, and/or seismic sections. porosity. If burial history is plotted graphically or just cal-
The paper considers how parameters can be extracted culated, the resulting curves and/or outputs can be used to
from burial-history calculations to construct maps that prepare paleostructure maps and cross sections of reser-
can be compared to the current locations of oil and gas voir and source rock units, on which thermal maturity can
fields, and so used to locate and rank prospective acreage. be shown as a function of time. Tied to seismic strati-
These parameters include the potential source rock matu- graphic studies, burial and thermal histories provide a
rity of a formation plotted as a function of time and depth, basis for analyzing the timing and identifying possible
the thermal history of any hydrocarbons associated with paths of oil migration with respect to trap history.
the potential source rock, the rate of sediment accumula-
tion of a formation as a function of time, and subsidence
rate of a formation as a function of time. Subsidence rate BURIAL HISTORY, GEOHISTORY, AND BACKSTRIPPED
includes total subsidence, compaction-induced subsi- SUBSIDENCE
dence, isostatic response to sediment load, and back-
stripped crustal subsidence (total subsidence minus the Geohistory (Figure 1) and burial history plots (Figure 2)
effects of compaction and isostatic response). and calculations can be used to predict the age and thick-
INTRODUCTION ness of formations (van Hinte, 1978), estimate the amount
of material removed at unconformities by erosion (Figure
This paper is an overview of the way geologic and seismic 3), and estimate the rate of sediment deposition as a func-
stratigraphic information of a region can be used to tion of time (Figure 2). In addition, thicknesses of geologic
layers can be used to predict the thermal history of geo-
logic formations either from backstripped subsidence or
©Copyright 1985. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All
rights reserved. thermal indicators.
^Manuscript received, August 1,1983; accepted. May 29,1984. The data needed to construct burial curves that do not
^Gulf Research & Development Co., P.O. Box 37048, Houston, Texas
77236.
model changes in thickness (as in curve uR, in Figure 1) are
•'Gulf Research & Development Co. Presently at Department of Geology, the numerical geologic ages of the layers, their depths, and
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208. the water depth of each layer at its time of deposition. The
^Department of Geology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South
Carolina 29208. burial-history plot (Figure 2) or calculation is then simply
^St. Johns River Water Management District, P.O. Box 1429, Palatka, Flor- obtained by linearly interpolating between the depth at the
ida 32077. present time for the first layer and the time at which this
^Perq Systems Corp., 2600 Liberty Ave., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230.
The writers thank all those who helped develop the burial-history program layer was on the surface. Ignoring compaction effects, all
we created to test the concepts described in this paper: specifically Rande lower layers move up at the same rate as the first layer. At
Burton, Elvira Camino, M. Johnson, Carl Koyner, Robert Meyer, Dave Petroy,
Rick Slater, and Guila Stauffer. Many people contributed ideas to improve and
the time when the first layer was on the surface, we know
expand upon the ideas expressed in this paper Notable among these are the depths of all lower layers. Then it is simply a matter of
Robert Burruss, Connie Cigler, Roger Cutler, David Falvey, Stan Frost, Mitch repeating the process until all layers have been moved to
Harris, Jeffrey Nunn, Allan Nuns, Mary Rogan, Nahum Schneidermann, B.
Shaffer, Jan van Hinte, and Gary Zielinski, Finally, we thank Gulf Research for the surface. The geohistory plot (Figure 1) (i.e., the plot of
encouraging the publication of this paper. the depth below sea level) is then constructed by adding the

92
 T. M. Guidish et al 93

WELL
depth of water at each time of deposition. This is the back-
SECTCNl
stripping process.
However, in order to calculate burial history and geohis-
— ml —
tory and construct plots in which compaction is modeled,
it is necessary to model the changes in rock porosity with
— g — depth. This modeling is illustrated by considering the rate
of sediment accumulation (R) with respect to time given by
— f _
van Hinte (1978):
— e —

R = Tp(l-</.)/A(l-.>o). (1)
— d —
where T^ is the thickness at present porosity (0), A is the
time duration, and ^o is porosity at time of deposition.
Thus, in order to model layer thickness as a function of
time, it is necessary to model the change in porosity as a
function of time or, equivalently, as a function of depth.
Van Hinte (1978) has illustrated how to do this for present
porosities taken from well data and from arbitrarily cho-
sen initial porosities. In the absence of porosity data from
wells, phenomenological models can be used to relate
— TD —
porosity to depth or load for various lithologies. One such
model proposed by Sclater and Christie (1980) supposes
•1500—J an exponential decrease in porosity with depth. The pre-
factor and exponential decay constant depend on the
Figure 1—Geohistory diagram for a hypothetical weU. Upper
curve shows water-depth history for location; lower curves show lithology of the rock in question. Even though actual val-
subsidence and uplift at that location. Times TD through c repre- ues of porosity are variable and depend on compositional
sent era of tectonic subsidence; c through g represent era of uplift variations of lithology, effects of overpressure or under-
(after van Hinte, 1978). compaction, and/or diagenesis, they generally decrease

BURIAL H I S T O R Y W I T H SEA LEVEL P L O T

F O R ALL FLAGGED L A Y E R S
PAST PRESENT

Cretaceous Tertiary RATES OF ACCUMULATION.

WELL SECTION
SUBSIDENCE. AND BASEMENT SUBSIDENCE
DOWN TO
b LAYER MODELED 150 100 50 0
^„-i.ajtej Rate of Accumulation
iS Rate of Subsidence
£«ts..9l£»sm?nL
Subsidence

..JBWMa.
Hi
...SBJlMa
ih
...SaQ.Ma

ir
JJ.5.g_Ma
176.1 Ma
r o \
W^-
rli] 'li^-'-n.
AGE [MILLION YEARSI AGE [MILLION YEARSI

Figure 2—Machine-generated burial history plot of Norway well. R„ = 0.5 and R„ = 0.7 curves represent Waples' thresholds for
onset and maximum generation of oil, respectively. Rates of sediment accumulation, subsidence, and basement subsidence as a func-
tion of age are also shown.
94 Basin Evaluation Using Burial History Calculations

time • time •
time •

sediment
depth
sediment sediment
depth depth

UNCONFORMITY TREATED
AS NO D E P O S I T I O N . NO E R O S I O N .
U N C O N F O R M I T V T R E A T E D AS
EQUAL TIME OF D E P O S I T I O N
AND EQUAL TIME OF E R O S I O N
AT SOME FIXED RATE
T A K E N TO BE RATE
PRIOR TO U N C O N F O R M I T V
U N C O N F O R M I T Y T R E A T E D AS MASS
D E P O S I T E D AT PR E - U N C O N F O R M I T Y
RATE F O L L O W E D BY EQUAL M A S S
E R O D E D AT P O S T - U N C O N F O R M I T Y
RATE_

Figure 3—Geohistory diagram for hypothetical well with unconformities handled in different ways.

with depth. Sclater and Christie's (1980) model approxi- h, = f [l-0(z)] dz, (5)
mates this overall depth behavior in porosity. Based on the
data of Athy (1930) and Hedberg (1936) for normal pres- that is.
sures, the porosity ((^) can be represented by:
h^ = (Z2 - Zi) - (0o/c) ( e" ^1 -e-"2 ). (6)
0 = 0„e-' (2)
Hence, knowing that a rock layer was on the surface at a
where <^<, is the surface (z = 0) porosity. The constant (c) previous time, where z, = 0, we can calculate its base by
must be given for each different lithology. A table of val- solving equation 6 self-consistently. Then the depths and
ues for 0 and c is given by Sclater and Christie (1980, Table thicknesses of all lower layers can be obtained sequentially
Ala). Values of ^o and c from actual bore-hole porosity and self-consistently. A similar equation is obtained in the
measurements can be obtained by fitting an exponential Falvey-Middleton analysis:
function via least-squares techniques. An alternate phe-
nomenological model of porosity versus depth has been Z4-Z3 = h, -H (l/k)fn([ l/0„ -H k z j / l 1/0,, -t^ kz3 ]). (7)
proposed by Falvey and Middleton (1981). In this model,
the porosity decreases as a function of the load on the layer Given the compaction parameters and drill-hole values of
being considered. depth, age, and paleowater depth, a computer program
Falvey and Middleton (1981) argued that in most cases can be designed that will give the burial-history and geo-
exponential porosity-depth relationships do not fit shal- history curves as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
lower depth data particularly well. They formulated a Another important factor to consider in conjunction
relationship by assuming the incremental change in poros- with porosity is the modeling of unconformities. At least
ity (d<l>/(j>) is proportional to the change in load (dL) and three possible ways to model an unconformity (Figure 3)
the void ratio (e) as: are:
1. As a depositional hiatus.
d(^/(/> = -kedL, (3) 2. As a period of deposition and erosion in which the
thickness of eroded section and the absolute age marking
where the beginning of erosion are determined from a knowledge
of the local geology (see van Hinte, 1978); these parame-
e = 0/(1 - 0) ters may be varied to see which model best fits other
and observed data (e.g., present-day vitrinite reflectance and/
or behavior of velocity or density logs).
dL==(l-0)dz, 3. As a period of deposition and erosion in which the
thickness of eroded section and the age at the beginning of
with dz being the change in depth of sediment due to the erosion are calculated as follows:
change in load and k a lithology-dependent constant. This
has the solution AGEE = (Rl X AGE 1 + R2 X AGE2)/(R1 -I- R2).
1/0 = l/0„ -h k z. (4) Eroded thickness = Rl x ( A G E E - A G E I ) ,

where 4>o is the initial uncompacted porosity and z is the where AGEE is the age at the beginning of erosion, AGEl
depth. and AGE2 are the observed ages of sediment immediately
Equations 2 and 3 make it relatively easy to correct well above and below the unconformity, and Rl and R2 are the
data for the effects of compaction. First, the total amount calculated sedimentation rates in the immediately overly-
(hs) of skeletal or solid material in an interval (z, to Zj) is ing and underlying sediment layers.
given in the Sclater-Christie model by Knowing the depth and thickness of each layer as a func-
 T. M. Guidish e t a l 95

MODEL OF UNLOADED needed: (a) amount of oil and gas generated per square
GEOLOGIC COLUMN kilometer in each source rock and in every part of the
COLUMN basin, (b) timing of hydrocarbon formation, timing of the
development of impermeable seals, and timing of folding
Sea Level
and faulting, so traps can be identified, (c) amounts of oil
and gas that have been expelled from the source rock into
WATER COLUMN the porous reservoirs and how much is still retained in the
OF HEIGHT W^ source rock, and (d) evaluation of the ukimate oil and gas
reserves of a sedimentary basin.
Sea Floor
SEDIMENT COLUMN Only a quantitative approach, allowing a computation
OF HEIGHT S, of the amount of oil and gas generated in any place in the
WITH POROSITY h basin as a function of time, can provide this information.
GIVEN BY ^ ( Z ) I
However, because many of the intermediate steps in petro-
/ leum and gas generation from kerogen degradation are
RADIOMETRIC
AGE MARKERS unknown, such a scheme has to be phenomenological;
that is, parameters have to be determined by least-squares
fitting to basin and laboratory data. Such a mathematical
FULLY COMPACTED model of petroleum generation accounting explicitly for
SEDIMENTS AND
CRYSTALLINE ROCKS
geologic time was first introduced by Tissot (1969) and is
EQUATE discussed fully by Tissot and Espitalie (1975). The model is
OVERBURDEN
MANTLE
<-WEIGHTS AT-i>'''
based on kinetics of kerogen degradation and uses the gen-
DEPTH OF eral scheme of first-order chemical kinetics. Kerogen is a
COMPENSATION macromolecule composed of polycondensed nuclei bear-
Figure 4—Schematic diagram of reconstructed Ooaded) sedi- ing alkyl chains and functional groups—the links between
mentary section and baclistripped (unloaded) sedimentary sec- nuclei being heteroatomic bonds or carbon chains. As the
tion. Parameters are defined in text (from Steckler and Watts, burial depth and temperature increase, the bonds are suc-
1978). cessively broken, roughly in order of increasing rupture
energy. The products generated are heavy heteroatomic
tion of time, and also knowing the lithologies of the layers compounds, carbon dioxide, and water, then progressively
and their densities, it is possible to determine the basement smaller molecules, and finally hydrocarbons. At the same
subsidence as a function of time by applying Airy (1855) time, the residual kerogen becomes progressively more
isostasy calculations. The depth of the earth's crust into aromatic and evolves toward a carbon residue.
the medium is determined by the load on the crust, as has Validity of a phenomenological model depends on two
been discussed by Bomford (1971). We can then apply factors: (1) the validity of the physics and chemistry
isostasy arguments, as discussed by Steckler and Watts involved in the calculation, and (2) the values of the
(1978), to backstrip (remove) the layers of sediment and parameters chosen. Tissot and Welte (1978) compared the
replace these layers by water. The basement subsidence (Y) figures computed by the model with the corresponding
in terms of the water depth at time of sediment deposition amounts of petroleum generated in various basins. They
(Wj) and sediment thickness (S) is given by (see also Figure claimed a quadratic deviation lower than 10'^ and a corre-
4): lation coefficient better than 0.9. The model has been
claimed to simulate experimental heating during various
Y = S[(p„ - ft)/(p^ - pj] + Wd - AsL [p^/(p„ - Pw)], (8) times from 1 hr to 1 yr—again with satisfactory agreement
with laboratory experiments. The same set of constants
where p„ is the average mantle density, p^ is the average given by Tissot and Welte (1978, Table V.4.1) is sufficient
water density, p^ is the average sediment density, ASL is the to account for all conditions of kerogen degradation
change in elevation of mean sea level, and Y is the depth to including: (a) evolution at relatively low temperatures
basement without sediment and water loads and repre- (50°-150°C; 122°-302°F) over a time of 10 to 400 m.y., (b)
sents the subsidence caused by tectonic effects. artificial evolution through laboratory experiments (180°-
The terms W^, and AgL must be determined from sedi- 250°C; 356°-482°F), and (c) high-temperature (400°-
ments by paleobathymetric analysis. 500°C; 752°-932°F) retorting of oil shales.
The constants, however, were determined using constant
geothermal gradients. Strictly speaking, the use of Q (heat
HYDROCARBON GENERATION AND flow/unit time) or bottom-hole temperature data gener-
THERMAL HISTORY ates changing thermal gradients with depth and time and
requires a recalibration of values for greater validity and
One of the principal goals of explorationists using applicability.
burial-history technology is the prediction of source rock To apply the phenomenological model of Tissot and
maturity and the ranking of prospects. Welte (1978) to the prediction of change in hydrocarbon
Involved in the evaluation of a sedimentary basin is the content of rocks with respect to time and temperature, it is
determination of the amounts of oil and gas that have necessary to assume first-order chemical reaction kinetics
been generated and accumulated and the locations in for the breakdown of kerogen to hydrocarbons as gov-
which they occur. To do this, the following information is erned by
96 Basin Evaluation Using Burial History Calculations
- d X i / d t = kiXi
-Ei/kBT(t)
A;e
where X| is the number density of component i, kj is the
reaction rate for this reaction, kg is Boltzmann's constant,
A; is the reaction rate in the limit of high temperature, E, is
the activation energy, and T(t) is the temperature as a func-
tion of time acting on the element X;.
In the Tissot and Welte scheme, three types of initial
kerogens are considered. The three types differ in their
hydrogen-to-carbon ratio. Loosely speaking, these three
types can be considered type 1 (algal) with a high petro-
leum potential, type 2 (amorphous) with an intermediate
petroleum potential, and type 3 (woody) with a low petro-
leum potential. Each of these types of kerogen is assumed
to have six different bond types. These six bond types have
strengths or activation energies in the range 10 to 80 kcal/
mole. The amount of organic material (x,) reacting in the
i'th reaction (breaking of the i'th bond type) for i = 1 to 6
is specified for each of the three kerogen types. Calibra-
tions for the formation of gas have been made from labo-
ratory experiments on hydrocarbon cracking.
Consideration of a single reaction with an activation
energy of 80 kcal/mole seems convenient to account for
gas generation in the deep parts of sedimentary basins.
Tables of the activation energies (E;), the reaction con-
stants (A;), and the initial values (x,) for each kerogen type
have been given by Tissot and Welte (1978, Table V.4.1).
To calculate the quantity of hydrocarbons produced by
potential source rocks, it is necessary to use the above cal-
culations and measurements or estimates of the percent-
age of organic material in those source rocks. Nakayama
and Van Siclen (1981) detailed the methodology of this sys-
tem to work out a hydrocarbon budget for a basin. In
order to make predictions about the hydrocarbon history
of a basin, it is also necessary to determine the temperature
as a function of time. Tissot and Welte (1978) assumed
that heat flux was constant and used constant geothermal
gradients in their models. However, by allowing the heat
flux to vary with time, their model is improved. The tem-
perature, as a function of time, for a basin with a variable
basement heat source, Q(t), located at Z = Z^as^^^^, is given
by the heat-diffusion equation:
dT/di = ( p C ) - V • (KVT) + ( p C ) - ' Q(t) 6(Z - Zb,,emen.).
where C is the specific heat, p is the density, K is the ther-
mal conductivity, and 6(Z) is the Dirac 6-function.
If Q(t) varies slowly as a function of time compared to
the diffusion time scale through the top 3-5 km (9,800-
16,400 ft) of the earth's crust and sediment (i.e., slowly on
a time scale compared to about 4 or 5 m.y.), then the solu-
tion of the heat diffusion equation is approximated by^:
T(t) = T,(t) + Q(t) D(t)/K(t,z),
{9a) where T,(t) is the temperature at the top of the layer as a
function of time, D(t) is the layer thickness as a function of
time, and K(t,z) is the thermal conductivity of the layer as
a function of time and depth. Thus, in order to predict
(9b) basin maturity as a function of time, it is necessary to
know Q(t), D(t), and K(t,z). Although D(t) and K(t,z) can
be determined from the burial history and lithology, in
order to make accurate predictions of hydrocarbon matu-
rity, Q(t) must be determined also over the range of the age
of the basin to the present. The previous section showed
how to determine layer thickness D(t) using porosity-
depth relations and the decompaction relation given.
To estimate paleotemperature, it is necessary to know the
thermal conductivity as a function of time—K(t,z). For
two reasons, it is difficult to extrapolate the data in a par-
ticular basin back into the past. First, there are large dif-
ferences in lithology; second, most extrapolation
techniques involving empirical relations connecting ther-
mal conductivity to porosity have been worked out only
for sandstones. Sandstones often occur only in limited
areas and may have been deposited during relatively brief
time intervals in a basin. However, these empirical tech-
niques provide the basis for tackling other lithologies,
such as shales or limestones. Evans (1977) and Sclater and
Christie (1980) have shown that such empirical relations
have considerable validity for the pre-Tertiary shales,
marls, and chalks of the North Sea. Thus, if a reasonable
estimate of the porosity can be determined, it is then possi-
ble to relate thermal conductivity to porosity The point
here is that, if a sediment contains water in its matrix, at
100% porosity the sediment will have the conductivity of
water, whereas, when totally compacted, it will have the
conductivity of the matrix. The conductivity will vary
between the two extremes, and it is only necessary to
obtain some values in between in order to obtain a relation
between porosity and conductivity that is reasonably valid
throughout the expected range of porosity. Such phenom-
enological relations have been obtained from the data of
Sclater and Christie (1980) and Evans (1977) for shale,
sands, chalks, shaly sand, and salt. The dependence of
thermal conductivity on temperature is not included in this
calculation, but it is important.
To estimate the paleotemperature, it is necessary to know
thermal conductivity as a function of depth and time.
Because this cannot be measured, it is necessary to rely on
a phenomenological relation between thermal conductiv-
ity and some other parameter that can be deduced at pre-
vious times. A particularly useful relation exists between
thermal conductivity and porosity, because porosity as a
(10) function of time is calculated in the burial-history compu-
tation. Sclater and Christie (1978, Appendk B) have given
a relation between thermal conductivity and porosity for
North Sea chalks and shales. Their porosity values are
'The precise solution is T = Tj + Q J dz7K(z' ,t), where Tj is the surface
temperature. For a layer of thickness D(t) at depth z with a temperature on the
top of the layer of T,(z), we can equally write
T = T,(z) + 0(t)D(t)/<K(t,z)>,
where the average K, <K> is given by
i +D
<K>=[! d2 7K(t,z') I -^ D(t)
(11)
 T. M.Guidishetal 97

taken from deep sea clays and the shallow water North
Atlantic sediments of Ratchffe (1960). Observed thermal
1 ' 1 '1 ' 1 '
6.0 — 0 SHALE
conductivities are from Evans (1977). The relation n
between these two quantities is summarized in Figure ^ A CHALK
(Sclater and Christie, 1980, Appendix B). For porosities o ^*
intermediate between the data points shown in Figure 5, a -<J 5.0 — / ^
Unear interpolation scheme is used to obtain thermal con- COo / y^
ductivities. When few or no data are available, about the b
best that can be done is to write K^ = Kr(K„/K,)'^, where
4.0 —
K,, K„, and K^ are the thermal conductivities of rock // ~
matrix, water, and sediment, respectively, and (t> is the frac-
tional porosity (Lewis and Rose, 1970).
These values of the thermal conductivity have been o 3 3.0
inferred from the relationship between porosity and con- O
z 1 CHALK
ductivity; their reliability depends on porosity calcula- o
tions. Thermal conductivity is also a function of - I o 2 SHALES
temperature; however, to our knowledge this dependence < 2.0
has not been tested for its effect on real data. Kappelmeyer CO 111
and Haenel (1974) have summarized the available data on X
variation of thermal conductivity with temperature for L I . I . I . I ,
several rock types. The thermal conductivities of most 100 80 60 40 20 0
materials decrease with increasing temperature. The only
POROSITY (%)
material recorded whose thermal conductivity increases
with increasing temperature is shale. Shale is the most Figure 5—Relation between tliermal conductivity and porosity
common sedimentary rock occurring in most basins. for North Sea chall(S and shales. For porosities greater than 40%,
Using a small thermal conductivity (K) has the effect of values are taken from deep-sea clays and shallow-water North
increasing the temperature calculated at a given depth. Atlantic sediments of Ratcliffe (1960). Observed conductivities
Thus, the effect would be to predict that oil is mature, are from Evans (1977), with porosities estimated using relation of
Sclater and Christie (1980) (from Sclater and Christie, 1980).
whereas the oil actually may not yet be mature, or to pre-
dict that gas occurs, whereas the rock actually may be still
in the oil window, Thus, in order to make accurate predic-
areinfairagreementwiththe 1.19to 1.48 X lO'^cal/m^-
tions of hydrocarbon maturity, it is necessary to include
sec cited by Harper (1971). In contrast, Sclater and Chris-
the temperature dependence of thermal conductivity in
tie (1980) cited a heat flow of 1.7 x 10"^ cal/m^ • sec with
calculating temperatures via
no quoted error.

KL = (a + bT)- (12) Backstripped Subsidence and Heat-Flow History

where a is a poshive constant and b is a positive constant
for all materials except shale, where it is negative.
Total thermal conductivity is the sum of a lattice conduc-
tivity (KL) that decreases with increasing temperature, and
a radiative part (KR) that increases with increasing temper-
ature. For most materials, it is possible to ignore KR and
only consider KL. According to Kappelmeyer and Haenel
(1974), thermal conductivities typically decrease by a fac-
tor of about two between 0°C and 430°C (32°F and
806° F). This large effect occurs over the temperature
range that is the prime window for oil generation. It there-
fore appears necessary to include the effects of tempera-
ture variation of thermal conductivity in thermal
maturation calculations.
Any model of paleoheat flow must satisfy the condition
that it agrees with the present-day heat flow as determined
from bottom-hole or formation temperatures, surface
temperatures, and thermal conductivities determined
from present-day lithologies. For example, we found that
heat flows for the North Sea, which we determined using
the measured surface temperature, the corrected bottom-
hole temperatures, and thermal conductivities based on
the empirical porosity-thermal conductivity relations, are
in the range 1.0 to 1.8 x 10"^ cal/m^ • sec. These numbers
Backstripped subsidence (Y) can be predicted by geo-
logic models. By comparing our backstripped subsidence
(Y) with the predicted subsidence of a particular geologic
model, we can: (1) evaluate the validity of that geologic
model by examining the root-mean-square (r.m.s.) differ-
ence between the predicted subsidence and the back-
stripped subsidence, (2) make predictions of heat-flow
history using the geologic model, (3) calibrate the geologic
model against thermal indicators like vitrinite reflectance
or the annealing of fission track scars etc, and (4) predict
the maturity of potential source rocks, as a function of
time, away from wells using the crustal subsidence derived
from seismic sections.
Thus, geologic models are an important source of infor-
mation on the change in heat flow as a function of time.
However, the several available models do not agree even in
areas like the North Sea where we found that the heat flux
could be increasing for one model and be decreasing for
another. Also, in the Michigan basin, Cercone (1984) pro-
duced a model of heat-flow history that suggests much
higher heat flows in the past than those of Nunn (1981),
Nunn et al (1984), and others. Thus, it is important to be
able to assess quantitatively geologic models for basin for-
mation by comparing their predictions for subsidence and
98 Basin Evaluation Using Burial History Calculations
caUbrating their heat flow to independent measuremenis.
In this paper, we examine four basic models: the McKen-
zie lithosphere stretching model (McKenzie, 1978), ihe
dike intrusion model (Royden et al, 1980), the thermal
expansion model (Sleep, 1971), and the deep crustal meta-
morphism model (Falvey, 1974). A model not reviewed
here is the important two-layer extensional model, which
expands on the McKenzie (1978) model and has been
described by Royden and Keen (1980) and Hellinger and
Sclater (1983) and used by them to explain problems they
have with the models we discuss.
We begin with the thermal expansion model of Sleep
(1971). This model was designed to give the thermal his-
tory of the Atlantic continental margin. This margin
formed when spreading began between Africa, Europe,
and the Americas. It is proposed that the thermal history
of the margin resembles that of an oceanic crust as it
spreads away from a mid-oceanic ridge, so the thermal
structure of continental margins is deduced by studying
mid-ocean ridges. The most obvious feature of a mid-
oceanic ridge is its topographic anomaly. This anomaly is
interpreted as isostatically compensated thermal expan-
sion of hot material that intrudes along the axis of the
ridge. Due to thermal expansion, an initial uplift occurs.
Then, as the continental edge is removed from the source
of the thermal anomaly at the ridge crest, thermal contrac-
tion occurs and, consequently, subsidence. The elevated
surface gradually subsides to its original position as the
lithosphere cools. However, to produce the configuration
of many continental margins, material must be removed
on a large scale by erosion when uplift occurs.
In the Sleep model, the temperature is given by
T(x) = g(x) E exp (-K7r^n^tc"^)A„sin (nx z/c), (13) the McKenzie model, a rapid stretching of continental lith-
n odd
where
A„ = (2/c) i' T(z) sin (nxz/c) dz, (14) and slow subsidence occurs, with this latter not associated
K is the thermal diffusivity, x is the horizontal extent, z is explained as depending only on the amount of stretching,
the depth, and c is the maximum depth (i.e., thickness of which can be estimated numerically. In the McKenzie
the crust).
The function g(x) is a measure of the width of the ridge.
The amount of upMft u(x) caused by isostatically compen- Si = a [(p„ - p j (t,/a) (1 - aT, [t,/2a]) -(aT,p„/2)]
sated thermal expansion is then given by
u(x) = (2ac/7r) g(x) L (A„/n) exp (-KirVtc'^ ), (15)
nodd
where a is the volume coefficient of thermal expansion.
Because the first overtone attenuates nine times faster
than the fundamental, it is an excellent approximation to
keep only the first terms in equations 14 and 15. Then
u(x) = UQ (X) exp (-uTi^fh) (16)
where
u„(x) = (2ac/7r) A,g(x).
No sediments would accumulate if the lithosphere of the
newly formed continental margin expanded and then con-
tracted without any crustal thinning. One way to thin the
crust, as suggested by Sleep, is to erode it while it is
uplifted. The change in elevation with respect to base level
is the sum of the change due to thermal contraction and to
erosion. In the limit that the erosion time constant and the
heat-flow time constant are equal, Sleep gives a solution
for the elevation (E) with respect to the final level as a
function of time:
E = E„ (l-[K7rVc11) exp (-KirVh), (17)
where E„ is the initial elevation.
From the elevation, it is possible to calculate the subsi-
dence. Thus, by doing a least-squares comparison (dis-
cussed below in greater detail), it is possible to use
equation 13 to obtain parameters determining the heat
flow as a function of time, depth, and horizontal extent.
The thermal cooling model has been further considered by
Turcotte and Ahern (1977) as well as by Keen (1978). These
authors found that the subsidence as a function of time is
proportional to the square root of the time elapsed since
cooling began.
Several authors, including Hellinger and Sclater (1983),
have criticized the Sleep model. Within the Sleep model,
material must be removed on a large scale by erosion when
uplift occurs. For example, we would agree that there is no
evidence that 2 km (6,500 ft) or more of rock was removed
from the North Sea after block faulting during the Juras-
sic and Cretaceous (McKenzie, 1978). Erosion that did
occur is local and associated with the horsts produced by
normal faulting.
Another model for the development of sedimentary
basins, which has been proposed by McKenzie (1978),
avoids the necessity for material removal by erosion. In
osphere produces thinning and passive upwelling of hot
asthenosphere. This stage is associated with block faulting
and subsidence. The lithosphere then thickens by cooHng,
with faulting. The slow subsidence and heat flow are
model, the initial subsidence (Sj) is given by
x(l-l//3)/[p„(l-aT,)-pJ, (18)
where a is the thickness of the lithosphere, t;. is the initial
thickness of the continental crust, p^ is the density of the
mantle, p^ is that of the continent, p„ is the density of the
sea water, a is the thermal expansion coefficient of the
mantle, Tj is the temperature of the asthenosphere, and /?
is the crustal stretching factor.
For large values of time and small values of |8, the eleva-
tion is given by
E(t) = [4ap,aT,/x^(p„ - pj] e"\ (19)
where
T = a^/TT^K (20)
and K is the thermal diffusivity.
The heat flow Q(t) is given by:
 T. M. Guidish et al
Q(t) = (KT|/a) [1 + (2/3/x)sin(7r/^)e
For small values of 0 and large values of time, a straight
line fit which best approximates equation 19 for the subsi-
dence is given by
= E„r[(2t/er)"^-2e'"' + 1]
where
Eo = 4ap(,aT,/7r^(p<3-p„)
r = (13/T) sin (TT/JS)
and
T = 62.8 m.y.
The subsidence predicted by the McKenzie model is simi-
lar in form to that predicted by the TUrcotte-Ahern model.
In the McKenzie model, prior to the time of stretching,
the heat flow is given by the leading coefficient in equation
21 (i.e., KT,/a). Sclater and Christie (1980) pointed out
that the present-day heat flow (approximately 0.8 x 10"^
cal/m^ • sec) predicted by the McKenzie model (see Figure
15) is too low to agree with the present measurements of
heat flow measured in the North Sea (approximately 1.5
X 10"^ cal/m^ • sec). Sclater and Christie liave proposed a
modification of the McKenzie model in which the heat
flow has an additional component of 0.8 x 10"^ cal/m^ •
sec coming from the decay of radioactive elements within
the crust. Another modification has been proposed by
Keen et al (1981), in which the effect of thermal blanketing
by low thermal conductivity sediments is included, slow-
ing the cooling of the lithosphere. This effect is claimed to
be particularly important to studies of older rifted mar-
gins, as in the North Sea, where large thicknesses on the
order of 15 km (49,000 ft) of sediments have been depos-
ited. Royden and Keen (1980) and Hellinger and Sclater
(1984) have proposed a modified stretching model encom-
passing two layers. This model was proposed to handle
some problems not confronted by McKenzie. Specifically,
it explains uplift and erosion on the flanks of a rift basin.
Another model that provides an exponential subsidence
compatible with observational data involves the fracture
of the continental lithosphere and its intrusion by dikes
from the mantle. Replacement of light crustal rocks by
denser ultramafic material results in initial subsidence and
avoids the general problem of uplift as in Sleep's theory.
This model has been proposed by Royden et al (1980). If y^
is the fraction of lithosphere composed of dike material
intruded from the asthenosphere, then the heat flow Q(t),
and surface elevation u(t), respectively, are given by
00
Q(t) = ( T „ K / 0 ( l + 2 7 d E e" nV^/(t/^\
n=l
u(t) = Kp„T„/(p„-pJ](47,M
X I^jj [l/(2n + 1)^] exp(-(2n + 1) \ht/e^),
99
(21 where T„ is the temperature at the base of the mantle, I is
the thickness of the lithosphere, K is the thermal dif fusivity
of the lithosphere, a is the thermal expansion coefficient
of the mantle, p^ is the density of the mantle, p^ is the den-
sity of water, and K is the thermal conductivity.
The theories of basin formation thus far considered all
(22) rely on the thermal contraction of the crust to produce
subsidence. An alternative explanation has been proposed
by Falvey (1974) and elaborated by Middleton (1980) and
Falvey and Middleton (1981). This explanation suggests
(23a) that the initial stage of subsidence is caused by deep crustal
metamorphism in basins of relatively young, or unaltered,
(23b)
crust. Falvey (1974) has demonstrated that elevation of the
geotherm during the rifting of continental margins may
produce subsidence of the margin due to deep crustal
(23c) metamorphism, and has also suggested that formation of
intracratonic basins may entail such a metamorphism.
The deep crustal metamorphism mechanism implies a sub-
sidence of:
IPmiPl - P\VP\ (Pm - Ps)] L(0. (26)
where L(t) is the thickness of greenschist facies rocks meta-
morphosed to amphibolite facies rocks at time t, /o, is the
density of the greenschist facies, pj is the density of the
amphibolite facies, p, is the density of the sediments, and
p„ is the density of upper mantle rocks. Falvey (1974) has
suggested that the metamorphism that drives the basin
subsidence occurs predominantly at the greenschist-
amphibolite facies boundary. The model entails a period
of heating followed by a period of cooling. Subsidence due
to deep crustal metamorphism occurs during the later part
of the heating period and is followed immediately by sub-
sidence due to thermal contraction during the cooling per-
iod. The time of transition between the heating phase and
the cooling phase is t,.
Subsidence is proposed to occur in two stages (see Figure
6). Initially, subsidence is thought to be due to deep-crustal
metamorphism and will continue as long as crustal tem-
peratures increase. This is followed by subsidence due to
thermal contraction of the lithosphere, and this occurs
over periods of time greater than tj (i.e., for the cooling
phase). The downward movement, ((t), of the earth's sur-
face due to metamorphism of the heating stage of the ther-
mal event is offset by the tendency for uplift, h(t). Total
displacement, taking these two factors into account, and
neglecting erosion, is given by
S(t) = f(t)-h(t) (27)
for i{t) < h(t), and
s(t) = ipj(fi^-p,)][m-m)] (28)
(24)
for e{t) > h(t), where -S(t) is uplift, p^ is the density of
mantle, p^ is the density of the sediment, and p^/(p,rrPd is
the isostatic loading factor.
Subsidence due to thermal contraction is given by
(25)
S(t) = [P™/(P„ -Ps)] [h(t,) -h(t) -I- h(t -1,)]. (29)
100 Basin Evaluation Using Burial History Calculations

FALVEY MODEL

THERMAL HISTORY
(PALEOHEAT FLOW)

Figure 7—Comparison of heat flow resulting from McKenzie

crustal extension model, derived using stretching factor of /3 =
1.8, and that from Falvey deep crustal metamorphism model (see
Falvey and Middleton, 1981).

Stretching model, assuming the parameterization given in

the paper by McKenzie (1978), two parameters are to be
determined: the time (t„) at which crustal stretching
occurred, and the parameter ^ which describes the magni-
tude of crustal stretching. The optimum values of fi and t^
correspond to those which minimize the r.m.s. difference
lia.a mc.B SB-B a,B" between model predicted subsidence and backstripped
AGE (MILLION YEARS)
subsidence.
Figure 6—Comparison of backstripped and model subsidence On the basis of these predictions for jS and to, we find
for well A in North Sea. Backstripped subsidence was obtained that the McKenzie crustal stretching model predicts a heat
from relation of Steckler and Watts (1980), assuming A^j^ = 0. flow in the North Sea at the present time of approximately
Model subsidence is that predicted by least-squares optimized 0.8 X 10"^ cal/m^ • sec. However, on the basis of corrected
Falvey deep-crustal metamorphism model (Middleton, 1980)
with constraint that present heat flow = 1.27 x 10'^ cal/m^ • sec, bottom-hole measurements, we find that the heat flow at
as obtained from bottom-hole measurements. the present time in the North Sea is approximately 1.27 x
10'^ cal/m^ • sec. Thus, the McKenzie crustal stretching
model, with the parameters given in the paper, is inconsis-
The distinguishing features of the Falvey-Middleton meta- tent with heat-flow measurements. It is possible to change
morphism model are that the heat flow increases up to the the parameters in the McKenzie crustal stretching model
point of breakup and then decreases, as opposed to the using as a constraint that the heat flow predicted by the
other models in which heat flow always decreases after the model at the present time must equal that determined
time of stretching. The heat flow from the metamorphism from bottom-hole temperatures. This can be done by
model is on the order of half that of the crustal extension treating the time constant T as a variable which, in addition
model (see Figure 7). to to and /3, must also be determined by the least-squares
Another geologic model that may be important in some minimization as discussed above. We do this by noting
areas, particularly those like the National Petroleum that the time constant is given by aVx. The prefactor of the
Reserve of Alaska, is the low-angle thrusting model. heat flow, however, can be expressed as
Beaumont (1981) and Jordan (1982) have shown that low-
angle thrusting with subsequent redistribution by erosion /c/a^ X T,a X constant.
and deposition can generate a foreland basin. In the case
studied by Jordan (1982), it was demonstrated that, in
Wyoming, a simple elastic lithospheric flexure model with The heat flow is proportional to Tja/r. We can determine
a rigidity of 10^^ to 10^'' N • m creates a depression large the constant Tia from the present heat flow for a chosen
enough to accommodate the sedimentary section mea- time constant and time of initiation of stretching. Thus,
sured in this region. Beaumont (1981) came to a similar we can do a least-squares minimization simultaneously on
conclusion by explaining the thickness of the sedimentary the parameters T, (3, and t^, subject to the constraint that
section in the Alberta foreland. The thermal history of the model heat flow matches that measured at the present
foreland basin sediments is a simple one of constant heat time. The results of this calculation are shown in Figures 8
flow with time but with an obvious relationship of heat and 9 for the subsidence and the heat flow as a function of
history to depth of burial. time, respectively. The mean-squared deviation improves
From the foregoing discussion, we see that there are sev- by 25 %. This corresponds to an increase in the value of the
eral geologic models for basin formation. The predictions parameter T,a by 37% from that predicted by McKenzie.
of these models for both heat flow and subsidence as func- This 37% increase can occur either in T, (the temperature
tions of time differ. If we are to make quantitative use of at the base of the mantle), or in a (the thickness of the man-
these models to predict heat flow, it is necessary to deter- tle), or in some combination of the two. It is not possible
mine the optimum set of parameters for a given model for to say which of these parameters should be renormalized
each specific well. For example, for the McKenzie crustal on the basis of this simple model.
 T. M.GuidJshetal 101

-ISB' -168* -157' -ise* 154° - 153' ise= -isa* -18fl' -155' -1S<* -183' -H2'

CENOMANIAN

,.E SIUPS0H2 ^.SIMPSONS

• , jlDflEW PT1 ^^W DAL TON
J>EAHD1
IMPSON1 , " TFOH
KUGHUAI SIMPS N ^^.^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ X" ^ ^ ^ A P E HAL

' \ ETESHEKPUK1 ^,,^,^^^

,TLINALIK1 IKPIKPUK! « •" I
' " hTiALIKPijtl S^IJJRRSNB
W?ISHCHEEK

.miGOK,

-laa* -161' -no* -1S9' -15«» -1!7' -156' "25.S- -.S<- -153- -.S2-

MID-EOCENE

71
,S BARROW

E SIMPSON • „ D R ^ P T t . J . V V D . L T O «

;KUORiJAl
•^S MEADE --....^^^

JkTIGARU PUT1
,TUNAIIK1 •UK1^< ' i \ ^ ' I
N.KALIKPIK^ \ S H A R R S N B 1
W.FISHCREEK ?0 ^FISHCREEK I

.,»».,
Figure 8—Contour map of vitrinite reflectance through time of Anisian sediments in National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska.

Sit •e f t e• e 15B .B lae .0 5i I 3.

with the values cited elsewhere in the literature; for exam-
ple, Sclater and Christie (1980) cited y in the range 0.20 to
\ backstrip ped subsiden 0.33. The predicted heat flow at the time of stretching is
2 approximately 30% higher than the heat flow today.
Modifications of the least-squares technique can be
model sub sidence
, applied to the other models that we have discussed in this
\ section. It is possible to determine an optimum geologic
N
LU
UJ '
N model for a basin based on subsidence data. We can also
determine heat flow as a function of time using vitrinite
reflectance data (Lerche et al, 1984). Unfortunately, such
LU
U
parameters as initial crustal thickness, average crustal den-
z
LU ~
sity, and thermal conductivity of rocks cannot be ade-
quately constrained solely by observed crustal subsidence.
CD
Therefore, more than one geophysical model of crustal
subsidence could fit the tectonic subsidence curve, so cali-
bration of vitrinite reflectance by thermal history would
provide a possible addition constraint. For example,
Royden and Keen (1980) proposed extensive subcrustal
extension beneath the Labrador margin to explain initial
uplift and erosion of the region. Such a model should have
obvious effects on thermal indicators carried by the sedi-
B 35 B 20 a 15 .a ta .D iB s e.

AGE (MILLION YEflRS)

mentary sequence, and should be testable. At present, we
are investigating how well the geologic models fit available
Figure 9—Comparison of backstripped and model subsidence vitrinite data. Such quantitative evaluations are necessary
for well A in North Sea. Backstripped subsidence was obtained if geologic models are to be used as reliable hydrocarbon
from relation of Steckler and Watts (1980), assuming Ag^ = 0. exploration and prediction tools away from development
Model subsidence is that predicted by least-squares optimized and cost wells.
McKenzie cmstal-stretching model, with constraint that present
heat flow = 1,27 x 10 cal/m • sec, as obtained from bottom-
hole measurements. Heat Flow from Vitrinite Reflectance

The fact that the various geologic models we have dis-

Using the McKenzie model in the North Sea, we find that cussed disagree even on the sign of the derivative of heat
the time of initial stretching of the mantle is on the order of flow at the present time makes it necessary to have inde-
70-90 Ma. The stretching parameter y (the relative crustal pendent indicators of heat flow. The most important of
thinning) is in the range 0.1 to 0.3. These values agree well these is probably vitrinite reflectance. The reflectance of
102 Basin Evaluation Using Burial History Calculations
vitrinite is determined by the relative index of refraction of
vitrinite in oil. Because the refractive index, TIQ, of the
immersion oil is known (typically n^ is 1.518), the reflec-
tance is determined entirely by the index of refraction of
the vitrinite, which depends on the number density of the
reflecting molecules and on the oscillator strengths of the
molecules. Toth et al (1981) and Lerche et al (1984) have
shown that it is possible to obtain the initial number den-
sity multiplied by oscillator strength from the value of
vitrinite reflectance on the surface. Using the constant
thus determined, the change in vitrinite reflectance with
depth is determined by the change in number density with
depth. This variation in number density is due to the
change in number density of optically reflecting molecules
due to first-order chemical kinetics, which are tempera-
ture dependent. Because we know the measured reflec-
tances, it is possible to determine the temperature as a
function of time.
The physical theory of vitrinite reflectance can be used to
determine the heat flow, Q(t). Assume a heat flow that is
characterized by several different parameters. Then, by
least-squares optimization of these parameters (by com-
paring predicted vitrinite reflectance to those measured in
a bore hole), an optimized Q as a function of time is
obtained (Toth et al, 1981; Lerche et al, 1984). For further
details of the vitrinite reflectance theory and its implemen-
tation, the reader is referred to Lerche et al (1984). Figure 8
shows the use of this theory in making maps of vitrinite
reflectance through time for specific formations. One
point is worth mentioning here, and is emphasized in
Lerche et al (1984). We can trust determinations of
paleoheat flow and paleotemperature no further than we
can trust the quality of the vitrinite reflectance data which,
most often, could be significantly improved. Errors in
determination of paleoheat flow can then be ascribed to
both errors in burial history evaluation and errors in data
input. Both of these points, and others, are dealt with in
great detail in Lerche et al (1984).
Other indicators provide measures of the variations in
heat flow with time. Some of these indicators are: (1) the
transition of smectite to illite, (2) the variation of porosity
with depth and temperature, (3) the molecular optical
activity of oils as a result of asymmetric carbon-atom posi-
tionings, (4) the even-odd aliphatic chain effect in oils, (5)
the molecular weight distribution in oils, (6) "C to '^C,' O
to '*0, and '"'Ar/"Ar isotope anomalies with depth, (7)
annealing of fission tracks in apatite, zircon, and sphene,
(8) magnetic history, and (9) fluid inclusions.
However, only indicators 1, 2, 6, and 7 are generally
available from bore-hole measurements and indicators 3,
4, and 5 require the presence of oil. Vitrinite reflectance is
a generally available indicator from bore-hole measure-
ments and does not require the presence of oil. The smec-
tite to illite transition depends on the presence of
potassium as a catalyzing agent and can be poisoned by
excess sodium concentration. To use this indicator success-
fully would require a detailed knowledge of fluid migra-
tion whhin the geologic layers. The vitrinite reflectance
method of determining heat-flow history is believed by us
to be the most accurate and probably the best method
available at this time. However, this method needs to be
tested against independent thermal indicators such as the
annealing of apatite fission scars (Gleadow et al, 1983),
the variation in ""Ar/^Ar (Harrison and Be, 1983), tem-
perature data extracted from fluid inclusions (Burruss et
al, 1983), and magnetic history as tied to thermal events
(Middleton and Schmidt, 1982). Of these, the apatite
fission-scar annealing and the """Ar/^Ar indicators seem
the most promising for tying to vitrinite-reflectance heat
history.
Thermal indicators provide knowledge of the paleoheat
flow as a function of time. This information has two uses.
First, a basin in which vitrinite reflectance is measured, or
where some other thermal indicator is used, allows us to
determine the heat flow and, hence, the thermal maturity
of the acreage that is being explored. Second, for a given
basin, knowing the heat flow allows us to evaluate quanti-
tatively the geologic models that have been proposed for
the origin of the basin. Thus, in principle, it is possible to
determine which is an optimal geologic model for basins
of a specific tectonic setting. Then, in other basins of the
same tectonic setting, it is possible to use this optimal geo-
logic model to make predictions of maturity before drill-
ing on the basis of seismic data. Thus, it is possible to rank
basin maturities in the absence of bore-hole measure-
ments. Therefore, we have a predictive tool for use in
hydrocarbon exploration.
CONCLUSIONS: POTENTIAL INPUTS AND OUTPUTS
OF THERMAL MATURITY AND BURIAL HISTORY
CALCULATIONS FOR USE IN HYDROCARBON
EXPLORATION
Inputs
The inputs for thermal maturity and burial-history cal-
culations are stratigraphic and biostratigraphic data gen-
erally available from well logs, well reports, and in some
cases from interpreted seismic sections. Inputs include lay-
ers enveloped by stratigraphic stage boundaries or mark-
ers, depth of water at the well, height of the kelly bushing
relative to sea level, present-day temperature gradient or
present-day heat flow, present surface temperature, and
measured bottom-hole or formation temperature. For
each layer of rock, it is necessary to give the depth of that
layer relative to the top of the kelly bushing, the age of that
layer (from biostratigraphic and radiometric data), the
water depth at time of deposition of that layer, and the
lithology of the layer (which could be one of several gen-
eral types like shale, sand, carbonate, shaly sand, or salt;
or which may be basin specific, in which case porosity/
decompaction parameters must be supplied).
If one wishes to do thermal modeling using the vitrinite
reflectance approach, depth and percent reflectance pairs
must also be input. Also, if one wishes to model hydrocar-
bon maturity history, kerogen type and its concentration
as a function of depth need to be recorded.
Outputs
The results of a modeling program can be divided into
three classes—burial history, thermal maturity, and com-
bined outputs.
 T. M. GuJdJshetal 103

The burial history outputs can include the burial history
versus time (i.e., the depth below depositional surface as a
function of time in milhons of years); geohistory or toial
subsidence plots (Figure 1) (i.e., depth below current sea
level as a function of time); subsidence due to compaction;
amount of subsidence due to isostatic response to sedi-
ment load; basement subsidence (Figure 9) (i.e., the depth
to the basement with the sediments removed as a function
of time); rate of sediment accumulation, subsidence, and
basement subsidence as a function of time; and sea level
plots as a function of time.
Thermal maturity calculations and plots can include the
time-temperature integral (TTI) of Waples (1980) versus
depth at present, vitrinite reflectance in percent versus
depth at present (Figure 10), vitrinite reflectance versus
TTI (Figure 14), and percent of kerogen converted to oil or
gas for each layer and each kerogen type (type 1, type 2,
and type 3) as a function of time. At least seven possible
options of heat flow as a function of time could be mod-
eled: (1) constant temperature gradient, (2) the present
heat flow is assumed not to vary with time and is deter-
mined from corrected bottom-hole and/or formation
temperatures and lithologies, (3) the heat flow determined
from the McKenzie crustal-stretching model with parame-
ters determined by the least-squares optimization of
model basin subsidence and backstripped subsidence, (4)
the heat flow determined from the Falvey crustal-
metamorphism model with least-squares optimization of
parameters, (5) the heat flow determined from the Royden
dike-intrusion model with least-squares optimization of
parameters, (6) the heat flow determined from the Hel-
linger and Sclater (1983) two-layer extentional model, and
(7) the heat flow as derived from vitrinite reflectance data
or some other thermal indicator.
Combined thermal history and burial history calcula-
tions and outputs can include burial and/or geohistory
and thermal maturation (i.e., percent kerogen converted
to oil and/or gas for various geologic eras), burial history,
and Waples time-temperature integral (TTI) calculations.
Plots of constant TTI can be produced and outlined on
geohistory plots (Figures 10, 12). Also, one can construct
plots or make calculations of predicted basin subsidence

PRESENT WELL SECTION

,:ir[]pimi,'iiiBrfirr
IS
IS
UJ
>
LU 12.0 Ma
-J
<
35.0 Ma
LU
(0
43.0 Ma
+3.0 Ma
O s ..
CO 63.0 Ma 64.3 Ma 66,0 Ma
u.
I-
UJ _82^0_Ma_
LU
LL
_88.B Ma 90.0 Ma
91.5 Ma
_3Si&_Ma_
I- U 2 i.0. M.a. . i l l • 5. Mj_
Q. s
LU IS
IS
Q •H
100.0

AGE IN MILLIONS OF YEARS

Figure 10—Machine-generated geoliistory plot of Mideast well. TTI = 15 and TTI = 75 curves represent Waples thresholds for onset
and maximum generation of oil, respectively. Oil = 0.1 curve shows time and depth at which lO'^o of present kerogen has been con-
verted to oil (according to Tissot and Welte, 1978).
104 Basin Evaluation Using Burial History Calculations

0 2B 0 30 0 40 0 s^ 13 9? ASE (MJt)
•id
' 160 120

— 3 0"C-

40'C-
50'C -

60*C - GEOrHERMAL
GRADIENT
7 0*C -
ASSUMED
z eo'c- CONSTANT
THROUGHOUT
\ 90°C- GEOLOGIC PAST
lOO'C-
0 0
1 10'C -
120'C-
OIL
130"C - GENERA
WINDOW
0
140*C -
0
150*C-
—
0 0 ieo"C -
0
170"C -
n 09, -Iso-TTI lines on geologic model

0
Figure 12—Iso-TTI lines on geologic model. Oil generation >
dowis shown in cross-hatched area (from Waples, 1980).

ae.a
TTI 55 e ffl ? i5e p le .3 se e i-

Figure 11—Crossplot of measured vitrinite reflectance vs.

Waples' TTI (calculated at present time assuming a McKenzie
cnistal-stretching heat-flow model with new parameters) for well
A in North Sea.

based on the McKenzie crustal-stretching (Figure 9), the

Falvey metamorphism (Figure 6), or the Royden dike-
intrusion models as a function of time. Also the heat flow
can be calculated as a function of time based on the opti-
mized McKenzie (Figure 13), Royden, or Falvey models
(Figure 6), and can be plotted. If vitrinite reflectance data
are available, one can plot both predicted heat flow as a
function of time and predicted reflectance vs. observed
reflectance, and also obtain isoreflectance Mnes on the
burial and geohistory diagrams.
All these different outputs can be used to determine: (1)
more accurate geologic models for a specific depositional
basin, (2) more accurate tectonic and structural histories
of a basin, (3) the sedimentary history of the basin from
maps of sediment accumulation, (4) the thermal history of AGE ( M I L L I O N YEftRSI
the basin and its effect on organic matter, and (5) the com-
Figure 13—Heat flow resulting from McKenzie crustal-
pactional history, and so the possible migration history stretching model.
within the basin.
All of these outputs can be converted to maps. Oil fields
can be superimposed on these maps and this information,
ervoir, the reservoir quality of a formation as a function of
combined with all the other mapped data, will identify
time, the acoustic impedance of the sediment as a function
hydrocarbon trends within specific geologic plays and will
of depth, and fluid and gas lost from the formation as a
enable the ranking of the more prospective acreage within
function of time. The potential for basin history modeling
a basin. These different applications impact directly on
to petroleum exploration is enormous.
hydrocarbon exploration. However, indirect apphcations
include the ability to model tectonics and the physics of the
crust and mantle, and to test these models using the burial SELECTED REFERENCES
and thermal histories approach. Similarly, one can model Airy, G. B., 1855, On the computation of the effect of the attraction of
the effects of sea level variation and predict facies patterns mountain-masses as disturbing the apparent astronomical latitude of
of carbonates, elastics, evaporites, and deep-sea chemical station of geodetic surveys: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
sediments, such as metallic nodules. Society of London, V. 145, p. 101-104.
Athy, L. E, 1930, Density, porosity, and compaction of sedimentary
Parameters that might be extracted from burial history roclts: AAPG Bulletin, v. 14, p. 1-24.
calculations in the future include the thermal history of Beaumont, C , 1981, Foreland basins: Geophysical Journal of the Royal
hydrocarbons from potential source rock to potential res- Astronomical Society, v. 65, p. 291-329.
 T. M. Guidish et al
Bomford, G., 1971, Geodesy, second edition: London, Oxford Press, p.
441-443.
Burruss, R. €., K. R. Cercone, and R M. Harris, 1983, Fluid inclusion
petrography and tectonic-burial history of the Al All no. 2 well: evi-
dence for the timing of diagenesis and oil migration, northern Oman
foredeep: Geology, v. 7, p, 567-570.
Cercone, K. R., 1984, Thermal history of Michigan basin: AAPG Bulle-
tin, v. 68, p. 130-136.
Evans, T. R., 1977, Thermal properties of North Sea rocks: The Log Ana-
lyst, March-April, p. 3-12.
Falvey, D. A., 1974, The development of continental margins in plate tec-
tonic theory: APEA Journal, v. 14, p. 95-106.
and M. F. Middleton, 1981, Passive continental margins: evi-
dence for a prebreakup deep crustal metamorphic subsidence mecha-
nism: 26th International Geological Congress, Colloque C3.3,
Geology of Continental Margins, Supplement to v. 4, p. 103-114.
Gleadow, A. J. W., I. R. Duddy, and J, E Loveing, 1983, Fission track
analysis: a new tool for the evaluation of thermal histories and hydro-
carbon potential: APEA Journal, v. 23, p. 93-102.
Harrison, M. T, and K. Be, 1983, ""Ar/^'Ar age spectrum analysis of
detrital microclines from the southern San Joaquin basin, California:
an approach to determining the thermal evolution of sedimentary
basins: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 64, p. 242-256.
Harper, M. L., 1971, Approximate geothermal gradients in the North Sea
basin; Nature, v. 230, p. 235-236.
Hedberg, H. D., 1936, Gravitational compaction of clays and shales:
American Journal of Science, v. 31, p. 241-287.
Hellinger, S. J., and J. G. Sclater, 1983, Some comments on two-layer
extentional models for the evolution of sedimentary basins: Journal
of Geophysical Research, v. 88, p. 8251-8269.
Hunt, J. M., A. Y. Hue, and J. K. Whelan, 1980, Generation of light
hydrocarbons in sedimentary rocks: Nature, v. 288, p. 688-690.
Jordan, T. E., 1982, Thrust loads and foreland basin evolution. Creta-
ceous, western United States: AAPG Bulletin, v. 65, p. 2506-2520.
Kappelmeyer, O., and R. Haenel, 1974, Geothermics: with special refer-
ence to applications: Berlin, Gebriider Borntraeger, Geoexploration
Monograph 4,238 p.
Keen, C. E., 1978, Thermal history and subsidence of rifted continental
margins—evidence from wells on the Nova Scotian and Labrador
shelves: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 16, p. 505-522.
C. Beaumont, and R. Boutilier, 1981, Preliminary results from a
thermo-mechanical model for the evolution of Atlantic-type conti-
nental margins: 26th International Geological Congress, Colloque
C3.3, Geology of Continental Margins, Supplement to v. 4, p. 123-
128.
Lerche, I., R. F. Yarzab, and C. G. St. C. Kendall, 1984, The determina-
tion of paleoheat flux from vitrinite reflectance data: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 68, p. 1704-1717.
Lewis, C. R., and S. C. Rose, 1970, A theory relating high temperatures
and overpressures: Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 22, p. 11-16.
Lopatin, N. V., 1971, Temperature and geologic time as factors in coalifi-
cation: Akademiya Nauk SSSR Izvestiya Seriya Geologicheskaya, n.
3, p. 95-106.
McKenzie, D., 1978, Some remarks on the development of sedimentary
basins: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 40, p, 25-32.
Middleton, M. P., 1980, A model of intracratonic basin formation,
entaihng deep crustal metamorphism: Geophysical Journal of the
Royal Astronomical Society, v, 62, p. 1-14.
and P. W. Schmidt, 1982, Paleothermometry of the Sydney
105
basin: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 87, p. 5351 -5359.
Nakayama, K., and D. C. Van Siclen, 1981, Simulation model for petro-
leum exploration: AAPG Bulletin, v. 65, p, 1230-1255.
Nunn, J. A., 1981, Thermal contraction and flexure of intracratonic
basins: a three dimensional study of the Michigan basin: PhD thesis.
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 351 p.
N. H. Sleep, and W. E. Moore, 1984, Thermal subsidence and
generation of hydrocarbons in Michigan basin: AAPG Bulletin, v.
68,p. 296-315.
Ratcliffe, E. H., 1960, The thermal conductivities of ocean sediments:
Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 65, p. 1535-1541.
Royder., L., andC.E. Keen, 1980, Rifting process and thermal evolution
of the continental margin of eastern Canada determined from subsi-
dence curves: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 51, p, 343-361.
J. G. Sclater, and R. P. Von Herzen, 1980, Continental margin
subsidence and heat flow: important parameters in formation of
petroleum hydrocarbons: AAPG Bulletin, v. 64, p. 173-187.
Sclater, J. G., and P. A. F. Christie, 1980, Continental stretching: an
explanation of the post-mid-Cretaceous subsidence of the central
North Sea basin: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 85, p. 3711-
3739.
Sleep, N, H., 1971, Thermal effeas of the formation of Atlantic conti-
nental margins by continental breakup: Geophysical Journal of the
Royal Astronomical Society, v. 24, p. 325-350.
Steckler, M. S., and A. B. Watts, 1978, Subsidence of the Atlantic-type
continental margin off New York: Earth and Planetary Science Let-
ters, v. 41,p. 1-13.
Tissot, B., 1969, Premieres donnees sur les mecanismes et la cinetique de
la formation du petrole dans les sediments: simulation d'un schema
reactionnel sur ordinateur: Revue Institut Francais du Petrole, v. 24,
p. 470-501.
and J. Espitahe, 1975, L'evolution thermique de la matiere
organique des sediments: applications d'une simulation math^mati-
que: Revue Institut Francais du Petrole, v. 30, p. 743-777.
and D. H. Welte, 1978, Petroleum formation and occurrence:
New York, Springer Verlag, p. 500-521.
Toth, D. J., I. Lerche, D. E. Petroy, R. J. Meyer, and C. G. St. C. Ken-
dall, 1981, Vitrinite reflectance and the derivation of heat flow
changes with time, in M. Bjorney, ed.. Advances in organic geochem-
istry: Proceedings of the 10th International Meeting on organic geo-
chemistry, Bergen, Norway, p. 588-596.
Turcotte, D. L., and J. L. Ahem, 1977, On the thermal and subsidence
history of sedimentary basins. Journal of Geophysical Research, v.
82, p. 3762-3766.
vanHinte, J.E., 1978, Geohistory analysis—application of micropaleon-
tology in exploration geology: AAPG Bulletin, v. 62, p. 201-222.
Waples, D. W., 1980, Time and temperature in petroleum formation:
application of Lopatin's method to petroleum exploration: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 64, p. 916-926.
Watts, A. B., and M. S. Steckler, 1979, Subsidence and eustasy at the con-
tinental margin of eastern North America, in Deep drilling results in
the Atlantic Ocean; continental margins and paleoenvironment:
Maurice Ewing Series, Proceedings of the Symposium, n. 3, p. 218.
Yarzab, R. E, I. Lerche, and C. G. St. C. Kendall, 1983, Relationship of
vitrinite reflectance to heat-flow history of North Sea (abs.): AAPG
Bulletin, v. 67, p. 574.
Zierfuss, H., and G. van der Vliet, 1956, Laboratory measurements of
heat conductivity of sedimentary rocks: AAPG Bulletin, v. 40, p.
2475-2488.