Symbolization of rock composition and structure in basin modeling

The paper presents a comparative review of lithological pattern standards used abroad and in the Russian Federation. There is a difficulty in employing foreign standards in the graphical representation of basin modeling results. The author provides the main characteristics of the lithotype editor from the modeling software. The potential to customize visualization of the basin models was evaluated. The  author describes the process of pattern adaptation from the standard of graphic arts for the State Geological Map (scale of 1 : 200,000) to all lithotypes included in the software library. It is proposed to use coloured lithological patterns to increase the informative value of the lithotype distribution model visualization. There are additionally defined patterns for the graphic representation of mixed lithotypes used in both conventional and unconventional petroleum systems. Software-adapted lithological patterns can be used both for constructing the simplest one-dimensional models of boreholes and for complex, continuously operating three-dimensional basin models. Illustrative differences between the adapted patterns from the standard of graphic arts for the State Geological Map (scale of 1 : 200,000) and standard software library serve as an example of visualizing a one-dimensional basin model for the Kola Superdeep Borehole.

1. Zinchenko I. A. General stratigraphic chart of Russia: Development of its colour models and adaptation for basin modeling software. Regional Geology and Metallogeny. 2019; (77): 52–59. (In Russ.).

2. Wannier M. M. A. ‘Uniformity in Geological Reports’ (1917) by Josef Theodor Erb, petroleum geologist and manager (1874–1934). History of the European oil and gas industry / Eds. J. Craig, F. Gerali, F. MacAulay, R. Sorkhabi. Vol. 465. London: Geological Society; 2018. P. 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP465.7.

3. Hantschel T., Kauerauf A. I. Fundamentals of basin and petroleum systems modeling. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin; 2009. 476 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72318-9.

4. Metamorphic rocks: A classification and glossary of terms. Recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences Subcommission on the Systematics of Metamorphic Rocks / Eds. D. Fettes, J. Desmons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. 244 p.

5. Petrographic Code of Russia. Magmatic, metamorphic, metasomatic, and impact formations. 3rd ed., corr. and suppl. St. Petersburg: VSEGEI Press; 2009. 199 p. (In Russ.).

6. Igneous rocks: A classification and glossary of terms. Recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks / R. W. Le Maitre [et al.]. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. 236 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511535581.

7. Gamero-Diaz H., Miller C., Lewis R. sCore: A mineralogy based classification scheme for organic mudstones. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 30 September — 2 October 2013. P. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2118/166284-MS.

8. Shepard F. P. Nomenclature based on sand-silt-clay ratios. Journal of Sedimentary Research. 1954; 24 (3): 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1306/d4269774-2b26-11d7-8648000102c1865d.

9. Vishnyakov S. G. Carbonate rocks and field study of their suitability for soil liming. Carbonate rocks of the Leningrad Region, Northern Krai, and Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. No. 2. Moscow; Leningrad; 1933. P. 3–22. (In Russ.).

10. Kola Superdeep. Scientific results and research experi - ence / Eds. V. P. Orlov, N. P. Laverov. Moscow: IF “TECHNONEFTEGAZ”; 1998. 260 p. (In Russ.).