Academic literature on the topic 'Horizontal Profiling'

ABSTRACT The Bighorn uplift, Wyoming, developed in the Rocky Mountain foreland during the 75–55 Ma Laramide orogeny. It is one of many crystalline-cored uplifts that resulted from low-amplitude, large-wavelength folding of Phanerozoic strata and the basement nonconformity (Great Unconformity) across Wyoming and eastward into the High Plains region, where arch-like structures exist in the subsurface. Results of broadband and passive-active seismic studies by the Bighorn EarthScope project illuminated the deeper crustal structure. The seismic data show that there is substantial Moho relief beneath the surface exposure of the basement arch, with a greater Moho depth west of the Bighorn uplift and shallower Moho depth east of the uplift. A comparable amount of Moho relief is observed for the Wind River uplift, west of the Bighorn range, from a Consortium for Continental Reflection Profiling (COCORP) profile and teleseismic receiver function analysis of EarthScope Transportable Array seismic data. The amplitude and spacing of crystalline-cored uplifts, together with geological and geophysical data, are here examined within the framework of a lithospheric folding model. Lithospheric folding is the concept of low-amplitude, large-wavelength (150–600 km) folds affecting the entire lithosphere; these folds develop in response to an end load that induces a buckling instability. The buckling instability focuses initial fold development, with faults developing subsequently as shortening progresses. Scaled physical models and numerical models that undergo layer-parallel shortening induced by end loads determine that the wavelength of major uplifts in the upper crust occurs at approximately one third the wavelength of folds in the upper mantle for strong lithospheres. This distinction arises because surface uplifts occur where there is distinct curvature upon the Moho, and the vergence of surface uplifts can be synthetic or antithetic to the Moho curvature. In the case of the Bighorn uplift, the surface uplift is antithetic to the Moho curvature, which is likely a consequence of structural inheritance and the influence of a preexisting Proterozoic suture upon the surface uplift. The lithospheric folding model accommodates most of the geological observations and geophysical data for the Bighorn uplift. An alternative model, involving a crustal detachment at the orogen scale, is inconsistent with the absence of subhorizontal seismic reflectors that would arise from a throughgoing, low-angle detachment fault and other regional constraints. We conclude that the Bighorn uplift—and possibly other Laramide arch-like structures—is best understood as a product of lithospheric folding associated with a horizontal end load imposed upon the continental margin to the west.

Abstract As the global demands on the oil and gas industry for increased production are met, pressure on operators has increased significantly. Therefore higher velocities, more horizontal drilling / completions, higher production, production from less consolidated zones, quicker payout for wells and facilities, more complicated fluid / gas streams, and more concern for safety and failures have resulted in more solids flow in produced oil and gas. Sand flow topside can cause a loss of production and high maintenance and operation costs. Plugging, erosion of equipment, increased corrosion, contamination of the product, increase inhibitor requirements, and safety issues due to failures are all the result of increased solids flow. Down hole effects can include reduced production (well sand-up), erosion of equipment, damage to down-hole equipment, formation damage, work-over costs, increased corrosion, and demands for larger volumes of inhibitor. The impact of solids production is not just felt in the oil and gas industry, but also in hydrocarbon pipelines, slurry pipelines, underground gas storage facilities, breweries, food production, mining and shipping. In the oil and gas industry it is imperative that operators know the profile of their sand flow so that they can operate at maximum output with minimal solids production as well as monitor the effects of their solids production - erosion - on their equipment. Though it has been purported that quantifying sand, i.e. inputting particle size to determine quantity is possible, unless all parameters remain constant and unchanging (which is rarely the case), the true benefit of sand monitoring lies in the profiling of the sand flow, not quantifying particles. Monitoring the flow of solids and monitoring the effects of solids flow - erosion - are very different and each must be handled differently and separately. Likewise the solutions for control of solids flow and elimination of erosion again are very different and each must be handled in its own manner.

Seton Lake is a freshwater fiord located in southwestern British Columbia, roughly 4 km west of Lillooet and 250 km north-northeast of Vancouver. Located in the Coast Mountains, it is an alpine lake about 22-km long and roughly 1-1.5 km wide. It is separated from nearby Anderson Lake, located to the west, by a large pre-historic rock avalanche deposit at Seton Portage. The lake stands at about 243 m above sea level and is up to about 150 m deep (BC gov., 1953). Water level is controlled by a hydroelectric dam (i.e., Seton dam) located at the eastern end of the lake. Here, the lake drains east into Seton Canal, a 5 km diversion of the flow of the Seton River, which begins at the Seton dam. The Seton Canal pushes water to the Seton Powerhouse, a hydroelectric generating station at the Fraser River, just south of the community of Sekw'el'was and confluence of the Seton River, which drains into the Fraser River at Lillooet. Seton Portage, Shalatlh, South Shalatlh, Tsal'alh (Shalath), Sekw'el'was (Cayoosh Creek), and T'it'q'et (Lillooet) are communities that surround the lake. Surrounded by mountainous terrain, the lake is flanked at mid-slope by glacial and colluvial sediments deposited during the last glacial and deglacial periods (Clague, 1989; Jakob, 2018). The bedrock consists mainly of mafic to ultramafic volcanic rocks with minor carbonate and argillite from the Carboniferous to Middle Jurassic periods (Journeay and Monger, 1994). As part of the Public Safety Geoscience Program at the Geological Survey of Canada (Natural Resources Canada), our goal is to provide baseline geoscience information to nearby communities, stakeholders and decision-makers. Our objective was to see what kind of sediments were deposited and specifically if we could identify underwater landslide deposits. Thus, we surveyed the lake using a Pinger SBP sub bottom profiler made by Knudsen Engineering Ltd., with dual 3.5 / 200 kHz transducers mounted to a small boat (see photo). This instrument transmits sound energy down through the water column that reflects off the lake bottom surface and underlying sediment layers. At the lake surface, the reflected sound energy is received by the profiler, recorded on a laptop computer, and integrated with GPS data. These data are processed to generate a two-dimensional image (or profile) showing the character of the lake bottom and underlying sediments along the route that the boat passed over. Our survey in 2022 recorded 98 profiles along Seton Lake. The red transect lines show the locations of the 20 profiles displayed on the poster. The types of sediments observed are mostly fine-grained glaciolacustrine sediments that are horizontally bedded with a subtle transition between glaciolacustrine to lacustrine (e.g., profiles A-A'; C-C'; F-F'; S-S'). Profile S-S' displays this transition zone. The glaciolacustrine sediments probably were deposited as the Cordilleran Ice Sheet retreated from the local area (~13,000-11,000 years ago; Clague, 2017) and the lacustrine sediments, after the ice receded to present-day conditions. Some of the parallel reflections are interrupted, suggesting abrupt sedimentation by deposits that are not horizontally bedded; these are interpreted as landslide deposits (see pink or blue deposits on profiles). The deposits that show disturbance in the sedimentation found within the horizontal beds are thought to be older landslides (e.g., blue arrows/deposits in profiles C-C'; E-E'; F-F'; G-G'; I-I'; J-J'; K-K'; N-N'; P-P'; Q-Q'; R-R'; T-T'; U-U'), but the ones that are found on top of the horizontally laminated sediments (red arrows/pink deposits), and close to the lake wall, are interpreted to be younger (e.g., profiles B-B'; C-C'; H-H'; K-K'; M-M'; O-O'; P-P'; Q-Q'). At the fan delta just west of Seton dam, where there was no acoustic signal penetration, it is interpreted that the delta failed and brought down coarser deposits at the bottom of the lake (e.g., profiles H-H'; M-M'; and perhaps K-K'). However, these could be glacial deposits, bedrock, or other coarser deposits. Some of the deposits that reflect poor penetration of the acoustic signal, below the glaciolacustrine sediments, could represent glacial deposits, old landslide deposits, or perhaps the presence of gas (orange arrows; e.g, B-B'; D-D'; J-J'; O-O', T-T'). The preliminary results from sub bottom profiling reveal that there are underwater landslides deposits of widely varying ages buried in the bottom of the lake. However, the exact timing of these is not known. Hence our preliminary survey gives an overview of the distribution of landslides where there seems to be a larger number of landslides recorded in the narrower eastern portion of the lake.