Abstract
AbstractSediments deposited by glacial meltwaters (for example, ice‐contact delta deposits) form permeable packages in the subsurface that can act as reservoirs for both water and hydrocarbons. They are also an important source of aggregate for the construction industry. As reservoirs they are challenging to characterize in terms of their structure, flow and storage properties due to their complex depositional history. In this study, ice‐contact deltas of Salpausselkä I and II end moraines in Southern Finland are studied using a combination of geomorphological mapping, sedimentological studies and near surface geophysical methods. Sedimentary logs from isolated outcrops were correlated to ground penetrating radar (GPR) profiles to unravel the internal structure and depositional history of these ice‐contact deltas. Subsequently, electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and gravity data were analysed to estimate the depth to bedrock and to model porosity distribution within the sediments. Results of the study suggest that the delta deposits have a broad range of porosities (10 to 42%) with lowest values found in the bottomset beds. The most variable porosities are in the subaqueous ice‐contact–fan zone, and consistently high porosities occur in delta foreset/topset facies. Detailed sedimentary logging linked to the GPR data shows heterogeneities such as mud drapes on foresets and kettle holes which are below the resolution of ERT and gravity methods but significantly affect reservoir properties of the deltas. Moreover, oscillation of the ice‐margin may have introduced larger heterogeneities (for example, buried ice marginal ridges, or eskers) into the sedimentary sequence which are atypical for other Gilbert‐type deltas. Finally, subglacially sculpted, highly variable bedrock topography exerts a major control on sediment distribution within the delta making reservoir volume and quality less predictable. This work has implications for present‐day freshwater aquifers and low enthalpy geothermal energy in southern Finland and other deglaciated regions, as well as hydrocarbon exploration of analogous deposits in the subsurface from Pleistocene and pre‐Pleistocene glaciogenic sequences.
Highlights
Sands and gravels deposited by glacial meltwater are the most exploited of all glaciogenic sediments as aquifers (Gabriel et al, 2003; Maries et al, 2017; Ravier & Buoncristiani, 2017; Erickson et al, 2019), source of aggregate for the construction industry (Fisher & Smith, 1993; Levson et al, 2003; Mossa & James, 2013; Bendixen et al, 2017, 2019) or hydrocarbon reservoirs (Hirst et al, 2002; Osterloff et al, 2004b; Huuse et al, 2012; Ottesen et al, 2012; Rose et al, 2016)
Reservoir and aquifer properties at the intra-borehole/well scale are a function of the sedimentary architecture, which at present is poorly understood in ice-margin systems
Unconsolidated, Pleistocene and Holocene glaciogenic sediments are especially important as aquifers in regions where repeated episodes of subglacial erosion have removed the older, pre-Pleistocene porous, sedimentary cover, leaving only impermeable crystalline basement across much of the area (Knutsson, 2008; Comte et al, 2012; Ravier & Buoncristiani, 2017)
Summary
Sands and gravels deposited by glacial meltwater are the most exploited of all glaciogenic sediments as aquifers (Gabriel et al, 2003; Maries et al, 2017; Ravier & Buoncristiani, 2017; Erickson et al, 2019), source of aggregate for the construction industry (Fisher & Smith, 1993; Levson et al, 2003; Mossa & James, 2013; Bendixen et al, 2017, 2019) or hydrocarbon reservoirs (Hirst et al, 2002; Osterloff et al, 2004b; Huuse et al, 2012; Ottesen et al, 2012; Rose et al, 2016). The ability to predict physical properties of such sediments largely depends on understanding the depositional processes responsible for their formation (Lønne, 1995; Zielinski & van Loon, 2000; Heinz et al, 2003; Catuneanu, 2006; Hirst, 2012; Slomka & Eyles, 2013; Zecchin et al, 2015; Dietrich et al, 2017a; Winsemann et al, 2018; Lang et al, 2020) This information is typically obtained by detailed sedimentological studies of wells and/or outcrop analogues (Howell et al, 2008). Careful consideration is needed when choosing methods to deploy, ideally allowing identification of key heterogeneities (Gabriel et al, 2003; Andersen et al., 2012; Galazoulas et al, 2015; Paz et al, 2017; Ravier & Buoncristiani, 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
