GEOHORIZONS AUTHORS

Thomas C. Wynn
Department of Geo-

Sequence-stratigraphic sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061; pres-
ent address: Department of Geology and
analysis using well cuttings, Physics, Lock Haven University, Lock Haven,
Pennsylvania 17745; twynn@lhup.edu
Mississippian Greenbrier Thomas Wynn received his Ph.D. in 2003 from
the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
Group, West Virginia University, working under J. Fred Read on the
subsurface sequence-stratigraphic framework
Thomas C. Wynn and J. Fred Read of the mixed carbonate-siliciclastic reservoirs
of the Greenbrier Group in West Virginia using
well cuttings. He has been at Lock Haven Uni-
versity since the fall of 2004 and is an assistant
ABSTRACT professor. He received the Margaret Hawn
Mirabile Memorial Award for Best Student Pa-
Well-cuttings analysis predates modern carbonate facies analysis, per at the Eastern AAPG Meeting in 2002.
sequence stratigraphy, seismic reflection surveys, and advanced geo-
physical logging techniques. These newer methods have resulted J. Fred Read
Department of Geosciences,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uni-
in well cuttings becoming less important as a major source of data
versity, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
for high-resolution subsurface analysis. Binocular analysis of well-
indurated Paleozoic well cuttings can be used to construct detailed Fred Read received his Ph.D. in 1970 from the
vertical facies successions in wells when tied to wire-line logs. Facies University of Western Australia, working under
Brian W. Logan on carbonate sediments of Shark
analysis can then be used to construct higher resolution sequence-
Bay (published as AAPG Memoirs 13 and 22),
stratigraphic frameworks and time-slice maps. This approach was
and he worked on postdoctoral research on
tested on Mississippian carbonates in the Appalachian Basin of West
the Devonian reef complex, Canning Basin,
Virginia. The analysis was done using the washed coarse fraction Western Australia. He has been at the Virginia
(1–2 mm; 0.04–0.08 in.) of the cuttings for each sample interval, Polytechnic Institute and State University since
classified according to Dunham rock type, counted to determine 1973 and is a full professor. He and his stu-
relative abundance, and plotted as percent lithology versus depth dents have worked on the evolution of passive
for each well. Digitized wire-line logs and the cuttings-percent logs and active carbonate margins in the Paleozoic,
were adjusted (typically 10 ft [3 m] or so) to consider drilling lag, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, and Early Proterozoic in
lithologic columns were produced from the combined data, and North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand,
sequences were picked. Gamma-ray markers were used to correlate and the Middle East. He is the author of the
the sections, and sequence-stratigraphic cross sections were pro- AAPG article on the classification of carbonate
platforms, which was an AAPG short course
duced. Time-slice maps were generated that show the thickness of
for several years. The group has done computer
the individual sequences and the distribution of major facies within
stratigraphic modeling and cyclostratigraphy
systems tracts. This approach generated a rock-based, high-resolution and is documenting the sequence-stratigraphic
sequence framework for the reservoir and led to a much better un- signature of global ice-house, transitional, and
derstanding of controls on the distribution and stacking of reservoirs. greenhouse worlds and its implications for
reservoirs (SEPM short course). They also have
studied regional calcite cementation and do-
lomitization. He and his students have twice re-
ceived the Outstanding Paper Award in the
Journal of Sedimentary Research, and he was
an AAPG Distinguished Lecturer 1989 –1990
and Eastern AAPG Outstanding Educator 2005.
Copyright #2006. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. The focus of much of their present work
Manuscript received June 8, 2005; provisional acceptance August 17, 2005; revised manuscript received
February 3, 2006; 2nd revised manuscript received June 6, 2006; final acceptance June 14, 2006.
DOI:10.1306/06140605099

AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 12 (December 2006), pp. 1869–1882 1869

 involves taking high-resolution sequence
stratigraphy into the subsurface at the reser-
voir scale and tying this to global climate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the West Virginia Economic and
Geological Survey and especially Lee Avery,
Dave Matchen, Ron McDowell, Pat Johns, and
staff for cuttings, cores, maps, wire-line logs,
and digital data files. Bill Henika (Virginia
Division of Mineral Resources) provided valu-
able insight into problems of the Appala-
chian geology. Sarah Crews, Steve Turpin, John
Leone, Chad Haiar, Susan Barbor-Wood, Pat
Barnhart, Don Thorsteson, Ashley Goodrich, Julia
Caldwell, Jen Hatfield, and Jane Roa helped
collect and process data. Aus Al-Tawil, Taury
Smith, Brian Coffey, and Jenny LaGesse provided
valuable discussion and help, and Ellen Math-
ena did much of the editing and typing. John H.
Doveton, Jack C. Pashin, and Ernest A. Man-
cini reviewed the manuscript; their criticisms
and suggestions improved it immensely. The
study was supported by Petroleum Research
Fund (PRF) Grant 34137-AC8 and National
Science Foundation (NSF) Grant EAR-9725308
and EAR-0341753 to J. F. Read and funding
from Mobil Oil Co., with the strong support of
Ron Kreisa and Jim Markello. We thank AAPG,
the Geological Society of America, and the
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts for ad-
ditional support.
1870 Geohorizons
INTRODUCTION
Well-cuttings analysis largely predated sequence stratigraphy, re-
flection seismic, and advanced downhole logging techniques ( Vail
and Mitchum, 1977; Rider, 1996). These high-tech methods have
caused well cuttings to be of secondary importance as a reliable
data source for detailed subsurface analysis. Recent studies using
well cuttings to generate sequence-stratigraphic frameworks in car-
bonates include Mazzullo and Reid (1989) and Coffey and Read
(2002), but these are at lower resolution (third order) than the
present study. In this study, we show how well cuttings and wire-line
logs can be used to generate a high-resolution sequence-stratigraphic
framework in well-lithified carbonate ramp successions in the sub-
surface, where few cores are available. We selected the Mississip-
pian Greenbrier Group (Chesterian) of West Virginia as a test case
(Figure 1). The Greenbrier Group of the Appalachian Basin is in a
very mature hydrocarbon play, and the reservoirs are relatively
shallow (approximately 4000 ft [1200 m]). The Greenbrier Group
has produced 2.9 tcf of gas from dolomitized sandstone, sandy
dolostone, and oolitic limestone of the drillers’ Greenbrier Big In-
jun, Keener, and Big Lime reservoirs. It has taken approximately
10,000 wells to produce the 2.9 tcf from the Greenbrier Group and
will take many more wells to find and produce the estimated
800 bcf in remaining resources (K. L. Avary, 2006, personal com-
munication). Most of the wells used in the current study were
drilled before 1960. More than 85% of the wells drilled into the
Greenbrier Group either lack wire-line logs or have only gamma-
ray logs. Therefore, interpretation of well cuttings is critical to re-
construct lithologies and facies.
The study demonstrates the power of cuttings-based, sequence
analysis to achieve a detailed picture of the three-dimensional (3-D)
facies make-up at a higher resolution than is available from other
methods alone. Well cuttings in mature areas such as the Appala-
chian Basin, where seismic data are limited or provide insufficient
stratigraphic resolution, can provide a crucial data set for subsurface
sequence-stratigraphic analysis.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The study area is located within the Appalachian foreland basin
(Figure 1). Cambrian rifting formed the Rome trough, as well as
many associated extensional faults (Shumaker and Wilson, 1996;
Yang, 1998). These faults were reactivated during the Middle Or-
dovician Taconic orogeny, the Late Devonian to early Mississip-
pian Acadian orogeny, and during the continent-continent collision
of the Pennsylvanian–Permian Alleghenian orogeny (Ettensohn,
1994; Shumaker and Wilson, 1996). Antecedent faults subdivide
the region into a series of tilt blocks, arches, and domes (Mac-
Quown and Pear, 1983; Boswell and Donaldson, 1988; Henika,
1994; Pashin and Ettensohn, 1995; Shumaker and Wilson, 1996;
Figure 1. Geologic location map of West Virginia study area, showing wells used and distribution of exposed Mississippian
Greenbrier carbonate rocks (gray shading) in the Appalachian Basin. Isopach contours (nonpalinspastic, in feet) show the total
thickness of Greenbrier carbonates, which thicken into the Appalachian foredeep to the southeast (modified from Pryor and Sable,
1974; MacQuown and Pear, 1983; Yeilding and Dennison, 1986; Dever et al., 1990; Sable and Dever, 1990; Dever, 1995). Cross
section BB0 is shown in Figure 5.

Yang, 1998), and some of the faults underwent slight
inversion in the late Paleozoic (Shumaker and Wilson,
1996).
The study area consists of weakly deformed, flat-
lying strata beneath the Appalachian Plateau. Outcrop-
ping Mississippian rocks are restricted to the leading
edge of the overthrust belt in the east and to the distal
western edge of the basin bordering the Cincinnati arch.
Between these outcrop belts, the subsurface Mississip-
pian rocks are overlain by 0 – 4000 ft (0 –1200 m) of
Pennsylvanian strata. The Mississippian interval is pen-
etrated by approximately 10,000 wells (K. L. Avery,

Wynn and Read 1871

Figure 2. Schematic facies profile for the Mississippian carbonates of the Appalachian Basin. Actual facies distributions are more
complex, in that skeletal grainstone-packstone and ooid grainstone facies are not only developed on the ramp margin, but also in
local areas far back in the ramp interior.
2006, personal communication), 193 of which were
used for this study, along with one core and eight out-
crop sections (Figure 1), which are described in Al-
Tawil et al. (2003).
Regional Stratigraphic Framework and Facies
The stratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the Missis-
sippian system in Virginia and West Virginia are given
in Reger (1926), Butts (1940, 1941), Wells (1950),
Flowers (1956), de Witt and McGrew (1979), Rice
et al. (1979), and Maples and Waters (1987). The rocks
in this area overlie the Price and Borden formations
(Kinderhookian – middle Osagean) in the northeast
(Branson, 1912; Butts, 1940, 1941; Bartlett, 1974; Bjer-
stedt and Kammer, 1988) and the Fort Payne and Salem
Formation (late Osagean–early Meramecian) (Bjerstedt
and Kammer, 1988; Sable and Dever, 1990; Khetani
and Read, 2002). The Greenbrier Group and the lower
Bluefield Formation (Lillydale Shale, Glenray Limestone
Member, and Reynolds Limestone Member) make up
the study interval and are 0 –3000 ft (0 –900 m) thick.
These units are overlain by upper Mississippian and
Pennsylvanian siliciclastic rocks.
Regionally, the Greenbrier units on the shallow
ramp consist of shallow-water carbonates and minor
siliciclastic units. They thicken to more than 2000 ft
(600 m) toward the southeast into the proximal fore-
land, where they are dominated by thick slope muds,
which are intercalated with thin, shallow-water units
of quartz sandstone and limestone.
1872 Geohorizons
Al-Tawil et al. (2003) provided the first detailed
sequence-stratigraphic framework for the region based
on the eastern outcrop belt and limited subsurface data.
The Mississippian facies of the eastern Appalachian Ba-
sin are shown schematically on an idealized ramp mod-
el (Figure 2) and resemble contemporaneous facies de-
scribed elsewhere in North America by Leonard (1968),
Ettensohn et al. (1984), Carney and Smosna (1989),
Smith and Read (1999, 2001), Al-Tawil and Read (2003),
and Al-Tawil et al. (2003). Over much of West Vir-
ginia, facies consist of terrigeneous red beds, quartz
peloid eolianite, lagoonal muddy carbonate, ooid- and
skeletal grainstone-packstone shoal complexes, and on
the ramp slope, deeper water dark-gray wackestone-
mudstone, and dark-gray laminated argillaceous lime
mudstone. The facies and their environments of depo-
sition are summarized in Table 1.
METHODS
Data were collected from 193 wells with cuttings, along
with one core and seven outcrop sections from pre-
vious studies (Wray, 1980; Yeilding, 1984; Yeilding and
Dennison, 1986; Al-Tawil, 1998; Al-Tawil et al., 2003).
The coarse fraction (1– 2 mm; 0.04 – 0.08 in.) of the
cuttings for each sample interval (typically 10 ft [3 m])
was washed, acid-etched (2.5% HCl) and, if dolomitic,
was stained with Alizarin Red S and examined under a
binocular microscope. For each sample interval, rock
types were classified according to Dunham (1962) and
counted to determine the relative abundance of rock
types. Percentages were recorded on data sheets, en-
tered into a commercial spreadsheet program, and saved
as comma-delimited files. Undergraduates helped clas-
sify and count the well cuttings and were overseen for
quality control by the senior author. This helped to
obtain and process the large amount of data required.
For each well, the comma-delimited files were imported
into a commercial log-plotting program and plotted
against depth to form a percent lithology log. Well-
cuttings data for the 193 wells were calibrated against
geophysical logs where available, with gamma-ray and
bulk-density logs being the most useful. Wire-line logs
were digitized and exported as Log Ascii Standard files
and imported into a commercial log-plotting program.
The logs were then plotted alongside the cuttings-
percent logs, after adjusting the logs by 10 ft (3 m) or so
for best match with diagnostic markers (fine siliciclas-
tics, oolite) to consider drilling lag. The correlation of
gamma-ray and bulk-density logs with the cuttings data
helped remove errors caused by the drilling lag. The
combination of cuttings-percent logs and gamma-ray logs
was used to produce lithologic columns with a resolution
of 10 ft (3 m), showing dominant lithology and gamma-
ray response. The gamma-ray and bulk-density logs,
when combined with well-cuttings data, also made it
possible to identify and locate depths and thicknesses
of siliciclastic units thinner than the well-cuttings sample
interval. Five to six distinctive gamma-ray marker hori-
zons are associated with several regionally extensive silic-
iclastic units, which are mostly transgressive shale inter-
vals. These regionally extensive gamma-ray markers were
used to help constrain correlations between the wells.
The cuttings-based well sections were used to pro-
duce three dip-oriented and two strike-oriented strati-
graphic cross sections. Using these five cross sections
as a framework, the sequence picks were extended to
nearby wells, guided by log signatures where distinc-
tive. For each sequence, the following data were re-
corded in a spreadsheet: county, permit number, latitude
and longitude, sequence number, sequence thickness,
lowstand-transgressive systems tract thickness, lowstand-
transgressive systems tract dominant facies, the high-
stand systems tract thickness, dominant highstand fa-
cies, aggregate grainstone thickness in the sequence,
dominant marine grainstone type (skeletal, ooid, or pe-
loid), aggregate sandstone thickness, caliche (present or
absent), and produced fluid (oil, gas, or oil and gas). The
data for each well were then imported into a geographic
information system (GIS) and plotted as point themes.
The well sections with their sequence-stratigraphic
picks were compiled into regional cross sections show-
ing the vertical and lateral distribution of facies (Figure 3).
Sequence boundaries and maximum flooding surfaces
were traced from section to section, guided by distinc-
tive log markers and biostratigraphy. This generated
a high-resolution sequence-stratigraphic framework
(Figures 3, 4). With the well data in GIS, the succes-
sion throughout the region of interest was then time
sliced into sequences and systems tracts (Figure 5).
Lowstand-transgressive and highstand dominant
facies maps, isopach maps, and isolith maps were pro-
duced in GIS for each sequence using the data from the
point themes. The isopachs and isolith maps were pro-
duced using computer contouring software, edited by
hand, and then imported into GIS. Isopach maps were
constructed for individual sequences and systems tracts
(Figure 5). In addition, maps showing the dominant fa-
cies could then be rapidly made for each systems tract to
define geographic facies distribution and major poten-
tial reservoir trends. Grainstone isolith maps (Figure 5)
were generated to show the location of the primary
reservoirs. The maps and cross sections (Figures 3, 5) il-
lustrate the power of using sequence analysis of well cut-
tings within GIS to generate a high-resolution sequence-
stratigraphic framework for carbonate successions.
FACIES STACKING IN WELLS AND
SEQUENCE ANALYSIS
The conversion of cuttings data into dominant lithol-
ogy for a sample interval is needed to consider effects
related to interbedding of different lithologies and the
relation of the sample interval to the lithologic bound-
aries. All of these effects could result in the mixing of
lithologies within a sample interval.
Problems Caused by Mixing of Interbedded Lithologies
Interbedding can give the appearance of mixing in well
cuttings and can be a major problem if not recog-
nized. Two types of interbedding cause problems when
working with well cuttings: thin interbedding of rock
types, and larger scale stratigraphic juxtaposition of
two or more lithologies within the sample interval
(Figure 6A, B). Thinly interbedded lithologies com-
monly occur as pairs of rock types (i.e., shale inter-
bedded with limestone) in the sample interval, with
individual beds being below the resolution of the logging
Wynn and Read 1873
Table 1. Greenbrier Group Facies

Lithofacies Description Biota Depositional Environment

Red beds Red, maroon, and green mottled Root and burrow Subaerial to marginal
mudrocks and siltstones, massive, traces in paleosols. marine
to laminated, rare current- and
wave ripples on siltstone interbeds,
rare mudcracks.
Gray shale Dark-gray to olive-green clay and Poorly fossiliferous to very Lagoonal
silt, poorly fissile to massive. fossiliferous. Mollusks,
ostracods, some echinoderms,
brachiopods, and bryozoa;
biota sparse and restricted
in updip shale.
Quartz sandstone and White to light-gray, well-sorted Rare Shoreline clastic
calcareous siltstones fine- to medium-grained shaly complex and
sandstones and siltstones of barrier siltstones
quartz, lesser carbonate grains,
cross-bedded to structureless;
flaser, lenticular, and wavy
bedded locally.
Anhydrite White-glassy, bedded, sometimes None Sabkha
sandy with dolomite.
Caliche Yellow to brown, cryptocrystalline None Subaerial
and fibrous calcite crusts and fracture
fills; patches of caliche-coated
peloids and pisolites. Variably
silicified.
Quartz peloidal Light to dark gray. Rounded, and Abraded, rounded skeletal Coastal eolianite,
grainstone abraded peloids and some ooids, fragments. No in-situ biota. minor marine
abraded skeletal fragments, and sand sheets
subangular very fine to fine
quartz up to 50%.
Dolomite Yellowish tan. Poorly fossiliferous None to sparse, small Tidal flat
to unfossiliferous. Fine-grained mollusks, small crionoids,
dolomite crystals and may and ostracods.
include quartz silt and clay.
Fine-grained lime Light-gray to creamy white, None to sparse and may Low-energy lagoon
wackestone-mudstone unfossiliferous to moderately have mollusks, small
fossiliferous fine wackestone and crinoid columnals,
mudstone and pellet packstone. ostracods. Small
Skeletal debris fine grained oncolites, rare corals,
and may contain quartz silt and brachiopods.
and clay. Locally cherty.
Peloid and ooid Light-gray to white, well-sorted, rounded, Crinoid, brachiopod, High-energy shoal
grainstone medium to coarse grainstone bryozoan, and mollusk
of sand-size ooids, peloids, lesser fragments, forams.
skeletal fragments, and minor
intraclasts.

1874 Geohorizons
Table 1. Continued
Lithofacies Description
Skeletal Light to medium-gray, variably
grainstone-packstone fragmented echinoderms, brachiopod,
bryozoa, mollusks, and rare ooids.
Mud-free grainstones to grain-rich
packstones and minor wackestones,
some with argillaceous seams.
Argillaceous skeletal Medium-gray to dark-gray echinoderm,
wackestone brachiopod, bryozoa, and lesser
mollusks; include wackestone and
lesser packstone; abundant lime mud;
terrigenous clay disseminated or
in seams and stringers.
Laminated shaly Typically dark-gray, carbonate and
lime mudstone siliciclastic clay and silt.
tool, which then gives an average value for the thinly
interbedded units. Distinguishing this interbedding from
the mixing of superimposed rock types in the well cut-
tings is difficult. Where one lithology has far greater
abundance than the others, then it can be designated as
the dominant lithology for the interval; but when they
are subequal, both were considered dominant litholo-
gies for the interval (Figure 6A).
Mixing of lithologies in a sample interval also can
result from two or more lithologic units stacked within
the sample interval. In a typical 10-ft (3-m) sample in-
terval containing three beds of different rock types,
each approximately 3 ft (1 m) in thickness, it is difficult
to locate the lithologic units in the section unless there
is a distinctive wire-line-log signal (e.g., shale, evapo-
rates, clean oolite). Where the percentage of each li-
thology is similar, it is also difficult to assign a dominant
lithology to the interval. Lithologies can be assigned
to the correct depth where one or more had a distinc-
tive wire-line-log signature (gamma ray or bulk densi-
ty; Figure 6B), for example, shale or shaley limestone
(gamma ray), porous limestone, or anhydrite (density).
When these could not be differentiated in the logs,
there was no way to determine the actual succession
of lithologic units in the sample interval.
Sample Interval-Induced Mixing
Mixing can also result from the sample interval bound-
aries not being the same as the lithologic interval bound-
aries. Minimum mixing caused by sample spacing exists,
Biota Depositional Environment
Abundant echinoderms, Midramp and lagoonal
brachiopods, and skeletal sheets and
bryozoas; and shoals
lesser mollusks.
Abundant echinoderm, Deep subtidal ramp
common brachiopods
and bryozoas, rare
mollusk.
None to sparse small Ramp-slope and basin
skeletal fragments.
where the sample interval boundaries roughly coincide
with the major lithologic unit boundaries (Figure 6C).
However, if the sample intervals are larger than the
spacing of lithologic unit boundaries, then mixing of
lithologies in the interval results (Figure 6D). Again, the
assignment of the cuttings to actual depth in the sample
interval required a distinctive wire-line-log signature for
one or more of the lithologies.
Drilling-Induced Mixing
Mixing of well cuttings and contamination by caving
are, in most cases, caused by improper mud viscosity
(Hills, 1949). Low-viscosity drilling fluids do not al-
low a good mud cake to form on the wellbore, thus
allowing contamination from beds higher up in the
section. Improper mud viscosity allows well cuttings
from different sample intervals to mix, thus distorting
the primary stratigraphic succession in the well. How-
ever, with proper mud viscosity, well cuttings may
be held in suspension even when drilling stops (Hills,
1949; Rider, 1996). Wells with improper mud viscosi-
ty can be recognized by a poor correlation to geophysi-
cal logs and by familiarity with the stratigraphy of the
region.
Sequence Analysis Using Cuttings
Sequences in the wells were recognized on the basis
of major landward and basinward shifts in diagnostic
facies belts (cf. Sarg, 1988; Kerans and Tinker, 1997),
Wynn and Read 1875
1876 Geohorizons
such as eolianites, red beds, siliciclastic units, and lime
grainstone units. The sequence boundaries (Van Wagoner
et al., 1988) in outcrop are disconformities developed
on shallowing-upward carbonate units and commonly
are veneered with a thin paleosol or with transgres-
sive siliciclastics (Al-Tawil and Read, 2003; Al-Tawil
et al., 2003). In the sections produced from the cut-
tings, the sequence boundaries were arbitrarily placed
beneath red beds, sandstone, and shale that rest on
the underlying (highstand) carbonate (Figures 2 – 4).
Along the ramp margin and slope, correlative confor-
mities arbitrarily were placed beneath the shallow-
water tongues (lowstand systems tracts) extending into
the dominantly deep-water successions (Figures 2 –4).
In wire-line logs from the shallow ramp, many sequence
boundaries, and some parasequence boundaries, have
high gamma-ray response caused by the presence of
the overlying terrigeneous mudrocks, shale, or argil-
laceous silty dolomite above the sequence boundary
(Figures 2 –4). Over most of the shallow ramp in West
Virginia, these siliciclastic-prone units are considered
to be transgressive deposits, deposited during initial
flooding onto the platform. However, possible low-
stand units are preserved locally on the shallow ramp
in the form of eolianite and caliche. Carbonate-prone
units were placed in the highstand systems tract, with
the maximum flooding surface being placed at the
transition from siliciclastic to carbonate lithologies,
or beneath the deepest water carbonate unit in the
sequence.
DISCUSSION
In carbonate successions with interbedded siliciclastic
units, such as the Mississippian succession described
here, cuttings provide a valuable data set based on ac-
tual lithologies drilled within the sample interval. In
fact, they provide the only direct sampling of the rocks
in uncored intervals. The cuttings data, when tied into
the wire-line logs, can be used to generate reasonable
representations of the lithologic successions in the drilled
section. Wire-line logs alone cannot provide reliable,
definitive facies recognition in these carbonate-prone
Figure 3. Using the cuttings and wire-line logs, it is possible to generate high-resolution sequence-stratigraphic cross sections, such
as this one (BB0 of Figure 1). The upper units were hung from the Lillydale Shale marker, but the lower sequences were hung from
the base of the upper Taggard equivalent (quartz peloid eolianites and calcareous siltstones at the base of sequence C6). The cross
section clearly shows the likely distribution of potential oolitic and siliciclastic reservoir facies and potential flow barriers and seals.
units, but need to be integrated with cuttings and/or
core data.
In lithified units such as these Mississippian car-
bonates that lie at depths less than a few thousand feet,
mixing caused by caving appears to be much less impor-
tant than mixing where the sample interval spans lith-
ologic boundaries, interbedding of lithologies, and de-
velopment of parasequences of two or more lithologies
that are at or below the scale of the sample intervals.
Many of the best cuttings suites in mature basins
are in the early wells. These wells should be incorpo-
rated into the data sets, even if their wire-line-log suites
are not as good as those in newer wells, especially if
wire-line-log suites are available from nearby wells.
The detailed cuttings-based lithologic logs of the
well section (Figure 4) and the resulting cross sections
(Figure 3) showing the high-resolution sequence stra-
tigraphy in this article could not have been generated
without the cuttings data because of the scarcity of
core and because the wire-line-log data do not provide
unique lithologic discrimination in carbonate rocks.
This cuttings-based analysis has provided the first state-
wide subsurface picture of the Mississippian Green-
brier carbonate reservoirs in West Virginia. The region-
ally mappable sequences are fourth order instead of
third order (cf. Weber et al., 1995; Al-Tawil et al.,
2003). As such, the time-slice maps have a quite high
resolution and provide valuable information on differ-
ential subsidence of the foreland, apparently associated
with the numerous basement faults that dissect the
foreland. The cross sections illustrate that these se-
quences are regionally mappable, and tectonic subsi-
dence determines regional thickness changes (Al-Tawil
et al., 2003). The generalized facies distribution for
each sequence defined by the cuttings, maps out the
midramp grainstone fairways bordering the basin, as well
as smaller grainstone areas farther updip. This is the
first time that these facies belts have been defined re-
gionally for the subsurface. Given the complexity of
the stratigraphic succession, with its numerous deposi-
tional sequences, rapid vertical and lateral facies changes,
as well as rapid lateral thickness changes caused by syn-
sedimentary tectonics, it is no wonder that a detailed
regional picture and interval correlations had not been
developed previously for these rocks.
Wynn and Read 1877
Figure 4. Comparison of core and cuttings data, showing sequence picks between Sun Oil 2 core and Greenbrier 22 (cuttings), the
closest well analyzed. Greenbrier 22 is updip of the Sun Oil well across a down-to-basin fault, hence, the thickness difference. Good
correlation of the sequences between the two exists. Parasequences are picked on the core, but are not able to be picked with the
cuttings data generally.

1878 Geohorizons
Wynn and Read

Figure 5. Examples of maps of individual sequences and systems tracts generated using the cuttings. The high-resolution sequence framework allows isopach maps of individual
sequences to be generated, showing major flexures, highs, and lows at that time. The cuttings data can be used to generate maps showing the dominant geographic facies distribution within
1879

lowstand-transgressive systems tract, or highstand systems tract, as well as isolith maps to illustrate the likely location of thick potential reservoir facies, in this case oolitic carbonates.
Figure 6. Diagram illustrating mixing of cuttings in wells through heavily lithified units. (A) Small-scale interbedding of two or more
lithologies within the sample interval results in mixed cuttings, with no information as to whether they are interbedded or merely
make up a part of the sample interval unless one lithology has distinctive log signature, e.g., shale. (B) Individual lithologic units that
are smaller than the sample interval result in mixed cuttings, which again require a distinctive log signature to relocate. This situation
makes picking parasequences difficult in cuttings. (C) Unusual case where boundaries of lithologic units coincide with sampling
interval boundaries; this is one of few cases where there is minimal mixing caused by stratigraphy. (D) Boundaries of lithologic units
do not coincide with sampling interval boundaries; this results in the lithology spanning the sampling interval boundary being mixed
into the overlying and underlying sample bags.

Outcrop analogs indicate that this cuttings-based,
high-resolution picture is still highly simplified, because
the parasequences that make up many of the sequences
are beyond the resolution of the cuttings (Figure 4).
This highlights the importance of using outcrops or
core where available to obtain a detailed picture of
stacking patterns in the subsurface, as it is probably
the parasequence-scale changes that ultimately con-
trol the actual location of reservoir units and inter-
vening baffles and barriers to flow. In addition, the re-
gional scale of this study precluded closer well spacing;
thus, lateral porosity changes within a field associated
with, for example, mapping of individual tidal ooid
bars (Kelleher and Smosna, 1993), are far beyond the
resolution of the study, but obviously are of utmost
importance. Finally, the approach can provide a se-
quence framework for the interpretation of more lo-
cal, high-resolution 3-D seismic surveys, providing a
merging of old and new technologies.
CONCLUSIONS
This study analyzed the Mississippian Greenbrier car-
bonates of the Appalachian Basin in West Virginia to
show how well cuttings and wire-line logs can be used
to generate a sequence-stratigraphic framework of car-
bonates in the subsurface.
Well cuttings from 193 wells were classified ac-
cording to Dunham (1962), tied to the wire-line logs,
placed in GIS, and used to determine the vertical stack-
ing of lithologies in each well and to pick sequence

1880 Geohorizons
boundaries and flooding surfaces. The well sections were
used to construct regional cross sections with wells
correlated using regionally extensive gamma-ray mark-
ers, allowing sequence boundaries to be traced. Isopach
maps were generated for each sequence, along with
dominant facies maps of systems tracts, and isolith
maps were used to display the distribution of major
potential reservoir facies. The GIS time-slice maps pro-
vide the first statewide view of potential Big Lime res-
ervoir trends and associated facies in West Virginia at
the fourth-order sequence scale.
Where seismic data are limited, well cuttings and
wire-line logs can provide a crucial data set for sequence-
stratigraphic analysis. In areas where seismic data are
available, well cuttings can provide the necessary li-
thologic data to aid in seismic interpretation where core
coverage is limited. Three-dimensional mapping of the
sequence-stratigraphic time slices and the resulting iso-
pach maps of the sequences can clarify subtle differen-
tial subsidence patterns, help identify subtle regional
structures that are spatially too complex to be evaluated
by two-dimensional cross sections, and help better un-
derstand the complex interplay between tectonics and
glacioeustasy.
REFERENCES CITED
Al-Tawil, A., 1998, High-resolution sequence stratigraphy of late
Mississippian carbonates in the Appalachian Basin ( West
Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky): Doctoral thesis, Virginia Poly-
technic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia,
109 p.
Al-Tawil, A., and J. F. Read, 2003, Late Mississippian (late
Meramecian – Chesterian), glacio-eustatic sequence develop-
ment on an active distal foreland ramp, Kentucky, U.S.A., in
W. M. Ahr, P. M. Harris, W. A. Morgan, and I. D. Somerville,
eds., Permo-Carboniferous carbonate platforms and reefs: SEPM
Special Publication 78, p. 33 – 54.
Al-Tawil, A., T. C. Wynn, and J. F. Read, 2003, Sequence response
of a distal-to-proximal foreland ramp during Mississippian
glacio-eustasy, Appalachian Basin, eastern U.S.A, in W. M.
Ahr, P. M. Harris, W. A. Morgan, and I. D. Somerville, eds.,
Permo-Carboniferous carbonate platforms and reefs: SEPM
Special Publication 78, p. 9 – 32.
Bartlett, C. S. Jr., 1974, Anatomy of the lower Mississippian delta in
southwestern Virginia: Doctoral thesis, University of Tennes-
see, Knoxville, 372 p.
Bjerstedt, T. W., and T. W. Kammer, 1988, Genetic stratigraphy
and depositional systems of the Upper Devonian – lower Mis-
sissippian Price-Rockwell deltaic complex in the central Ap-
palachians, U.S.A.: Sedimentary Geology, v. 54, p. 265 – 301.
Boswell, R. M., and A. C. Donaldson, 1988, Depositional archi-
tecture of the Upper Devonian Catskill delta complex; central
Appalachian Basin, U.S.A, in N. J. McMillan, A. F. Embry, and
D. J. Glass, eds., Devonian of the World; Proceedings of the
Second International Symposium on the Devonian System,
v. 2, Sedimentation: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists
Memoir 14, p. 65 – 84.
Branson, E. B., 1912, A Mississippian delta: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. 23, p. 447 – 456.
Butts, C., 1940, Geology of the Appalachian Valley in Virginia: Part I.
Geologic text and illustrations: Virginia Division of Mineral
Resources Publication, 568 p.
Butts, C., 1941, Geology of the Appalachian Valley in Virginia: Part II.
Fossil plates and explanations: Virginia Division of Mineral Re-
sources Publication, 568 p.
Carney, C., and R. Smosna, 1989, Carbonate deposition in a shal-
low marine gulf: The Mississippian Greenbrier Limestone of
the central Appalachian Basin: Southeastern Geology, v. 30,
p. 25 – 48.
Coffey, B. P., and J. F. Read, 2002, High-resolution sequence stra-
tigraphy in Tertiary carbonate-rich sections by thin-sectioned
well cuttings: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1407 – 1415.
De Witt, W., and L. W. McGrew, 1979, The Appalachian Basin
region, in L. C. Craig and C. W. Connor, eds., Paleotectonic
investigations of the Mississippian system in the United States:
Part I. Introduction and regional analyses of the Mississip-
pian system: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1010,
p. 13 – 48.
Dever, G. R. J., 1995, Tectonic implications of erosional and de-
positional features in upper Meramecian and lower Chester-
ian (Mississippian) carbonate rocks of south-central and east-
central Kentucky: Doctoral thesis, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky, 157 p.
Dever, G. R., S. F. Greb, J. R. Moody, D. R. Chestnut, R. C.
Kepferle, and R. E. Sargeant, 1990, Tectonic implications of
depositional and erosional features in Carboniferous rocks of
south-central Kentucky: Field guide for Annual Field Confer-
ence of the Geological Society of Kentucky, 53 p.
Dunham, R. J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks according to
their depositional texture, in W. E. Ham, ed., Classification of
carbonate rocks: AAPG Memoir 1, p. 108 – 121.
Ettensohn, F. R., 1994, Tectonic control on formation and cyclicity
of major Appalachian unconformities and associated strati-
graphic sequences, in J. M. Dennison and F. R. Ettensohn, eds.,
Concepts in sedimentology and paleontology: Tulsa, SEPM
(Society for Sedimentary Geology), v. 4, p. 217 – 242.
Ettensohn, F. R., C. L. Rice, G. R. Dever, Jr., and D. R. Chesnut,
1984, Slade and Paragon formations— New stratigraphic nomen-
clature for Mississippian rocks along the Cumberland Escarp-
ment in Kentucky: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, v. B 1605-B,
37 p.
Flowers, R. R., 1956, A subsurface study of the Greenbrier Lime-
stone in West Virginia: Part 1: Producers Monthly, v. 20,
p. 26.
Henika, W. S., 1994, Internal structure of the coal-bearing portion
of the Cumberland overthrust block in southwestern Virginia
and adjoining areas, in O. G. Dishner, ed., Geology and mineral
resources of the southwest Virginia coalfield: Charlottesville,
Virginia, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conserva-
tion and Economic Development, Division of Mineral Resources,
p. 101– 120.
Hills, J. M., 1949, Sampling and examination of well cuttings: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 33, p. 73 – 91.
Kelleher, G. T., and R. Smosna, 1993, Oolitic tidal-bar reservoirs in
the Mississippian Greenbrier Group of West Virginia: AAPG
Studies in Geology 35, p. 163 – 173.
Kerans, C., and S. W. Tinker, 1997, Sequence stratigraphy and
characterization of carbonate reservoirs. SEPM Short Course
Notes No. 40, 130 p.
Khetani, A. B., and J. F. Read, 2002, Sequence development of a
mixed carbonate-siliciclastic high-relief ramp, Mississippian,
Wynn and Read 1881
 Kentucky, U.S.A: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 72,
p. 657 – 672.
Leonard, A. D., 1968, The petrology and stratigraphy of upper
Mississippian Greenbrier limestones of eastern West Virginia:
Doctoral thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West
Virginia, 245 p.
MacQuown, W. C., and J. L. Pear, 1983, Regional and local geo-
logic factors control Big Lime stratigraphy and exploration for
petroleum in eastern Kentucky, in M. K. Luther, ed., Pro-
ceedings of the Technical Sessions, Kentucky Oil and Gas As-
sociation 44th Annual Meeting: Lexington, Kentucky Geo-
logical Survey, p. 1 – 20.
Maples, C. G., and J. A. Waters, 1987, Redefinition of the Mera-
mecian/Chesterian boundary (Mississippian): Geology, v. 15,
p. 647 – 651.
Mazzullo, S. J., and A. M. Reid, 1989, Lower Permian platform and
basin depositional systems, northern Midland Basin, Texas, in
P. D. Crevello, J. J. Wilson, J. F. Sarg, and J. F. Read, eds.,
SEPM Special Publication 44, p. 305 – 320.
Pashin, J. C., and F. R. Ettensohn, 1995, Reevaluation of the
Bedford-Berea sequence in Ohio and adjacent states; forced
regression in a foreland basin: Geological Society of America
Special Paper 298, p. 68.
Pryor, W. A., and E. G. Sable, 1974, Carboniferous of the Eastern
Interior Basin, in G. Briggs, ed., Carboniferous of the south-
eastern United States: Geological Society of America Special
Paper 148, p. 281 – 313.
Reger, D. B., 1926, Mercer, Monroe, and Summer counties: West
Virginia Geological Survey, County Geologic Report CGR-28a,
682 p.
Rice, C. L., E. G. Sable, G. R. Dever, and T. M. Kehn, 1979, The
Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous) systems in
the United States – Kentucky: U.S. Geological Survey Profes-
sional Paper 1110-F, p. 32.
Rider, M. H., 1996, The geological interpretation of well logs:
Caithness, Whittles Publishing, viii, 280 p.
Sable, E. G., and G. R. Dever, 1990, Mississippian rocks in Kentucky:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1503, p. 125.
Sarg, J. F., 1988, Carbonate sequence stratigraphy, in C. K. Wilgus,
B. S. Hastings, C. A. Ross, H. Posamentier, J. Van Wagoner,
and C. G. S. C. Kendall, eds., An overview of the fundamen-
tals of sequence stratigraphy and key definitions: SEPM Special
Publication 42, p. 155 – 181.
Shumaker, R. C., and T. H. Wilson, 1996, Basement structure of the
1882 Geohorizons
Appalachian foreland in West Virginia; its style and effect on
sedimentation, in B. A. van der Pluijm and P. A. Catacosinos,
eds., Basement and basins of eastern North America: Geological
Society of America Special Paper 308, p. 139 – 155.
Smith, L. B. Jr., and J. F. Read, 1999, Application of high-resolution
sequence stratigraphy to tidally influenced upper Mississippian
carbonates, Illinois Basin: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Ge-
ology) Special Publication 63, p. 107 – 126.
Smith, L. B. Jr., and J. F. Read, 2001, Discrimination of local and
global effects on upper Mississippian stratigraphy, Illinois Basin,
U.S.A: Journal of Sedimentary Research, Section B: Stratigraphy
and Global Studies, v. 71, p. 985 – 1002.
Vail, P. R., and R. M. Mitchum, Jr., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and
global changes of sea level: Part 1. Overview, in C. E. Payton,
ed., Seismic stratigraphy; applications to hydrocarbon explo-
ration: AAPG Memoir 26, p. 51 – 52.
Van Wagoner, J. C., H. W. Posamentier, R. M. Mitchum, P. R. Vail,
J. F. Sarg, T. S. Loutit, and J. Hardenbol, 1988, An overview of
the fundamentals of sequence stratigraphy and key definitions:
SEPM Special Publication 42, p. 39 – 45.
Weber, L. J., J. F. Sarg, and F. M. Wright, 1995, Sequence stra-
tigraphy and reservoir delineation of the middle Pennsylvanian
(Desmoinesian), Paradox Basin and Aneth field, southwestern
U.S.A., in J. F. Read, C. Kerans, L. J. Weber, J. F. Sarg, and
F. M. Wright, eds., Milankovitch sea-level changes, cycles, and
reservoirs on carbonate platforms in greenhouse and ice-house
worlds: SEPM Short Course No. 35, Part 3, p. 1 – 81.
Wells, D., 1950, Lower middle Mississippian of southeastern West
Virginia: AAPG Bulletin, v. 34, p. 882 – 922.
Wray, L. L., 1980, Petrology and paleoenvironments of the upper
Mississippian Greenbrier Group, Spruce Knob Mountain, Pen-
dleton County, West Virginia: Master’s thesis, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, West Virginia, 152 p.
Yang, C., 1998, Basin analysis of the carboniferous strata in central
and southern West Virginia using sequence-stratigraphic prin-
ciples: Morgantown, West Virginia, West Virginia University,
350 p.
Yeilding, C. A., 1984, Stratigraphy and sedimentary tectonics of the
upper Mississippian Greenbrier Group in eastern West Vir-
ginia: Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 113 p.
Yeilding, C. A., and J. M. Dennison, 1986, Sedimentary response to
Mississippian tectonic activity at the east end of the 38th
Parallel fracture zone: Geology, v. 14, p. 621 – 624.