Depositional Modeling of Detrital Rocks&lt;subtitle&gt;With Emphasis on Cored Sequences of Petroleum Reservoirs&lt;/subtitle&gt;

Weimer, Robert J.; Porter, Karen W.; Land, Cooper B.

doi:10.2110/cor.85.08

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous publications are concerned with the application of fluvial depositional models to reservoir characterization (e.g., Campbell, 1976;Cant, 1982;Collinson, 1978;Collinson and Lewin, 1983;Ethridge and Flores, 1981;Flint and Bryant, 1993;Flores et al, 1985;Galloway and Hobday, 1996;Marzo and Puidefábregas, 1993;Miall, 1978;North, 1996;Selley, 1978Selley, , 1996Tillman and Weber, 1987;Walker and James, 1992;Weimer et al, 1985). Use of qualitative, simplistic depositional models by many geologists has led to reservoir descriptions that are framed in terms such as "ribbon" or "blanket" (sheet) sandstone bodies that are related to paleochannel patterns, such as meandering or braided.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting the Dimensions of Ancient Fluvial Channel Bars, Channels, and Channel Belts from Wireline-Logs and Cores

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A primary objective in exploration for and development of fluvial reservoirs is determining the thickness and width of sandstone-conglomerate bodies (mainly channel-belt deposits). Most of the existing techniques for estimating the dimensions of fluvial reservoirs have major drawbacks. A fresh approach to the problem is made using recent theoretical, experimental, and field studies. This new approach involves (1) new models for the lateral and vertical variation of lithofacies and petrophysical-log response of river-channel deposits with explicit recognition of the different superimposed scales of strata, (2) distinction among single and superimposed channel bars, channels, and channel belts, (3) interpretation of maximum paleochannel depth from the thickness of channel bars and the thickness of sets of cross-strata formed by dunes, and (4) evaluation of various methods for estimation of widths of sandstone-conglomerate bodies that represent either single or connected channel belts (outcrop analogs; correlation of sandstoneconglomerate bodies between wells; use of empirical equations relating channel depth, channel width, and channel-belt width; theoretical models; and three-dimensional seismic data). Two fluvial reservoirs were reinterpreted using this new approach. In the first example from the Mesaverde Group, Colorado, maximum paleochannel depth had been underestimated because the degree of superposition of channel bars had been overestimated. As a result, channel-belt widths determined from empirical equations were underestimated. In the second example from the Travis 1205

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%