Seismic-driven geocellular modeling of fluvial meander-belt reservoirs using a rule-based method

Abstract

This is a repository copy of Seismic-driven geocellular modeling of fluvial meander-belt reservoirs using a rule-based method.

Three‐dimensional forward stratigraphic modelling of the sedimentary architecture of meandering‐river successions in evolving half‐graben rift basins

“…A buffer zone where channel belts cannot develop is employed to mimic the effect of alluvial fans emanating from the footwall (cf. The frequency and spatial continuity of intra-bar mud drapes further increase the complexity in the connectivity of sand-prone geobodies (Colombera et al, 2018;Yan et al, 2019). This buffer zone is kept constant in the model, and the variation induced by a complicated interaction between axial river systems and footwall-derived fan systems (Leeder & Mack, 2001;Leeder, et al, 1996) is ignored.…”

“…Different modes of point-bar sedimentation also control spatial variations of coarse and fine members, for instance, because of the development of mudprone counter-point bar deposits (Ghinassi, Ielpi, Aldinucci, & Fustic, 2016;Smith, Hubbard, Leckie, & Fustic, 2009). The frequency and spatial continuity of intra-bar mud drapes further increase the complexity in the connectivity of sand-prone geobodies (Colombera et al, 2018;Yan et al, 2019). The number of sand-prone geobodies recognised in sets of cross sections tends to decrease progressively longitudinally along the basin, due to vertical channel-belt amalgamation, as the subsidence decreases progressively from the fault depocentre towards the fault tips ( Figure 12).…”

“…The plan-view morphology of a single fluvial channel representing a river flowing axially through a half-graben basin is generated by selecting a combination of idealised and/or real-world examples of channel trajectories associated with three consecutive meander bends, each stored in a library of mutually compatible planforms. The model allows generation of sedimentary architectures resulting from different styles of meander transformations, while simultaneously maintaining small-scale facies characteristics of intra-bar deposits (Colombera, Yan, McCormick-Cox, & Mountney, 2018;Yan, Colombera, Mountney, & Dorrell, 2019). Facies distributions and sedimentary architectures of point-bar deposits are closely related to the growth histories and transformation styles of point-bar development .…”

“…The planform fluvial morphologies and architectures generated by the model can be constrained with seismic and outcrop-analogue data. The model allows generation of sedimentary architectures resulting from different styles of meander transformations, while simultaneously maintaining small-scale facies characteristics of intra-bar deposits (Colombera, Yan, McCormick-Cox, & Mountney, 2018;Yan, Colombera, Mountney, & Dorrell, 2019). In this study, to minimise the number of variables used in the model, a simple planform pattern that incorporates typical expansional and rotational point-bar elements (see details in Yan et al, 2019) is used as a template for generating channel reaches.…”

Grain‐size variability within a mega‐scale point‐bar system, False River, Louisiana

“…Such issues are also important to the extraction of water from aquifers and to predict the possible spread of contaminants through an aquifer. Although numerical models have been developed that can help predict such characteristics based on the geometries observed in three‐dimensional seismic surveys (Yan et al ., ; Colombera et al ., ), such models are best used when the lateral extent of facies and grain‐size variability is well‐constrained. Seismic methods can provide the geometry of the meander externally and sometimes internally (Hubbard et al ., ; Alqahtani et al ., ) but are weak at constraining lithology.…”