Changes

[[file:M91FG176.JPG|thumb|300px|{{figure number|5}}Flow geology influences in meandering river sediments.]]

[[file:M91FG176.JPG|thumb|300px|{{figure number|5}}Flow geology influences in meandering river sediments.]]

Jordan and Pryor<ref name=Jordanandpryor_1992>Jordan, D. W., and W. A. Pryor, 1992, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1992-93/data/pg/0076/0010/0000/1601.htm Hierarchical levels of heterogeneity in a Mississippi river meander belt and application to reservoir systems]: AAPG Bulletin, v. 76, no. 10, p. 1601–1624.</ref> made detailed measurements on sediment body dimensions along a 10-mi (16-km) stretch of the Mississippi River meander belt system in southeastern Missouri. The point bars here are 15–45 m (49–147 ft) thick, a few kilometers long (typically 3 km; 2 mi), and between 600 and 1800 m (1968 and 5905 ft) wide. The Mississippi is a continental-size river stretching the length of the United States. As a general rule, big rivers like the Mississippi will tend to deposit large point bar sand bodies; lesser rivers will tend to produce smaller point bars ([[:file:M91FG176.JPG|Figure 5a]]). For example, the typical width of individual point bars in the 35-1 sand of the Widuri field in the Java Sea is 1200-1500 m.<ref name=Carter_2003>Carter, D. C., 2003, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/2003/06jun/0909/0909.HTM 3-D seismic geomorphology: Insights into fluvial reservoir deposition and performance, Widuri field, Java Sea]: AAPG Bulletin, v. 87, no. 6, p. 909–934.</ref> A well located in one of the point bars has produced 3.2MM bbls of oil. By contrast the fluvial sands in the Jonah Gas field of Wyoming are estimated to have a P50 width ranging from only 60 to 210 m.<ref name=Shanley_2004>Shanley, K. W., 2004, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/study52/CHAPTER10/CHAPTER10.HTM Fluvial reservoir description for a giant, low-permeability gas field: Jonah field, Green River Basin, Wyoming, U.S.A.], in J. W. Robinson and K. W. Shanley, eds., Jonah field: Case study of a giant tight-gas fluvial reservoir: AAPG Studies in Geology 52, p. 159–182.</ref>

Jordan and Pryor<ref name=Jordanandpryor_1992>Jordan, D. W., and W. A. Pryor, 1992, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1992-93/data/pg/0076/0010/0000/1601.htm Hierarchical levels of heterogeneity in a Mississippi river meander belt and application to reservoir systems]: AAPG Bulletin, v. 76, no. 10, p. 1601–1624.</ref> made detailed measurements on sediment body dimensions along a 10-mi (16-km) stretch of the Mississippi River meander belt system in southeastern Missouri. The point bars here are 15–45 m (49–147 ft) thick, a few kilometers long (typically 3 km; 2 mi), and between 600 and 1800 m (1968 and 5905 ft) wide. The Mississippi is a continental-size river stretching the length of the United States. As a general rule, big rivers like the Mississippi will tend to deposit large point bar sand bodies; lesser rivers will tend to produce smaller point bars ([[:file:M91FG176.JPG|Figure 5a]]). For example, the typical width of individual point bars in the 35-1 sand of the Widuri field in the Java Sea is 1200-1500 m.<ref name=Carter_2003>Carter, D. C., 2003, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/2003/06jun/0909/0909.HTM 3-D seismic geomorphology: Insights into fluvial reservoir deposition and performance, Widuri field, Java Sea]: AAPG Bulletin, v. 87, no. 6, p. 909–934.</ref> A well located in one of the point bars has produced 3.2MM bbls of oil. By contrast the fluvial sands in the Jonah Gas field of Wyoming are estimated to have a P50 width ranging from only 60 to 210 m.<ref name=Shanley_2004>Shanley, K. W., 2004, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/study52/CHAPTER10/CHAPTER10.HTM Fluvial reservoir description for a giant, low-permeability gas field: Jonah field, Green River Basin, Wyoming, U.S.A.], in J. W. Robinson and K. W. Shanley, eds., Jonah field: Case study of a giant tight-gas fluvial reservoir: [http://store.aapg.org/detail.aspx?id=866 AAPG Studies in Geology 52], p. 159–182.</ref>

Several technical papers give cross plots of fluvial sand-body widths versus the maximum bankful depth of rivers (e.g., Bridge and Mackey<ref name=Bridgeandmackey_1993>Bridge, J. S., and S. D. Mackey, 1993, A theoretical study of fluvial sandstone body dimensions, in S. S. Flint and I. D. Bryant, eds., Geological modeling of hydrocarbon reservoirs: International Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication 15, p. 213–236.</ref>) These plots have been used to model thickness-to-width ratios for 3-D geological models.

Several technical papers give cross plots of fluvial sand-body widths versus the maximum bankful depth of rivers (e.g., Bridge and Mackey<ref name=Bridgeandmackey_1993>Bridge, J. S., and S. D. Mackey, 1993, A theoretical study of fluvial sandstone body dimensions, in S. S. Flint and I. D. Bryant, eds., Geological modeling of hydrocarbon reservoirs: International Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication 15, p. 213–236.</ref>) These plots have been used to model thickness-to-width ratios for 3-D geological models.