Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Characterization of fluvial and aeolian reservoirs: problems and

approaches
Colin P. North and D. Jeremy Prosser

Geological Society, London, Special Publications 1993; v. 73; p. 1-6

doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.1993.073.01.01

Email alerting click here to receive free email alerts when new articles cite this
service article

Permission click here to seek permission to re-use all or part of this article
request
Subscribe click here to subscribe to Geological Society, London, Special
Publications or the Lyell Collection

Notes

Downloaded by Gary James Hampson on 6 December 2007

© 1993 Geological Society of

London
 Characterization of fluvial and aeolian reservoirs:
problems and approaches

C O L I N P. N O R T H & D. JEREMY PROSSER

Department of Geology & Petroleum Geology, University of Aberdeen, Meston Building,
King's College, Aberdeen AB9 2UE, UK

Sedimentological research has traditionally pro- fabrics is related to knowledge of the physical
duced geologic models primarily relevant to hyd- and chemical processes of sedimentation and
rocarbon exploration, focusing predominantly diagenesis. Sadly, our knowledge of these factors
on location and external geometry of sediment has proved to be too sketchy and qualitative for
bodies, be they clastic or carbonate, and under- the demands being made of it. Recognition of
playing the importance of the internal reservoir this situation has spawned a resurgence in stud-
framework. For example, it has been estimated ies of analogue outcrops of the ancient, and re-
that geological heterogeneity traps up to 40% of examination of equivalent modern depositional
moveable oil reserves in fluvial reservoirs (Tyler environments. What is more, the geologists are
& Finley 1991). This failure severely inhibits the now being joined in the field by petroleum engin-
application of new and sophisticated technolo- eers in an attempt to improve cross-discipline
gies to improving recovery efficiencies which are communication and to ensure the data relevant
lamentably low in far too many cases, efficien- to the engineering needs are collected.
cies less than 25% being common (Tyler & Given that the deposits of continental settings
Finley 1991). It is reservoir architecture, the are generally more accessible than those of mar-
internal fabric and structure of a reservoir, that ine settings, it might be expected that our know-
ultimately controls the paths of fluid migration ledge of these would be the most advanced,
during oil and gas emplacement and subsequent which ought to be reflected in the sophistication
extraction. This architecture is, in turn, the prod- and accuracy of predictive reservoir models for
uct of the depositional and diagenetic processes such environments. The starting point for this
which created the reservoir. If an understanding volume of papers was our desire to test if this
of the origin of the reservoir is developed, reser- was indeed the case, and if it were not, then to
voir architecture, and hence fluid flow paths, attempt to document the current status and to
become predictable. The task for the geologist, highlight the areas needing additional work.
then, is to locate and describe this heterogeneity, Based on our reading of the literature, and
so that the trapped hydrocarbons may be liber- contacts with the industry, we had several areas
ated. for concern.
In the past few years, much more emphasis (i) Are the geologists collecting the quanti-
has been placed by reservoir geologists on eluci- tative data needed by the engineers? If not,
dating the nature of geological heterogeneity, what is preventing them from doing so, the
and developing predictive models for use by geology or the lack of appreciation of the
engineers. However, in geologically complex requirements?
reservoirs, and those composed of sediments (ii) Are the results from outcrop and modern
deposited in continental settings almost in- environment studies being translated into
variably come into this category, the rate of predictive tools suitable for modelling sub-
change of lithology and petrophysical properties surface geology?
is usually very high, making subsurface geologi- (iii) Is the knowledge being gained having any
car prediction extremely difficult. Indeed, for significant impact on exploitation of hydro-
such sequences it can be remarkably demanding carbon reserves?
just to correlate major units from one well to (iv) Is there a pre-occupation with small-scale
another to establish gross connectivity path- heterogeneity when in many cases still the
ways, let alone establish the more subtle detail. primary problem is large-scale sand distri-
Many of the current depositional models en- bution and connectivity?
compass too large a scale for the needs of reser-
voir exploitation, and do not provide the quanti-
tative component critical to the engineering of Fluvial and aeolian reservoirs
hydrocarbon extraction at the interwell scale. Aeolian deposits have in the past been con-
Ability to predict the distribution of rock sidered by petroleum engineers to form relatively

From North, C. P. & Prosser, D. J. (eds), 1993, Characterization of Fluvial and Aeolian Reservoirs,
Geological Society Special Publication No 73, pp 1-6.
2 c. P. NORTH & D. J. PROSSER
simple and homogeneous reservoirs. Yet pro-
duction histories for many mature fields, such as
in the southern gas basin of the North Sea (e.g.
Heward 1991), or in the Permian to Jurassic
aeolian sequences in the western USA (e.g. Lind-
quist 1988), now show this to be an oversimplifi-
cation. Work over the past decade or so has
shown that dune grainflow (avalanche) strata
display porosities and permeabilities one or
more orders of magnitude greater than adjacent
dune-apron and interdune sediments (Hunter
1977; Weber 1987; Goggin et al. 1988). Further-
more, permeability in aeolian sediments is ex-
tremely anisotropic. Groundwater conditions
beneath the erg may result in early cementation
of the lower portions of the dunes, and the
production of vertical permeability barriers
(Adams & Patton 1979). The interdigitation
of dune sands with interdune and extra-erg
deposits can result in total isolation of reservoir
intervals.
By contrast, it has long been recognized that
fluvial environments produce some of the most
complex reservoir sequences. The hydrocarbon
potential of fluvial systems varies considerably in
response to differences in geometry of the major
(framework) sandstone bodies and their small-
scale internal characteristics. These are highly
sensitive to tectonic, climatic, hydraulic and
geomorphic conditions., which may be hard to
ascertain in a given basin. Physical proximity to
an understood example is no guide to sub-sur-
face geologic prediction as adjacent river systems
may be at opposite extremes of the depositional
spectrum, as exemplified by Cainozoic fluvial
systems on the coastal plain of the Gulf of
Mexico (Galloway 1981). Fluvial reservoirs are
renowned for internal anisotropy, and for pos-
sessing sporadic permeability barriers that can
only be detected after many wells have been
drilled. For example, whilst it is known the
continuity of the main reservoir sands will be
best parallel to palaeoslope, crevasse-splay
sands, which constitute significant reserves in
many fields, are extremely difficult to locate and
delineate.
In arid regions, it is common for fluvial and
aeolian deposits to be intermixed, with the result
that the overall sequence has all the complexities
of both fluvial and aeolian processes, plus the
complexities produced at the junctions between
the two, and by the reworking of one by the
other. Examples of all these difficulties can be
found within the Permian Rotliegendes Forma-
tion which forms the main reservoirs for gas in
the southern North Sea (e.g. Glennie 1990).
It is readily apparent from the literature that
sedimentologic and engineering studies of aeo-
lian deposits in modern dune fields and outcrops
of ancient examples have advanced dramatically
in the past decade and our knowledge appears to
be well-advanced (e.g. Goggin et al. 1988; Fry-
berger et al. 1990). However, there has been a
preoccupation with the terminology for bound-
ing surfaces, the application of which is equivo-
cal even at outcrop, and difficult in the sub-
surface. Furthermore, though we now under-
stand the possible heterogeneities within aeolian
deposits, are we any more advanced on predict-
ing the spatial distribution of such features?
These were particular areas about which we
sought new opinions.
Fluvial sedimentology appears to have stag-
nated in the past few years, by comparison to
aeolian sedimentology. Though there have been
numerous case studies and elucidation of small-
scale phenomena, there have been few major
breakthroughs that aid sub-surface prediction,
though the importance of tectonic control on
channel morphology and location (e.g. Alex-
ander & Leeder 1987; Kraus & Middleton 1987),
and the value of soil profiles for predicting
channel position (e.g. Brown & Kraus 1987)
have shown considerable promise. Traditional
style facies models (e.g. Walker & Cant 1984)
have already revealed the natural variability in
fluvial deposits, and suggested likely juxtaposi-
tions, but such qualitative information is of little
use to the reservoir geologist or engineer faced
with the task of siting the development wells.
Furthermore, it has not been clear how detailed
geological descriptions of outcrops (e.g. numer-
ous papers in Miall & Tyler 1991) constitute a
predictive tool. The only route so far for such
data has been to refine the statistical distri-
butions on sediment-body geometry used in
statistical modelling (e.g. Fielding & Crane 1987;
Dreyer 1990).
D e s c r i p t i o n or prediction?
The term reservoir characterization is frequently
applied by geologists and engineers to the activi-
ties or results of qualifying and locating hetero-
geneities in reservoirs. By characterization is
meant the description of the internal fabric of
the rocks to produce an overall picture, or
model, that details the nature of the reservoir.
This model is then used for planning the extrac-
tion of the hydrocarbons. The reservoir descrip-
tion is compiled from detailed analysis of the
sub-surface data collected by means of core,
wireline logs, seismic survey, and possibly in-
cludes pressure and production data.
However, the term reservoir characterization
embraces more than just description, since the
 INTRODUCTION 3

Table 1. Area sampled by core and wireline logging for a range of well spacings typical of highly developed oil or
gas fields

Distance Area Area

between Equivalent sampled sampled by
wells No. wells acre by core logs
m per sq. km spacing % % Field example Reference
70 204 1.21 0.000662 0.0641 El Dorado, Kansas, USA Tillman & Jordan 1987
100 100 2.47 0.000324 0.0314 South Belridge, Ca., USA Miller et al. 1990
200 25 10 0.000081 0.0079 Tia Juana, Venezuela Kruit 1987
400 6 40 0.000020 0.0020 Peco, Alberta, Canada Gardiner et al. 1990
Little Creek, Miss., USA Werren et aL 1990
500 4 62 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 3 0.0013 Brent, UKCS Struijk & Green 1991
Prudhoe Bay, Alaska Atkinson et al. 1990
1000 1 247 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0003 Forties, UKCS Wills 1991
Leman, UKCS Hillier & Williams 1991
1500 0.44 556 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0001 Auk, UKCS Trewin & Bramwell 1991
2000 0.25 989 0.0000008 0.00008 West Sole, UKCS Winter & King 1991

geological model must of necessity cover the
entire volume of the reservoir, not just that
penetrated by wells. Many workers fail to con-
sider how much of their geological model is
actually description from observations, and how
much is prediction, in other words extension of
the description into unsampled regions. The
effective spatial resolution of seismic data, even
3D seismic, is rarely better than 10m, and
usually is worse. This resolution is totally unsa-
tisfactory for the kind of reservoir description
now needed, though it may help with gross
architecture. So the description has to rely on
borehole data. However, even for highly devel-
oped fields, boreholes actually sample a minus-
cule proportion of the rock.
Table 1 gives some examples from the liter-
ature of the spacing between boreholes for devel-
oped oil and gas fields. There are very few fields
where the inter-well spacing is less than 100 m
(i.e. about 2 wells per acre), developed fields
onshore more typically having spacings in the
200-500 m range. Offshore fields more typically
have spacings in the 500-1000 m range, and of
course there are numerous examples with spac-
ings greater than this, including all those fields
still under appraisal. The fourth column of this
table shows the area of reservoir that is sampled
by wells at a given spacing, based on core of
15 cm (6 inches) diameter; the fifth column gives
the approximate area sampled by wireline logs,
taking as an average for all log types that the
depth of penetration is about 1 m. To get this in
perspective, the amount of information obtained
from core taken from boreholes 1000 m apart is
roughly equivalent to sticking a pencil into a
football pitch (of whatever persuasion) and
using that to estimate the location of the white
lines marking out the pitch.
It can be seen from Table 1 that even for
densely drilled fields the amount of rock that can
be described is less than 0.1% of the reservoir. In
other words, the geologic model is 99.9%-predic-
tion. This often overlooked aspect of reservoir
characterization shows that what we choose to
do with the geologic data is the most significant
consideration, and highlights the importance of
reservoir modelling.
If prediction is such an important part of the
task, what are the factors that are crucial?
Although a complex issue, two main points
stand out. First, it is clearly vital that we cor-
rectly identify the geological components in the
reservoir. Correct identification comes about
through detailed knowledge of the processes
operating in each environment, and the products
they can produce. At the heart of this is facies
recognition, and there have been, and still are,
far too many cases of miss-identification of flu-
vial and aeolian deposits. From this identifi-
cation, we gain an overall understanding of the
depositional fabric, and the control this might
have exerted on the diagenetic fabric.
The second crucial factor in subsurface predic-
tion is that we have adequate knowledge of the
geologic components identified. Detailed infor-
mation is needed on the nature and scale of
variability within each depositional system, the
way facies do or do not correlate, and ultimately
the impact of the fabrics on fluid-flow. Most of
this comes from studies of outcrops and modern
environments.
It is our conclusion that, given the extremely
small amount of data available from the sub-
4 c. P. NORTH & D. J. PROSSER
surface, the best way we can make use of ana-
logue outcrop and modern environment studies
is to gain greater understanding of the processes
operating in the depositional setting, since this
knowledge does have predictive power, whereas
pure descriptions do not.
About this book
In the preceding sections, we have outlined many
of the problems facing geologists attempting to
'characterize' fluvial and aeolian reservoirs, and
touched on the main approaches being taken, so
setting the background to this book. As already
stated, we wanted to assess the current position
of predictive geoscience for fluvial and aeolian
systems, document recent advances in methods
and understanding, and highlight outstanding
problems. To achieve this, we have invited a
wide spectrum of geoscientists and reservoir
engineers from industry and academia to docu-
ment their opinions and experiences of working
on fluvial and aeolian reservoirs. In particular,
we asked some of the leaders in the science for
reviews of their field of specialization. It is hoped
these papers, focused as they are on the appli-
cation of characterization methodology, will
complement the many techniques papers that
have appeared in the past few years (e.g. see the
collections edited by Lake & Caroll 1986; Till-
man & Weber 1987; Buller et al. 1990, Lake et al.
1991).
This volume naturally subdivides into four
sections. The first section, on fluvial reservoirs,
contains reviews of tectonic controls on alluvial
architecture, and the application of palaeosols to
channel prediction. Next is a discussion on the
relative role and nature of autocyclic versus
allocyclic erosion processes, in particular linked
to changes in base level; the aim here is again to
seek predictive tools, this time linked to basin-
scale events that might be detectable on seismic.
Forward modelling of fluvial sedimentary en-
vironments offers another route to solving the
description/prediction problem. It inherently re-
quires detailed understanding of operative pro-
cesses, but the example described illustrates that
useful results may already be achievable. The
practical aspects of using outcrops to collect
quantitative data for modelling are discussed by
reference to a study in central Spain. Then fol-
lows a case study that illustrates how careful
sedimentological analysis and knowledge can be
usefully applied to a subsurface example, and
complement production engineering studies. The
remaining papers in this section give further
detail of fluvial examples.
The second section, which covers aeolian and
mixed fluvial-aeolian reservoirs, commences
with a pragmatic review of aeolian bounding-
surface terminology, with discussion of its use-
fulness to the reservoir geologist. After two
detailed accounts that improve our knowledge of
the interactions between fluvial and aeolian sys-
tems, several papers illustrate attempts to apply
recent advances in aeolian sedimentology to
detailed characterization of reservoirs. One of
these emphasizes, with production data, the
importance of identifying minor amounts of
aeolian deposit in an otherwise fluvial sequence,
since this tiny proportion of the reservoir over-
whelmingly dominates fluid flow in the entire
reservoir. The final paper in this section shows
the potential value to individual reservoir studies
of a basin-wide search for characteristic genetic
patterns.
The third section of the book documents a
frequently overlooked feature of reservoir des-
cription and modelling, namely the nature of
structural heterogeneities. Depositional or dia-
genetic variations receive great attention, but
they may pale into insignificance in many cases.
The final section of the book highlights the
many new techniques that can be brought to
bear for the characterization of complex reser-
voirs. The geologist is often at a loss to know
what in a reservoir or outcrop needs to be
described, and what is superfluous. The first
paper here describes a computer simulation ap-
proach to evaluating the importance of bound-
ing surfaces in aeolian reservoirs. The remaining
papers describe: statistical analysis of geological
variation in aeolian sediments; the use of magne-
tostratigraphy to improve interwell correlation
in sequences normally devoid of chronostrati-
graphic markers; the application of ground-
penetrating radar to greatly improve detailed
knowledge of heterogeneities in sediments; and
the application of the probe permeameter to
quantification of the variability within sedi-
ments.
Conclusions
From the material in this volume, it is clear that
geologists are now much more aware of the
information required by engineers, and they are
endeavouring to supply it. We are somewhat
disappointed by the lack of numerical geological
data, but this is generally not for the want of
trying. Inevitably, there is an iterative learning
process going on, with new fundamental geologi-
cal understanding improving reservoir manage-
ment, which in turn shows where additional
research is required. Several of the papers illus-
trate how improved knowledge has had a signifi-
 INTRODUCTION
cant impact on hydrocarbon exploitation, which
shows extra effort will be worthwhile. In general,
the most useful outcome of good reservoir
description has been more accurate placement
of infill wells during field development, which
not only reduces costs, but increases recovery
factors.
Perhaps the largest outstanding problem is
that identified at the outset, namely how do we
use the descriptive data, be it from outcrops or
boreholes, to predict the interwell geology? Most
of the new work has added to our recognition
of the need for detailed geological models, but
there have been few advances which improve
sub-surface geological prediction. We do see
indications of a healthy trend to using large-
scale genetic studies as predictors of smaller-
scale variability, such as channel sand-body geo-
metry, but we are little further forward on pre-
dicting the smallest scale heterogeneities such
as cross-bedding. Nevertheless, we hope this
volume will be a small step forward because it
shows up where new work is required.
References
ADAMS,J. & PATTON,J. 1979. Sabkha-dune deposition
in the Lyons Formation (Permian) northern
Front Range, Colorado. Mountain Geologist, 16,
47-57.
ALEXANDER,J. & LEEDER,M. R. 1987. Active tectonic
control on alluvial architecture. In: ETHRIDGE,
F. G., FLORES, R. M. & HARVEY, M. D. (eds)
Recent developments in fluvial sedimentology.
SEPM Special Publications, 39, Tulsa, 243-252.
ATKINSON, C. D., McGOWEN, J. H., BLOCH, S., LUN-
DELL, L. L. & TRUMBLY,P. N. 1990. Braidplain
and deltaic reservoir, Prudhoe Bay Field, Alaska.
In: BARWIS,J. H., MCPHERSON,J. G. & STUDLICK,
J. R. J. (eds) Sandstone Petroleum Reservoirs.
Springer Verlag, New York, 7-29.
BOWN, T. M. & KRAUS, M. J. 1987. Integration of
channel and floodplain suites, I. Developmental
sequence and lateral relations of alluvial paleo-
sols. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 57, 587-
601.
BULLER,m. T., BERG, E., HJELMELAND,O., KLEPPE, J.,
TORSAETER, O. & AASEN,J. O. (eds) 1990. North
Sea oil and gas reservoirs--lI. Graham and Trot-
man, London.
DREYER, T. 1990. Sand body dimensions and infill
sequences of stable, humid-climate delta plain
channels. In: BULLER, A. T., BERG, E., HJELME-
LAND, O., KLEPPE, J., TORSAETER, O. & AASEN,
J. O. (eds) North Sea oil and gas reservoirs--II.
Graham & Trotman, London, 337-351.
FIELDING, C. R. & CRANE,R. C. 1987. An application
of statistical modelling to the prediction of hydro-
carbon recovery factors in fluvial reservoir
sequences. In: ETH,RIDGE, F. G., ELOPES, R. M.
& HARVEY, M. O. (eds) Recent developments in
5
fluvial sedimentology. SEPM Special Publications,
39, Tulsa, 321-327.
FRYBERGER, S. G., KRYSTINIK, L. F. & SCHENK,C. J.
1990. Modern and ancient eolian deposits: petro-
leum exploration and production. Rocky Mountain
section, SEPM, Denver, USA.
GALLOWAY,W. E. 1981. Depositional architecture of
Cenozoic Gulf Coast plain fluvial systems. In:
ETHRIDGE, F. G. & FLORES, R. M. (eds) Recent
and ancient nonmarine depositional environments:
models for exploration. SEPM Special Publi-
cations, 31, Tulsa, 127-155.
GARDINER, S., THOMAS, D. V., BOWERING, E. D. &
MCM1NN, L. S. 1990. A braided fluvial reservoir,
Peco Field, Alberta, Canada. In: BARWIS,J. H.,
MCPHERSON, J. G. & STUDLICK, J. R. J. (eds)
Sandstone Petroleum Reservoirs. Springer Verlag,
New York, 31-56.
GLENNIE, K. W. 1990. Lower Permian-Rotliegend. In:
GLENNIE,K. W. (ed.) Introduction to the petroleum
geology of the North Sea. 3rd edition. Blackwell
Scientific Publications, Oxford, 120-152.
GOGGIN, D. J., CHANDLER, M. A., KOCUREK, G. &
LAKE, L. W. 1988. Patterns of permeability in
eolian deposits: Page Sandstone (Jurassic), north-
eastern Arizona. SPE Formation Evaluation, June,
297-306.
HEWARD, A. P. 1991. Inside Auk--the anatomy of an
eolian oil reservoir. In: MIALL,A. D. & TYLER,N.
(eds) The three-dimensional facies architecture of
terrigenous clastic sediments and its implications
for Hydrocarbon discovery and recovery. SEPM
Concepts in Sedimentology and Palaeontology, 3,
Tulsa, 44-56.
HmLIER, A, P. & WILLIAMS,B. P. J. 1991. The Leman
Field, blocks 49/26, 49/27, 49/28, 53/1, 53/2, UK
North Sea. In: ABaOTTS, I. L. (ed.) United King-
dom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years Commemorative
Volume. Geological Society, London, Memoirs,
14, 451-458.
HUNTER, R. E. 1977. Basic types of stratification in
small eolian dunes. Sedimentology, 24, 361-387.
KRAUS, M. J. & M~DDLETON,L. T. 1987. Contrasting
alluvial architecture of two alluvial suites in dif-
ferent structural settings. In: ETHRIDGE, F. G.,
FLORES, R. M. & HARVEY, M. D. (eds) Recent
developments in fluvial sedimentology. SEPM
Special Publications, 39, Tulsa, 253-262.
KRUIT, C. 1987. Sedimentologic reservoir study of a
stream-drive project in deltaic river sands, East
Tia Juna field, Venezuela. In: TILLMAN, R. W.
& WEaER, K. J. (eds) Reservoir sedimentology.
SEPM Special Publications, 40, Tulsa, 293-310.
LAKE, L. W. & CARROLL,H. B. Jr. (eds) 1986. Reser-
voir characterization. Academic Press, Orlando.
& WASSON, T. C. (eds) 1991. Reservoir
characterization--II. Academic Press, Orlando.
LINDQUIST, S. J. 1988. Practical characterization of
eolian reservoirs for development: Nugget Sand-
stone, Utah-Wyoming thrust belt. Sedimentary
Geology, 56, 315-339.
MIALL, A. D. & TYLER, N. (eds) 1991. The three-
dimensional facies architecture of terrigenous clas-
tic sediments and its implications for hydrocarbon
6 r P. N O R T H
discovery and recovery. SEPM Concepts in Sedi-
mentology and Palaeontology, 3, Tulsa.
MILLER, D. M., MCPHERSON, J. G. & COVINGTON,
T. E. 1990. Fluviodeltaic reservoir, South Belridge
Field, San Joaquin Valley, California. In: BARWlS,
J. H., MCPHERSON, J. G. & STUDLICK, J. R. J.
(eds) Sandstone petroleum reservoirs. Springer
Verlag, New York, 109-130.
STRUIJK, A. P. & GREEN, R. T. 1991. The Brent Field,
block 211/29, UK North Sea. In: AaBOTTS, I. L.
(ed.) United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years
Commemorative Volume. Geological Society,
London, Memoirs 14, 63-72.
TILLMAN, R. W. & JORDAN, D. W. 1987. Sedimento-
logy and subsurface geology of deltaic facies,
Admire 650' Sandstone, El Dorado field, Kansas.
In: TILLMAN, R. W. • WEBER, K. J. (eds) Reser-
voir Sedimentology. SEPM Special Publications,
40, Tulsa, 221 291.
- - - & WEBER, K. J. (eds) 1987. Reservoir sedimento-
logy. SEPM Special Publications, 40, Tulsa.
TREWIN, N. H. 8~; BRAMWELL, M. G. 1991: The Auk
Field, Block 30/16, UK North Sea. In: ABBOTTS,
I. L. (ed,) United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields,
25 Years Commemorative Volume. Geological
Society, London, Memoirs 14, 227-236.
TYLER, N. ~,~ FINLEY,R. J. 1991. Architectural controls
on the recovery of hydrocarbons from sandstone
reservoirs. In: MIALL, A. D. & TYLER, N. (eds)
The three-dimensional facies architecture of terri-
& D. J. PROSSER
genous clastic sediments and its implications for
hydrocarbon discovery and recovery. SEPM Con-
cepts in Sedimentology and Palaeontology, 3,
Tulsa, 1 5.
WALKER, R. G. & CANT, D. J. 1984. Sandy Fluvial
Systems. In: WALKER, R. G. (ed.) Facies models.
2nd edition. Geological Association of Canada,
Ontario, 71-90.
WEBER, K. J. 1987. Computation of initial well produc-
tivities in aeolian sandstone on the basis of a
geological model, Leman gas field, UK. In: TILL-
MAN, R. W. & WEBER, K. J. (eds) Reservoir sedi-
mentology. SEPM Special Publications, 40, Tulsa,
333-354.
WERREN, E. G., SHEW, R. D., ADAMS, E. R. &
STANCL1FFE, R. J. 1990. Meander-belt reservoir
geology, Mid-Dip Tuscaloosa, Little Creek Field,
Mississippi. In: BARWIS,J. H., MCPHERSON, J. G.
t~ STUDLICK, J. R. J. (eds) Sandstone Petroleum
Reservoirs. Springer Verlag, New York, 85-107.
WILLS, J. M. 1991. The Forties Field, block 21/10, 22/
6a, UK North Sea. In: ABBOTTS,I. L. (ed.) United
Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years Commemor-
ative Volume. Geological Society, London,
Memoirs 14, 301-308.
WINTER, O. A. & KING, B. 1991. The West Sole Field,
block 48/6, UK North Sea. In: ABBOTTS,I. L. (ed.)
United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years
Commemorative Volume. Geological Society,
London, Memoirs 14, 517-523.