Latin American Journal of Sedimentology

and Basin Analysis

E-ISSN: 1851-4979
eschwarz@cig.museo.unlp.edu.ar
Asociación Argentina de Sedimentología
Argentina

Bridge, John S.
uvial hydrocarbon reservoirs and aquifers: problems and solutions Latin American Journal of Sedimentology and Basin Analysis, vol. 8, núm. 2, diciembre,
Asociación Argentina de Sedimentología Buenos Aires, Argentina

Complete issue
Scientific Information System
More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal
Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative
AAS Revista (2001), vol. 8 nº 2: 87-114. ISSN 0328 1159
Asociación Argentina de Sedimentología

Characterization of fluvial hydrocarbon reservoirs

and aquifers: problems and solutions

John S. BRIDGE

Department of Geological Sciences, Binghamton University, P.O. Box 6000, Binghamton, NY 13902-
6000, USA. Email: jbridge@binghamton.edu

Abstract. Fluvial deposits are important hydrocarbon reservoirs and aquifers in many parts of the world. In order to
assess, develop and manage these resources, it is necessary to determine the three-dimensional geometry, orientation,
spatial distribution and total volume of the reservoirs/aquifers. Such characterization of reservoirs/aquifers normally
involves (1) analysis of well logs, cuttings, cores and seismic data (2) correlation of strata between wells, and (3)
modeling of the three-dimensional volume between wells. These procedures require a great deal of geological
knowledge. Unfortunately, current approaches to reservoir/aquifer characterization are problematical in many cases.
Specific fluvial depositional forms (e.g., channel bars, crevasse splays, lacustrine deltas) are commonly interpreted
from well logs and cores, because it is thought that deposits associated with particular depositional forms will have
particular geometries and reservoir quality. However, it is very difficult to unambiguously interpret fluvial depositional
forms from such one-dimensional data, and it is questionable that a particular depositional form will have a distinctive
stratal geometry. In particular, it is not possible to distinguish braided river deposits from meandering river deposits
based on their vertical facies sequences. Also, it is a common myth that there is a relationship between channel-belt
width/thickness, channel pattern, grain size of sediment load, and bank stability. However, with very careful analysis,
the lateral extent of subsurface channel-belt deposits and overbank deposits can be estimated from their facies,
thickness, and proportion observed in well logs and cores.
Correlation of fluvial lithostratigraphic units (e.g., channel-belt sandstone bodies) between wells is commonly based
on untenable assumptions. The result is normally that stratigraphic units appear much more laterally continuous than
they really are. Before attempting correlation, it is desirable to estimate the likely lateral extent and thickness variation
of stratigraphic units, based on the interpretation of available well logs and cores mentioned above. Then, it is wise to
set up multiple working hypotheses for the correlation. Estimation of the geometry of stratigraphic units is aided by
use of modern analogs, ancient analogs, and depositional models. Modern analogs are superior aids because it is
possible to describe fluvial morphology and deposits directly and unambiguously. Ancient analogs are less reliable,
because their origin must be interpreted, and because outcrops are commonly not large enough to allow definition of
the facies geometry (e.g., channel-belt width). Depositional models can be used to help estimate the lateral extent of
stratigraphic units (e.g., zones of high or low net-to-gross). However, such models may be only two-dimensional, not
quantitative, or do not represent depositional processes and products correctly. Sequence stratigraphic models are
particularly problematical in these regards.
In order to characterize the three-dimensional volume between wells, it is common to make use of ancient analogs in
combination with object-based stochastic models. The geometry and proportion of stratigraphic objects such as
channel-belt sandstone bodies are determined statistically from well data and ancient analogs, and these objects are
located in space using their known positions in wells and using quasi-random placement between wells. Although this
method honors well data, the shapes and locations of objects can be very unrealistic. Process-based (forward) models
are capable of producing much more realistic stratigraphy, and have much greater predictive value, but it is very
difficult to fit such models to well data exactly. For this reason, process-based models are not routinely used for
reservoir/aquifer modeling. However, it has been shown recently that hybrid process-based and stochastic models can
potentially be fitted exactly to well data using a trial-and-error approach with new optimization procedures (genetic
algorithms).

87
 John S. BRIDGE
Keywords: Fluvial reservoirs and aquifers, well logs and cores, stratigraphic correlation, 3-D alluvial
architecture models.
Palabras claves: Reservorios y acuíferos fluviales, perfiles de pozo y testigos corona, correlació n estratigrá fica,
modelos de arquitectura aluvial 3-D.
RESUMEN EXPANDIDO
Caracterización de reservorios de hidrocarburos y
acuíferos fluviales: Problemas y Soluciones. Los depó sitos
fluviales son importantes reservorios de hidrocarburos y
acuíferos en muchas regiones del mundo. A fin de valorar,
desarrollar y utilizar estos recursos es necesario
determinar la geometría tridimensional, la orientació n, la
distribució n espacial y el volumen total de los reservorios
y acuíferos. Generalmente, este tipo de caracterizació n de
reservorios y acuíferos involucra, (1) el aná lisis de
perfiles de pozos, cuttings, testi- gos corona y datos
sísmicos, (2) la correlació n de estratos entre pozos, y (3) el
modelado tridimensional de los depó si- tos entre los
pozos. Estos procedimientos requieren una ela- boració n
del conocimiento geoló gico. Desafortunadamente, en
muchos casos las propuestas actuales para la caracteriza-
ció n de los reservorios y acuíferos son problemá ticas.
Las formas fluviales de depositació n (ejemplos: barras de
canal, crevasse splays, deltas lacustres) son interpretadas
comú nmente a partir de perfiles de pozo y testigos corona,
ya que se piensa que los depó sitos asociados con formas
depositacionales determinadas tendrá n geometrías
particu- lares y una calidad de reservorio determinada. Sin
embargo, es muy difícil interpretar inequívocamente las
formas depositacionales fluviales a partir de estos
datos unidimensionales y es cuestionable suponer que
una forma depositacional particular tendrá una geometría
estratal dis- tintiva. En especial, no es posible distinguir
depó sitos de ríos enlazados de depó sitos de ríos
meandrantes en base a sus secuencias verticales de facies.
Ademá s, es un mito po- pular que hay una relació n entre
ancho/profundidad de la faja de canales, diseñ o del canal,
tamañ o de grano de la car- ga de lecho y estabilidad de los
má rgenes. Sin embargo, mediante un aná lisis muy
detallado de las facies, el espesor y la proporció n
observados en los perfiles de pozo y testigos corona puede
ser estimada la extensió n en subsuelo de los depó sitos de
las fajas de canales y de los depó sitos de albardó n.
La correlació n de unidades litoestratigrá ficas fluviales
(por ejemplo: cuerpos de areniscas de faja de canales)
entre po- zos está basada comú nmente en suposiciones
insostenibles. Normalmente, el resultado de estas
correlaciones es que las unidades estratigrá ficas parecen
mucho má s continuas late- ralmente de lo que son en
realidad. Antes de intentar la correlació n, es conveniente
estimar la probable extensió n lateral y las variaciones de
espesor de las unidades estratigrá ficas, basá ndose en el
aná lisis de los perfiles de pozo y testigos corona
mencionados anteriormente. A partir de estas
estimaciones es necesario establecer mú ltiples hi- pó tesis
de trabajo para realizar la correlació n. La estimació n de la
geometría de las unidades estratigrá ficas es factible
mediante el uso de aná logos actuales, aná logos antiguos y
modelos depositacionales. Los estimadores má s ú tiles son
88
los obtenidos de aná logos modernos porque en ellos es
posi- ble describir sin ambigü edades la morfología y los
depó sitos fluviales. Los aná logos antiguos son menos
confiables debi- do a que su origen debe ser interpretado y
porque los aflora- mientos no son lo suficientemente
extensos como para per- mitir la definició n de las
geometrías de las facies (por ejemplo: ancho de la faja de
canales). Los modelos depositacionales pueden ser
utilizados para ayudar a esti- mar la extensió n lateral de
las unidades estratigrá ficas (por ejemplo: zonas de alta o
baja relació n porcentual entre espe- sor ú til y espesor total
del reservorio, net-to-gross). Sin em- bargo, tales modelos
pueden ser aná logos inapropiados, ya que son solamente
2-D, no cuantitativos, o no representan correctamente los
procesos y productos depositacionales. En estos aná lisis,
los modelos de secuencia estratigrá fica son
particularmente problemá ticos.
A fin de caracterizar el volumen de los depó sitos entre
los pozos, es comú n utilizar los aná logos antiguos en
combina- ció n con objetos basados en modelos
estocá sticos. La geome- tría y la proporció n de los objetos
estratigrá ficos, tales como cuerpos de areniscas de faja de
canal, son determinados estadísticamente a partir de datos
de pozo y aná logos anti- guos, estos objetos son ubicados
en el espacio utilizando sus posiciones conocidas en los
pozos y un emplazamiento cuasi aleatorio entre los pozos.
Aunque este mé todo señ ala la im- portancia de los datos
de pozos, las formas y ubicaciones de los objetos son muy
poco realistas. Los modelos basados en procesos (ver má s
adelante) son capaces de producir estratigrafías mucho
má s realistas y tienen un mayor valor predictivo pero es
muy difícil adecuar exactamente estos modelos a los datos
de pozos. Por esta razó n, los modelos basados en procesos
no son usados rutinariamente en el modelado de
reservorios y acuíferos. Sin embargo, reciente- mente ha
sido demostrado que potencialmente los modelos
híbridos, entre estocá sticos y basados en procesos, pueden
ser ajustados con exactitud a los datos de pozos utilizando
una aproximació n por prueba y error con nuevos procedi-
mientos de optimizació n (algoritmos gené ticos).
Los depó sitos fluviales son importantes reservorios de
hi- drocarburos y acuíferos en muchas regiones del
mundo. A fin de valorar, desarrollar y utilizar estos
recursos es necesa- rio determinar la geometría
tridimensional, la orientació n, la distribució n espacial y el
volumen total de los reservorios y acuíferos.
Generalmente, este tipo de caracterizació n de reservorios
y acuíferos involucra, (1) el aná lisis de perfiles de pozos,
cuttings, testigos corona y datos sísmicos, (2) la
correlació n de estratos entre pozos, y (3) el modelado
tridimensional de los depó sitos entre los pozos. Estos
proce- dimientos requieren una elaboració n del
conocimiento geoló gico. Desafortunadamente, en muchos
casos las pro- puestas actuales para la caracterizació n de
AAS Revista 8 (2), 2001
 Characterization of fluvial hydrocarbon reservoirs and aquifers: problems and solutions
los reservorios y acuíferos son problemá ticas.
Las formas fluviales de depositació n (ejemplos: barras de

AAS Revista 8 (2), 2001 89

canal, crevasse splays, deltas lacustres) son interpretadas
Los aná logos antiguos son menos confiables debido a que
comú nmente a partir de perfiles de pozo y testigos corona,
su origen debe ser interpretado y porque los
ya que se piensa que los depó sitos asociados con formas
afloramientos no son lo suficientemente extensos como
depositacionales determinadas tendrá n geometrías
para permitir la defi- nició n de las geometrías de las facies
particu- lares y una calidad de reservorio determinada. Sin
(por ejemplo: ancho de la faja de canales). Los modelos
embargo, es muy difícil interpretar inequívocamente las
depositacionales pueden ser utilizados para ayudar a
formas depositacionales fluviales a partir de estos
estimar la extensió n lateral de las unidades estratigrá ficas
datos unidimensionales y es cuestionable suponer que
(por ejemplo: zonas de alta o baja relació n porcentual
una forma depositacional particular tendrá una geometría
entre espesor ú til y espesor total del reservorio, net-to-
estratal dis- tintiva. En especial, no es posible distinguir
gross). Sin embargo, tales modelos pueden ser aná logos
depó sitos de ríos enlazados de depó sitos de ríos
inapropiados, ya que son solamente 2- D, no cuantitativos,
meandrantes en base a sus secuencias verticales de facies.
o no representan correctamente los pro- cesos y
Ademá s, es un mito popular que hay una relació n entre
productos depositacionales. En estos aná lisis, los modelos
ancho/profundidad de la faja de canales, diseñ o del canal,
de secuencia estratigrá fica son particularmente pro-
tamañ o de grano de la carga de lecho y estabilidad de los
blemá ticos.
má rgenes. Sin embargo, mediante un aná lisis muy
A fin de caracterizar el volumen de los depó sitos entre
detallado de las facies, el espesor y la pro- porció n
los pozos, es comú n utilizar los aná logos antiguos en
observados en los perfiles de pozo y testigos corona puede
combina- ció n con objetos basados en modelos
ser estimada la extensió n en subsuelo de los depó sitos de
estocá sticos. La geome- tría y la proporció n de los objetos
las fajas de canales y de los depó sitos de albardó n.
estratigrá ficos, tales como cuerpos de areniscas de faja de
La correlació n de unidades litoestratigrá ficas fluviales
canal, son determinados estadísticamente a partir de
(por ejemplo: cuerpos de areniscas de faja de canales)
datos de pozo y aná logos anti- guos, estos objetos son
entre pozos está basada comú nmente en suposiciones
ubicados en el espacio utilizando sus posiciones conocidas
insostenibles. Nor- malmente, el resultado de estas
en los pozos y un emplazamiento cua- si aleatorio entre
correlaciones es que las uni- dades estratigrá ficas parecen
los pozos. Aunque este mé todo señ ala la importancia de
mucho má s continuas lateral- mente de lo que son en
los datos de pozos, las formas y ubicaciones de los objetos
realidad. Antes de intentar la corre- lació n, es conveniente
son muy poco realistas. Los modelos basados en procesos
estimar la probable extensió n lateral y las variaciones de
(ver má s adelante) son capaces de producir estratigrafías
espesor de las unidades estratigrá ficas, basá ndose en el
mucho má s realistas y tienen un mayor valor predictivo
aná lisis de los perfiles de pozo y testigos corona
pero es muy difícil adecuar exactamente estos modelos a
mencionados anteriormente. A partir de estas esti-
los datos de pozos. Por esta razó n, los modelos basados en
maciones es necesario establecer mú ltiples hipó tesis de
procesos no son usados rutinariamente en el modelado de
tra- bajo para realizar la correlació n. La estimació n de la
reservorios y acuíferos. Sin embargo, reciente- mente ha
geome- tría de las unidades estratigrá ficas es factible
sido demostrado que potencialmente los modelos
mediante el uso de aná logos actuales, aná logos antiguos y
híbridos, entre estocá sticos y basados en procesos,
modelos depositacionales. Los estimadores má s ú tiles son
pueden ser ajustados con exactitud a los datos de pozos
los obteni- dos de aná logos modernos porque en ellos es
utilizando una aproximació n por prueba y error con
posible descri- bir sin ambigü edades la morfología y los
nuevos procedi- mientos de optimizació n (algoritmos
depó sitos fluviales.
genéticos).

INTRODUCTION attributable to crevasse splays and levees.

Determination of the stratigraphic properties
Fluvial deposits are important hydrocarbon (characterization) of a reservoir or aquifer generally
reservoirs in many parts of the world (e.g., Alaska,
Argentina, southern USA and Gulf of Mexico, North
Sea, China, Venezuela). Also, fluvial deposits are
commonly important aquifers. In order to assess,
develop, and manage these resources, it is
necessary to determine: (1) the total volume of
reservoir or aquifer in a particular volume of the
sedimentary basin (the net-to-gross), and; (2) the
three-dimen- sional geometry, orientation and
spatial distribution of the sedimentary rocks that
form the reservoirs or aquifers. In fluvial deposits,
reservoir or aquifer rocks are mainly channel-
belt sandstones and gravelstones
(conglomerates), with subordinate sandstones
entails the following steps: (1) analysis of well
logs, cuttings and cores in order to describe and
interpret the nature and origin of the rocks; (2)
stratigraphic correlation of well logs and cores
in order to assess the continuity of distinctive
rock types (facies) between wells; (3) use of
seismic data to assess the orientation and
structural continuity of relatively thick (> 100 m
thick) sequences of strata, and to recognize
distinctive seismic patterns that can be related
to distinctive sedimentary facies; (4)
modeling of the geometry and distribution of
lithofacies in the three-dimensional space
between wells, and; (5) distribution of rock
properties such as porosity and permeability
as a function of lithofacies or using stochastic
models. Successful completion of these steps
involves a great deal of geological knowledge,
the use of a range of stratigraphic models, and
many assumptions that are difficult to test.
Some methods of fluvial
reservoir/aquifer characterization that are in floodbasin deposits (Fig. 1). However, it is difficult
common use are ill-conceived and unjustifiable. In to distinguish: (1) relatively
this review, I will explain and justify this criticism,
and attempt to offer constructive alternatives to
reservoir/aquifer characterization. The comments
in this review also have general implications for
describing and interpreting fluvial deposits.

ANALYSIS OF WELL LOGS AND CORES

Description and interpretation of distinctive

rock types (facies)

Well logs and cores are used to describe or

interpret the spatial distribution of sedimentary
rock composition, texture, sedimentary
structures, porosity and permeability, the nature
of the fluids in the void spaces, and the thickness
of the different rock types (e.g., sandstone,
shale, coal). It is common practice to interpret
the specific fluvial depositional environment
(e.g., channel bar, crevasse splay, levee,
floodbasin) of the various lithofacies or
petrofacies using vertical trends in grain size or
some other sedimentary or petrophysical
property. The objective is to use this
interpretation to help estimate the three-
dimensio- nal geometry and connectivity of the
reservoir rocks and permeability barriers. The
assumptions in this practice are: (1) it is possible
to interpret specific fluvial depositional
environments from vertical logs, and; (2) there is
an unambiguous relationship between the
geometry and sedimentary processes of a specific
depositional environment and the three-
dimensional geometry of the deposits formed in
that environment. Both of these assumptions
are suspect, as explained below.

Difficulties interpreting fluvial depositional

environments from well logs and cores

A simple view of fluvial deposits, as seen in

well logs and cores, is that the thickest (say,
meters thick) sandstone-gravelstone bodies are
deposits of channel belts, and very thick bodies
(say, tens of meters thick) may be superimposed
(amalgamated) channel belts. Thinner sandstones
bodies (dm to m thick) interbedded with shales
might be taken as overbank deposits such as
crevasse splays, levees, lacustrine deltas, or fills
of floodplain-drainage channels. Thick sequences
of shale with minor sandstones would be
thin parts of isolated channel-belt sandstone sheet-like geometry (large width/thickness) with
bodies (e.g., parts of channel fills, or shallow very little associated floodplain deposits.
parts of the channel) from the thicker overbank Anastomosing river
sandstone bodies; (2) floodbasin muds from
muddy channel fills, and; (3) the different
types of overbank sandstone bodies (Fig.1).

The folly of trying to interpret paleochannel

pattern from well logs and cores

Sandstone bodies interpreted from well

logs are commonly classified as fining
upward, coarsening upward, or “blocky”.
Fining-upward sandstone bodies might be
interpreted as point-bar deposits or channel-fill
deposits of a meandering river, whereas blocky
sandstone bodies (no clear vertical trends in
grain size) are commonly assigned to braided
river bars (e.g., Galloway and Hobday, 1983,
1996; Flores et al., 1985). Coarsening-upward
sandstone bodies might be interpreted as
deposits of distributary-mouth bars, lacustrine
deltas or progradational crevasse splays/levees.
The reality is that all of these vertical sequence
patterns can form in all of these depositional
environments. Fi- gures 2 and 3 show how the
vertical variation of grain size, sedimentary
structure, and thickness of single channel-belt
deposits varies depending on the topographic
features of the bars and channels, the position
within a channel bar or channel fill, and the
nature of channel migration (determining what
parts of channel bars are preserved). Fining-
upward, coarsening-upward, and “blocky”
sequences can occur in any type of channel
deposit. Therefore, it is not possible to
distinguish the deposits of the different river
patterns (braided, meandering) from single
vertical logs.
Why is it so important to interpret ancient
channel patterns such as braided, meandering,
and anastomosing anyway? This preoccupation
with determining ancient channel pattern is
based on the misguided notion that different
channel patterns are associated with distinctive
sedimentary facies and geometry (e.g., Allen,
1965; Collinson, 1996; Galloway and Hobday,
1996; Miall, 1996; Selley, 1996). For example,
meandering river deposits are commonly
thought of as relatively fine-grained sandstones
with ribbon-like geometries (low width/
thickness) set in voluminous muddy floodplain
deposits. In contrast, braided river deposits are
commonly thought of as relatively coarse-
grained sandstones and/or gravelstones with
Figure 1. Example of interpreted gamma ray logs from the Travis Peak Formation, East Texas Basin (from Tye, 1991).
Interpretations of depositional environment were aided by cores from well S.F.E. No.2. The sandstone bodies vary in thickness,
and the thicker ones are in most cases interpreted as channel-belts. The thinner, overbank sandstones were interpreted by Tye
(1991) as either crevasse splays or lacustrine deltas. The sandstone bodies may fine upward, coarsen upward or appear “blocky”,
irrespective of their thickness and interpretation. It is possible that some of the overbank sandstones are channel-belt
sandstones, and vice versa. Also, it is possible that some of the mudstone could be deposited in channel fills or as upper-bar
deposits within channel belts (Bridge and Tye, 2000). Notice also that, in correlating the stratigraphic units between wells, the tops
and bases of sandstone bodies were not assumed to be horizontal.

Figura 1. Ejemplo de perfiles de rayos gama interpretados para la Formació n Travis Peak, Cuenca East Texas (de Tye, 1991). Las
interpretaciones del ambiente depositacional fueron apoyadas por testigos corona del pozo S.F.E. Nº2. Los cuerpos de areniscas
varian de espesor y en la mayoría de los casos los má s espesos se interpretaron como fajas de canales. Los cuerpos má s delgados,
las areniscas de albardón fueron interpretadas por Tye (1991) como crevasse splays o deltas lacustres. Los cuerpos de arenisca pueden
ser granodecreciente, granocreciente o no presentar cambios (blocky) independientemente de su espesor e interpretació n. Es
posible que algunas de las areniscas de albardón sean areniscas de faja de canal y viceversa. Es posible ademá s que algunos de los
estratos de pelitas podrían estar depositados en los rellenos de canal o como depó sitos de tope de barra dentro de las fajas de
canales (Bridge and Tye, 2000). Note que también, en las correlaciones de las unidades estratigráficas entre pozos, las bases y techos
de los cuerpos de areniscas no fueron tomados como horizontales.

amounts of bed load relative to sus-

deposits have been thought of as a connected
network of channel sandstone bodies with low
width/thickness set in a matrix of floodplain mud.
There are some very serious misconceptions in all
of this.

Attempts to distinguish meandering and braided

river deposits based on their grain size and
geometry

This practice owes its origin to Schumm’s

(1963, 1971, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1985)
classification of channel patterns. Schumm
(followed by many sedimentologists such as
Galloway and Hobday, 1983, 1996; Miall, 1996)
postulated that rivers that transport large
pended load tend to have relatively low
sinuosity and high degree of braiding. Such bed-
load streams have been associated with
relatively easily eroded banks of sand and
gravel, large channel slope and large stream
power, such that they are laterally unstable. In
contrast, rivers with relatively large suspended
loads were postulated to be cha- racteristic of
undivided rivers of higher sinuosity. Such
suspended-load streams were associated with
cohesive muddy banks, low stream gradient and
power, and lateral stability. Schumm defined
sus- pended-load channels as those carrying
more than 97% suspended-sediment load
(presumably at flood stage), whereas bed-load
channels are defined as those carrying less than
89% suspended sediment. Such a definition of
bed-load channels is misleading
Figure 2. Typical channel deposits, with gamma ray logs, from different parts of sandy channel bars and channel fills (from Bridge and
Tye, 2000).

Figura 2. Depó sitos típicos de canal, con perfiles de rayos gama, de distintos sectores de las barras arenosas y de los rellenos de
canal (tomado de Bridge and Tye, 2000).

to say the least! The correlation between channel
pattern, type of sediment load and bank stability
is not generally supported by data. This mythical
correlation probably arose because early studies
of braided rivers were in mountainous areas of
sandy- gravelly outwash and those of single-
channel sinuous streams were from temperate
lowlands (e.g., the U.S. Great Plains). In fact, many
braided rivers are sandy and silty (e.g.,
Brahmaputra in Bangladesh, Yellow in China, Platte
in Nebraska), and many sin- gle-channel, sinuous
rivers are sandy and gravelly (Madison in
Montana, South Esk in Scotland, Yukon in Alaska)
(Rust, 1978; Jackson, 1978; Bridge, 1985). The
key controls on whether or not a river
is braided or meandering are the amounts of
water and sediment supplied during seasonal
floods (Fig. 4).
To appreciate the fact that channel pattern
may not have a major influence on the geometry of
a single channel-belt sandstone body, consider the
Mississippi and Brahmaputra Rivers, classic
examples of meandering and braided rivers,
respectively. Both of these rivers flow through
extensive floodplains. The width of the Mississippi
River meander belt in the lower Mississippi Valley
(Yazoo Basin) is 15 to 25 km, and the maximum
thickness of the channel-belt deposits ranges from
20 to 40 m, giving an average channel-belt width/
thickness of about 650 (Bridge, 1999). In the
Atchafalaya Basin and delta plain, the Mississippi
channel-belt width is 10 to 15 km and the
maximum thickness is about 50m, giving a
maximum width/ thickness of about 300. The
Brahmaputra channel belt is about 10 km wide,
and 40 m in maximum thickness, giving a
minimum width/thickness of about 250 (Bristow,
1987). It appears that the width/ thickness ratio
of the meandering Mississippi channel belt is
greater than that of the braided Brahmaputra, or
at least comparable. The reason for the similar
width/thickness ratios is not hard to understand.
A braided river occupies several channels
across the width of its channel belt
simultaneously. A meandering river may only
occupy one channel at a time, but the channel still
wanders through a channel belt that may be com-
parable in width to a braided channel belt of the
same thickness.
The significance of planar cross strata
It is commonly stated in the literature (e.g.,
Collinson, 1996; Miall, 1977, 1996) that planar
cross strata produced by transverse unit bars is
charac- teristic of braided rivers, but not
meandering rivers. This is quite wrong (review in
Bridge, 2002; Fig. 3). Transverse unit bars occur in
all alluvial river types. Furthermore, it appears
from recent studies that the deposits of most unit
bars are composed of medium-
Figure 3. Topographic features of braided and meandering rivers: curved channels, unit bars, compound bars, cross-bar
channels (modified from Bridge, 1993a).
Figura 3. Rasgos topográ ficos de ríos enlazados y meandrantes: canales curvados, barras unidad, barras compuestas, canales
scale trough cross strata formed by the dunes that
migrate over the unit bars during high flow stages.
Planar cross strata associated with migration of a
unit bar with an avalanche face apparently only
occurs at the margins of unit bars. However, this is
a moot point when dealing with well logs or cores,
because it is not possible to distinguish planar
cross strata from trough cross strata when the
sets are dm to m thick (i.e., medium-scale cross
strata).
Relationship between discharge variability,
channel pattern and deposits
Another common myth (perpetuated by Miall,
1977,1996, and many others) is that discharge
variability is greater for braided rivers than for
meandering rivers. This myth probably originated
from the early studies of pro-glacial braided rivers
in mountainous regions of North America, where
discharge varied tremendously during snowmelt.
In contrast, many single-channel rivers were
studied in temperate lowland regions where
discharge variations were moderated by
groundwater supply. In fact, discharge variability
does not have a major influence on the existence
of the different channel patterns, because all
patterns can be formed in labo- ratory channels at
constant discharge. Moreover, many rivers with a
given discharge regime show along-stream
variations in channel pattern. However,
variability of water and sediment supply
transversales en el tope de las barras (modificado de Bridge, 1993a).
 A distinction has been made between rivers
where channels split around bars (braided) and
those where channels split around floodplain areas

Figure 4. Qualitative variation of equilibrium channel

patterns with channel-forming water discharge, valley slope,
and sediment size. Valley slope can be thought of as a measure
of sediment transport rate, because sediment transport rate
increases with increasing slope and water discharge and with
decreasing sediment size.

Figura 4. Variació n cualitativa de los diseñ os de equilibrio de

los canales con respecto al caudal de agua del canal formador, la
pen- diente del valle y el tamañ o de sedimento. La pendiente
del valle puede ser analizada como una medida de la tasa de
transporte de sedimento debido a que la tasa de transporte de
sedimento se incrementa con el incremento de la pendiente, el
caudal de agua y con el decrecimiento del tamañ o del
sedimento.

during floods does have an influence on the

nature of flood sedimentation units, and these
units might be recognizable in well logs and cores
(Fig. 2).
Related to this issue of discharge variability is
the claim that extremes of discharge will have a
strong influence on the nature of the river
deposits. Specifically, the deposits of ephemeral
rivers are considered to have certain distinctive
features, such as a predominance of planar
laminated and low- angle cross-stratified
sandstone, and either a lack of well-defined
channels or channels with high width/depth
ratios (e.g., North and Taylor, 1996). These
features are not restricted to ephemeral rivers. The
key features that distinguish deposits of ephe-
meral rivers from those of perennial rivers are
those that indicate that the channel flow ceased
(i.e., plant roots and desiccation cracks in the
bottom of chan- nels). In reality, the main
characteristics of channel deposits are controlled
by flood conditions, and floods occur in ephemeral
and perennial rivers alike.

Are anastomosing river deposits distinctive?

(anastomosing or anabranching) (Lane, 1957; rationally correlate channel-belt sandstone
Brice, 1964, 1984; Chitale, 1970; Smith, 1976; bodies between wells without assessing their
Schumm, degree of superposition, as discussed below.
1977, 1985; Knighton and Nanson, 1993; Nanson
and Knighton, 1996; Makaske, 2001). The
characteristic and definitive features of anas-
tomosing (anabranching) channel segments are
that they are longer than a curved channel
segment around a single braid or point bar, and
the patterns of flow and sediment transport
in adjacent anastomosing segments are
essentially independent of each other. This means
that each anastomosing segment contains bars
appropriate to the imposed discharge and
sediment load, enabling assignment of its own
channel pattern, based on degree of channel
splitting around bars and sinuosity. This means
also that the terms anastomosing and braiding
are not mutually exclusive, as implied in the
channel-pattern classifications of Rust (1978)
and Miall (1992, 1996). In fact, many rivers are
braided and/or meandering as well as
anastomosing (Fig. 5). The term anastomosing
belongs in classifications that describe how
channel belts split and join on floodplains, such
as distributive and tributive. The number of
coexisting anastomosing or distributive channels
is controlled by the nature of channel-belt
deposition and avulsion rather than the water
and sediment discharge in channels (which
controls whether channels are meandering or
braided). The nature of channel-belt deposition
and avulsion has a major control on the
superposition of channel belts, the preservation
of overbank deposits, and the overall net-to-
gross, as discussed below. Whether or not the
ancient channel belt was braided or meandering
is largely irrelevant when analyzing net-to-gross
in the subsurface.

Superimposed channel bars and channel belts

Channel bars and channel fills can be

superimposed within a single channel belt and
by superposition of different channel belts (Fig.
6). Recognition of such superposition is not a
simple task. Within a single channel belt, simple
and compound bars can be superimposed in
complicated ways that cannot be interpreted
easily from well logs. It is very important to
recognize superimposed channel belts in well
logs and cores, because superimposed channel
belts generally produce sandstone-gravelstone
bodies with much larger width/thickness than
single channel belts. It is not possible to
Spatial variations in proportion of channel- belt
deposits (net-to-gross)

The proportion and grain size of channel-belt

deposits commonly vary vertically in wells, and
vary between wells at a given stratigraphic level.
For example, an increase in channel-deposit
proportion may be associated with a zone of
superimposed channel bars or channel belts.
Variations in net-to-gross can occur over different
spatial scales. For example, vertical variations in
channel-deposit proportion over scales of tens of
meters, hundreds of meters and kilometers have
been documented (e.g., Willis, 1993a,b; Khan et al.,
1997; Zaleha, 1997a,b). Spatial variations in alluvial
architecture have been explained by a variety of
different kinds of stratigraphic models (e.g.,
Leeder, 1978; Allen, 1978; Bridge and Leeder,
1979; Paola et al, 1992; Bridge and Mackey, 1993a;
Shanley and McCabe, 1993, 1994; Wright and
Marriott, 1993; Mackey and Bridge, 1995). There
may be many different explanations for a
given alluvial architecture, and great care must
be taken to keep an open mind about the
possible explanatory hypotheses. This is an
important point, because choice of any particular
interpretation of alluvial architecture has far-
reaching implications for late- ral correlation of
stratigraphic units.

Proposed procedure for interpreting channel

deposits in well logs, image logs, and cores

When interpreting channel deposits in this using data from one well. As shown above, it is
vertical logs, it is important to estimate maximum easy
and mean bankfull-channel depth with some
confidence, because these parameters are
commonly used to estimate the width of
subsurface channels and channel belts (Bridge
and Tye, 2000). Quantitative estimation of channel
depth from subsurface data requires three
preliminary steps. First, major channel-belt
sandstones and gravelstones must be
distinguished from floodplain sandstones. This is
not always an easy task, because of the gradation
in thickness and facies between these types of
sediment bodies. Second, it is essential to try to
recognize the different scales of channel deposits:
cross sets, flood sedimentation units, unit-bar
deposits, compound-bar deposits, individual
channel belts, and compound channel belts. This
must be done by inspection of spatial variations in
grain size, sedimentary structures, paleocurrents
and degree of disruption. It is very difficult to do
Figure 5. Brahmaputra River immediately north of its
confluence with the Ganges River, showing braided channels
and undivided sinuous channels that are also anastomosed.
Scale bar is 20 km. Photo courtesy of C.S.Bristow, also
published in Bridge (1993a).

Figura 5. Río Brahmaputra inmediatamente al norte de su

con- fluencia con el río Ganges, se observan canales
enlazados y monocanales sinuosos que también son
anastomosados. La barra de escala es 20 km. La fotografía es
cortesía de C.S. Bristow, tam- bién publicada en Bridge
(1993a).

to confuse flood-sedimentation units with bar

deposits, and to confuse individual channel
belts
with superimposed channel belts. Third, the profile should be grouped into subsets. Mean dune
thickness of as many untruncated channel bars or height
fills (from the tops of channel belts) as possible
must be measured to get an idea of the range of
maximum channel depths.
Maximum bankfull-channel depth is commonly
estimated from the (decompacted) thickness of
untruncated channel-bar and channel-fill deposits.
It is not always easy to correctly identify
untrunca- ted channel-bar and channel-fill
deposits in logs or cores. Furthermore, the
thickness of such channel sandstones is generally
less than the bank-full channel depth (Bridge
and Mackey, 1993b). The presence of sandy-
muddy upper-bar deposits, and the uncertainty in
distinguishing these from proximal overbank
deposits makes it difficult to identify paleo-
bankfull level. Thick channel-fill mudstones above
thin channel-bar sandstones can look very
similar to overbank deposits. Furthermore,
maximum channel depth and bar thickness vary in
space quite markedly (by at least a factor of two)
in channel belts, such that limited data from a sin-
gle well may not be representative. An
independent means of estimating bankfull flow
depth would be beneficial. This is possible using
an understanding of the relationship between
dune height and thickness of associated cross
sets, and of the known relationship between dune
height and water depth. The method for
calculating the distribution of dune height from
the distribution of cross-set thickness is
described by Bridge (1997), Leclair et al. (1997)
and Leclair and Bridge (2001). The method is
based on the justifiable assumption that the
distribution of cross-set thickness is due
primarily to variability in dune height, and that
variation in deposition rate plays a minor role.
This method is also limited to homogeneous
cosets of cross strata, meaning that there are no
obvious spatial changes in the type of strata or
mean grain size. The assumption is, therefore, that
such cross sets were formed by migration of dunes
whose mean geometry did not vary appreciably in
time and space. To use this method, the
thickness, s, of as many cross sets as possible
should be measured,
such that the mean set thickness, sm, can be
calculated. Mean dune height, Hm , is approximately
equal to 3 sm . To avoid confusing cross strata of
dune origin with solitary sets formed by unit bars,
abnormally thick, isolated cross sets should be
avoided. As dune height is expected to vary with
position on channel bars, cross-set thickness
measured in different positions in the vertical
generally increases with formative flow depth, d. relative to the datum, and how variable can the
It appears that, for all types of river dunes thickness of a sandstone body be? What is a
(including those not in equilibrium with the reasonable lateral extent in any given direction?
flow), d/Hm These are very difficult questions
averages between 6 and 10. Although estimation
of flow depth from dune height is imprecise,
such an estimate is still a useful complement to
flow depth calculated from channel-bar
thickness.

Re-interpretation of the geometry and spatial

distribution of subsurface fluvial sandstone
bodies

There are many examples in the literature

of interpretation of river-channel deposits using
data from cores and well logs (e.g., various
papers in the volumes edited by Barwis et al.,
1990; Ethridge and Flores, 1981; Ethridge et al.,
1987; Galloway and Hobday, 1996; Lomando and
Harris, 1988; Miall and Tyler, 1991; Selley, 1996).
In most examples, a range of possible
interpretations of well logs is not considered,
and the cores are not described in sufficient
detail to allow use of the methods proposed
here. In particular, the thickness of medium-
scale cross sets is rarely presented. However,
Bridge and Tye (2000) demonstrated how
application of the new techniques discussed here
had an impact upon previous interpretations of
paleochannel depths, channel-belt widths, and
flu- vial sandstone-body dimensions and
connectedness.

STRATIGRAPHIC CORRELATION OF WELL

LOGS AND CORES: USE OF SEISMIC DATA

Method of correlation

Correlation of lithofacies between wells is

normally accomplished within a framework of
re- gional stratigraphic markers established
using seismic sections, well logs and cores. In
order to facilitate correlation, it is common
practice to plot the stratigraphic markers as
horizontal surfaces. Lithostratigraphic
correlation must entail certain assumptions
about, or models of, the geometry and lateral
continuity of lithofacies such as channel-belt
sandstone bodies or floodplain shales (Fig. 1, 7
and 8). For example, must the tops and bases
of correlated sandstone bodies be horizontal
and parallel? If they are not horizontal and
parallel, how inclined can the boundaries be
Figure 6. Vertical sequences of lithofacies and gamma-ray logs for superimposed channels bars and channel belts (from Bridge and
Tye, 2000).

Figura 6. Secuencias verticales de litofacies y perfiles de rayos gama correspondientes a barras de canal superpuestas y fajas de
canales (tomado de Bridge and Tye, 2000).

to answer. In many cases, the assumptions made

lateral extent of reservoirs or aquifers
in correlation are either not stated explicitly, or
are based on various kinds of stratigraphic
It is ironic, but not surprising, that the most
models. If correlating stratigraphic sequences that
common method for estimating channel-belt
are less than the order of 100 m thick, seismic data
widths and orientations is by correlating specific
will be of limited use in resolving the lateral
channel- belt sandstone bodies between well logs
continuity of strata and the presence of small
(e.g., Nanz, 1954; Berg, 1968; Cornish, 1984; Tye,
faults. Stratigraphic resolution using seismic data
1991). With this technique, there is generally no
improves as interval thickness and impedance
attempt to predict reasonable geometries and
contrast increase. Therefore, an infinite lateral extents of different lithofacies from
number of correlations is possible, but only one analysis of well logs. The minimum possible width
will be used in practice. of sediment bodies that can be resolved by this
method is the well spacing. This approach to
Using well-to-well correlation to estimate
estimating lateral extent

Figure 7. Different ways of correlating rock units between
two wells, depending on assumptions about the physical
continuity and orientation of unit boundaries.
Figura 7. Diferentes formas de correlacionar unidades de roca
entre dos pozos, dependiendo de las suposiciones de la
continui- dad física y de la orientació n de los límites de la
unidad.
of lithofacies is commonly compromised by
simplistic or erroneous assumptions, such as: (1)
basal erosion surfaces and tops of channel-belt
sandstone bodies are flat; (2) sandstone bodies
positioned at the same stratigraphic level must be
connected between adjacent wells; (3) sandstone
body width/thickness ratios are closely related to
paleochannel pattern, and; (4) vertical sequences
through channel deposits indicate the paleochannel
pattern and hence the geometry of channel-belt
sandstone bodies.
Concerning assumption (1), the depositional
models discussed above clearly show that the
basal erosion surfaces and tops of channel belts
are not generally flat. Concerning assumption (2),
sand- stone bodies at the same stratigraphic level
in adjacent wells are not necessarily connected,
and some assessment of the probability of
connection is required, perhaps using empirical
data on channel- belt width/maximum channel
depth. However, if two sandstone bodies are
indeed continuous between wells, they are not
necessarily from a sin- gle channel belt. This is of
particular concern if sandstone-body proportion
exceeds 0.4 (Bridge and Mackey, 1993b).
Assumptions (3) and (4) were shown to be
wrong above.
In order to rationalize the correlation process
as much as possible, it is desirable to use
interpretations of depositional environments and
stratigraphic models to constrain the correlation
assumptions. In the case of isolated channel belts,
it is unlikely that the tops and bases will be hori-
zontal and parallel. Data from modern and
ancient analogs can be used to assess these
characteristics. Models and real-world examples
of channel belts indicate that their thickness may
vary laterally by a factor of at least two, and that
there are systematic lateral variations in
thickness. A range of likely channel-belt widths
can be obtained from the thickness of single
channel belts, as indicated below. It may turn out
that sandstone bodies at the same stratigraphic
level should not be correlated over the distance
between two wells if this distance greatly exceeds
the expected lateral extent of a channel belt. There
needs to be much more work done on the
geometry of different lithofacies in modern fluvial
environments, if modern analogs are to be used to
predict the geometry of subsurface fluvial
sediment bodies.
Geometry of modern channel-belt deposits
Several attempts have been made to predict
channel-belt width in the subsurface using empirical
equations derived from modern rivers that relate
maximum channel depth, channel width, and
channel-belt width (Collinson, 1978; Lorenz et al.,
1985, 1991; Fielding and Crane, 1987; Davies et
al., 1993; discussed by Bridge and Mackey, 1993b).
This approach requires reliable estimates of
maximum bankfull-channel depth from one-
dimen-
sional subsurface data. As discussed previously, used for interpretation. It is
correct estimation of maximum bankfull-channel
depth is not straightforward, because complete
channel-bar or channel-fill sequences may be
difficult to identify, and the thickness of the
sandstone-gravelstone parts of these coarse
members is not always as great as the bankfull-
channel depth. Furthermore, within a single channel
belt, maximum channel depth and bar thickness can
vary spatially by a factor of at least 2 (Bridge,
1993a; Salter, 1993). Therefore, limited data from
a single well may not be representative.
Empirical regression equations relating
maximum channel depth, channel width, and
channel-belt width have large standard errors,
and are dependent on channel-pattern parameters
such as channel-bend wavelength and sinuosity
(Bridge and Mackey, 1993b). Most of the
empirical equations used to date (Collinson,
1978; Lorenz et al., 1985, 1991; Fielding and
Crane, 1987; Davies et al., 1993) do not include
such dependencies. Channel-bend wavelength and
sinuosity are actually very difficult to reconstruct
from outcrops and are impossible to determine
from well data. Lorenz et al. (1985) used empirical
equations derived from rivers with sinuosity
greater than 1.7, and assumed that sandstone
bodies in both outcrops and subsurface strata
were deposited in highly sinuous rivers. Equations
presented in Bridge and Mackey (1993b: their
Table 2) are based on larger data sets than
previous equations or on theoretical principles.
Channel-belt widths predicted by these equations
agreed with those observed in outcrops by Bridge
et al. (2000).

Use of outcrop analogs to aid well-to-well

correlation

The geometry and lithofacies of channel and

channel-belt deposits determined in outcrops are
commonly used as analogs for subsurface strata
(Collinson, 1978; Walderhaug and Mjos, 1991;
Lowry and Raheim, 1991; Cuevas Gozalo and
Martinius, 1993; Dreyer, 1993; Dreyer et al., 1993;
Robinson and McCabe, 1997; Bridge et al., 2000).
Despite the popularity of this approach, it has
many pitfalls. First, it must be established that
the depositional setting interpreted for the
subsurface strata is indeed analogous to that
interpreted for the outcrops. This requires two
interpretation steps, the reliability of which
depends on the quality of the outcrops, of the
subsurface data, and of the depositional models
 representative of fluvial-deltaic channel belts. This
is why it is desirable to use analog data from
Holocene depositional environments, where
channel-belt

Figure 8. Correlation of two wells within the Ness

Formation of the Brent Field, UK North Sea (from Bryant and
Flint, 1993). GR = Gamma Ray; FDC = Density Log; CNL =
Compensated Neutron Log. Coals have been used as
correlation markers. There has been some imaginative
definitions of the shapes and lateral extents of channel
sands and crevasse splay sands.

Figura 8. Correlación de dos pozos en la Formación Ness del

Distri- to Brent, Mar del Norte-Inglaterra (de Bryant and
Flint, 1993). GR
= Rayos Gama; FDC = Perfil de Densidad; CNL = Perfil
Compensa- do de Neutrones. Las capas de carbó n han sido
utilizadas como niveles de correlació n. Algunas de las
definiciones de las formas y extensiones laterales de las arenas
de canal y de las arenas de crevasse splay han sido
imaginativas.

difficult to make detailed interpretations of

depositional environments using typical
subsurface data. Because our understanding
of modern depositional environments is
incomplete, most depositional models are
qualitative, lacking in detail, and not fully
three-dimensional (Bridge, 1985, 1993b). The
deficiency of most depositional models
severely limits their use in detailed
interpretation of ancient deposits. Rarely are
outcrops extensive enough to allow
unambiguous determination of the three-
dimensional geometry and orientation of
channels and channel belts. Channel-belt width
is particularly difficult to de- termine, even in
large outcrops (Geehan and Underwood,
1993). Moreover, channel-belt width and
thickness are known to vary spatially within one
channel belt and between different channel
belts. In general, limited data from a few large
exposures are unlikely to be generally
dimensions can be determined easily, and the
relationship between the nature of the deposits
and the geometry, flow and sedimentary processes
of the environment can be established
unambiguously.
Amplitude analysis of 3-D seismic horizon slices
Amplitude analysis of 3-D seismic horizon slices
(Weber, 1993; Hardage et al., 1994, 1996; Burnett,
1996) is the only method capable of yielding
directly the width of channel belts, and imaging
the channel pattern (sinuosity, channel splitting)
of subsurface sandstone bodies (Fig. 9). This is
also the only method that can be used to predict
the spatial distribution of channel-belt thickness
and lithofacies. However, high quality 3-D seismic
data are rarely available, the most sandstone
bodies of interest are too thin and buried too
deeply to be completely resolved using seismic
data.
Estimating width of superimposed channel belts
from subsurface data
When correlating channel-belt sandstone
bodies between wells, it is critical to be able to
distinguish connected channel belts. Two connected
channel belts may be up to twice the width of a
single channel belt. Bridge and Mackey (1993b)
used their revised two-dimensional model of
alluvial architecture (Bridge and Mackey, 1993a)
to study the width and thickness of sandstone
(or gravelstone) bodies comprising single or
connected channel belts. The width and thickness
of sandstone bodies depend critically on the
proportion of channel-belt deposits in the
stratigraphic interval, as this proportion
controls the degree of connectedness of
individual channel belts. For low values of
channel-deposit proportion (less than about 0.4),
channel belts are unconnected, sandstone-
body width equals channel-belt width, and
sandstone-body thickness equals aggraded
channel-belt thickness (Fig. 10). As channel-deposit
proportion increases, some channel belts become
connected, the mean and standard deviation of
sandstone-body width and thickness increase, and
their frequency distributions become polymodal
with the largest modes at the lowest values of
width and thickness. As channel-deposit
proportion continues to increase, the
distributions are still

Figure 9. Amplitude analysis of a 3-D seismic horizon slice showing the width of a channel belt and channel pattern of
subsurface channel sandstone bodies. The cross section shows correlated logs and the position of the horizon slice. Log 3 cuts
through the variable- width, straight channel belt trending north-south. Logs 4 to 6 cut through a point bar and channel fill of a
slightly older channel belt.

Figura 9. Análisis de amplitud de una secció n horizontal de sísmica 3-D mostrando el ancho de la faja de canales y el diseñ o de los
canales de los cuerpos de areniscas de canal en subsuelo. Las secciones transversales muestran los perfiles correlacionados y la
posició n de la secció n horizontal. El perfil 3 atraviesa longitudinalmente la faja de canal de ancho variable en direcció n norte-sur.
Los perfiles 4 y 6 atraviesan una barra de punta y el relleno de canal de una faja de canal un poco má s antigua.
Figure 10. Relationships between channel-belt deposit proportion and connectedness, and the width and thickness of channel-
belt sandstone bodies (based on Bridge and Mackey, 1993b).

Figura 10. Relaciones entre la proporció n de los depó sitos de la faja de canales, la interconexió n, el ancho y el espesor de los
cuerpos de areniscas de la faja de canales (basado en Bridge and Mackey, 1993b).

polymodal but the larger modes are at higher
values of width and thickness (Fig. 10). If channel-
deposit proportion exceeds about 0.75, all channel
belts are connected, and the single sandstone
body has a width equal to floodplain width and a
thickness equivalent to the whole section.
Channel-deposit proportion, width and
thickness increase as bank-full channel depth and
channel-belt width increase, and as floodplain
width, aggradation rate and avulsion period
decrease. Channel-deposit proportion is also
influenced by depth of burial (degree of
compaction) and tectonic tilting of the floodplain.
For example, channel-deposit proportion and
connectedness of channel belts increase on the
down-tilted sides of floodplains but are reduced
on the up-tilted sides.
The three-dimensional model of alluvial
architecture of Mackey and Bridge (1995) gives
results that are generally similar to those
described above for two-dimensional models.
However, the three-dimensional model predicts
that channel- deposit proportion and
connectedness, and the dimensions of channel
sandstone bodies, vary with distance from points
of channel-belt splitting (due to avulsion).
Upstream of avulsion points, sandstone bodies
have lower than average width/ thickness because
of aggradation in a fixed channel belt. Immediately
down valley from avulsion points, channel belts are
connected, resulting in sandstone bodies with
higher than average width/thickness. Because of
this, relationships between channel- deposit
proportion and connectedness and
sandstone-body dimensions derived from 2-D
models are strictly applicable only to parts of the have an erosional base to the sequence (Shanley
floodplain located some distance down valley and McCabe, 1993, 1994; Wright and Marriott,
from avulsion points.

Correlation using sequence-stratigraphic models

Correlation of lithofacies associations

between wells may be aided by other kinds of
stratigraphic models, such as sequence-
stratigraphic models (Fig.11). Sequence-
stratigraphic models (e.g., Jervey, 1988;
Posamentier and Vail, 1988; Posamentier et al.,
1988; Ross, 1990; Shanley and McCabe, 1993,
1994; Wright and Marriott, 1993) predict the
effects of relative sea-level change on alluvial
deposition rate and alluvial architecture, and are
therefore potentially applicable to near-coastal
fluvial successions. There are substantial differences
between these models, and all of them can be
criticized. Most of these models are severely
limited because they are qualitative, essentially
two-dimen- sional, and do not account for all of
the factors that influence alluvial architecture.
Actually, eustatic sea-level change may not have
the influence on alluvial systems that has been
assumed in the past. Factors such as climate,
vegetation and tectonism may also have an
important influence on rivers and floodplains
during eustatic sea-level change (Schumm,
1993; Wescott, 1993; Blum, 1994; Koss
et al., 1994; Leeder and Stewart, 1996; Miall,
1996;
Blum and Price, 1998; Ethridge et al., 1998; Blum
and Tornqvist, 2000). Miall (1986, 1991, 1996)
has criticized some of the earlier models (e.g.,
Jervey, 1988; Posamentier et al., 1988) for the
effects of sea-level change on near-coastal alluvial
deposition. His main point is that a relative fall in
sea level is not normally associated with alluvial
aggradation, except for the newly exposed part of
the sea bed, and even then only under special
circumstances. In fact, whether or not a river
valley is incised or aggraded during sea-level fall
depends, among other things, on the slope of the
exposed shelf relative to that of the river valley
(Pitman, 1986; Pitman and Golovchenko, 1988;
Schumm, 1993; Leeder and Stewart, 1996). In
general, the effects of sea-level change are
expected to decrease up-valley (Saucier, 1981,
1994; Autin et al., 1991; Schumm, 1993; Shanley
and McCabe, 1994). Only three-dimensio- nal
models can describe these effects (Bridge, 1999:
Karssenberg et al, 2001b).
Most alluvial sequence-stratigraphic models
1993; Gibling and Bird, 1994; Miall, 1996; Fig. proportion and connectedness may increase
11). This is ascribed to river incision arising from during sea-level lowstand because of reduced
relative fall in base level and exposure of a slope deposition
that is steeper than the river slope upstream.
Although incision may be associated with base-
level fall near the coast, incision further inland
may not be associated with falling base level
(Blum, 1994; Blum and Price, 1998: Blum and
Tornqvist, 2000). Therefore, the basal erosion
surface of the sequence may not be coeval with,
or coincident with, erosion surfaces inland. The
erosional base of the sequence in these models is
overlain by amalgamated fluvial channel deposits
(the so-called lowstand systems tract: LST) that
are ascribed to deposition under conditions of
low deposition rate and restricted floodplain
width (due to valley incision). Many workers
assume that zones of high channel-deposit
proportion (high net-to-gross) in alluvial
deposits represent these basal parts of
sequences, and that the basal erosion surface of
the lowest sandstone body represents an incised
valley (e.g., Aitken and Flint, 1995). In many
cases, evidence for an incised valley is lacking.
Criteria for incised valleys include (Dalrymple et
al., 1994): (1) erosional relief that is greater than
the thickness of a single channel fill;
(2) multiple, vertically stacked channel bars
within
the valley; (3) evidence for extended periods of
non deposition (mature paleosols) on
interfluves; (4) alluvial channel deposits resting
erosively upon shallow marine sands and muds.
Commonly, a large amount of erosional relief on
the base of a single channel deposit can be
misinterpreted as an incised valley margin
(Salter, 1993; Best and Ashworth, 1997).
Falling sea level (marine regression) does
not necessarily result in valley incision near the
coast. The land exposed by marine regression
may experience erosion or deposition depending
on the slope of the exposed surfaces (Schumm,
1993; Wescott, 1993; Wood et al., 1993). Erosion
will occur on relatively steep slopes given
enough time and flow competence. However,
erosion of channels and floodplains is a long-term
process, and the short- term response may be to
increase sinuosity of rivers. Also, upstream
avulsion may cause channel abandonment
before incision is complete (Leeder and Stewart,
1996). Incision of channels and floodplains is
associated with terrace formation, reduction of
valley width, and up-valley migration of knick-
points. Avulsion frequency is expected to be low
in areas of erosion. Channel-deposit
Figure 11. Examples of alluvial sequence-stratigraphic models (upper model from Shanley and McCabe, 1993; lower model from
Wright and Marriott, 1993).

Figura 11. Ejemplos de modelos de secuencia estratigrá fica aluvial (modelo superior de Shanley and McCabe, 1993; modelo inferior
de Wright and Marriot, 1993).
rate (or erosion) and reduced floodplain width. width of floodplains decrease them. It is also
However, channel-deposit proportion may necessary to know how channel-belt geometry
decrease as a result of reduced avulsion changes during sea-level change in order to
frequency, or if the channel-belt width and adequately predict channel-deposit proportion. In
thickness were reduced as a result of a decrease in the case of the Mississippi coastal plain, the
water discharge. Sequence stratigraphic models channel- deposit proportion in the Holocene
must account for changes in all of these factors deposits is low mainly because of high floodplain
that influence alluvial architecture. width relative to channel-belt width. However, in
Thick and laterally extensive amalgamated the coeval deposits of the lower Mississippi Valley,
channel deposits are commonly important oil and the channel-deposit proportion is very high
gas reservoirs. Therefore, it is important to because of low floodplain width relative to
interpret such deposits accurately when channel-belt width (Bridge, 1999). The highstand
predicting their thickness, lateral extent, and systems tract (HST) is also associated with
bounding facies. If zones of high channel-deposit relatively low channel-deposit proportion
proportion are incorrectly interpreted as incised according to Shanley and McCabe (1993).
valley fills, their extent normal to the valley However, Wright and Marriott (1993) predict
direction will be underestimated, and their an increase in channel-deposit proportion in the
extent parallel to the valley will be HST, and an increase in soil maturity, both
overestimated. There are many examples in the related to reduced deposition rate.
literature where zones of high channel-deposit Based on the comments above, it is unlikely
proportion are not associated with filling of that extant alluvial sequence-stratigraphic models
incised valleys. For example, they may be are generally applicable. Karssenberg et al
associated with high deposition rates and high (2001b) have attempted to improve upon this
avulsion frequencies of large channels on situation by producing a 3-D model that takes
megafans (Willis, 1993a,b; Khan et al, 1997; account of most of the factors that control
Zaleha, 1997a,b). In this case, their lateral extent alluvial architecture during changing base level.
may be considera- ble.
According to the sequence-stratigraphic increases in deposition rate and
models, the deposits above the lowstand systems
tract were deposited under conditions of
relatively high deposition rate on a broad alluvial
plain, associated with rising relative base level
and drowning of incised valleys (the so-
called transgressive systems tract: TST). The
channel- deposit proportion and connectedness
are taken to be relatively low as a result.
According to Gibling and Bird (1994), coal is likely
to occur at the top of the TST, immediately below
the so-called maximum- flooding surface. Paleosols
are likely to reflect high groundwater table.
Deposits associated with the maximum-flooding
surface may contain evidence of marine influence.
During relative sea-level rise, slopes of rivers
and floodplains are reduced near shore due to
backwater effects, and the width and depth of
valleys increase due to drowning. These changes
result in reduced grain size of transported
sediment, deposition, change in channel pattern,
and increased frequency of avulsion. Tornqvist
(1993, 1994) associated high avulsion
frequency and anastomosing river patterns with
periods of rapid base-level rise and deposition.
Increases in avulsion frequency increase channel-
deposit proportion and connectedness, but
 MODELING OF THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL
GEOMETRY AND DISTRIBUTION OF
FACIES BETWEEN WELLS

Information derived from seismic profiles,

cores, well logs, and well tests is rarely sufficient
to provide comprehensive three-
dimensional description and understanding
of subsurface reservoir rocks. As a result,
recourse is commonly made to outcrop
analogs and quantitative depositional models.
A common approach is to use interpreted
outcrop analogs (discussed above) to provide
supplementary data on sedimentary
architecture, and to use stochastic, structure-
imitating models conditioned by subsurface
data to distribute the sediment types in 3-D
space (reviews by Bryant and Flint, 1993;
Koltermann and Gorelick, 1996; North, 1996;
Anderson, 1997: Fig.12). Structure-imitating
stochastic models do not simulate processes of
deposition: they directly simulate the
stratigraphy. Methods used are indicator
geostatistics (e.g., Journel, 1983; Bierkens and
Weerts, 1994), simulated annealing (e.g.,
Deutsch and Cockerham, 1994), Markov chains
(e.g., Doveton, 1994, Carle et al., 1998), and
Boolean object models that use probabilistic
rules
Figure 12. An example of use of a two-dimensional, object-based stochastic model (from Srivastava, 1994). The width and
thickness of channel-belt sandstone bodies are normally obtained from Monte Carlo sampling from empirical distributions
derived from outcrop analogs. Notice that the “sand bodies” have been given a channel-shaped form. Channel-belt sandstone bodies
do not normally have this form.

Figura 12. Un ejemplo del uso de un modelo bidimensional estocá stico basado en objetos (de Srivastava, 1994). El ancho y el
espesor de los cuerpos de areniscas de faja de canales son obtenidos del muestreo Monte Carlo a partir de las distribuciones
empíricas derivadas de aná logos de afloramiento. Note que los «cuerpos de arena» han sido adjudicados a una forma de canal. Los
cuerpos de areniscas de faja de canales normalmente no tienen esta forma.

to define the geometry and location of
stratigraphic units (e.g., Budding et al., 1992;
Deutsch and Wang, 1996; Hirst et al., 1993; Holden
et al., 1998). An advantage of these models is that
they match the available data exactly. However,
input parameters are very difficult to obtain,
and the alluvial stratigraphy simulated is
commonly very unrealistic (e.g., Tyler at al., 1994;
Deutsch and Wang 1996; Holden et al., 1998). In
the case of object-based models, the lack of
realism is associated with the choices available
for object shapes, and the essentially random
placement of objects where well data are not
available. For example, channel belts are modeled
as one or more sinuous ribbons with channel-
shaped bases (Fig. 13).
Unlike the structure-imitating models, process-
based models (sometimes referred to as process-
imitating models) simulate the sedimentary
processes acting to produce a deposit (Koltermann
and Gorelick, 1996; Anderson, 1997). Process-
based models can be deterministic and/or
stochastic, and empirical and/or theoretical.
Examples of such models include random-walk
sedimentation models of braided rivers (Webb,
1994), models based on the fundamental
equations of fluid flow and sediment transport
(e.g., Bridge, 1977, 1992; Tetzlaff and Harbaugh,
1989; Stam, 1996), and avulsion- based alluvial
stratigraphy models (e.g., Bridge and Leeder,
1979; Mackey and Bridge, 1995; Heller and Paola,
1996). Process-based models are forward models
in the sense that they predict the nature of
deposits given a set of initial starting parameters.
It is not known a priori what the deposits will look
like. Advantages of process-based models are that
Figure 13. (A) Example from the MOHERES software of a single channel belt consisting of four “channel beds” (from Tyler et al.,
1994). In this software, internal elements such as channel bars and channel fills can be placed randomly within these “channel
beds”. This is not a realistic representation of the geometry of deposits in channel belts. Notice that the “channel beds” are not
even in contact with eachother in places. (B) Example of a channel belt from Patagonia showing a single active channel and many
abandoned channel bars and channel fills. The channel-bar deposits comprise most of the volume of this channel belt.

Figura 13. (A) Ejemplo del programa MOHERES consistente en una faja de canales simple con cuatro “lechos de canales” (de Tyler et
al., 1994). En este programa, los elementos internos tales como barras de canal y relleno de canales pueden estar ubicados al azar
dentro de los “lechos de canales”. Esta no es una representación relista de la geometría de los depó sitos en las fajas de canales. Note
que los “lechos de canales” no está n en contacto entre sí en otros sectores (figura inferior). (B) Ejemplo de una faja de canales de
Patagonia mostrando un canal activo simple y muchas barras de canal abandonadas y rellenos de canal. Los depó sitos de barras de
canal conforman la mayor parte del volumen de esta faja de canales.
they utilize fundamental physical principles to data within specified tolerance limits. For each
generate stratigraphy. Therefore, process-based model run, a fitness function (called objective
models can help provide genetic interpretations of function or goal function by others)
deposits, and can predict more realistic
stratigraphy than structure-imitating
(stochastic) models. However, a perceived
disadvantage of process-based models is that it is
difficult or impossible to make the simulated
deposits fit observational data in sufficient detail
(Clemetsen et al., 1990; North, 1996; Koltermann
and Gorelick, 1996; Anderson, 1997). Therefore,
process-based models have had limited
application in quantitative simulation of reservoir
stratigraphy.
Recent work shows, however, that fitting of
process-based models to well data is possible in
principle, using a trial-and-error approach with
some optimization (Karssenberg et al.,
2001a). Karssenburg et al. (2001a) fitted a
simplified version of the Mackey-Bridge (1995)
three-dimensional model of alluvial stratigraphy
to five hypothetical wells (Fig. 14). The approach
is to run the model many times, each time with
different input defined using Monte Carlo
simulation techniques. Successful runs are
those where output fits well data within certain
tolerance limits. Figure 15 shows the temporal
evolution of the floodplain for one run of the
process-based model with the simulated
deposits fitting the five wells. On the basis of all of
the realizations of the model that fit the wells, the
probability of occurrence of channel-belt deposits
within the area can be calculated (Fig. 16).
It was concluded that using this trial-and-
error approach in practice will require: (1)
refinement of the process-based model; (2)
improved algorithms for efficiently fitting the
model to the data, and; (3) overcoming the
anticipated large amounts of computing time.
Recent progress on these three problems has
facilitated the implementation of this inverse
modeling approach and its application to real-
world data. Moreover, the effectiveness of
process-based models in simulating alluvial
stratigraphy can now be compared with
stochastic, structure-imitating models. The 3-D
process-based model can be fitted to well data
exactly by inverse modeling (Cross and Lessenger,
1999; Bornholdt et al, 1999; Karssenberg et al.,
2001a). With inverse modeling, fitting of the
model to well data is achieved by repeatedly
running the model, comparing its output with
well data, and adjusting the model input
parameters until the model output fits the well
 case study from the Upper Carboniferous Breathitt
Group,

Figure 14. (A) Hypothetical model area with location of five

wells
(B) Hypothetical well data used for model fitting (from
Karssenberg
et al., 2001a).

Figura 14. (A) Á rea hipotética del modelo con la ubicació n de

cinco pozos, (B) Datos hipotéticos del pozo usados para
ajustar el modelo (de Karssenberg et al., 2001a).

expresses the difference between model output

and well data. The objective is to minimize
the difference between the model output and
well data, or to maximize the fitness function.
Since the fit- ting procedure will put a high
demand on computational resources, the
choice of the fitting method and the software
implementation of this method and the process-
based model is critical in order to minimize run
times.

Acknowledgements. Sincere thanks to my friend and

colleague Bo Tye for many discussions of the issues
raised in this review. Bo also generously reviewed the
manuscript. Sincere thanks also to another friend and
colleague, Sergio Georgieff, who invited me to write
this paper, and who was responsible for the Spanish
translations.

REFERENC
ES

Aitken, J.F. and S. S. Flint, 1995. The application of high-

resolution sequence stratigraphy to fluvial systems: a
Figure 15. Model run that fits the well data. Each map shows position of the old and new channel belt, and the surface elevation (m) at
the time of an avulsion (from Karssenberg et al., 2001a).

Figura 15. Modelo simulado que se ajusta a los datos de los pozos. Cada mapa muestra la posició n de la faja de canales antigua y nueva,
y la elevació n de la superficie (m) en el momento de una avulsió n (de Karssenberg et al., 2001a).
Figure 16. 3-D image of probability of occurrence of channel belt deposits based on model runs that fit the well data. Top figure
shows volume with probability > 0.8. Bottom diagram shows transects through the 3-D block, with grayscale representing
probability of occurrence of channel-belt deposits (from Karssenberg et al., 2001a).

Figura 16. Imagen 3-D de probabilidad de ocurrencia de los depósitos de faja de canales basada en los modelos simulados que se
ajustan a los datos de los pozos. La figura en la parte superior muestra el volumen con probabilidad > 0,8. El diagrama de la base
muestra las transectas a través del bloque 3-D, la escala de grises representa la probabilidad de ocurrencia de los depó sitos de la
faja de canales (de Karssenberg et al., 2001a).
 eastern Kentucky, USA. Sedimentology 42: 3-30. sedimentary structure in open channel bends: a three-
Allen, J.R.L., 1965. A review of the origin and
characteristics of recent alluvial sediments.
Sedimentology 5: 89-191.
Allen, J.R.L., 1978. Studies in fluviatile sedimentation: an
exploratory quantitative model for architecture of
avulsion-controlled alluvial suites. Sedimentary
Geology 21: 129-147.
Anderson, M.P., 1997, Characterization of geological
heterogeneity. In: G. Dagan, and S.P. Neuman (Eds.),
Subsurface Flow and Transport: A Stochastic Approach.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 23-43.
Autin, W.J., S.F. Burns, R.T. Miller, R. T. Saucier and J. I.
Snead, 1991. Quaternary Geology of the lower
Mississippi valley. In: R. B. Morrison (Ed.), Quaternary
nonglacial geology: conterminous U.S. The Geology of
North America. Geological Society of America K-2: 547-
582.
Barwis, J. H., J. G. Mcpherson and R. J. Studlick, 1990.
Sandstone Petroleum Reservoirs. Springer-Verlag, New
York, 583 pp.
Berg, R.R., 1968. Point-bar origin of Fall River Sandstone
reservoirs. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin 52: 2116-2122.
Best, J.L. and P. J. Ashworth, 1997. Scour in large braided
rivers and the recognition of sequence stratigraphic
boundaries. Nature 387: 275-277.
Bierkens, M.F.P. and H.J.T Weerts, 1994. Application of
indicator simulation to modelling the lithological
properties of a complex confining layer. Geoderma 62:
265-284.
Blum, M.D. and D.M. Price, 1998. Quaternary alluvial plain
construction in response to glacio-eustatic and climatic
controls, Texas Gulf Coastal Plain. In: Shanley, K.J. and P.
J. McCabe (Eds.), Relative Role of Eustasy, Climate and
Tectonism on Continental Rocks. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication
59: 31-48.
Blum, M.D., 1994. Genesis and architecture of incised
valley fill sequences: a late Quaternary example from
the Colo- rado River, Gulf Coastal Plain of Texas. In: P.
Weimer and
H.W. Posamentier (Eds.), Siliciclastic sequence
stratigraphy. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Memoir 58: 259-283.
Blum, M.D. and T.E. Tö rnqvist, 2000. Fluvial responses to
climate and sea-level change: a review and look
forward. Sedimentology 47 (Suppl.1): 2-48.
Bornholdt, S., U. Nordlund and H. Westphal, 1999. Inverse
stratigraphic modeling using genetic algorithms. In:
Harbaugh, J.W. et al. (Eds.), Numerical Experiments in
Stratigraphy: Recent Advances in Stratigraphic and
Sedimentologic Computer Simulations. Society of
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special
Publication 62: 85-90.
Brice, J.C., 1964. Channel patterns and terraces of the Loup
Rivers in Nebraska. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 422D: 1-41.
Brice, J.C., 1984. Planform properties of meandering rivers.
In: C.M. Elliot (Ed.), River Meandering. American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1-15.
Bridge, J.S., 1977. Flow, bed topography, grain size and
AAS Revista 8 (2), 2001 111
 dimensional model. Earth Surface Processes 2: 401- Budding, M.C., A. H. M. Paardekam and S. J. Van Rossem,
416. Bridge, J.S., 1985. Paleochannel patterns inferred 1992. 3D connectivity and architecture in sandstone
from alluvial deposits: A critical evaluation. Journal of reservoirs. SPE Technical Paper 22342, presented at
Sedimentary Petrology 55: 579-589. SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering,
Bridge, J.S., 1992. A revised model for water flow, Beijing, China, 24-27 March 1992.
sediment transport, bed topography and grain size
sorting in natu- ral river bends. Water Resources
Research 28: 999-1023.
Bridge, J.S., 1993a. The interaction between channel
geometry, water flow, sediment transport and
deposition in braided rivers. In: J.L. Best and C.S.
Bristow (Eds.), Braided Rivers. Geological Society of
London, Special Publication 75: 13-72.
Bridge, J.S., 1993b. Description and interpretation of
fluvial deposits: a critical perspective. Sedimentology
40: 801- 810.
Bridge, J.S., 1997. Thickness of sets of cross strata and
planar strata as a function of formative bed-wave
geometry and migration, and aggradation rate.
Geology 25: 971-974.
Bridge, J. S., 1999, Alluvial architecture of the Mississippi
Valley: predictions using a 3D simulation model. In:
S.B. Marriott and J. Alexander (Eds.),
Floodplains: Interdisciplinary Approaches.
Geological Society of London, Special Publication
163: 269-278.
Bridge, J.S., 2002. Alluvial Rivers and Floodplains.
Blackwells, Oxford
Bridge, J.S., G. A. Jalfin and S. M. Georgieff, 2000.
Geometry, lithofacies and spatial distribution of
Cretaceous fluvial sandstone bodies, San Jorge Basin,
Argentina: outcrop analog for the hydrocarbon-
bearing Chubut Group. Journal of Sedimentary
Research 70: 341-359.
Bridge, J.S. and M. R. Leeder, 1979. A simulation model of
alluvial stratigraphy. Sedimentology 26: 617-644.
Bridge, J.S. and S. D. Mackey, 1993a. A revised alluvial
stratigraphy model. In: Marzo, M. and C.
Puidefabregas (Eds.), Alluvial sedimentation.
International Association of Sedimentologists
Special Publication 17: 319-337.
Bridge, J.S. and S, D. Mackey, 1993b. 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: 213-236.
Bridge, J.S. and R. S. Tye, 2000. Interpreting the
dimensions of ancient fluvial channel bars, channels,
and channel belts from wireline-logs and cores.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin
84: 1205-1228.
Bristow, C.S., 1987. Brahmaputra River: Channel
migration and deposition. In: Ethridge, F.G., Flores, R.
M., and M. D. Harvey (Eds.), Recent developments
in fluvial sedimentology. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication
39: 63-74.
Bryant, I.D., and S. Flint, 1993. Quantitative clastic
reservoir geological modeling: problems and
perspectives. In: Flint,
S. and I. D. Bryant (Eds.), Geological modeling of
hydrocarbon reservoirs. International Association of
Sedimentologists Special Publication 15: 3-20.

110 AAS Revista 8 (2), 2001

Burnett, M., 1996. 3-D seismic expression of a shallow flu-
vial system in west central Texas. In: P. Weimer and T.L.
Davis (Eds.), Applications of 3-D Seismic Data to
Exploration and Production. AAPG Studies in Geology
No. 42 and SEG Geophysical Developments Series No.
5, AAPG/SEG, Tulsa: 45-56.
Carle, S.F., E. M. Labolle, G. S. Weissmann, D. Van Brocklin
and G. E. Fogg, 1998. Conditional simulation of
hydrofacies architecture: a transition probability/Markov
approach. In: Fraser, G.S. and J.M. Davis (Eds.),
Hydrogeologic models of sedimentary aquifers. Concepts
in Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology No.1,
Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists:
147-170.
Chitale, S.V., 1970. River channel patterns. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers 96: 201-221.
Clemetsen, R., A. R. Hurst, R. Knarud and H. Omre, 1990. A
computer program for evaluation of fluvial reservoirs.
In: Buller, A.T., E. Berg, O. Hjemeland, J. Kleppe, O.
Torsaeter and L. O. Aasen (Eds.), North Sea oil and gas
reservoirs-II. Graham and Trotman, London: 373-385.
Collinson, J.D., 1978. Vertical sequence and sand body
shape in alluvial sequences. In: A.D. Miall (Ed.),
Fluvial Sedimentology. Canadian Society of Petroleum
Geologists Memoir 5: 577-586.
Collinson, J. D., 1996. Alluvial sediments. In: H. G. Reading
(Ed.), Sedimentary Environments and Facies, 3rd edition,
Elsevier, New York: 37-82.
Cornish, F.G., 1984. Fluvial environments and
palaeohydrology of the Upper Morrow “A”
(Pennsylvanian) meander belt sandstone, Beaver County,
Oklahoma. Shale Shaker, 34: 70-80.
Cross, T.A. and M. A. Lessenger, 1999. Construction and
application of a stratigraphic inverse model. In:
Harbaugh, J.W. et al. (Eds.), Numerical Experiments in
Stratigraphy: Recent Advances in Stratigraphic and
Sedimentologic Computer Simulations, Society of
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special
Publication 62: 69-83.
Cuevas Gozalo, M.C. and A. W. Martinius, 1993. Outcrop
data-base for the geological characterization of fluvial
reservoirs: an example from distal fluvial fan deposits
in the Loranca Basin, Spain. In C.P. North and D.J.
Prosser (Eds.), Characterization of Fluvial and
Aeolian Reservoirs. Geological Society of London
Special Publication 73: 79-94.
Dalrymple, R. W., R. Boyd and B. A. Zaitlin (Eds.), 1994.
Incised-valley systems: origin and sedimentary
sequences. Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists Special Publication 51.
Davies, D. K., B. P. J. Williams and R. K. Vessell, 1993.
Dimensions and quality of reservoirs originating in low
and high sinuosity channel systems, Lower Cretaceous
Travis Peak Formation, East Texas, USA. In: C. P. North
and D. J. Prosser (Eds.), Characterization of Fluvial and
Aeolian Reservoirs. Geological Society of London
Special Publication 73: 95-121.
Deutsch, C. and P. Cockerham, 1994. Practical considerations
in the application of simulated annealing to stochastic
simulation. Mathematical Geology 26: 67-82.
Deutsch, C.V. and L. Wang, 1996. Hierarchical Object-Based
Stochastic Modeling of Fluvial Reservoirs.
Mathematical Geology 28: 857-880.
Doveton, J.H., 1994, Theory and applications of vertical
variability measures from Markov Chain analysis. In
Yarus, J.M. and R. L. Chambers (Eds.), Stochastic Modeling
and Geostatistics. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Computer Applications in Geology 3: 55-64.
Dreyer, T., 1993. Quantified fluvial architecture in
ephemeral stream deposits of the Esplugafreda
Formation (Palaeocene), Tremp-Graus Basin, northern
Spain. In: M. Marzo and C. Puigdefábregas (Eds.), Alluvial
Sedimentation. International Association of
Sedimentologists Special Publication 17: 337-362.
Dreyer, T., L. M. Falt, T. Hoy, R. Knarud, R. Steel and J. L.
Cuevas, 1993. Sedimentary architecture of field
analogues for reservoir information (SAFARI): a case
study of the fluvial Escanilla Formation, Spanish Pyrenees.
In: Flint, S. and I. D. Bryant (Eds.), The geological
modeling of hydrocarbon reservoirs and outcrop
analogues. International Association of
Sedimentologists Special Publication 15: 57-80.
Ethridge, F. G. and R. M. Flores (Eds.), 1981. Recent and
ancient nonmarine depositional environments: models
for exploration. Society of Economic Paleontologists
and Mineralogists Special Publication 31.
Ethridge, F. G., R. M. Flores and M. D. Harvey (Eds.),
1987. Recent developments in fluvial sedimentology.
Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists
Special Publication 39, Tulsa, 389 pp.
Ethridge, F.G., L. J. Wood and S. A. Schumm, 1998. Cyclic
variables controlling fluvial sequence
development: problems and perspectives. In:
Shanley, K.J. and P. J. McCabe (Eds.), Relative Role of
Eustasy, Climate and Tectonism on Continental Rocks.
Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists
Special Publication 59: 17-29.
Fielding, C.R. and R. C. Crane, 1987. An application of
statistical modelling to the prediction of hydrocarbon
recovery factors in fluvial reservoir sequences. In:
Ethridge, F.G., R. M. Flores and M. D. Harvey (Eds.), Recent
developments in fluvial sedimentology. Society of
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special
Publication 39: 321-327.
Flores, R. M., F. G. Ethridge, A. D. Miall, W. E. Galloway
and
T. D. Fouch, 1985. Recognition of fluvial depositional
systems and their resource potential. Society of
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Short
Course 19, 290 pp.
Galloway, W. E. and D. K. Hobday, 1983. Terrigeneous Clastic
Depositional Systems: Applications to Petroleum, Coal,
and Uranium Exploration, 1st ed., Springer-Verlag, New
York,
Galloway, W. E. and D. K. Hobday, 1996. Terrigeneous Clastic
Depositional Systems: Applications to Petroleum, Coal,
and Uranium Exploration, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, New
York, 489 p.
Geehan , G. and J. Underwood, 1993. The use of shale
length distributions in geological modeling. In: Flint,
S. and
 Bryant, I.D. (Eds.), The geological modeling of 221-251.
hydrocarbon reservoirs and outcrop analogues. Koltermann, C.E. and S. M. Gorelick, 1996. Heterogeneity in
International Association of Sedimentologists Special sedimentary deposits: a review of structure-imitating,
Publication 15: 205-212.
Gibling, M.R. and D. J. Bird, 1994. Late Carboniferous
cyclothems and alluvial paleovalleys in the Sydney Basin,
Nova Scotia. Geological Society of America Bulletin 106:
105-117.
Hardage, B.A., R. A. Levey, V. Pendleton, J. Simmons and
R. Edson, 1994. A 3-D seismic case history
evaluating fluvially deposited thin-bedded
reservoirs in a gas- producing property. Geophysics
59: 1650-1665.
Hardage, B.A., R. A. Levey, V. Pendleton, J. Simmons and
R. Edson, 1996. 3-D seismic imaging and interpretation
of fluvially deposited thin-bed reservoirs. In: P. Weimer
and
T.L. Davis (Eds.), Applications of 3-D Seismic Data to
Exploration and Production. AAPG Studies in Geology
No. 42 and SEG Geophysical Developments Series No.
5, AAPG/SEG, Tulsa: 27-34.
Heller, P.L. and C. Paola, 1996. Downstream changes in
alluvial architecture: an exploration of controls on
channel-stacking patterns. Journal of Sedimentary
Research 66: 297-306.
Hirst, J. P. P., C. R. Blackstock and S. Tyson, 1993.
Stochastic modeling of fluvial sandstone bodies. In:
S. S. Flint and I.
D. Bryant (Eds.), The Geological Modeling of
Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Outcrop Analogues.
International Association of Sedimentologists Special
Publication 15: 237-251.
Holden, L., R. Hauge, Ø. Skare and A. Skorstad, 1998.
Modeling of Fluvial Reservoirs with Object Models.
Mathematical Geology 30: 473-496.
Jackson, R.G., 1978. Preliminary evaluation of lithofacies
models for meandering alluvial streams. In: Miall,
A.D. (Ed.), Fluvial Sedimentology. Canadian
Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 5: 543-576.
Jervey, M.T., 1988. Quantitative geological modeling of
siliciclastic rock sequences and their seismic
expression. In: C.K. Wilgus, B. Hastings, C. Kendall,
H.W. Posamentier,
C.A. Ross and J.C. Van Wagoner (Eds.), Sea-level changes:
an integrated approach. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication
42: 47-69.
Journel, A.G., 1983. Nonparametric estimation of spatial
distributions. Mathematical Geology 15: 445-468.
Karssenberg, D., T. E. Tornqvist and J. S. Bridge, 2001a.
Conditioning a process-based model of sedimentary
architecture to well data. Journal of Sedimentary
Research 71: 868-879.
Karssenberg, G, D., J. S. Bridge and T. E. Tornqvist ,
2001b. Modeling cycles of fluvial aggradation and
degradation due to base-level change using a revised
process-based, 3-D alluvial stratigraphy model. VII
International Conference on Fluvial Sedimentology,
Lincoln, Nebraska.
Khan, I.A., J. S. Bridge, J. Kappelman and R. Wilson, 1997.
Evolution of Miocene fluvial environments, eastern
Potwar plateau, northern Pakistan. Sedimentology 44:

11 AAS Revista 8 (2), 2001

 process-imitating and descriptive approaches. Water
Resources Research 32: 2617-2658.
Knighton, A.D. and G. C. Nanson, 1993. Anastomosis and
the continuum of channel pattern. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 18: 613-625.
Koss, J.E., F. G. Ethridge and S. A. Schumm, 1994. An expe-
rimental study of the effects of base-level change on
flu- vial, coastal plain and shelf systems. Journal
of Sedimentary Research B64: 90-98.
Lane, E.W., 1957. A study of the shape of channels formed
by natural streams flowing in erodible material.
Missouri River Division Sediment Series No. 9, U.S.
Army Engineer Division, Missouri River, Corps of
Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska.
Leclair, S.F. and J. S. Bridge, 2001. Quantitative
interpretation of sedimentary structures formed by
river dunes. Journal of Sedimentary Research.71: 713-
716.
Leclair, S. F., J. S. Bridge and F. Wang, 1997. Preservation
of cross-strata due to migration of subaqueous dunes
over aggrading and non-aggrading beds: comparison
of expe- rimental data with theory. Geoscience Canada
24: 55- 66.
Leeder, M.R., 1978. A quantitative stratigraphic model for
alluvium with special reference to channel deposit
density and interconnectedness. In: Miall, A.D. (Ed.),
Flu- vial sedimentology. Canadian Society of
Petroleum Geologists Memoir 5: 587-596.
Leeder, M.R. and M. Stewart, 1996. Fluvial incision and
sequence stratigraphy: alluvial responses to relative
base level fall and their detection in the geological
record. In: Hesselbo, S.P. and D. N. Parkinson (Eds.),
Sequence stratigraphy in British Geology. Geological
Society of London Special Publication 103: 47-61.
Lomando, A. J. and P. M. Harris, 1988. Giant oil and gas
fields: a core workshop. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists Core Workshop 12,
853 pp.
Lorenz, J.C., D. M. Heinze, J. A. Clark and C. A. Searls, 1985.
Determination of widths of meander-belt sandstone
reservoirs from vertical downhole data, Mesaverde
Group, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 69: 710-721.
Lorenz, J. C., N. R. Warpinski and P. T. Brannagan, 1991.
Subsurface characterization of Mesaverde reservoirs in
Colorado: geophysical and reservoir-engineering checks
on predictive sedimentology. In: A. D. Miall and N.
Tyler (Eds.), The three-dimensional facies
architecture of terrigenous clastic sediments and its
implications for hydrocarbon discovery and recovery.
Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists Concepts in Sedimentology and
Paleontology 3: 57-79.
Lowry, P. and A. Raheim, 1991. Characterisation of delta
front sandstones from a fluvial-dominated delta
system. In: L. W. Lake, H. B. Carroll Jr., and T. C.
Wesson (Eds.), Reservoir characterisation - II.
Academic Press, London: 665-676.
Mackey, S.D. and J. S. Bridge, 1995. Three dimensional
model of alluvial stratigraphy: theory and application.
Journal of Sedimentary Research B65: 7-31.
Makaske, B., 2001. Anastomosing rivers: a review fo their

AAS Revista 8 (2), 2001 113

 classification, origin and sedimentary products. Earth-
Science Reviews 53: 149-196.
Miall, A.D., 1977. A review of the braided river
depositional environment. Earth Science Reviews 13:
1-62.
Miall, A.D., 1986. Eustatic sea level changes interpreted
from seismic stratigraphy: a critique of the
methodology with particular reference to the North
Sea Jurassic record. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin 70: 131-137.
Miall, A.D., 1991. Stratigraphic sequences and their
chronostratigraphic correlation. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 61: 497-505.
Miall, A.D., 1992. Alluvial deposits. In: Walker, R.G. and N.
P. James (Eds.), Facies models: response to sea level
changes. Geological Association of Canada, St Johns,
Newfoundland: 119-142.
Miall, A.D., 1996. The geology of fluvial deposits. Springer-
Verlag, New York, 582 p.
Miall, A.D. and N. Tyler (Eds.), 1991. The Three-Dimensio-
nal Facies Architecture of Terrigeneous Clastic Sediments
and Its Implications for Hydrocarbon Discovery and
Recovery. Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists Concepts in Sedimentology and
Paleontology 3, 309 pp.
Nanson, G.C. and A. D. Knighton, 1996. Anabranching rivers:
their cause, character and classification. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 21: 217-239.
Nanz, R.H. JR., 1954. Genesis of Oligocene sandstone
reservoir, Seeligson field, Jim Wells and Kleberg Counties,
Texas. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin 38: 96-117.
North, C.P., 1996. The prediction and modelling of
subsurface fluvial stratigraphy. In: P.A. Carling and M.R.
Dawson (Eds.), Advances in Fluvial Dynamics and
Stratigraphy. John Wiley, Chichester: 395-508.
North, C. P. and K. S. Taylor, 1996. Ephemeral-fluvial deposits:
integrated outcrop and simulation studies reveal
complexity. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin 80: 811-830.
Paola, C., P. L. Heller and C. L. Angevine, 1992. The large-
scale dynamics of grain-size variation in alluvial basins.
1 - Theory. Basin Research 4: 73-90.
Pitman, W.C. III, 1986. Effects of sea level change on basin
stratigraphy. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin 70: 1-62.
Pitman, W.C. III and X. Golovchenko, 1988. Sea-level
changes and their effect on the stratigraphy of
Atlantic- type margins. In: Sheridan, R.E. and J. A.
Grow (Eds.), The geology of North America, vol I-2,
The Atlantic con- tinental margin, United States.
Geological Society of America: 429-436.
Posamentier, H.W., M. T. Jervey and P. R. Vail, 1988.
Eustatic controls on clastic deposition I - Conceptual
framework. In: C.K. Wilgus, B.S. Hastings, C.G.St.C.
Kendall, H.W. Posamentier, C.A. Ross and J.C. Van
Wagoner (Eds.), Sea- level changes: an integrated
approach. Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists Special Publication 42: 109-124.
Posamentier, H.W. and P.R. Vail, 1988. Eustatic controls on
clastic deposition II - Sequence and systems tract
models.
In: C.K. Wilgus, B.S. Hastings, C.G.St.C. Kendall, H.W.
Posamentier, C.A. Ross and J.C. Van Wagoner (Eds.),
Sea- level changes: an integrated approach.
Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists Special Publication 42: 125-154.
Robinson, J. W. and P. J. McCabe, 1997, Sandstone-body and
shale-body dimensions in a braided fluvial system: Salt
Wash Sandstone Member (Morrison Formation),
Garfield County, Utah. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 81: 1267-1291.
Ross, W.C., 1990. Modeling base-level dynamics as a
control on basin-fill geometries and facies distribution:
a con- ceptual framework. In: Cross, T.A. (Ed.),
Quantitative Dynamic Stratigraphy, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 387-399.
Rust, B.R., 1978. A classification of alluvial channel
systems. In: Miall, A.D. (Ed.), Fluvial Sedimentology
Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 5:
187-198.
Salter, T., 1993. Fluvial scour and incision: models for their
influence on the development of realistic reservoir
geometries. In: C. P. North and D. J. Prosser (Eds.),
Characterization of Fluvial and Aeolian Reservoirs.
Geological Society of London Special Publication 73:
33- 51.
Saucier, R.T., 1981. Current thinking on riverine processes
and geologic history as related to human settlement in
the southeast. Geoscience and Man 22: 7-18.
Saucier, R.T., 1994. Geomorphology and Quaternary Geologic
History of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Mississippi River
Commission, Vicksburg, 364 pp.
Schumm, S.A., 1963. Sinuosity of alluvial channels on the
Great Plains. Geological Society of America Bulletin 74:
1089-1100.
Schumm, S.A., 1971. Fluvial geomorphology. In: Shen,
H.W. (Ed.), River Mechanics I. Water Resources
Publications, Colorado, Chapter 5: 1-22.
Schumm, S.A., 1972. Fluvial paleochannels. In: J.K. Rigby
and W.K. Hamblin (Eds.), Recognition of ancient
sedimentary environments. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication
16: 98-107.
Schumm, S.A., 1977. The Fluvial System. John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 338 p.
Schumm, S.A., 1981. Evolution and response of the fluvial
system, sedimentologic implications. In Ethridge, F.G.
and R. M. Flores (Eds.), Recent and ancient nonmarine
depositional environments: models for exploration.
Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists
Special Publication 31: 19-29.
Schumm, S.A., 1985. Patterns of alluvial rivers. Annual
Reviews Earth and Planetary Science 13: 5-27.
Schumm, S.A., 1993. River response to base level change:
implications for sequence stratigraphy. Journal of
Geology 101: 279-294.
Selley, R.C., 1996. Ancient Sedimentary Environments and
their Subsurface Diagnosis, 4th ed., Chapman and Hall,
London, 300 pp.
Shanley, K. W. and P. J. McCabe, 1993. Alluvial architecture
in a sequence stratigraphic framework: a case history
from the Upper Cretaceous of southern Utah, USA. In:
 Flint, S. and Bryant, I.D. (Eds.), The geological modeling
distribution of sediment units in braided stream deposits.
of hydrocarbon reservoirs and outcrop analogues.
Journal of Sedimentary Research B64: 219-231.
International Association of Sedimentologists Special
Weber, K. J., 1993. The use of 3-D seismic in reservoir
Publication 15: 21-56.
geological modelling. In: S.S. Flint and I.D. Bryant
Shanley, K. W. and P. J. McCabe, 1994. Perspectives on the
(Eds.), The Geological Modelling of Hydrocarbon
sequence stratigraphy of continental strata. American
Reservoirs and Outcrop Analogues. International
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 78: 544-568.
Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication
Smith, D.G., 1976. Effect of vegetation on lateral migration
15: 181-188.
of anastomosed channels of a glacier meltwater river.
Wescott, W.A., 1993. Geomorphic thresholds and complex
Geological Society of America Bulletin 87: 857-860.
response of fluvial systems - some implications for
Srivastava, R.M., 1994. An overview of stochastic methods
sequence stratigraphy. American Association of
for reservoir characterization. In: Yarus J.M. and R. L.
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 77: 1208-1218.
Chambers (Eds.), Stochastic modeling and Geostatistics.
Willis, B.J., 1993a. Ancient river systems in the Himalayan
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
foredeep, Chinji village area, northern Pakistan.
Computer Applications in Geology 3: 3-16.
Sedimentary Geology 88: 1-76.
Stam, J.M.T., 1996. Migration and Growth of Aeolian
Willis, B.J., 1993b. Evolution of Miocene fluvial systems in
Bedforms. Mathematical Geology 28: 519-536.
the Himalayan foredeep through a two kilometer-thick
Tetzlaff, D.M. and J. W. Harbaugh, 1989. Simulating
succession in northern Pakistan. Sedimentary Geology
Clastic Sedimentation. New York, Van Nostrand
88: 77-121.
Reinhold.
Wood, L.J., F. G. Ethridge and S. A. Schumm, 1994. An
Tö rnqvist, T.E., 1993. Holocene alternation of meandering expermental study of the influence of subaqueous
and anastomosing fluvial systems in the Rhine-Meuse shelf angles on coastal plain and shelf deposits. In:
Delta (central Netherlands) controlled by sea-level rise Weimer, P. and H. W. Posamentier (Eds.), Siliciclastic
and subsoil erodibility. Journal of Sedimentary sequence stratigraphy. American Association of
Petrology 63: 683-693. Petroleum Geologists Memoir 58: 381-391.
Tö rnqvist, T.E., 1994. Middle and late Holocene avulsion Wright, V.P. and S. B. Marriott, 1993. The sequence
history of the River Rhine (Rhine-Meuse Delta, stratigraphy of fluvial depositional systems: the role of
Netherlands). Geology 22: 711-714. floodplain sediment storage. Sedimentary Geology 86:
Tye, R. S., 1991. Fluvial-sandstone reservoirs of the Travis 203-210.
Peak Formation, East Texas Basin. In: A. D. Miall and N.
Zaleha, M.J., 1997a. Fluvial and lacustrine
Tyler (Eds.), The Three-Dimensional Facies Architecture
palaeoenvironments of the Miocene Siwalik Group,
of Terrigeneous Clastic Sediments and Its Implications
Khaur area, northern Pakistan. Sedimentology 44: 349-
for Hydrocarbon Discovery and Recovery. Society of
368.
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Concepts
Zaleha, M.J., 1997b. Intra- and extrabasinal controls on flu-
in Sedimentology and Paleontology 3: 172-188.
vial deposition in the Miocene Indo-Gangetic basin,
Tyler, K., A. Henriquez and T. Svanes, 1994. Modeling
northern Pakistan. Sedimentology 44: 369-390.
heterogeneities in fluvial domains: a review of the
influence on production profiles. In Yarus J.M. and R. L.
Chambers (Eds.), Stochastic modeling and Geostatistics.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Computer Applications in Geology 3: 77-89.
John S. BRIDGE
Walderhaug, O. and R. Mjos, 1991. Sandbody geometry in Department of Geological Sciences
fluvial systems - an example from the Jurassic of Binghamton University
Yorkshire, England. In: L. W. Lake, H. B. Carroll Jr. and T. P.O. Box 6000
C. Wesson (Eds.), Reservoir characterisation - II. Binghamton, NY
Academic Press, London: 701-703. 13902-6000, USA
Webb, E.K., 1994. Simulating the three-dimensional Email: jbridge@binghamton.edu