MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Tidal versus fluvial point bars: Key features from the integration of outcrop, core and wireline log information of Triassic examples
Tidal versus fluvial point bars: Key features from the integration of outcrop, core and wireline log information of Triassic examples
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Tidal versus fluvial point bars: Key features from the integration of outcrop, core and wireline log information of Triassic examples
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Tidal versus fluvial point bars: Key features from the integration of outcrop, core and wireline log information of Triassic examples
Tidal versus fluvial point bars: Key features from the integration of outcrop, core and wireline log information of Triassic examples

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Tidal versus fluvial point bars: Key features from the integration of outcrop, core and wireline log information of Triassic examples
Tidal versus fluvial point bars: Key features from the integration of outcrop, core and wireline log information of Triassic examples
Journal Article

Tidal versus fluvial point bars: Key features from the integration of outcrop, core and wireline log information of Triassic examples

2024
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
The Triassic red beds of the Tabular Cover of the Iberian Meseta are an excellent reservoir outcrop analogue, a direct consequence of high‐quality exposures, which offer exceptional three‐dimensional outcrops, as well as a wide variability of depositional environments. Fluvial and transitional with tide‐influenced and wave‐influenced settings are recognised. Three point bar geobodies of similar scale, but influenced by different processes, were selected from this succession. Point bar geobody 1 was influenced by purely fluvial processes while geobodies 2 and 3 were tide‐influenced. Both types of geobody were developed as point bar deposits in sinuous channels. A fully integrated study was carried out on these geobodies, utilising both outcrop and subsurface‐based approaches, to characterise the key differences between fluvial and tidal point bars in the sedimentary record. The outcrop‐based component involved traditional field data collection methods alongside digital techniques and data capture, including the use of digital outcrop models. Additionally, subsurface‐based methods were employed, utilising core and wireline logs obtained from wells drilled in close proximity to the outcrop. The integration of these approaches aims to accurately differentiate the depositional settings of the three different geobodies, which while apparently very similar in many key respects also exhibit considerable differences when considered from the perspective of subsurface management of potentially similar geobodies. This study also emphasises the need to clearly distinguish high‐sinuosity deposits based on their depositional sub‐environment in order to properly evaluate their potential for subsurface management. Additionally, it highlights the presence and importance of internal baffles that may well influence fluid migration and indeed even compartmentalise geobodies. Three point bar geobodies of similar scale, but influenced by different processes, have been selected in this succession. A fully integrated study was carried out on these geobodies, utilising both outcrop‐based and subsurface‐based approaches, to characterise the key differences between fluvial and tidal point bars in the sedimentary record.