Counter point bar deposits: lithofacies and reservoir significance in the meandering modern Peace River and ancient McMurray Formation, Alberta, Canada     

DERALD G. SMITH  STEPHEN M. HUBBARD†  DALE A. LECKIE‡  MILOVAN FUSTIC‡ 《Sedimentology》2009,56(6):1655-1669

Counter point bar deposits in the meandering Peace River, North‐central Alberta, Wood Buffalo National Park, are distinct from point bar deposits in terms of morphology, lithofacies and reservoir potential for fluids. Previously referred to as the distal‐most parts of point bars, point bar tails and concave bank‐bench deposits, counter point bar deposits have concave morphological scroll patterns rather than convex as with point bars. The Peace is a large river (bankfull discharge 11 700 m³ sec^?1, width 375 to 700 m, depth 15 m, gradient 0·00004 or 4 cm km^?1) in which counter point bar deposits are dominated by silt (80% to 90%), which contrasts with sand‐dominant (90% to 100%) point bar deposits. Beginning at the meander inflection (transition from convex to concave), counter point bar deposit stratigraphy thickens as a wedge‐like architecture in the distal direction until the deposit is nearly as thick as the point bar deposits. The low permeability silt‐dominant lithofacies in counter point bar deposits will limit reservoir extent and movement of fluids in both modern and ancient subsurface fluvial deposits. In the exploration and extraction of bitumen and heavy oil in subsurface fluvial rocks, identification and mapping of reservoir potential of point bar deposits and counter point bar deposits is now possible in the fluvial‐dominated tidal estuarine Lower Cretaceous Middle McMurray Formation, North‐east Alberta. Recent geophysical advances have facilitated imaging of some ancient buried point bar deposits and counter point bar deposits which, on the basis of morphological shape of sedimentary bodies observed from seismic amplitude, can be interpreted and mapped as depositional elements or blocks that contain associated sandstone or siltstone dominant lithofacies, respectively. As counter point bar deposits exhibit poor permeability and thus limit reservoir potential for water, natural gas, light crude, heavy oil and bitumen, counter point bar deposits should be avoided in resource developments. Geophysical imaging, interpretation and mapping of point bar deposit and counter point bar deposit elements provide new opportunities to improve recovery of bitumen and heavy oil and reduce development costs in subsurface cyclic steam stimulation and steam‐assisted gravity drainage projects by not drilling into counter point bar deposits.  相似文献