Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.

org/ by guest on February 20, 2016

The application of outcrop analogues in geological modelling:

a review, present status and future outlook
JOHN A. HOWELL1*, ALLARD W. MARTINIUS2 & TIMOTHY R. GOOD3
1
Department of Geology & Petroleum Geology, Kings College, University of Aberdeen,
Aberdeen AB24 3UE, UK
2
Statoil RDI, Arkitekt Ebbellsvei 10, N-7005 Trondheim, Norway
3
ExxonMobil International Ltd, ExxonMobil House, MP44, Ermyn Way, Leatherhead,
Surrey KT22 8UX, UK
*Corresponding author (e-mail: john.howell@abdn.ac.uk)

Abstract: Analogues, especially outcrop analogues, have played a central role in improving
understanding of subsurface reservoir architectures. Analogues provide important information
on geobody size, geometry and potential connectivity. The historical application of outcrop ana-
logues for understanding geobody distributions in reservoirs is reviewed, from the pioneering
work of the 1960s to the high-tech virtual outcrop methodologies of today. Four key types of ana-
logue data are identified: hard data, which describe the dimensions and geometry of the geobody;
soft data, which describe the conceptual relationships between different geobody types; training
images, which record the dimensions, proportions and spatial relationship; and analogue pro-
duction data, which are taken from direct subsurface production analogues. The use of these differ-
ent data types at different stages of the geomodelling workflow is discussed and the potential
sources of error considered. Finally, a review of geobody and analogue studies in different
clastic environments is discussed with reference to selected previous work and the range of
papers in the current volume.

Over the last 30 years, computer-based, geocellular
models have become a routinely used tool for under-
standing subsurface reservoirs (Budding & Inglin
1981; review in Keogh et al. 2007). Such models
are typically built to aid field development and
reservoir management business decisions, but also
serve the purpose of integrating disparate scales
and types of subsurface data, and visualizing com-
plex three-dimensional (3D) distributions of rocks
and fluids. Since the application of early modelling
tools, to the present day, it has been common prac-
tice to supplement sparse subsurface datasets (e.g.
wells and seismic) with data and concepts derived
from reservoir analogues. The intention of this
process is to generate more accurate representations
of the subsurface than would otherwise be possible.
Considerable effort has been expended in recent
years by industry and academia on the description
of reservoir analogues for this purpose. This paper
examines the challenges inherent in selection and
application of appropriate analogue data, particu-
larly quantitative datasets, during construction of
geological models.
The most commonly used type of analogue is the
outcrop, where information on geometric data that
are limited in the subsurface is more readily avail-
able in cliff sections. Analogues may also include
subsurface data but this is less common. This aspect
is considered briefly in this review. The perspective
on the application of analogues as discussed here
is with regard to sedimentology and stratigraphy
applied to hydrocarbon reservoir analysis, and the
insights that 3D facies models bring to the distribu-
tion of petrophysical properties that control hydro-
carbon flow. The discussion is based on clastic
systems, but many of the aspects described are
equally as applicable to carbonates, although they
are not discussed explicitly here. Other branches
of subsurface modelling, notably in structural geol-
ogy, have also drawn on outcrop analogues to
provide insights to the dimensions, form and distri-
bution of faults and fractures that may not be appar-
ent from primary subsurface datasets (England &
Townsend 1998; Manzocchi et al. 2008).
Models are built at various stages of field life
from appraisal through to decommissioning. Dur-
ing field appraisal and development, planning mod-
els are used for optimizing well locations and
spacing. During field production, models are built
to monitor and predict performance and to plan
infill wells (Labourdette 2008). Models are also
built prior to any major IOR (increased oil recovery)
activities to predict performance and test the econ-
omic viability of such projects (e.g. Mathews et al.

From: Martinius, A. W., Howell, J. A. & Good, T. R. (eds) 2014. Sediment-Body Geometry and Heterogeneity:
Analogue Studies for Modelling the Subsurface. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 387, 1 25.
First published online April 29, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP387.12
# The Geological Society of London 2014. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016

2 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.

2008). Finally, models are increasingly used dur-
ing the decommissioning phase to demonstrate to
stakeholders and regulators that the field is ready
to be abandoned (e.g. Ruivo & Morooka 2001).
The reservoir model has become the central tool
for field management. Reliable models, capable
of matching past field production history, are there-
fore essential for decisions regarding future field
performance.
One of the fundamental challenges facing reser-
voir modellers is the generation of heterogeneous
distributions of reservoir properties in interwell
volumes. Initial datasets will typically comprise
wells and seismic data. The wells provide high-
resolution data vertically, but only sparse lateral
sampling (wells with spacing greater than 1 km
will sample less than one millionth of a per cent:
Fig. 1). Two-dimensional, 3D (or possibly 4D)

Fig. 1. Data resolution v. coverage for a typical subsurface field. (a) Core and log data provide good-quality data with
very high resolution, but sample a very limited portion of the reservoir. Seismic data sample the entire reservoir but at a
resolution that is typically too low to capture geobody geometry. (b) Quantification of aspects described above.
Proportion of a reservoir based on a typical field that is 5 3 0.05 km, penetrated by four wells.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW
seismic profiles will cover large areas, but lack ver-
tical resolution and will typically be too coarse to
image the key stratigraphic and structural features
that create the heterogeneities within the reservoir
that control fluid flow (Manzocchi et al. 2008). Pro-
duction data can provide valuable information on
the distribution of heterogeneities, but this is a
derivative of the heterogeneity and history matching
is a challenge with infamously non-unique solutions
(Oliver et al. 2008).
Against this background of limited data, reser-
voir analogues have long been used to improve
understanding of oil fields (Fielding & Crane
1987; Miall & Tyler 1991 and references therein;
Alexander 1993; Flint & Bryant 1993 and refer-
ences therein; Grammer et al. 2004 and references
therein; and numerous other publications). An
analogue is a system that shares some similar char-
acteristics with a less well-constrained study
interval. The similarity between the two systems,
as judged by predefined critical reservoir par-
ameters and their characteristics, is used as a
basis for the prediction of aspects and behaviour
in the less well understood system. A typical ana-
logue study may state Field X has a fluvial reser-
voir interval, but we know nothing about the
connectivity of the channel sandstone bodies; how-
ever, because it is interpreted to be similar to
Outcrop Y, we can use the well-constrained geo-
metries from the outcrop to predict connectivity
in the subsurface.
Given that no two geological systems are identi-
cal, it follows that there is no such thing as the
perfect analogue. The quest for a suitable, usable
analogue is based around determining which
aspects of the system the user wishes to understand
and finding an analogue that is similar in that
way. Hence, selection of reservoir analogues should
always be supported by an answer to the question
analogous in what respect?. Even then, it is possi-
ble that no single analogue exists and, in such cases,
it may be necessary to combine information from
several different analogues and extract aspects
from each. This approach is illustrated by Glenton
et al. (2013), who use several deep-water reservoir
analogues in their modelling of the Scarborough
Gas Field, NW Shelf, Australia, and by Baas et al.
(2005) and Colombera et al. (2012), who present
a method for generating composite analogues,
based on spatial relationships from numerous
systems. Choice of analogue is critical since the
incorrect selection can lead to the wrong data
being used to populate models and is a major
source of model failure, with failure being defined
as the model not correctly predicting an outcome.
Where significant uncertainty exists in the reser-
voir conceptual model, the adoption of scenario-
based approaches can mitigate against the pitfalls
3
of anchoring on a single base-case model (Bentley
& Smith 2008).
This review focuses on the use of outcrops as a
source of data for populating geocellular reservoir
models. High-quality outcrops, sometimes of the
same stratigraphic unit, sometimes of different sys-
tems but with similar attributes, are the most com-
monly used analogues in geological modelling
(Fig. 2). In addition to outcrops, it should be noted
that analogue data can also be drawn from modern
systems (e.g. Tye 2004), the shallow portion of
seismic surveys (e.g. Reijenstein et al. 2011),
modern bathymetric studies (Kenyon et al. 1995;
Prelat et al. 2010) or the results of physical and
numerical experiments (Kneller 1996; Aas et al.
2010a, b, 2014; Geleynse et al. 2011). Similar,
more mature fields where there are more data and
fewer uncertainties may also be used (Almklov &
Heps 2011).
Early development and evolution of
quantitative outcrop analogue studies
Much of the growth in examination of outcrop reser-
voir analogues in recent years has been a response
to the development of sophisticated 3D geological
modelling tools. These enable geologists to apply
quantitative descriptions of sedimentary building
blocks from reservoir analogues to modelling
subseismic interwell reservoir architecture in the
subsurface. The collection and application of ana-
logue data have evolved over the past 50 years and
predate reservoir modelling.
Early workers include Glennie (1970), who
studied modern deserts as analogues to the newly
discovered Rotliegend reservoirs of the southern
North Sea. Subsequent Shell workers (Weber 1987)
recognized that the Mesozoic aeolian deposits of
the western USA were excellent ancient analogues
for the same reservoirs. These early workers also
recognized that analogues provided information
about barriers and baffles within the reservoirs, as
well as the reservoirs themselves. Zeito (1965) gen-
erated the first plot of shale length statistics, and
showed a systematic change between depositional
environments, illustrating the use of analogues in
predicting the geometries of barriers and baffles
within reservoirs.
Early stochastic modelling of shales (Haldorsen
& Lake 1984; Begg & King 1985; Halderson &
Chang 1986) and the modelling of fluvial channels
as geobodies (Fielding & Crane 1987; Haldorsen
& Damsleth 1990; Holden et al. 1999) led to a
requirement for data to condition models. The
SAFARI project from the mid-1980s to the early
1990s (Dreyer et al. 1993; Keogh et al. 2007) was
undertaken by a consortium of Norwegian Oil
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016

4 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.

Fig. 2. From outcrop to flow simulation. (a) Outcrop of the Cretaceous Blackhawk Formation from Woodside
Canyon, eastern Utah. View shows the marine shoreface overlain by coastal plain deposits. Field of view is 90 m high.
(b) Virtual outcrop model of Woodside Canyon generated from terrestrial LiDAR data, the cliff in the main picture is
110 m high. (c) Reservoir model of the non-marine portion of outcrop with the terrain surface in grey. (d) Reservoir
model of the non-marine deposits: yellow, channel sandstone; green, overbank deposits; black, coal; orange, crevasse
splay deposits. (e) Flow simulation model, colour reflects fluid saturation, all of the reservoir models are
1000 1200 50 m.

Companies, universities and the Norwegian Pet-
roleum Directorate. The project collected outcrop
data from seven outcrops, with the specific goal of
compiling a database of analogues for conditioning
the new breed of stochastic reservoir modelling
tools that were emerging at that time from the Nor-
wegian Computing Centre. Data were collected for
modelling fluvial (Dreyer 1990; Dreyer et al.
1993) and shallow-marine systems (MacDonald &
Aasen 1994). Work on geobody architecture was
not the sole preserve of Norwegian groups; Miall
& Tyler (1991) compiled one of the first published
studies of outcrop data specifically for application
as reservoir analogues. Virtually all of the large
oil companies undertook work in-house to build
databases of sandstone-body architecture (e.g.
Reynolds 1999) either through in-house fieldwork
or by collaboration with universities, although much
of the data collected remains largely in-house within
the companies and is not available in the scientific
literature.
By the mid-1990s, the collection of outcrop data
for reservoir studies was commonplace, and there
were numerous studies being undertaken by univer-
sities and research institutes, such as Heriot-Watt,
Liverpool, IFP, Delft University of Technology,
Texas A&M, Bureau of Economic Geology and
many others. Such data were typically collected
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW
using a combination of logs, architectural sketches
(e.g. Mountney et al. 1999) and scaled photo
panels (e.g. Aitken & Flint 1995; Arnot et al. 1997).
A concurrent development was the direct model-
ling of the outcrop data (e.g. Flint & Bryant 1993
and references therein; Brandster et al. 2005),
which allowed specific questions, such as the
connectivity of channels in 3D (Jones et al. 1993;
Georgsen et al. 1994; Khan et al. 1995) or the
impact of certain specific baffle populations on
flow (e.g. Stephen et al. 2001), to be dynamically
tested and better understood. Such studies are com-
monplace today (e.g. Grammar et al. 2004) and
outcrop reservoir modelling is a routine tool to
address specific, reservoir -related problems, such
as the impact of dipping, delta-front clinoforms
on production (Enge & Howell 2010; Deveugle
et al. 2011) or shoreface bedset architecture (Sech
et al. 2009).
Utilizing existing wells that are close to out-
crops (Chidsey et al. 2004) or drilling near-outcrop
boreholes (Luthi & Flint 2013) has been an effec-
tive method of closing the loop between the out-
crop and the subsurface. Wells were drilled in the
Book Cliffs by Exxon Production Research (Van
Wagoner et al. 1990), in the Ebro Basin by TU
Delft (Donselaar & Schmidt 2005), in the Guada-
lupe Mountains (Beaubouef et al. 1999) in the
Ainsa Basin by the Force Consortium (Pickering
& Corregidor 2005), in the Karoo Basin by Liver-
pool University and partners (Luthi et al. 2006),
and most recently in western Ireland by Univer-
sity College Dublin. Such boreholes provide addi-
tional 3D information on the geometry of bodies
that are exposed in cliff sections, but, perhaps more
importantly, they provide a direct link between
the data observed in the subsurface and the out-
crop analogue.
The early 2000s saw the advent of several new
data-collection techniques for outcrop analogue
studies. These include the routine use of GPR
(ground-penetrating radar) (Corbeanu et al. 2001;
Novakovic et al. 2002; Pringle et al. 2004, 2006)
and virtual outcrops. Initial virtual outcrop studies
were based on photogrammetry (e.g. Dueholm &
Olsen 1993; Thurmond et al. 2005) but this was
rapidly superseded by the application of terres-
trial laser scanning (LiDAR (Light Detection and
Ranging)), which is generally faster and easier to
process (Bellian et al. 2005; Enge et al. 2007;
Buckley et al. 2008a, b; Hodgetts 2013). LiDAR
uses a high-frequency laser pulse to collect millions
of spatially constrained points from an outcrop
surface. Early studies interpreted geology on to
this point cloud (e.g. Bellian et al. 2005) but, more
recently, the points are triangulated and images are
draped on to the surface generating a photo-realistic
model that can be used to generate highly accurate
5
and precise measurements of geobodies in the
outcrop (van Lanen et al. 2009; Enge et al. 2010).
More recently, helicopter-mounted LiDAR has
been used to collect very large datasets, km to tens
of km long (Buckley et al. 2008b; Rittersbacher
et al. 2013).
The above described methods have provided
data from outcrops that can be used to condition sub-
surface reservoir models (e.g. Dalrymple 2001;
Noad 2004) or to test the behaviour of outcrop archi-
tecture under simulated reservoir conditions (e.g.
Stephen et al. 2001; Enge & Howell 2010). A
number of databases has been built to facilitate the
storing and accessing of such data (Cuevas Gozalo
& Martinius 1993; Reynolds 1999; Eschard et al.
2002; Baas et al. 2005; Gibling 2006; Colombera
et al. 2012; Rittersbacher et al. 2013), making such
data more readily available. The generation of syn-
thetic seismic data from outcrops (e.g. Gartner &
Schlager 1999; Bakke et al. 2008) has also helped
to close the gap between the outcrop analogue and
the subsurface dataset.
Application of analogue data to reservoir
modelling
The application of analogue data, especially out-
crop data, has become progressively more sophisti-
cated through time. There are four distinct classes
of data application, which are summarized below
(Fig. 3).
Soft data
Soft data are the knowledge and understanding of
a type of depositional system. They may include
information such as what are the characteristic facies
within a depositional system, their lateral and verti-
cal relationships to one another, correlation con-
cepts, conceptual models for depositional systems,
and other similar information. The soft data are
the data acquired from the analogue that allow the
geologist working in the field or building the reser-
voir model to make better interpretations and to
carry a better conceptual understanding of the sys-
tem. This qualitative data provide the framework
for the collection and application of quantitative/
hard data.
Hard data
This is the quantitative information that is col-
lected from the outcrop. This typically describes
the geometry and dimensions of sediment bodies,
such as sandstone-body widths and thicknesses
(e.g. Reynolds 1999; Gibling 2006), and shale- or
cement-body lengths (Zeito 1965; Stephen et al.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016

6 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.

Fig. 3. Analogue data. (a) Hard data on sand-body geometries, channel-body widths and width v. thickness from
selected outcrops from the SAFARI database. (b) Modern analogue and sketch that can be used as a training image for
MPS modelling. From the Wax Lake Delta, Louisiana, left-hand image from Google Earth. (c) Cross-section of the
Blackhawk Formation, eastern Utah, 110 0.5 km. Such soft data provide a conceptual framework for correlation and
understanding of the distribution of distinct populations of geobodies. (d) Production data from an analogue field.

2001), all of which are used for conditioning object-
based models. Quantification of the geometry and
dimensions of the sedimentary building blocks
(also referred to as architectural elements or genetic
units) that comprise the reservoir is typically under-
taken with a stratigraphic framework that defines
the larger-scale architecture or stacking pattern of
the elements (Keogh et al. 2014). The product of
this type of study consists of statistical descrip-
tions of attributes, such as channel sandstone-body
width thickness relationships. Similarly, attributes
such as facies tract thicknesses and aggradation
angles can be collected for conditioning truncated
Gaussian simulations (MacDonald & Aasen 1994;
Howell et al. 2008a) or in sandstone-body vario-
grams for pixel-based modelling (Caers et al.
2000). All of these data are measured directly
from the outcrops, and the data then used to directly
populate and condition the stochastic reservoir
models.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW
Training data
The hard and soft data described above can also be
used to generate training images for Multi-Point
Statistics (MPS) (Caers & Zhang 2004). MPS relies
on an image (or 3D volume) that describes the shape
and lateral relationships between the facies in a
volume (Pyrcz et al. 2008) Such training images
are commonly derived from object- or process-
based models that are built using a range of
ancient and modern sedimentary analogues.
Dynamic data from reservoir
analogue models
The final class of data is results from reservoir ana-
logue models that are used to undertake flow simu-
lation experiments. These typically use models of
specific outcrops or related generic models. Such
models have been used to investigate the influence
of various aspects of reservoir architecture on fluid
flow across a range of different reservoir types,
such as fluvial connectivity (Georgsen et al. 1994),
understanding shallow-marine reservoirs (Kjnsvik
et al. 1994; Branster et al. 2005), the connectivity
of channelized reservoirs (Larue & Hovadik 2006,
2008), the behaviour of the Ainsa deep-water reser-
voir analogue (Larue 2004; Labourdette 2008) and
the role of clinoforms draping shales as barriers
(Forster et al. 2004; Howell et al. 2008b; Enge &
Howell 2010).
The flow simulation of outcrop-based models
requires additional inputs for petrophysical proper-
ties (porosity, permeability, fluid saturation) and
reservoir conditions (e.g. fluid type, viscosity and
density, depth of burial, pressure). While it is poss-
ible to measure some of these parameters from the
outcrop (e.g. Chandler et al. 1989; Barton et al.
2004), it is generally better to use the actual par-
ameters from the subsurface field for which the
outcrop is being used as an analogue. In that way,
the outcrop analogue is used to provide the geo-
metric information that is lacking from the subsur-
face dataset in the studied intervals.
Analogue data in the reservoir
modelling workflow
Analogue data are important in the geological mod-
elling process for the 3D understanding of the geo-
metry, dimensions and spatial distribution of the
sedimentary heterogeneities and sandstone bodies
that control hydrocarbon flow (cf. Haldorsen 1986;
Weber 1986; Dreyer 1990; Alexander 1993; Flint
& Bryant 1993; Grammar et al. 2004). The way in
which analogues are used varies depending on the
modelling workflow, the stage within that workflow
7
and the purpose of the model. The following is a
generic description of a typically modelling work-
flow and the types of data that may be utilized at
the different stages. Although linear in its general
appearance, a typical reservoir modelling work-
flow is an iterative process, dependent on multiple
response loops to calibrate assumptions and pro-
duce the most suitable model (Fig. 4).
Stage 1: Identify the problem and identify the ana-
logue(s). There is generally little value in trying to
build a single full-field model that will address all
of the issues associated with a field. Whilst the
vision of having a single model that answers all
potential business needs may be alluring, the practi-
calities are more challenging. Models are based on a
series of assumptions and compromises, and the
compromises that are made for drilling an in-fill
well may be very different for those that are made
to consider the dynamic impact of fault seal on
in-place volumes. Therefore it is preferable to ident-
ify the issue to be addressed and to design a model
specifically to address that issue. While the issue
is being defined, it is also useful to identify suitable
analogues and to determine what sediment-body
geometry data are available.
Stage 2: Conceptual geological model. The second
stage of the model workflow is model design and
the conceptual geological model. This is a paper
exercise, in which the key aspects of the hydro-
carbon reservoir that are to be included in the
model are documented, often in a simple sketch.
Here the analogues will provide soft data, such as
information on correlation concepts, fault relation-
ships, lateral and vertical facies relationships, and
what kind of facies within the system may be bar-
riers to flow. Recognition of appropriate analogues
at this stage will lead to significantly better reservoir
models. At this point, it is also useful to examine
outcrop analogue data that could be used to supply
the hard data for conditioning the model or provid-
ing the training images.
Stage 3: Structural framework. The third stage of
the modelling workflow is building the structural
framework for the model, including the key surfaces
and the major faults. Whilst analogues are typically
associated with populating grids with properties and
the focus of this review is upon sediment-body geo-
metry, analogues are also used for building better
surface-based model and even for conditioning sto-
chastic models of surfaces away from control points
(e.g. MacDonald et al. 1998). Soft data from ana-
logues may also impact the stratigraphic correlation
and model zonation concepts that, in turn, will
impact the subseismic surfaces that are generated
in the model.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016

8 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.

Fig. 4. Typical reservoir modelling workflow with different sources of analogue data. Note that the hard data for
geobody geometry at the property modelling stage is the main stage with respect to the current publication.

Stage 4: Gridding. At present, virtually all reservoir
modelling systems are based on cellular grids that
are populated with properties (Denver & Phillips
1990). Gridded models are associated with pro-
blems and, while in the future we may be less depen-
dent on such an approach (Jackson et al. 2013), at
present gridded models are industry standard. Grid
design includes layer strategy and grid resolution
(including grid cell dimensions and variability), as
well as grid cell geometry. The grid design can
significantly impact the behaviour of the model
(Jackson & Muggeridge 2000; Yoon et al. 2001;
Jackson et al. 2013). Grid design is a key part of
the conceptual model, and should reflect the knowl-
edge on the scale and geometry of heterogeneities,
in relation to fluid types present, which will impact
flow. The understanding of those geometries will
commonly come from outcrop analogues, although
they may also come from process-based modelling
(e.g. Bryant et al. 2000; Ringrose et al. 2005).
Stage 5: Static property modelling (facies). The
main purpose of the outcrop analogue is to provide
hard data to assist in the static property modelling.
Facies is the fundamental control on property
distribution, and an understanding of the distri-
bution of the facies will lead to improved reservoir
models. Analogues provide information on:
the lateral and vertical relationships between
facies within intervals. Such data may be quali-
tative, e.g. facies X is commonly seen overlying
facies Y, or quantitative, e.g. 37% of the time
facies X is encountered it overlies facies Y (see
Colombera et al. 2012);
the shape and dimensions of reservoir units (e.g.
channels or bars) and/or barriers (e.g. intra-
shoreface shales) formed by the relative pro-
portions of a particular set of facies (Reynolds
1999; Gibling 2006; Rittersbacher et al. 2013);
relationships between directional dimensions
(e.g. width v. thickness);
variograms, in cases where facies are to be mod-
elled using a pixel-based method (e.g. Rarity
et al. 2013);
outcrop analogues that can be used to generate
training images for MPS modelling.
The petrophysical property distribution of a particu-
lar reservoir is a function of a variety of interrelated
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW
controlling factors including the depositional facies.
In the subsurface, significant overprint by burial
and digenesis is present that is specific to particular
stratigraphic intervals in a specific part of a given
basin and is affected by the burial history. Never-
theless, analogues can provide useful informa-
tion on the comparative and relative properties of
facies, trends within architectural elements, and
general diagenetic controls on reservoir properties
(e.g. Burley 1984; Schmid et al. 2004; Dowey
et al. 2012).
Stage 6: Property modelling (petrophysics). Facies
is the fundamental carrier for petrophysical pro-
perties. Analysis of the available well data is
typically carried out to determine the statistical dis-
tribution of petrophysical properties within a given
facies and then stochastic algorithms are used to
populate the facies within the static model from
the appropriate ranges. At this stage, the majority
of data are coming from the oil field rather from
outcrop analogues, although it may be possible to
incorporate data from nearby analogue fields. Out-
crop analogues may, however, provide soft data on
the breadth of the permeability range that is typi-
cally underestimated in the limited subsurface data-
set, and also on the permeability structure that might
exist to bridge the gap between core plug and cell in
the model (Ringrose et al. 2005; Keogh et al. 2014;
Nordahl et al. 2014).
Stage 7: Multi-scale modelling and upscaling.
Upscaling is the process of averaging the data in
numerous cells within a fine grid into a coarser grid,
typically from a static geomodel to a dynamic geo-
model. Upscaling involves a wide array of different
approaches (Durlofsky 2003), many of which are
mathematically based and do not draw on geological
analogues.
Multi-scale modelling is a specific kind of
upscaling in which the elements that control fluid
flow (laminae, bedforms, facies, facies associa-
tions) are specifically modelled at the representa-
tive elemental volume (REV) scale (Nordahl et al.
2005; Ringrose et al. 2008). This part of the work-
flow is not commonly used but is extremely valua-
ble in reservoirs that are heterolithic at a wide
range of scales (Keogh et al. 2007, 2014; Nordahl
et al. 2014).
In multi-scale modelling, the key heterogeneities
are determined and small-scale models are built
and simulated at an appropriate scale. In the case
of complex reservoirs, such as tidal heteroliths,
this may involve cm-scale models (Jackson et al.
2003; Nordahl et al. 2005). In complex heterolithic
reservoirs there may be several scales of model-
ling, with the results from a fine-scale set of
models being used to condition the inputs for the
9
next level of model (Elfenbein et al. 2005; Ringrose
et al. 2005). These small-scale models may be con-
ditioned from process-based models (Nordahl et al.
2014) or from studies of outcrops (Jackson et al.
2003) or from a combination (Keogh et al. 2014).
Challenges associated with using geobody
data from analogues
There are a number of challenges associated with
the application of outcrop analogue data to subsur-
face problems. These include selecting the correct
analogue, the scale of the outcrop v. the scale of
the subsurface reservoir, collecting the data and
data formats. Each of these challenges needs to be
considered with respect to the modelling application
that is being considered. These issues are considered
further below.
Collecting outcrop data
Since the early 1990s there have been numerous
efforts to collect outcrop data (see the review
above). Pringle et al. (2006) reviewed the range of
data-collection techniques that are available for
studying outcrop analogues. These range from the
routine collection of scaled drawing, photomon-
tages with and without scales (Howell et al.
2008b), to the more complex photogrammetry and
LiDAR techniques that provide 3D virtual out-
crops (Enge et al. 2007; Buckley et al. 2008a; Hod-
getts 2013). Rittersbacher et al. (2013) provide a
comparison between data collected as photo panels
v. oblique helicopter-mounted LiDAR.
Practical interpretation challenges may also
exist, for example, in delineating highly amalga-
mated sand-prone architectural elements, defining
the appropriate hierarchical stratigraphic scale or
delineating the poorly exposed mud-prone tops of
some channel elements (McHargue et al. 2011).
Given that harder lithotypes, such as sandstone,
typically weather differently to softer rock types
and are therefore better exposed in hillslopes that
are partially covered with scree, soil and vegeta-
tion, this can lead to an over-representation of
coarser-grained facies in analogue datasets, espe-
cially if a geologist is logging a section on a hill-
side, moving from one isolated outcrop to the next
when sandstones (or other more resistant lithology)
may be oversampled. This can be addressed by
using steep outcrops with limited weathering, and
also by the collection of photopanels and geospa-
tially constrained data such as virtual outcrops
(e.g. Rittersbacher et al. 2013). A further limitation
of outcrop analogues associated with the poor
exposure of fine-grained intervals is their broader,
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
10 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.
under-representation in the analogue literature, pri-
marily because they are commonly poorly exposed.
Awareness of potential sources of measurement
and sampling error that can bias outcrop measure-
ments is essential if erroneous conclusions are
not to be drawn from results or subsequent appli-
cation of the data in modelling studies. Despite
the geological literature being full of outcrop-based
studies, relatively few include systematically col-
lected geometric data that are useful for geolog-
ical modelling (Reynolds 1999; Gibling 2006;
Colombera et al. 2012).
Limitations of outcrop analogues
A typical, mid-sized oil field is between 2 and 20 km
in size, and wells are typically spaced between
a few hundred metres and a few kilometres.
Geobodies that are modelled are typically sized
between hundreds of metres and 1 km, and,
despite a plethora of high-quality outcrops around
the world, there are actually a limited number that
are large enough and lack structural deformation
to make them suitable for the collection of data at
a scale that is really suitable to understand reservoir
geometries at a field or even interwell spacing.
Where they do exist (e.g. the Book Cliffs in Utah or
the Tanqua Karoo in South Africa), collecting data
at an appropriate scale remains a challenge (Fig. 5).
While petrophysical data can be collected from
the outcrop analogue, in the form of porosity and
permeability data from plugs taken from the out-
crops (e.g. Forster et al. 2004) or mini-permeameter
readings (Dreyer 1990), it remains challenging to
relate outcrop petrophysics as a direct analogue to
the subsurface. Outcrops are commonly heavily
weathered, which affects the quality of the data.
More importantly, the analogue is chosen for its
similarity in depositional process and subsequent
geobody architecture; the burial history and diagen-
esis of the outcrop and the subsurface example will
probably be very different. This results in totally
different petrophysical properties and a poor ana-
logue, although important lessons can be learnt
about the relative permeability structure of given
facies. The collection of spectral gamma-ray data
using a hand-held spectrometer (Davies & Elliott
1996; Martinius et al. 2002) or the production of
synthetic wireline logs from outcrop data (Pringle
et al. 2010) also have value in relating the outcrop
to the subsurface,
The relationship between outcrop data
uncertainty and variability
Uncertainty analysis and reduction is a crucial
part of stochastic reservoir modelling and fluid
flow simulation studies. From an outcrop data acqui-
sition point of view, uncertainty in the dataset is
introduced if either: (i) the number of observations
is insufficient and the natural variability is not
appropriately captured; and/or (ii) the data accu-
racy and/or representativeness of a particular
variable is insufficient (Martinius & Nss 2005).
Therefore, natural variability within a depositional
system has to be more prominently included in
outcrop data acquisition and uncertainty analysis
for reservoir modelling purposes. In addition, there
is variability between depositional systems of the
same type or class which introduces another type
of uncertainty that has to be understood. Thus,
there is a need for larger and more accurate data-
sets for multiple depositional systems of the same
type to capture and better understand the natural
variability.
Selecting the correct analogue
Given that no two systems are identical and there-
fore the perfect analogue does not exist, then the
choice of outcrop can be challenging. The key
issue is to understand the purpose of the reservoir
model (see above) and to select an appropriate ana-
logue or aspects of multiple analogues. The latter
strategy is illustrated by Glenton et al. (2013) in
their study of deep-water reservoirs in the Scarbor-
ough Field. Finding a suitable analogue from a
vast and seemingly impenetrable literature, and
extracting useful data from it remains a significant
challenge.
Outcrop data and knowledge capture,
categorization and storage
Given that data in the literature are collected by a
wide variety of different companies, institutes and
groups, ensuring consistent terminology and data
formats is a key challenge. Rarely are there con-
certed efforts to collect and present data in stan-
dardized format (e.g. Nilsen et al. 2007). More
typically, a plethora of terminology and schemas
are used. Quality control of data collected at differ-
ent times by different groups also presents a
challenge.
A challenge that regularly arises is that qualitat-
ive choices and decisions based on qualitative
knowledge that have been made when the geomodel
was created were not documented appropriately and
retained. Commonly, other people than those
who built the existing geomodel are involved in
building an updated version or an alternative geo-
model. These workers had not been part of the orig-
inal decisions taken and so, consequently, are
unable to amend the existing geomodel. Therefore,
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016

OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW 11

Fig. 5 The range of outcrop scales. (a) Map of the Book Cliffs in eastern Utah overlain by a map of the analogous Brent
Group fields. The Brent map has been rotated so that depositional dip is the same for both systems. The outcrops of the
Book Cliffs are a comparable scale to the entire UK Brent province. (b) Bolea, a small outcrop of distal fluvial
sandbodies in the Spanish Pyrenees. Despite the fact that the outcrop is only 70 m high and 300 m long, it can still
provide important data on sand-body geometry.

procedures and tools to overcome this challenge 2D v. 3D data

need to be further developed, such as a knowledge
base with a software modelling interface that can Reservoirs are 3D volumes of rock, sampled by 1D
be consulted for data reviewing purposes. wells and 2D or 3D seismic surveys, the resolution
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
12 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.
of which is typically too low to visualize the geo-
bodies to be modelled. Outcrops are 2D cliff
sections from which we attempt to recreate 3D geo-
metries. This task is considerably easier if the
outcrop includes a series of cliff facies at a variety
of different orientations and if the data are collected
in a manner that facilitates 3D reconstruction of geo-
body geometry (e.g. Cuevas Gozalo & Martinius
1993; Enge & Howell 2010; Hodgetts 2013; Keogh
et al. 2014). Enge et al. (2007) proposed a metric
that described the degree of three-dimensionality
for outcrops as a ratio between the length of the
cliff line and the square area it lies within.
Also associated with this problem is the issue
of outcrop obliquity to geobody orientation. Out-
crops are relatively random cuts through strata and
rarely intersect geobodies along the principle axes
that are required to describe their dimensions. This
can be corrected if the palaeocurrent direction
and channel margin orientation are known; how-
ever, this introduces an additional uncertainty to
the dimensions obtained (Daz-Molina & Munoz-
Garca 2010; Fabuel-Perez et al. 2010; Rarity
et al. 2013; Rittersbacher et al. 2013). Finally,
there are also problems associated with reconstruc-
tion of incomplete bodies when shales or channels
extend beyond the edge of the studied outcrop
(Geehan & Underwood 1993; Visser & Chessa
2000; White & Willis 2000). This is discussed at
some length by Rarity et al. (2013).
Shallow geophysics, such as GPR and shallow
seismic profiles (e.g. Novakovic et al. 2002; Pringle
et al. 2004), can help to address the issues of three-
dimensionality but, as with any remote sensing
technique, resolution is lost. However, such meth-
ods significantly complement more traditional
outcrop studies and lead to better constrained geo-
body dimensions, although GPR has a poor depth
of penetration (typically only a few metres).
Analogue studies by depositional
environments
In the following section the development of outcrop
analogue studies in a range of depositional environ-
ments is discussed with an emphasis on quantitative
studies. The intention is to illustrate the range of
studies that have been undertaken and the wealth
of data that exist.
Aeolian depositional systems
One of the earliest examples of the use of analogues
was the recognition by Shell geologists (Weber
1987) that the major aeolian sandstones of the
western United States could be used to characterize
the giant Groningen Gas Field in The Netherlands
and similar reservoirs that were subsequently dis-
covered in the southern North Sea (Glennie 1970,
1972, 1986). Studies of aeolian systems on the Col-
orado Plateau included Kocurek et al. (1991),
Goggin et al. (1992), Crabaugh & Kocurek (1993)
and others in North & Prosser (1993). A recent
revival in studies in the region has led to a plethora
of new papers addressing facies geometries in the
area, including Mountney & Jagger (2004) and
Jordan & Mountney (2010). Outcrop analogues
outside of Utah have also been studied in Namibia
(Mountney et al. 1999; Mountney & Howell 2000)
and in the UK (Clemmensen 1987; Mountney &
Thompson 2002 amongst others). Studies of
modern systems (e.g. Bristow et al. 2000 and
others) have also contributed to our understanding
of aeolian systems.
Fluvial depositional systems
Outcrop-derived quantitative datasets that record
the size of fluvial sandstone bodies are compara-
tively common although the number of datasets is
still small. These are derived from widely differ-
ent fluvial settings (e.g. Collinson 1978; Nami &
Leeder 1978; Fielding & Crane 1987; Dreyer 1993;
Dreyer et al. 1993; Fielding et al. 1993; Mjs
et al. 1993; Robinson & McCabe 1997; Dalrymple
2001; Gibling 2006; Kelly 2006; Labourdette
2011; Colombera et al. 2012), although most pub-
lished examples are from deltaic lower coastal
plain environments. These outcrop datasets reveal
that each fluvial system has singular characteristics
reflecting natural variability and the diversified
nature of fluvial systems. Although general relation-
ships were found, in most cases a large scatter of
data points was encountered for the sandstone-body
types recognized.
The procedure applied for determination of
fluvial sandstone-body size needs to be well docu-
mented in order to avoid mixing of body types and
of dimensions (Fielding & Crane 1987; Gibling
2006; Keogh et al. 2014). It also needs to be
coupled to a careful definition of what has been
measured; for example, single or composite point
bars, or single- or multistorey channelized sheets.
This enables the implementation of size data in
modelling procedures without losing control of
data input rationale.
Many studies on fluvial sediments are devoted
to the analysis and quantification of lithofacies
and bounding surface variability at sandstone-body
scale (Weber 1982, 1986; Edwards et al. 1983;
Kortekaas 1985; Miall 1988; Miall & Tyler 1991;
Tyler & Finley 1991; Jordan & Pryor 1992; Himyr
et al. 1993; Tyler et al. 1994; Doyle & Sweet 1995;
Lunt et al. 2004; Keogh et al. 2014). Much progress
has been made in our conceptual understanding of
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW
the relationships and nested scales of fluvial intra-
channel sandstone bounding surfaces. However,
bounding surface may be difficult to recognize in
cores and even more difficult to correlate between
cores (e.g. Miall 1988; Doyle & Sweet 1995). One
of the main outstanding issues to progress further
is populating a categorized database containing 3D
data. A second important topic is improving our
capability to accurately model 3D fluvial sandstone-
body architecture at the reservoir scale. History
matching using even the most sophisticated geomo-
dels as a basis is still surprisingly difficult, even in
very mature hydrocarbon fields. Outcrop analogue
data will be important to enhance fluvial sequence
stratigraphic principles and models, as well as in
expanding the database at sandstone-body scale
containing dimensional and geometrical infor-
mation linked to connectivity patterns and sequence
stratigraphic information.
Outcrop analogue case study examples of a
quantified dataset on fluvial sandstone-body dimen-
sions captured for populating reservoir geomodels
include the Oligocene Escanilla Formation (Dre-
yer et al. 1993; Labourdette 2011), the Paleocene
Esplugafreda Formation (Dreyer 1993) and the
Oligocene Tortola system (Loranca Basin, Spain:
Cuevas Gozalo & Martinius 1993). In the latter
case, empirical probability density functions were
developed from the quantification of sandstone-
body parameters that were subsequently used in sto-
chastic modelling of sandstone distribution between
pseudo-wells in a stratigraphic cross-section of
the same outcrop (Chessa 1995; Berkhout et al.
1996). Fielding & Crane (1987) used a published
sandstone-body size database compilation to deter-
mine optimal well spacing in subsurface fluvial suc-
cessions. Pranter & Sommer (2011) and Pranter
et al. (2013) used fluvial sandstone-body outcrop
data from the Upper Cretaceous Williams Fork For-
mation to constrain static and dynamic reservoir
models of the outcrop analogue to investigate
connectivity patterns and optimum well density.
Keogh et al. (2014) collected qualitative and quan-
titative outcrop analogue data from the Lourinha
Formation (Portugal) at multiple scales with a goal
to build integrated geomodels ranging from lithofa-
cies to reservoir scale in support of Statfjord late-life
field management (Norwegian Continental Shelf).
Paralic depositional systems
Paralic and marginal marine settings include a
variety of distinct depositional systems with a
wide range of reservoir properties. The fundamen-
tal classification of shallow-marine systems was
defined by Galloway (1975) and is based on a
ternary diagram that describes the relative impor-
tance of the three main processes that are active at
13
the shoreline (fluvial, wave and tide (FWT)). Howell
et al. (2008a) described how such a classification
might be used to predict sand-body geometry. The
ternary FWT classification was extended into a
third dimension by Orten & Reading (1993), who
added an additional component of mean grain
size to the triangle, and by Ainsworth et al. (2011),
who added a three-tier nomenclature to describe
shoreline systems that are dominated, modified and
affected by different processes providing increased
granularity and structure to the scheme. The final
critical aspect about describing shoreline sand-
body geometry is whether the shoreline is in net-
progradation or net-transgression (Dalrymple et al.
1992). Given that the dominant process and net
shoreline migration play such a key control upon
sand-body geometry, interpreting the correct depo-
sitional setting is a key aspect to indemnifying
suitable analogues with comparable geobody
architecture.
Wave-dominated shorefaces are typically the
simplest shallow-marine reservoirs with shore-
parallel, laterally extensive sandbodies with few
internal barriers or baffles. Facies are arranged into
parallel, interfingering belts that pass upwards and
landwards from heterogeneous offshore transition
zone deposits into high-quality, clean shorefaces
and foreshore facies. The offshore transition zone
below the shoreface typically has good vertical per-
meability (kv) but very poor horizontal permeability
(kh), although this can be improved by the presence
of gutters and erosive scours in the sandstone beds
(Brenchley et al. 1986). Outcrops studies of shore-
face sandbodies (Arnot et al. 1997; Sech et al.
2009) show that the discontinuous shales may be
present within the shoreface often associated with
low-angle clinoforms, but these typically have
limited impact on fluid flow (Larue & Legarre
2004). Carbonate cemented layers and lenses may
also be present, and these can have a more signif-
icant impact on production (Morris et al. 2006;
Leren et al. 2010). The extensive outcrops of the
Book Cliffs in central Utah have been a fertile
source of data for improving our understanding
of sequence stratigraphy (e.g. Van Wagoner &
Bertram 1995) and more recently for the collection
of sand-body geometry data (Arnot et al. 1997;
Jackson et al. 2009; Sech et al. 2009; Rittersbacher
et al. 2013 and numerous others). Outcrop ana-
logues are used to provide information of facies
belt thickness (Howell et al. 2008a) and the detail
of intra-sand-body shales that potentially act as bar-
riers (Jian et al. 2004). Such shales may be modelled
stochastically, with data on length and width drawn
from outcrop data (Arnot et al. 1997).
The dominant sand-body type in fluvial-
dominated deltas is the mouth bar, laid down as
the fluvial system entering the basin decelerates
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
14 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.
and deposits sediment. The scale of the mouth bar is
controlled by the size of the fluvial system, while
its shape is a function of the buoyancy of the incom-
ing water with the buoyancy of the water in the
receiving basin (Bates 1953). Wellner et al. 2005
studied the modern-day Wax Lake Delta and
suggested the all mouth bars had a jet plume
shape. The sandbodies that result are commonly a
function of the amalgamation of individual mouth-
bars into mouthbar complexes and, ultimately,
delta lobes. Studies of outcrop suggest that these lat-
erally amalgamated bodies have a lobate to finger-
like geometry (Chidsey et al. 2004; Enge et al.
2010). The key heterogeneities are the presence of
shales associated with dipping clinoforms (White
et al. 2004; Howell et al. 2008a, b; Enge &
Howell 2010) and sand-filled distributary channels
(Howell et al. 2008a, b).
Progradational and transgressive tidal-
dominated shorelines produce heterolithic reser-
voirs (Geel & Donselaar 2007; Martinius & van
den Berg 2011). The main sandbodies are typically
the subtidal and lower intertidal bars (McIlroy
et al. 2005; Burton & Wood 2011). The upper inter-
tidal flats and the supra-tidal marshes are typically
very mud-rich and -poor reservoirs. Tidal systems
typically contain significant heterogeneity at a
variety of scales from the laminae to the bedform,
a challenge best approached using a multi-scale,
REV modelling approach (Nordahl et al. 2005;
Ringrose et al. 2005). Jackson et al. (2003) mod-
elled laminae-scale variability in flaser and lenticu-
lar tidal bedding from the Eocene-aged Greensands
of SE England.
In addition to the dominant process, the sequence
stratigraphy is the key control on sandstone-body
architecture within paralic systems, which are
essentially sensitive to subtle changes in sea level.
The original sequence stratigraphy models of Van
Wagoner et al. (1990), which provided a systems
tract framework for shallow-marine deposits, was
used by Reynolds (1999) to subdivide his data-
base of 671 paralic sandbodies. More recently, the
concept of shoreline trajectories (Helland-Hansen
& Martinsen 1996) has been developed to describe
the geometrical consequence of the interplay
between sediment supply and accommodation cre-
ation. The impacts on sand-body geometry were
investigated by Lseth & Helland-Hansen (2001)
and Lseth et al. (2006), while the impact of shore-
line trajectory on reservoir performance was exam-
ined by Howell et al. (2008a).
Deep-water depositional systems
The recognition of turbidites by Kuenen & Miglior-
ini (1950) in the northern Apennines of Italy
triggered intense interest in the processes and
products of deep-water sedimentary environments
that has continued to the present day. The challenges
facing the hydrocarbon industry in exploring and
developing reservoirs deposited in deep-water set-
tings were reviewed at an AAPG/EAGE workshop
in 1998 (Weimer et al. 2000). Investigations of
the stratigraphic hierarchy of deep-water reservoir
elements, and the use of outcrop analogues to quan-
tify the lateral continuity and vertical connectivity
of sediment bodies outlined then, have remained
significant themes since. The workshop identified
12 15 well-described outcrop analogues globally
that were commonly used to provide input into
reservoir modelling studies (Weimer et al. 2000,
table 2). Many of these remain important locations
for research and training within industry and
academia.
In recent years, advances in understanding of
processes has been increasingly integrated with
attempts to quantify the geometry and dimensions
of sedimentary bodies and their 3D architecture.
This information from reservoir analogues has
played a vital role in predictions of uncertain reser-
voir architecture, where existing well and seismic
data cannot adequately resolve the subsurface
uncertainties. In this context, where the goal is ulti-
mately to provide insights into the continuity and
connectivity of sandbodies for the purpose of fluid
flow prediction, the critical component of the
reservoir architecture may be the geometry and
dimensions of the fine-grained components of the
system, and their effectiveness in generating baf-
fles and barriers to fluid flow.
Early work on quantifying sediment-body geo-
metries in deep-water reservoir analogues high-
lighted the need to analyse the sequential fill of
ancient submarine channels in terms of architectural
elements. Clark & Pickering (1996) used this
approach to summarize the dimensions of selected
channel elements from a wide range of depositional
settings using both outcrop and seismic data.
Widththickness ratios of elements measured per-
pendicular to flow/palaeoflow direction showing
an order of magnitude variation reflecting the broad
scope and data types in this study.
Recent studies have adopted a more focused
approached to selecting the architectural elements
for comparison and typically placed them in a hier-
archical stratigraphic context (Hodgetts et al. 2004;
Campion et al. 2005; McHargue et al. 2011;
Glenton et al. 2013). This approach is fundamental
if the quantitative insights gained from outcrops
are to be appropriately applied (i.e. at the same
scale) to subseismic prediction of interwell vol-
umes. Some recent studies have examined both the
spatial and stratigraphic variability in the geometry
and dimensions of channel elements. This approach
is adopted in a detailed examination of the Morillo
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW
Formation of the Ainsa Basin, Spain, by Moody
et al. (2012). In this example of a weakly confined
channel system, the authors record the mean aspect
ratio and other characteristics of elements at a range
of stratigraphic scales (channel element, complex
and complex set), and also investigate the variabil-
ity of these parameters between both the axial and
marginal parts of the depositional system and the
up-dip and down-dip areas. If such systematic vari-
ations in the dimensions of sediment bodies can be
derived from outcrop, together with their stacking
patterns, it may be possible to incorporate this infor-
mation in rule-based subsurface geological models
(Pyrcz et al. 2005, 2008; McHargue et al. 2011).
Although significant insights into the scale and
stacking pattern of the major sandstone elements
in a turbidite reservoir can be gained from outcrops,
this, alone, may not be sufficient to model reservoir
architecture in a manner that accurately predicts
fluid flow. For this purpose, an accurate characteriz-
ation of the connectivity of adjacent sandbodies is
required that incorporates the effects of baffles or
barriers between the major sandstone elements
formed by fine-grained facies. Modelling studies
(Larue & Hovadik 2006; Alpak et al. 2013) sug-
gest that such fine-grained barriers, if sufficiently
common and laterally extensive, can significantly
influence fluid flow. Such results have encouraged
close examination and quantification of connec-
tivity relationships within deep-water reservoir ana-
logues. Two-dimensional measures of connectivity
based on the length of the interface between adja-
cent architectural elements and the character of
adjacent facies have been developed by Clark &
Pickering (1996), Funk et al. (2012) and others,
and are used to analyse major deep-water outcrop
analogues. The role of fine-grained channel-base
drapes in controlling channel element connectivity
has received particularly close attention. Although
these may comprise only volumetrically minor pro-
portions of deep-water reservoirs, Barton et al.
(2010) noted that when their coverage of chan-
nel bases exceeds 60%, their presence can impact
hydrocarbon recovery. An analysis of channel drape
coverage found that in more than half (nine out
of 17) of the sampled outcrops this proportion of
drape was exceeded. Although examples of chan-
nelized deep-water architectural elements can be
examined within the scale of some large outcrops,
this problem becomes more severe for basin-floor
lobes and channel levee complexes.
Current volume
The work included in the current volume includes
a good representation of the current state of the
art in the use of outcrop data from improved
15
understanding of geobody architecture. The papers
cover a range of clastic depositional environments
from fluvial (Alsop et al. 2013; Pranter et al.
2013; Rittersbacher et al. 2013; Keogh et al. 2014;
Nordahl et al. 2014) through paralic (Massey
et al. 2013; Rarity et al. 2013) to deep marine
(Eschard et al. 2013). Two deal with LiDAR and
virtual outcrop techniques from a ground base
(Rarity et al. 2013) and from a helicopter platform
(Rittersbacher et al. 2013); ground-based LiDAR
was also used by Keogh et al. (2014). Aas et al.
(2014) utilize a process-based modelling approach
to capture bed-scale heterogeneity observed in
deep-water deposits.
Links between the outcrop and the surface are
provided in a variety of different ways. Alsop
et al. (2013) and Pranter et al. (2013) document
studies in which the actual reservoir interval crops
out near the oil fields. This situation provides
the most robust match between the analogue and
the modelled interval but such ideal cases rarely
happen. Luthi & Flint (2013) summarize the cur-
rent state of the art in the use of behind outcrop
borehole studies that provide a crucial link from
our outcrop analogue studies to the datasets most
commonly used for subsurface analysis. The link
between outcrop and subsurface data was also
closed by Eschard et al. (2013), who built synthetic
seismic profiles from their outcrop data in Pakistan
as a means of determining which aspects would be
resolvable under normal subsurface conditions.
The study by Massey et al. (2013) of the modern
Mitchell delta in northern Australia illustrated the
value of modern analogues and the utilization of
the wealth of high-quality freely available remote
sensing data (such as Google Earth) that has
become available to geologists in the last 10 years.
In their study, sediment bodies were mapped from
Google Earth and then quality controlled on the
ground. The data where then extrapolated in 3D and
used to build flow simulation models that tested
the importance of capturing some of the smaller,
more complex bodies in fine grids. Nordahl et al.
(2014) and Keogh et al. (2014) both illustrated the
importance of detailed outcrop studies in pursu-
ing the multi-scale modelling approach given that
such a methodology requires information on the
detailed architecture of sedimentary bodies at a
variety of scales.
Aas et al. (2014) demonstrate the use of
process-based modelling using computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) to simulate the events that depos-
ited turbidite beds in the Peira Cava deep-water
system in SE France. The authors demonstrate how
this approach can be used to predict the extent,
thickness and grain-size distribution of individual
event beds. This approach is a move toward
process-based reservoir models in which the basin
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
16 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.
conditions become the inputs for the reservoir
model. The results of process-based modelling may
be used directly to create stratigraphic architecture
or as training images for multipoint statistical
models.
Finally, Jackson et al. (2013) provide a view into
the future of simulation. These authors demonstrate
an alternative method for building static geological
models heavily driven by geological surfaces that
provide a framework for, and even define, the geo-
bodies that are being modelled. Surface-based mod-
elling provides better inputs for the next generation
of simulation models that are not constrained by
regular and corner point grids but are free to work
on complex and unstructured grids.
The papers in this Special Publication provide
a small but significant window into our current
understanding of the importance and role of geo-
bodies in reservoir modelling. There is little doubt
that, given the limitations of borehole and seismic
data, outcrop analogues will remain a key part of
our toolbox for better modelling of the subsurface,
although predicting the future is always challenging.
Future outlook
Looking forward, it seems reasonable to assume that
analogues and outcrop analogues in particular will
remain an important part of the reservoir character-
ization toolbox. The exact form of that analogue
data and how it will be collected is more challenging
to predict.
The past 10 years have seen significant leaps
in outcrop data-collection methodologies using
terrestrial and, more recently, oblique helicopter-
mounted LiDAR systems (e.g. Buckley et al.
2008a, b; Rittersbacher et al. 2013). Such systems
produce impressive, geospatially constrained vir-
tual outcrops that have arguably revolutionized
outcrop studies. However, these techniques are pro-
hibitively expensive in many cases. Photogram-
metry has long provided a cheaper alternative but,
until very recently, it has been largely impracti-
cal. Recent advances in photogrammetric software
and computer processing power are changing that,
and making it a practical tool for geologists. Photo-
grammetry allows the collection of 3D virtual
outcrop data by a geologist in the field with a
basic camera or even a smart phone. It also allows
cameras to be mounted on unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) that can be flown along the outcrop to
collect data from optimal angles at a fraction of
the cost of heli-LiDAR. The more general use of
smartphones and tablets in the field will also
become common place, especially as more purpose-
built apps are developed to facilitate the collection
of outcrop data.
Kurz et al. (2012) presented the first integration
of ground-based LiDAR scanning with hyperspec-
tral data. This results in the classification of the
outcrop by spectral signature, and therefore allows
the detailed mapping and quantification of lithology
and mineralogy at an unprecedented detail. This
approach will become faster and more routine in
the future.
Freely available global remote sensing data, such
as Google Earth, have already revolutionized the
study of Earth sciences and led to significant
advances in sedimentology (e.g. Weissmann et al.
2010; Ainsworth et al. 2011). These tools provide
unique desktop opportunities for providing access
to modern analogues and will be more widely used
in the future, perhaps augmented with tools for the
rapid location of suitable modern analogues and
the automatic collection of geometric data.
Other sources of data will also become increas-
ingly more important. Shallow seismic data, col-
lected for heavy oil as part of deep surveys or for
site surveys, provide an amazingly detailed insight
into the 3D architecture of geobodies at a scale
that is suitable for reservoir modelling studies.
These data are, at present, underutilized.
A key recent development is the advent of
purpose-built databases, such as SAFARI (Ritters-
bacher et al. 2013), Wave (Ainsworth et al. 2011)
or FAKTS (Colombera et al. 2012), which serve
to make outcrop data more accessible and more
usable for subsurface studies. It is reasonably easy
to predict that such databases will become larger
and more common; however, a key aspect is the
usage (or not) of common schemas for the data
that will allow information to be shared and
moved between databases. The acceptance of such
a standard across the industry and academia would
greatly accelerate the growth of such databases,
and add to developments in their functionality.
Recent advances in reservoir modelling software
have largely centred around the evolution of new
modelling algorithms such as Multi-Point Statistics
(MPS). This methodology relies on training images
that are commonly conceptual models or based
on simplified process-based models. In the future,
outcrop analogue data will be collected in ways
that facilitate the direct generation of MPS training
images from the outcrop. Similarly, the collection of
data will need to facilitate any other future advances
in modelling tools.
Studies of reservoir analogues endeavour to
reduce the uncertainties inherent in sparse subsur-
face datasets. In this context, they play a valuable
role in steering modellers towards appropriate lev-
els of geological detail. This use of analogues to
spur consideration of alternative scenarios requires
the availability of a diverse suite of potential ana-
logue datasets. Without this diversity, recycling of
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW
the same few readily available analogue case studies
may unduly bias subsurface interpretations (see the
discussion of availability and anchoring biases by
Bond et al. 2007). Continued development of
diverse suites reservoir analogues will also serve
to test the robustness of process-based modelling
methods in reproducing geological reality.
Analogues provide both hard (geometric) and
soft (knowledge) data that are routinely used to
improve our understanding of the subsurface which
is heavily undersampled. Given that we are hardly
likely to collect significantly more subsurface data,
analogues will remain an important source of infor-
mation. New methods of collecting, storing and
delivering these data to the people on the frontline
of building geomodels and analysing reservoirs
will only increase the use of analogues in the future.
The authors would like to thank J. Pringle and D. Hodgson
for insightful and constructive reviews of this manuscript.
Figure 2 is based on virtual outcrops and reservoir models
built by S. Buckley and C. Eklund. Software used in Figure
2 was provided by Roxar. We would like to thank numer-
ous colleagues, especially M. Bentley and P. Ringrose, for
discussion on geomodelling best practice.
References
Aas, T. E., Howell, J. A., Janocko, M. & Jackson, C.
2010a. Control of Aptian palaeobathymetry on turbi-
dite distribution in the Buchan Graben, Outer Moray
Firth, Central North Sea. Marine and Petroleum
Geology, 27, 412 434.
Aas, T. E., Howell, J. A., Janocko, M. & Midkandal, I.
2010b. Re-created early Oligocene seabed bathymetry
and process-based simulations of the Pera Cava turbi-
dite system. Journal of the Geological Society,
London, 167, 857 875.
Aas, T. E., Basani, R., Howell, J. & Hansen, E.
2014. Forward modelling as a method for predicting
the distribution of deep-marine sands: an example
from the Pera Cava Sub-basin. In: Martinius,
A. W., Howell, J. A. & Good, T. R. (eds) Sediment-
Body Geometry and Heterogeneity: Analogue Studies
for Modelling the Subsurface. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 387. First published
online February 3, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/
SP387.9
Ainsworth, R. B., Vakarelov, B. V. & Nanson, R. A.
2011. Dynamic spatial and temporal prediction of
changes in depositional processes on clastic shorelines:
toward improved subsurface uncertainty reduction and
management. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 95, 267297.
Aitken, J. F. & Flint, S. S. 1995. The application of high-
resolution sequence stratigraphy to fluvial systems: a
case study from the Upper Carboniferous Breathitt
Group, eastern Kentucky, USA. Sedimentology, 42,
330.
Alexander, J. 1993. A discussion on the use of analogs
for reservoir geology. In: Ashton, M. (ed.) Advances
17
in Reservoir Geology. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 69, 175 194.
Almklov, P. G. & Heps, V. 2011. Between and beyond
data: how analogue field experience informs the
interpretation of remote data sources in petroleum
reservoir geology. Studies of Science, 41, 539 561.
Alpak, F. O., Vink, J. C., Gao, G. & Mo, W. 2013. Tech-
niques for effective simulation, optimization, and
uncertainty quantification of the in-situ upgrading
process. Paper presented at the Society of Petroleum
Engineers Reservoir Simulation Symposium, February
1820, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
Alsop, D. B., Al Ghammari, M., Al Abri, A., Al Mah-
rooqi, A., Al Rawahi, H. & Salem, H. 2013. Reser-
voir architecture of the Gharif Formation outcrops in
the Southern Huqf area, Sultanate of Oman. In: Marti-
nius, A. W., Howell, J. A. & Good, T. R. (eds)
Sediment-Body Geometry and Heterogeneity: Ana-
logue Studies for Modelling the Subsurface. Geologi-
cal Society, London, Special Publications, 387. First
published online October 17, 2013, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1144/SP387.8
Arnot, M. J., Good, T. R. & Lewis, J. J. M. 1997.
Photogeological and image-analysis techniques for
collection of large-scale outcrop data. Journal of
Sedimentary Research, Section A: Sedimentary Petrol-
ogy and Processes, 67, 984 987.
Baas, J. H., McCaffrey, W. D. & Knipe, R. J. 2005. The
deep-water architecture knowledge base: towards an
objective comparison of deep-marine sedimentary
systems. Petroleum Geoscience, 11, 309320.
Bakke, K., Gjelberg, J. & Petersen, J. A. 2008. Com-
pound seismic modelling of the Ainsa II turbidite sys-
tem, Spain: application to deep-water channel systems
offshore Angola. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 25,
1058 1073.
Barton, M., OByrne, C., Pirmez, C., Prather, B. &
Van der Vlugt, F. 2004. Understanding hydro-
carbon recovery in deep water reservoirs: modeling
outcrop data in the third dimension. Paper presented
at the AAPG Annual Convention, April 18 21, Dallas,
Texas, USA.
Barton, M., OByrne, C., Pirmez, C., Prather, B., van
der Vlught, F., Alpak, F. O. & Sylvester, Z. 2010.
Turbidite channel architecture: recognizing and quan-
tifying the distribution of channel base drapes using
core and dipmeter data. In: Poppelreiter, M.,
Garcia-Carballido, C. & Kraaijveld, M. A. (eds)
Dipmeter and Borehole Image Log Technology. Amer-
ican Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoirs,
92, 195 210.
Bates, C. C. 1953. Rational theory of delta formation.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulle-
tin, 37, 21192162.
Begg, S. H. & King, P. R. 1985. Modelling the effects
of shales on reservoir performance: calculation of
effective permeability. Paper SPE 13529, presented
at the Society of Petroleum Engineers Symposium
on Reservoir Simulation, February 1013, Dallas,
Texas, USA.
Bellian, J. A., Kerans, C. & Jennette, D. C. 2005.
Digital outcrop models: applications of terrestrial scan-
ning lidar technology in stratigraphic modeling.
Journal of Sedimentary Research, 75, 166 176.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
18 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.
Bentley, M. & Smith, S. 2008. Scenario-based reservoir
modelling: the need for more determinism and less
anchoring. In: Robinson, A., Griffiths, P., Price,
S., Hegre, J. & Muggeridge, A. (eds) The Future of
Geological Modelling in Hydrocarbon Development.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
309, 145 159.
Berkhout, R. J., Chessa, A. G. & Martinius, A. W.
1996. A statistical adjustment of Haldorsens con-
ditioned Boolean simulation algorithm. Mathematical
Geology, 28, 791 810.
Beaubouef, R. T., Rossen, C. R. et al. 1999. Deep
Water Sandstones Brushy Canyon Formation,
West Texas: Field Guide for AAPG Hedberg Field
Research Conference. American Association of Pet-
roleum Geologists, Continuing Education Course
Note Series, 40.
Bond, C. E., Gibbs, A. D., Shipton, Z. K. & Jones, S.
2007. What do you think this is? Conceptual uncer-
tainty in geoscience interpretation. GSA Today, 17,
4 10.
Brandster, I., McIlroy, D., Lia, O., Ringrose, P. S. &
Nss, A. 2005. Reservoir simulation and modelling of
the Lajas Formation outcrops (Argentina) to constrain
tidal reservoirs of the Halten Terrace (Norway). Pet-
roleum Geoscience, 11, 3746.
Brenchley, P. J., Romano, M. & Gutierrez-Marco,
J. C. 1986. Proximal and distal hummocky cross-
stratified facies on a wide Ordovician shelf in Iberia.
In: Knight, R. J. & McLean, J. R. (eds) Shelf Sands
and Sandstones. Canadian Society of Petroleum
Geology, Memoirs, 11, 241 255.
Bristow, C. S., Bailey, S. D. & Lancaster, N. 2000. The
sedimentary structure of linear sand dunes. Nature,
406, 5659.
Bryant, I. D., Carr, D., Cirilli, P., Drinkwater, N.,
McCormick, D., Tilke, P. & Thurmond, J. 2000.
Use of 3D digital analogues as templates in reservoir
modelling. Petroleum Geoscience, 6, 195 201.
Buckley, S., Howell, J. A., Enge, H. & Tobias, K.
2008a. Terrestrial laser scanning in geology: data
acquisition, processing and accuracy considerations.
Journal of the Geological Society, London, 165,
625 638.
Buckley, S. J., Vallet, J., Braathen, A. & Wheeler,
W. 2008b. Oblique helicopter-based laser scanning
for digital terrain modelling and visualisation of geo-
logical outcrops. International Archives of the Photo-
grammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences, 37, 493498.
Budding, M. C. & Inglin, H. F. 1981. A reservoir geo-
logical model of the Brent Sands in southern Cormor-
ant. In: Illing, L. V. & Hobson, G. D. (eds) Petroleum
Geology of the Continental Shelf of Northwestern
Europe. Institute of Petroleum, London, 326334.
Burley, S. D. 1984. Patterns of diagenesis in the Sher-
wood Sandstone Group (Triassic), United Kingdom.
Clay Minerals, 19, 403440.
Burton, D. & Wood, L. J. 2011. Quantitative shale
characterization of the tidally influenced Sego Sand-
stone. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 95, 1207 1226.
Caers, J. & Zhang, T. 2004. Multiple-point geostatistics:
a quantitative vehicle for integrating geologic analogs
into multiple reservoir models. In: Grammar, G. M.,
Harris, P. M. & Eberli, G. P. (eds) Integration of
Outcrop and Modern Analogs in Reservoir Modeling.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Memoirs, 80, 383 394.
Caers, J. K., Srinivasan, S. & Journel, A. G. 2000.
Geostatistical quantification of geological information
for a fluvial-type North Sea reservoir. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering, 3, 457467.
Campion, K. M., Sprague, A. R. & Sullivan, M. D.
2005. Architecture and Lithofacies of the Capistrano
Formation (Miocene Pliocene), San Clemente, Cali-
fornia. Society of Economic Petroleum and Mineralo-
gists, Pacific Section, 100.
Chandler, M. A., Kocurek, G., Goggin, D. J. & Lake,
L. W. 1989. Effects of stratigraphic heterogeneity on
permeability in eolian sandstone sequence, Page Sand-
stone, Northern Arizona. American Association of Pet-
roleum Geologists Bulletin, 73, 658 668.
Chessa, A. G. 1995. Conditional simulation of spatial sto-
chastic models for reservoir heterogeneity. PhD thesis,
Delft University Press, Delft, The Netherlands.
Chidsey, T. C., Jr, Adams, R. D. & Morris, T. H. (eds)
2004. Regional to Wellbore Analog for Fluvial
Deltaic Reservoir Modeling: The Ferron Sandstone
of Utah. American Association of Petroleum Geol-
ogists, Studies in Geology, 50.
Clark, J. D. & Pickering, K. T. 1996. Architectural
elements and growth patterns of submarine channels:
application to hydrocarbon exploration. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 80,
194221.
Clemmensen, L. B. 1987. Complex star dunes and associ-
ated aeolian bedforms, Hopeman Sandstone (Permo-
Triassic), Moray Firth Basin, Scotland. In: Frostick,
L. E. & Reid, I. (eds) Desert Sediments Ancient and
Modern. Geological Society, London, Special Publi-
cations, 35, 213231.
Collinson, J. D. 1978. Vertical sequence and sand body
shape in alluvial sequences. In: Miall, A. D. (ed.)
Fluvial Sedimentology. Canadian Society of Petroleum
Geology, Memoirs, 5, 577586.
Colombera, L., Felletti, F., Mountney, N. P. &
McCaffrey, W. D. 2012. A database approach for
constraining stochastic simulations of the sedimentary
heterogeneity of fluvial reservoirs. American Associ-
ation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 96,
2143 2266.
Corbeanu, R. M., Soegaard, K. et al. 2001. Detailed
internal architecture of a fluvial channel sandstone
determined from outcrop, cores, and 3-D ground-
penetrating radar: example from the Middle Cretac-
eous Ferron Sandstone, East-Central Utah. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 85,
1583 1608.
Crabaugh, M. & Kocurek, G. 1993. Entrada Sandstone:
an example of a wet aeolian system. In: Pye, K. (ed.)
The Dynamics and Environmental Context of Aeolian
Sedimentary Systems. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 72, 103126.
Cuevas Gozalo, M. & Martinius, A. W. 1993. Outcrop
data-base for the geological characterization of fluvial
reservoirs: an example from distal fluvial fan deposits
in the Loranca Basin, Spain. In: North, C. P. &
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW
Prosser, D. J. (eds) Characterization of Fluvial and
Eolian Reservoirs. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 73, 79 94.
Dalrymple, M. 2001. Fluvial reservoir architecture in the
Statfjord Formation (northern North Sea) augmented
by outcrop analog statistics. Petroleum Geoscience,
7, 115122.
Dalrymple, R. W., Zaitlin, B. A. & Boyd, R. 1992.
Estuarine facies models: conceptual basis and strati-
graphic implications. Journal of Sedimentary Petrol-
ogy, 62, 11301146.
Davies, S. J. & Elliott, T. 1996. Spectral gamma ray
characterisation of high resolution sequence stratigra-
phy: examples from Upper Carboniferous fluvio-
deltaic systems, County Clare, Ireland. In: Howell,
J. A. & Aitken, J. F. (eds) High Resolution Sequence
Stratigraphy: Innovations and Applications. Geologi-
cal Society, London, Special Publications, 104, 25 35.
Denver, L. E. & Phillips, D. C. 1990. Stratigraphic geo-
cellular modeling. Geobyte, 5, 4547.
Deveugle, P. E. K., Jackson, M. D., Hampson, G. J.,
Farrell, M. E., Sprague, A. S., Stewart, J. &
Calvert, C. S. 2011. Characterization of stratigraphic
architecture and its impact on fluid flow in a fluvial-
dominated deltaic reservoir analog: Ferron Sandstone
Member, Utah. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 95, 693727.
Daz-Molina, M. & Munoz-Garca, M. B. 2010. Sedi-
mentary facies and three-dimensional reconstructions
of upper Oligocene meander belts from the Loranca
Basin, Spain. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 94, 241257.
Donselaar, M. E. & Schmidt, J. M. 2005. Integration of
outcrop and borehole image logs for high-resolution
facies interpretation: example from a fluvial fan in
the Ebro Basin, Spain. Sedimentology, 52, 10211042.
Dowey, P. J., Hodgson, D. M. & Worden, R. H. 2012.
Pre-requisites, processes, and prediction of chlorite
grain coatings in petroleum reservoirs: a review of sub-
surface examples. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 32,
63 75.
Doyle, J. D. & Sweet, M. L. 1995. Three-dimensional
distribution of lithofacies, bounding surfaces, porosity,
and permeability in a fluvial sandstone Gypsy Sand-
stone of northern Oklahoma. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 79, 7096.
Dreyer, T. 1990. Sand body dimensions and infill
sequences of stable, humid-climate delta plain chan-
nels. In: Buller, A. T., Berg, E., Hjelmeland, O.,
Kleppe, J., Torster, O. & Aasen, J. O. (eds)
North Sea Oil and Gas Reservoirs II. Graham &
Trotman, London, 337 351.
Dreyer, T. 1993. Quantified fluvial architecture in ephem-
eral stream deposits of the Esplugafreda Formation
(Palaeocene), Tremp-Graus Basin, northern Spain. In:
Marzo, M. & Puigdefabregas, C. (eds) Alluvial
Sedimentation. International Association of Sedimen-
tologists, Special Publications, 17, 337 362.
Dreyer, T., Falt, L.-M., Hy, T., Knarud, R., Steel, R.
& Cuevas, J. L. 1993. Sedimentary architecture of
field analogs for reservoir information (SAFARI): a
case study of the fluvial Escanilla Formation, Spanish
Pyrenees. In: Flint, S. S. & Bryant, I. D. (eds) The
Geologic Modeling of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and
19
Outcrop Analogs. International Association of Sedi-
mentologists, Special Publications, 15, 5780.
Dueholm, K. S. & Olsen, T. 1993. Reservoir analog
studies using multimodel photogrammetry: a new
tool for the petroleum industry. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 112, 2023 2031.
Durlofsky, L. J. 2003. Upscaling of geocellular models
for reservoir flow simulation: a review of recent pro-
gress. Paper presented at the 7th International Forum
on Reservoir Simulation, June 2327, Buhl/Baden-
Baden, Germany.
Edwards, M. B., Eriksson, K. A. & Kier, R. S.
1983. Paleochannel geometry and flow patterns deter-
mined from exhumed Permian point bars in north-
central Texas. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 53,
1261 1270.
Elfenbein, C., Ringrose, P. S. & Christie, M. 2005.
Small-scale reservoir modeling tool optimizes recov-
ery offshore Norway. World Oil, 226, 45 50.
Enge, H. D. & Howell, J. A. 2010. Impact of deltaic clin-
othems on reservoir performance: dynamic studies of
reservoir analogs from the Ferron Sandstone Member
and Panther Tongue, Utah. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 94, 139 161.
Enge, H. D., Buckley, S. J., Rotevatn, A. & Howell,
J. A. 2007. From outcrop to reservoir simulation
model: workflow and procedures. Geosphere, 3,
469 490.
Enge, H. D., Howell, J. A. & Buckley, S. J. 2010. Quan-
tifying clinothem geometry in a forced-regressive
river-dominated delta, Panther Tongue Member,
Utah, USA. Sedimentology, 57, 17501770.
England, W. A. & Townsend, C. 1998. The effects of
faulting on production from a shallow marine reservoir
a study of the relative importance of fault para-
meters. Paper SPE 49023, presented at the Society of
Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, September 2730, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA.
Eschard, R., Doligez, B. & Beucher, H. 2002.
Using quantitative outcrop databases as a guide for
geological reservoir modeling. In: Armstrong, M.,
Bettini, C., Champigny, N., Galli, A. &
Remacre, A. (eds) Geostatistics Rio 2000. Kluwer,
Dordrecht, 7 17.
Eschard, R., Deschamps, R., Doligez, B., Lerat, O.,
Langlais, V. & Euzen, T. 2013. Connectivity esti-
mation between turbiditic channels and overbank
deposits from the modelling of an outcrop analogue
(Pab Formation, Maastrichtian, Pakistan). In: Marti-
nius, A. W., Howell, J. A. & Good, T. R. (eds)
Sediment-Body Geometry and Heterogeneity: Ana-
logue Studies for Modelling the Subsurface. Geologi-
cal Society, London, Special Publications, 387. First
published online September 26, 2013, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1144/SP387.7
Fabuel-Perez, I., Hodgetts, D. & Redfern, J. 2010.
Integration of digital outcrop models (DOMs) and
high resolution sedimentology workflow and impli-
cations for geological modelling: Oukaimeden Sand-
stone Formation, High Atlas (Morocco). Petroleum
Geoscience, 16, 133154.
Fielding, C. R. & Crane, R. C. 1987. An application of
statistical modelling to the prediction of hydrocarbon
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
20 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.
recovery factors in fluvial reservoir sequences. In:
Ethridge, F. G., Flores, R. M. & Harvey, M. D.
(eds) Recent Developments in Fluvial Sedimentology.
Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralo-
gists, Special Publications, 39, 321 327.
Fielding, C. R., Falkner, A. J. & Scott, S. G. 1993.
Fluvial response to foreland basin overfilling; the
Late Permian Rangal Coal Measures in the Bowen
Basin, Queensland, Australia. In: Fielding, C. R.
(ed.) Current Research in Fluvial Sedimentology. Sedi-
mentary Geology, 85, 475 497.
Flint, S. S. & Bryant, I. D. 1993. The Geologic Modeling
of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Outcrop Analogs.
International Association of Sedimentologists, Spe-
cial Publications, 15.
Forster, C. B., Snelgrove, S. H., Lim, S. J., Corbeanu,
R. M., McMechan, G. A., Soegaard, K. & Roche, K.
2004. 3-D fluid flow simulation in a clastic reservoir
analog, based on integrated 3-D GPR and outcrop
data from the Ferron Sandstone at Coyote Basin,
Utah. In: Chidsey, T. C., Jr, Adams, R. D. &
Morris, T. H. (eds) Regional to Wellbore Analog
for FluvialDeltaic Reservoir Modeling: The Ferron
Sandstone of Utah. American Association of Pet-
roleum Geologists, Studies in Geology, 50, 405 425.
Funk, J. E., Slatt, R. M. & Pyles, D. R. 2012.
Quantification of static connectivity between deep-
water channels and stratigraphically adjacent architec-
tural elements using outcrop analogs. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 96,
277 300.
Galloway, W. E. 1975. Process framework for describing
the morphologic and stratigraphic evolution of deltaic
depositional systems. In: Broussard, M. L. (ed.)
Deltas: Models for Exploration. Houston Geological
Society, Houston, TX, 87 98.
Gartner, B. G. L. & Schlager, W. 1999. Discriminating
between onlap and lithologie interfingering in seismic
models of outcrops. American Association of Pet-
roleum Geologists Bulletin, 83, 952 971.
Geehan, G. W. & Underwood, J. 1993. The use of
length distributions in geological modelling. In:
Flint, S. S. & Bryant, I. D. (eds) The Geological
Modelling of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Outcrop
Analogues. International Association of Sedimentolo-
gists, Special Publications, 15, 205 212.
Geel, C. R. & Donselaar, M. E. 2007. Reservoir model-
ling of heterolithic tidal deposits: sensitivity analysis of
an object-based stochastic model. Geologie en Mijn-
bouw, 86, 403 411.
Geleynse, N., Storms, J. E. A., Walstra, D.-J. R.,
Jagers, A. R. A., Wang, Z. B. & Stive, M. J. F.
2011. Controls on river delta formation; insights
from numerical modelling. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, 302, 217226.
Georgsen, F., Egeland, T., Knarud, R. & Omre, H.
1994. Conditional simulation of facies architecture in
fluvial reservoirs. In: Armstrong, M. & Dowd, P.
(eds) Geostratistical Simulations,Volume 7. Quantitat-
ive Geology and Geostatistics. Proceedings of the
Geostatistical Simulation Workshop, Fontainebleau,
France. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 235250.
Gibling, M. R. 2006. Width and thickness of fluvial
channel bodies and valley fills in the geological
record: a literature compilation and classification.
Journal of Sedimentary Research, 76, 731770.
Glennie, K. W. 1970. Desert Sedimentary Environ-
ments. Developments in Sedimentology, 14. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Glennie, K. W. 1972. Permian Rotliegendes of northwest
Europe interpreted in light of modern desert sedimen-
tation studies. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 56, 1048 1071.
Glennie, K. W. 1986. Development of N.W. Europes
Southern Permian Gas Basin. In: Brooks, J., Goff,
J. C. & Van Hoorn, B. (eds) Habitat of Palaeozoic
Gas in N.W. Europe. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 23, 3 22.
Glenton, P. N., Sutton, J. T., McPherson, J. G.,
Fittall, M. E., Moore, M. A., Heavysege, R. G. &
Box, D. 2013. Hierarchical approach to facies and
property distribution in a basin-floor fan model, Scar-
borough Gas Field, North West Shelf, Australia.
Paper presented at the 6th International Petroleum
Technology Conference, March 26 28, Beijing,
China.
Goggin, D. J., Chandler, M. A., Kocurek, G. & Lake,
L. W. 1992. Permeability transects of eolian sands and
their use in generating random permeability fields. SPE
Formation Evaluation, 7, 7 16.
Grammar, G. M., Harris, P. M. & Eberli, G. P. 2004.
Integration of modern and outcrop analogs in reservoir
modeling: overview and examples from the Bahamas.
In: Grammar, G. M., Harris, P. M. & Eberli, G. P.
(eds) Integration of Outcrop and Modern Analogs in
Reservoir Modeling. American Association of Pet-
roleum Geologists, Memoirs, 80, 1 22.
Haldorsen, H. H. 1986. Simulator parameter assignment
and the problem of scale in reservoir engineering.
In: Lake, L. W. & Carroll, H. B., Jr. (eds) Reservoir
Characterization. Academic Press, New York,
293340.
Haldorsen, H. H. & Chang, D. M. 1986. Notes on sto-
chastic shales: from outcrop to simulation model. In:
Lake, L. W. & Caroll, H. B. (eds) Reservoir Charac-
terization. Academic Press, New York, 445 485.
Haldorsen, H. H. & Damsleth, E. 1990. Challenges in
reservoir characterization. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 77, 541 551.
Haldorsen, H. H. & Lake, L. 1984. A new approach to
shale management in field-scale models. SPE
Journal, 24, 447457.
Helland-Hansen, W. & Martinsen, O. J. 1996. Shore-
line trajectories and sequences: description of variable
depositional-dip scenarios. Journal of Sedimentary
Research, 66, 670 688.
Hodgetts, D. 2013. Laser scanning and digital outcrop
geology in the petroleum industry: a review. Marine
and Petroleum Geology, 46, 335 354.
Hodgetts, D., Drinkwater, N. J., Hodgson, J., Kava-
nagh, J., Flint, S. S., Keogh, K. J. & Howell, J.
A. 2004. Three-dimensional geological models from
outcrop data using digital data collection techniques:
an example from the Tanqua Karoo depocentre,
South Africa. In: Curtis, A. & Wood, R. (eds) Geo-
logical Prior Information: Informing Science and
Engineering. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 239, 57 75.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW
Holden, L., Hauge, R., Skare, . & Skorstad, A. 1999.
Modeling of fluvial reservoirs with object models.
Mathematical Geology, 30, 473496.
Howell, J. A., Skorstad, A., McDonald, A., Fordham,
A., Flint, S. S., Fjellvoll, B. & Manzocchi, T.
2008a. Sedimentological parameterization of shallow-
marine reservoirs. Petroleum Geoscience, 141, 17 34.
Howell, J. A., Vassel, A. & Aune, T. 2008b. Modelling
of dipping clinoform barriers within deltaic outcrop
analogues from the Cretaceous Western Interior
Basin, USA. In: Robinson, A., Griffiths, P., Price,
S., Hegre, J. & Muggeridge, A. (eds) The Future of
Geological Modelling in Hydrocarbon Development.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
309, 99121.
Himyr, ., Kleppe, A. & Nystuen, J. P. 1993. Effects of
heterogeneities in a braided stream channel sandbody
on the simulation of oil recovery: a case study from
the Lower Jurassic Statfjord Formation, Snorre Field,
North Sea. In: Ashton, M. (ed.) Advances in Reservoir
Geology. Geological Society, London, Special Publi-
cations, 69, 105134.
Jackson, M. D. & Muggeridge, A. H. 2000. Effect
of discontinuous shales on reservoir performance
during horizontal waterflooding. SPE Journal, 5,
446455.
Jackson, M. D., Valvatne, P. H. & Blunt, M. J. 2003.
Prediction of wettability variation and its impact
on flow using pore- to reservoir-scale simulation.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 39,
231246.
Jackson, M. D., Hampson, G. J. & Sech, R. P. 2009.
Three-dimensional modeling of a shoreface shelf
parasequence reservoir analog: Part 2. Geologic con-
trols on fluid flow and hydrocarbon recovery. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 93,
11831208.
Jackson, M. D., Hampson, G. J., Saunders, J. H.,
El-Sheikh, A., Graham, G. H. & Massart,
B. Y. G. 2013. Surface-based reservoir modelling for
flow simulation. In: Martinius, A. W., Howell, J.
A. & Good, T. R. (eds) Sediment-Body Geometry
and Heterogeneity: Analogue Studies for Modelling
the Subsurface. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 387. First published online August 7,
2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP387.2
Jian, F. X., Larue, D. K., Castellini, A. & Toldi, J. L.
2004. Reservoir modeling methods and characteriz-
ation parameters for a shoreface reservoir: what is
important for fluid-flow performance? SPE Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering, 7, 89 104.
Jones, A., Doyle, J., Jacobsen, T. & Kjnsvik, D. 1993.
Which sub-seismic heterogeneities influence water-
flood performance? A case study of a low net-to-gross
fluvial reservoir. In: De Haan, H. J. (ed.) New Devel-
opments in Improved Oil Recovery. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 84, 518.
Jordan, D. W. & Pryor, W. A. 1992. Hierarchical levels
of heterogeneity in a Mississippi river meander belt
and applications to reservoir systems. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 76,
16011624.
Jordan, O. D. & Mountney, N. P. 2010. Styles of inter-
action between aeolian, fluvial and shallow marine
21
environments in the Pennsylvanian to Permian Lower
Cutler Beds, South-East Utah, USA. Sedimentology,
57, 13571385.
Kelly, S. 2006. Scaling and hierarchy in braided rivers
and their deposits: examples and implications for reser-
voir modeling. In: Sambrook Smith, G. H., Best, J.
L., Bristow, C. S. & Petts, G. E. (eds) Braided
Rivers: Process, Deposits, Ecology and Management.
International Association of Sedimentologists, Special
Publications, 36, 75 106.
Kenyon, N. H., Millington, J., Droz, L. & Ivanov, M.
K. 1995. Scour holes in a channel-lobe transition zone
on the Rhone Cone. In: Pickering, K. T., Hiscott, R.
N., Kenyon, N. H., Ricci Lucchi, F. & Smith,
R. D. A. (eds) Atlas of Deep Water Environments:
Architectural Style in Turbidite Systems. Chapman &
Hall, London, 212215.
Keogh, K. J., Martinius, A. W. & Osland, R. 2007. The
development of fluvial stochastic modelling in the Nor-
wegian oil industry: a historical review, subsurface
implementation and future directions. In: Weltje,
G. J., Hoogendoorn, R. M., Marriott, S. B. &
Baas, J. H. (eds) Selected Papers Presented at the
Eighth International Conference on Fluvial Sedimen-
tology, Delft, The Netherlands, 7 12 August 2005.
Sedimentary Geology, 202, 249 268.
Keogh, K. J., Leary, S. et al. 2014. Data capture for mul-
tiscale modelling of the Lourinha Formation, Lusita-
nian Basin, Portugal: an outcrop analogue for the
Statfjord Group, Norwegian North Sea. In: Marti-
nius, A. W., Howell, J. A. & Good, T. R. (eds)
Sediment-Body Geometry and Heterogeneity: Ana-
logue Studies for Modelling the Subsurface. Geologi-
cal Society, London, Special Publications, 387. First
published online February 25, 2014, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1144/SP387.11
Khan, A., Horowitz, D., Liesch, A., Schepel, K. &
Gom, S. A. T. B. D. 1995. Semi-amalgamated thinly-
bedded deepwater GOM turbidite reservoir per-
formance modeling using object-based technology
and Bouma lithofacies. (Paper SPE-36724.) In: Pro-
ceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 69 October 1996, Denver, CO.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX,
443 455.
Kneller, B. 1996. Beyond the turbidite paradigm: phys-
ical models for deposition of turbidites and their impli-
cations for reservoir prediction. Oceanographic
Literature Review, 43, 1028.
Kjnsvik, D., Doyle, J., Jacobsen, T. & Jones, A. 1994.
The effect of sedimentary heterogeneities on pro-
duction from a shallow marine reservoir what
really matters? Paper SPE 28445, presented at the
Society of Petroleum Engineers European Petroleum
Conference, October 2527, London.
Kocurek, G., Knight, J. & Havholm, K. 1991. Outcrop
and semi-regional three-dimensional architecture and
reconstruction of a portion of the eolian Page Sand-
stone (Jurassic). In: Miall, A. D. & Tyler, N. (eds)
The Three-Dimensional Facies Architecture of Terri-
genous Clastic Sediments and its Implications for
Hydrocarbon Discovery and Recovery. Society for
Sedimentary Geology, Concepts in Sedimentology
and Paleontology, 3, 2543.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
22 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.
Kortekaas, T. F. M. 1985. Water/oil displacement
characteristics in cross-bedded reservoir zones. SPE
Journal, 25, 917 926.
Kuenen, P. H. & Migliorini, C. I. 1950. Turbidity cur-
rents as a cause of graded bedding. Journal of
Geology, 58, 91127.
Kurz, T., Buckley, S. J. & Howell, J. A. 2012. Close-
range hyperspectral imaging for geological field
studies: workflow and methods. International Journal
of Remote Sensing, 34, 1798 1822.
Labourdette, R. 2008. LOSCS lateral offset stacked
channel simulations: towards geometrical modelling
of turbidite elementary channels. Basin Research, 20,
431 444.
Labourdette, R. 2011. Stratigraphy and static connec-
tivity of braided fluvial deposits of the lower Escanilla
Formation, south central Pyrenees, Spain. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 95,
585 617.
Larue, D. K. 2004. Outcrop and waterflood simula-
tion modelling of the 100-foot channel complex,
Texas, and the Ainsa II channel complex, Spain:
analogs to multistory and multilateral channelized
slope reservoirs. In: Grammer, G. M., Harris, P. M.
& Eberli, G. P. (eds) Integration of Outcrop and
Modern Analogs in Reservoir Modeling. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoirs, 80,
337 364.
Larue, D. K. & Hovadik, J. 2006. Connectivity of chan-
nelized reservoirs: a modelling approach. Petroleum
Geoscience, 12, 291308.
Larue, D. K. & Hovadik, J. 2008. Why is reservoir
architecture an insignificant uncertainty in many
appraisal and development studies of clastic channe-
lized reservoirs? Journal of Petroleum Geology, 31,
337 366.
Larue, D. K. & Legarre, H. 2004. Flow units, connec-
tivity and reservoir characterization in a wave-
dominated deltaic reservoir: Meren reservoir, Nigeria.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulle-
tin, 88, 303324.
Leren, B. L. S., Howell, J. A., Enge, H. E. & Marti-
nius, A. W. 2010. Controls on stratigraphic architec-
ture in contemporaneous delta systems from the
Eocene Roda Sandstone, Tremp-Graus Basin, northern
Spain. Sedimentary Geology, 229, 9 40.
Lunt, I. A., Bridge, J. S. & Tye, R. S. 2004. A quantitat-
ive, three-dimensional depositional model of gravelly
braided rivers. Sedimentology, 51, 377414.
Luthi, S. M. & Flint, S. S. 2013. The application of
outcrop-based research boreholes for reservoir model-
ling: potential, challenges and pitfalls. In: Martinius,
A. W., Howell, J. A. & Good, T. R. (eds) Sediment-
Body Geometry and Heterogeneity: Analogue Studies
for Modelling the Subsurface. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 387. First published
online July 29, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/
SP387.6
Luthi, S. M., Hodgson, D. M., Geel, C. R., Flint, S. S.,
Goedbloed, J. W., Drinkwater, N. J. & Johannes-
sen, E. P. 2006. Contribution of research borehole
data to modelling fine-grained turbidite reservoir ana-
logues, Permian Tanqua-Karoo basin-floor fans
(South Africa). Petroleum Geoscience, 12, 175190.
Lseth, T. M. & Helland-Hansen, W. 2001. Predicting
the pinchout distance of shoreline tongues. Terra Nova,
13, 241 248.
Lseth, T. M., Steel, R. J., Crabaugh, J. P. & Schell-
peper, M. 2006. Interplay between shoreline migration
paths, architecture and pinchout distance for siliciclas-
tic shoreline tongues; evidence from the rock record.
Sedimentology, 53, 735767.
MacDonald, A. C. & Aasen, J. O. 1994. A prototype
procedure for stochastic modelling of facies tract
distribution in shoreface reservoirs. In: Yarus, J. M.
& Chambers, R. L. (eds) Stochastic Modeling and
Geostatistics. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Computer Applications in Geology, 3,
91108.
MacDonald, A. C., Falt, L. M. & Hektoen, A.-L. 1998.
Stochastic modeling of incised valley geometries.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulle-
tin, 82, 11561172.
Manzocchi, T., Carter, J. N., Skorstad, A., Fjellvoll,
B., Stephen, K. D. & Howell, J. A. 2008. Sensitivity
of the impact of geological uncertainty on production
from faulted and unfaulted shallow-marine oil reser-
voirs: objectives and methods. Petroleum Geoscience,
14, 3 15.
Martinius, A. W. & Nss, A. 2005. Uncertainty analysis
of fluvial outcrop data for stochastic reservoir model-
ling. Petroleum Geoscience, 11, 203214.
Martinius, A. W. & Van den Berg, J. H. 2011. Atlas of
Sedimentary Structures in Estuarine and Tidally-
Influenced River Deposits of the Rhine Meuse
Scheldt System: Their Application to the Interpretation
of Analogous Outcrop and Subsurface Depositional
Systems. EAGE, Houten, The Netherlands.
Martinius, A. W., Geel, C. R. & Arribas, J. 2002. Litho-
facies characterization of fluvial sandstones from
outcrop gamma-ray logs (Loranca Basin, Spain): the
influence of provenance. Petroleum Geoscience, 8,
5162.
Massey, T. A., Fernie, A. J., Ainsworth, R. B., Nanson,
R. A. & Vakarelov, B. K. 2013. Detailed mapping,
three-dimensional modelling and upscaling of a
mixed-influence delta system, Mitchell River delta,
Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. In: Martinius,
A. W., Howell, J. A. & Good, T. R. (eds) Sediment-
Body Geometry and Heterogeneity: Analogue Studies
for Modelling the Subsurface. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 387. First published
online July 29, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/
SP387.4
Matthews, J., Carter, J., Stephen, K. D., Zimmerman,
R. W., Skorstad, A., Manzocchi, T. & Howell,
J. A. 2008. Assessing the effect of geological uncer-
tainty on recovery estimates in shallow-marine reser-
voirs: the application of reservoir engineering to the
SAIGUP project. Petroleum Geoscience, 14, 3544.
McHargue, T., Pyrcz, M. J. et al. 2011. Architecture of
turbidite channel systems on the continental slope: pat-
terns and predictions. Marine and Petroleum Geology,
28, 728 743.
McIlroy, D., Flint, S. S., Howell, J. A. & Timms, N.
2005. Sedimentology of a thick, aggradational meso/
macrotidal system: the Middle Jurassic Lajas For-
mation of the Neuquen Basin, Argentina. In: Veiga,
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW
G. D., Spalletti, L. A., Howell, J. A. & Schwarz,
E. (eds) The Neuquen Basin, Argentina: A Case
Study in Sequence Stratigraphy and Basin Dynamics.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
252, 83107.
Miall, A. D. 1988. Reservoir heterogeneities in fluvial
sandstones: lessons from outcrop studies. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 72,
882697.
Miall, A. D. & Tyler, N. 1991. The Three-Dimensional
Facies Architecture of Terrigenous Clastic Sediments
and its Implications for Hydrocarbon Discovery and
Recovery. Society for Sedimentary Geology, Concepts
in Sedimentology and Paleontology, 3.
Mjs, R., Walderhaug, O. & Prestholm, E. 1993.
Crevasse splay sandstone geometries in the Middle Jur-
assic Ravenscar Group of Yorkshire, UK. In: Marzo,
M. & Puigdefabregas, C. (eds) Alluvial Sedimen-
tation. International Association of Sedimentologists,
Special Publications, 17, 167184.
Moody, J. D., Pyles, D. R., Clark, J. & Bouroullec, R.
2012. Quantitative outcrop characterization of an
analog to weakly confined submarine channel sys-
tems: Morillo 1 Member, Ainsa Basin, Spain. Ameri-
can Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 96,
18131841.
Morris, J. E., Hampson, G. J. & Johnson, H. D. 2006. A
sequence stratigraphic model for an intensely biotur-
bated shallow-marine sandstone: the Bridport Sand
Formation, Wessex Basin, UK. Sedimentology, 53,
12291263.
Mountney, N. P. & Howell, J. A. 2000. Aeolian archi-
tecture, bedform climbing and preservation space in
the Cretaceous Etjo Formation, N.W. Namibia. Sedi-
mentology, 47, 825 849.
Mountney, N. P. & Jagger, A. 2004. Stratigraphic evol-
ution of an aeolian erg margin system: the Permian
Cedar Mesa Sandstone, SE Utah, USA. Sedimentology,
51, 713743.
Mountney, N. P. & Thompson, D. B. 2002. Stratigraphic
evolution and preservation of aeolian dune and damp/
wet interdune strata: an example from the Triassic
Helsby Sandstone Formation, Cheshire Basin, UK.
Sedimentology, 49, 805 833.
Mountney, N., Howell, J. A., Flint, S. S. & Jerram, V.
1999. Relating eolian bounding-surface geometries to
the bed forms that generated them: Etjo Formation,
Cretaceous, Namibia. Geology, 27, 159 162.
Nami, M. & Leeder, M. R. 1978. Changing channel mor-
phology and magnitude in the Scalby Formation (M.
Jurassic) of Yorkshire, England. In: Miall, A. D.
(ed.) Fluvial Sedimentology. Canadian Society of Pet-
roleum Geology, Memoirs, 5, 431440.
Nilsen, T., Shew, R., Stefans, G. & Studlick, J. 2007.
Atlas of Deepwater Outcrops. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology, 56.
Noad, J. 2004. The use of field analogues in the correlation
and static reservoir methodology used in the Tern
Field, Northern North Sea, UK. Marine and Petroleum
Geology, 21, 485 497.
Nordahl, K., Ringrose, P. S. & Wen, R. 2005. Petrophy-
sical characterization of a heterolithic tidal reservoir
interval using a process-based modeling tool. Pet-
roleum Geoscience, 11, 1728.
23
Nordahl, K., Messina, C., Berland, H., Rustad, A. B.
& Rimstad, E. 2014. Impact of multiscale modelling
on predicted porosity and permeability distributions
in the fluvial deposits of the Upper Lunde Member
(Snorre Field, Norwegian Continental Shelf). In: Mar-
tinius, A. W., Howell, J. A. & Good, T. R. (eds)
Sediment-Body Geometry and Heterogeneity: Ana-
logue Studies for Modelling the Subsurface. Geologi-
cal Society, London, Special Publications, 387. First
published online February 25, 2014, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1144/SP387.10
North, C. P. & Prosser, D. J. (eds) 1993. Characteriz-
ation of Fluvial and Aeolian Reservoirs: Problems
and Approaches. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 73.
Novakovic, D., White, C. D., Corbeanu, R. M.,
Hammon, W. S., III, Bhattacharya, J. P. & McMe-
chan, G. A. 2002. Hydraulic effects of shales in
fluvialdeltaic deposits: ground-penetrating radar, out-
crop observations, geostatistics, and three-dimensional
flow modeling for the Ferron Sandstone, Utah. Math-
ematical Geology, 34, 857893.
Oliver, D. S., Reynolds, A. C. & Liu, N. 2008. Inverse
Theory for Petroleum Reservoir Characterization
and History Matching. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Orton, G. J. & Reading, H. G. 1993. Variability of
deltaic process in terms of sediment supply, with par-
ticular emphasis on grain size. Sedimentology, 40,
475 512.
Pickering, K. T. & Corregidor, J. 2005. Mass transport
complexes and tectonic control on confined basin-floor
submarine fans, Middle Eocene, south Spanish Pyre-
nees. In: Hodgson, D. & Flint, S. S. (eds) Submarine
Slope Systems, Process and Products. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 244, 51 74.
Pranter, M. J. & Sommer, N. K. 2011. Static connectivity
of fluvial sandstones in a lower coastal-plain setting: an
example from the Upper Cretaceous lower Williams
Fork Formation, Piceance Basin, Colorado. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 95,
899 923.
Pranter, M. J., Hewlett, A. C., Cole, R. D., Wang, H.
& Gilman, J. 2013. Fluvial architecture and connec-
tivity of the Williams Fork Formation: use of outcrop
analogues for stratigraphic characterization and reser-
voir modelling. In: Martinius, A. W., Howell, J.
A. & Good, T. R. (eds) Sediment-Body Geometry
and Heterogeneity: Analogue Studies for Modelling
the Subsurface. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 387. First published online July 29,
2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP387.1
Prelat, A., Hodgson, D. M., Flint, S. S., Covault, J. A.
& Fildani, A. 2010. Intrinsic controls on the range of
volumes, morphologies, and dimensions of submarine
lobes. Sedimentary Geology, 232, 66 76.
Pringle, J. K., Clarke, J. D., Drinkwater, N. J. &
Westerman, A. R. 2004. 3D high-resolution digital
models of outcrop analogue study sites to constrain
reservoir model uncertainty: an example from Alport
Castles, Derbyshire, UK. Petroleum Geoscience, 10,
343 352.
Pringle, J. K., Howell, J. A., Hodgetts, D., Wester-
man, A. R. & Hodgson, D. M. 2006. Virtual outcrop
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
24 J. A. HOWELL ET AL.
models of petroleum reservoir analogues: a review of
the current state-of-the-art. First Break, 24, 3343.
Pringle, J. K., Brunt, R. L., Hodgson, D. M. & Flint,
S. S. 2010. Capturing stratigraphic and sedimentologi-
cal complexity from submarine channel complex out-
crops to digital 3D models, Karoo Basin, South
Africa. Petroleum Geoscience, 16, 307 330.
Pyrcz, M. J., Catuneanu, O. & Deutsch, C. V. 2005.
Stochastic surface-based modeling of turbidite lobes.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulle-
tin, 89, 177191.
Pyrcz, M. J., Boisvert, J. B. & Deutsch, C. V. 2008. A
library of training images for fluvial and deepwater
reservoirs and associated code. Computers and Geos-
ciences, 34, 542 560.
Rarity, F., van Lanen, X. M. T., Hodgetts, D.,
Gawthorpe, R. L., Wilson, P., Fabuel-Perez, I. &
Redfern, J. 2013. LiDAR-based digital outcrops for
sedimentological analysis: workflows and techniques.
In: Martinius, A. W., Howell, J. A. & Good, T. R.
(eds) Sediment-Body Geometry and Heterogeneity:
Analogue Studies for Modelling the Subsurface. Geo-
logical Society, London, Special Publications, 387.
First published online July 30, 2013, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1144/SP387.5
Reijenstein, H. M., Posamentier, H. W. & Bhatta-
charya, J. P. 2011. Seismic geomorphology and high-
resolution seismic stratigraphy of inner-shelf fluvial,
estuarine, deltaic, and marine sequences, Gulf of Thai-
land. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 95, 1959 1990.
Reynolds, A. D. 1999. Dimensions of paralic sandstone
bodies. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 83, 211229.
Ringrose, P. S., Nordahl, K. & Wen, R. 2005. Vertical
permeability estimation in heterolithic tidal deltaic
sandstones. Petroleum Geoscience, 11, 2936.
Ringrose, P. S., Martinius, A. W. & Alvestad, J. 2008.
Multiscale geological reservoir modelling in practice.
In: Robinson, A., Griffiths, P., Price, S., Hegre, J.
& Muggeridge, A. (eds) The Future of Geological
Modelling in Hydrocarbon Development. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 309, 123134.
Rittersbacher, A., Buckley, S. J., Howell, J. A.,
Hampson, G. J. & Vallet, J. 2013. Helicopter-based
laser scanning: a method for quantitative analysis of
large-scale sedimentary architecture. In: Martinius,
A. W., Howell, J. A. & Good, T. R. (eds) Sediment-
Body Geometry and Heterogeneity: Analogue Studies
for Modelling the Subsurface. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 387. First published
online July 16, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/
SP387.3
Robinson, J. W. & McCabe, P. J. 1997. Sandstone-body
and shale-body dimensions in a braided fluvial
system: salt Wash Sandstone Member (Morrison For-
mation), Garfield County, Utah. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 81, 1267 1291.
Ruivo, F. M. & Morooka, C. K. 2001. Decommissioning
offshore petroleum fields. In: Proceedings of
OMAE01. 20th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June 3 8, 2001,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. American Society of Mechan-
ical Engineers, New York, 2128.
Schmid, S., Worden, R. H. & Fisher, Q. J. 2004.
Diagenesis and reservoir quality of the Sherwood
Sandstone (Triassic), Corrib Field, Slyne Basin, West
of Ireland. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 21,
299315.
Sech, R. P., Jackson, M. D. & Hampson, G. J. 2009.
Three-dimensional modeling of a shoreface-shelf para-
sequence reservoir analog; Part 1, Surface-based mod-
eling to capture high-resolution facies architecture.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulle-
tin, 93, 11551181.
Stephen, K. D., Clark, J. D. & Gardiner, A. R. 2001.
Outcrop-based stochastic modelling of turbidite amal-
gamation and its effects on hydrocarbon recovery. Pet-
roleum Geoscience, 7, 163 172.
Thurmond, J. B., Drzewiecki, P. A. & Xu, X. 2005.
Building simple multiscale visualizations of outcrop
geology using virtual reality modeling language
(VRML). Computers & Geosciences, 31, 913919.
Tye, R. S. 2004. Geomorphology: an approach to deter-
mining subsurface reservoir dimensions. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 88,
1123 1147.
Tyler, N. & Finley, R. J. 1991. Architectural controls on
the recovery of hydrocarbons from sandstone reser-
voirs. In: Miall, A. D. & Tyler, N. (eds) The Three-
Dimensional Facies Architecture of Terrigenous
Clastic Sediments and its Implications for Hydro-
carbon Discovery and Recovery. Society for Sedimen-
tary Geology, Concepts in Sedimentology and
Paleontology, 3, 1 5.
Tyler, K. J., Svanes, T. & Henriquez, A. 1994. Hetero-
geneity modeling used for production simulation of a
fluvial reservoir. SPE Formation Evaluation, 9,
8592.
Van Lanen, X. M. T., Hodgetts, D., Redfern, J. &
Fabuel-Perez, I. 2009. Applications of digital
outcrop models: two fluvial case studies from the
Triassic Wolfville Fm., Canada and Oukaimeden
Sandstone Fm., Morocco. Geological Journal, 44,
742760.
Van Wagoner, J. C. & Bertram, G. 1995. Sequence Stra-
tigraphy of Foreland Basin Deposits: Examples from
the Cretaceous of North America. American Associ-
ation of Petroleum Geologists, Memoirs, 64.
Van Wagoner, J. C., Mitchum, R. M., Campion, K. M. &
Rahmanian, V. D. 1990. Siliciclastic Sequence Strati-
graphy in Well Logs, Cores, and Outcrops. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Methods in
Exploration Series, 7.
Visser, C. A. & Chessa, A. G. 2000. Estimation of length
distributions from outcrop datasets application to the
Upper Permian Cutler Formation Utah. Petroleum
Geoscience, 6, 2936.
Weber, K. J. 1982. Influence of common sedimentary
structures on fluid flow in reservoir models. Journal
of Petroleum Technology, 34, 665 672.
Weber, K. J. 1986. How heterogeneity affects oil recov-
ery. In: Lake, L. W. & Carroll, H. B., Jr (eds) Reser-
voir Characterization. Academic Press, New York,
487544.
Weber, K. J. 1987. Computation of initial well productiv-
ities in aeolian sandstone on the basis of a geological
model, Leman gas field, U.K. In: Tillman, R. W. &
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on February 20, 2016
OUTCROP ANALOGUES IN GEOLOGICAL MODELLING: A REVIEW
Weber, K. J. (eds) Reservoir Sedimentology. Society
of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists,
Special Publications, 40, 333354.
Weimer, P., Slatt, R. M., Dromgoole, P., Bowman,
M. J. B. & Leonard, A. 2000. Developing and mana-
ging turbidite reservoirs: case histories and experi-
ences: results of the 1998 AAPG/EAGE research
conference. American Association of Petroleum Geol-
ogists Bulletin, 84, 453464.
Wellner, R., Beaubouef, R., Van Wagoner, J. C.,
Roberts, H. & Sun, T. 2005. Jet-plume depositional
bodies the primary building blocks of Wax Lake
Delta. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies
Transactions, 55, 867909.
White, C. D. & Willis, B. J. 2000. A method to estimate
length distributions from outcrop data. Mathematical
Geology, 32, 389 419.
White, C. D., Willis, B. J., Dutton, S. P.,
Bhattacharya, J. P. & Narayanan, K. 2004.
25
Sedimentology, statistics, and flow behavior for a
tide-influenced deltaic sandstone, Frontier Formation,
Wyoming, United States. In: Grammar, G. M.,
Harris, P. M. & Eberli, G. P. (eds) Integration of
Outcrop and Modern Analogs in Reservoir Modeling.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Memoirs, 80, 129152.
Weissmann, G. S., Hartley, A. J., Nichols, G. J.,
Scuderi, L. A., Olson, M., Buehler, H. &
Banteah, R. 2010. Fluvial form in modern continental
sedimentary basins: distributive fluvial systems.
Geology, 38, 3942.
Yoon, S., Malallah, A. H., Datta-Gupta, A., Vasco,
D. W. & Behrens, R. A. 2001. A multiscale approach
to production-data integration using streamline
models. SPE Journal, 6, 182192.
Zeito, G. A. 1965. Interbedding of shale breaks and reser-
voir heterogeneities. Journal of Petroleum Technol-
ogy, 17, 1223 1228.