MESOZOIC PALEOENVIRONMENT EVIDENCE — SE SASKATCHEWAN
Prepared 2026-10-26

PRIMARY CONCLUSION
The Wapella–Moosomin Jurassic succession and the younger Broadview–Wapella Cantuar succession both contain directly documented reservoir-prone sands. They record different episodes and geometries. The strongest current evidence supports several superposed, discontinuous depositional fairways, not one demonstrated uninterrupted oil belt from Wawota to Indian Head.

WHAT IS ACTUALLY OBSERVED
Kreis Report 217 contains photographed oil-stained Jurassic valley/channel sands, opposed cross-beds, mud drapes, ripples and mud-clast lags. The photographic panels on printed pages 70 and 71 were visually reviewed for this task. The environmental interpretations combine those structures with lithology and palaeontology; they remain interpretations rather than photographic shoreline maps.
Christopher Report 223 Appendix A provides actual local Cretaceous core descriptions. Broadview Cummings sand at 707.7–710.2 m is described as permeable and pyrobitumen-bearing, while the nearby W Wapella Cummings interval is much muddier. This is precisely the reservoir discontinuity that a formation-level isopach cannot show. The Broadview description on printed A-10 was visually reviewed.

GEOLOGICAL SEPARATIONS THAT MUST SURVIVE INTO THE VIEWER
- Depositional facies interpretation is not a discovery probability or a statement of economic reserves.
- Observed core structures, the authors' environment interpretations, and assistant prospect tests are separately labelled.
- No continuous Wawota–Indian Head shoreline, barrier or reservoir body is demonstrated by the cited local cores.
- Separate Middle Jurassic Moosomin erosion/fill from the younger pre-Cantuar Assiniboia drainage.
- Present formation edges combine original deposition and later erosion; present structural relief also includes compaction, tectonic movement and salt dissolution.
- Do not stack composite intervals and their members as independent volumes; use a coherent set of nonoverlapping horizons.
- SPFPS 2 km framework grids are regional interpolation, not parcel-scale closure, net pay, porosity or seismic resolution.
- Original core images reviewed here are published photographic panels, not newly inspected physical core or downloadable original well-log suites.

WATROUS FORMATION
Composite of oxidized continental to marginal-marine redbeds below and restricted marine evaporite/carbonate deposits above.
Evidence: Lower member: red mudstone/siltstone, scattered frosted quartz, anhydrite and episodic exposure. Upper member: interbedded anhydrite, dolomite and dolomitic mudstone.
Orientation and confidence: Upper member locally oversteps the lower member northeastward near Wapella; present mapped edges combine onlap and later erosion. Moderate for local correlation; low for a continuous regional palaeoshoreline.
Reservoir-prone subset: Local basal or intraformational sands where genuinely porous; fracture/breccia porosity is a separate possibility.
Requirements: A preserved porous body, lateral and top closure, and charge migration across or around the redbed/evaporite succession.
Useful negative tests: Mud/evaporite replaces proposed sand; cement destroys pores; a migration barrier prevents charge; fractures leak instead of retain oil.
Sources: K91 pp. 33, 42; ATLAS16; MB16 pp. 181–186
Cautions: Do not treat total Watrous thickness as sandstone thickness. The old Triassic assignment of the lower member is a mapping convention, not a settled radiometric age.

LOWER WATROUS MEMBER
Oxidizing low-relief mudflat/playa and continental to marginal-marine settings, with evaporative exposure and a possible eolian component.
Evidence: Red fine-grained matrix, anhydrite and pitted/frosted quartz; scarce fossils give limited age control.
Orientation and confidence: No defensible fixed Wawota–Indian Head shoreline azimuth from these data. Moderate for broad environment; low for local sand-body geometry.
Reservoir-prone subset: Localized basal or other quartz sands rather than the redbed blanket as a whole.
Requirements: Permeability, a retaining geometry and access to charge; weathering or fractures must be demonstrated rather than assumed.
Useful negative tests: Core/logs show homogeneous impermeable redbeds or cemented sand; oil charge is absent despite adequate reservoir.
Sources: K91 pp. 33, 42; ATLAS16; MB16 pp. 181–186
Cautions: Historic Jurassic oil occurrences outside the mapped lower-Watrous limit suggested a seal/migration effect, but Kreis explicitly cautioned that poor southern well control made it inconclusive.

UPPER WATROUS MEMBER
Restricted shallow marine carbonate–evaporite basin with persistent evaporation; less continental than lower Watrous.
Evidence: Anhydrite/dolomite interbeds and marine plus terrestrial palynomorphs. At Central Del Rio Red Jacket 6-19-13-32W1, oil staining and bitumen-coated fractures in dolostone coexist with gypsum-sealed fractures.
Orientation and confidence: Upper Watrous thickens southeastward at the expense of lower-Gravelbourg unit A, implying longer-lived southeastern evaporitism during western carbonate deposition. Moderate local stratigraphic evidence.
Reservoir-prone subset: Fractured or brecciated dolostone if fractures remain connected and unfilled.
Requirements: Demonstrate open porosity and retained hydrocarbons; intact evaporites may provide a seal but fracture effects vary.
Useful negative tests: Gypsum/anhydrite fills fracture porosity; evaporite dissolution permits leakage or water influx.
Sources: K91 pp. 33, 42; MB16 pp. 181–186 (analogue)
Cautions: The Manitoba exposed-gypsum analogue does not directly measure the buried Wapella anhydrite reservoir or its permeability.

GRAVELBOURG FORMATION
Marine transgression from restricted carbonate settings toward shallow coastal marine carbonate/mud environments; upper member has stronger low-salinity coastal influence.
Evidence: Oolitic/peloidal and skeletal limestone, glauconite, microforaminifera, calcareous mudstone and local quartz sand. Sandy bioclastic bodies can contain graded beds, cross-bedding and truncation surfaces.
Orientation and confidence: Lower unit B oversteps unit A northeastward; detailed bar geometry around Red Jacket is not resolved by sparse control. Moderate for overstep and shallow-marine interpretation; low for exact bar axes.
Reservoir-prone subset: Locally weakly cemented quartz sands and high-energy sandy skeletal/oolitic bars.
Requirements: A porous facies that survived calcite cementation, a mudstone or cemented cap and lateral termination, and migration access.
Useful negative tests: The expected shoal is tight calcite-cemented rock; a sandy log response lacks effective permeability; no charge or closure.
Sources: K91 pp. 33–35, 42; photo 3, p. 64
Cautions: Formation isopach is not net reservoir. The historic unsuccessful Moosomin example shows that presence of the unit is insufficient.

LOWER GRAVELBOURG MEMBER
Unit A restricted shallow-marine dolomitic carbonate; unit B more open but locally low-salinity nearshore carbonate and mud, including energetic bars.
Evidence: Tricent et al. Moosomin 4-28-14-31W1 at 654.0 m: skeletal/oolitic/peloidal limestone with inclined cross-beds, graded bedding and a reactivation surface. Fresh/brackish indicators could represent local reduced salinity or transported fauna; the report retains both alternatives.
Orientation and confidence: Northeastward overstep is supported; a continuous bar belt is not. High for photographed bedding, moderate for bar interpretation, low for extrapolated geometry.
Reservoir-prone subset: Weakly calcite-cemented sand; porous sandy bioclastic limestone.
Requirements: Mudstone cap and permeability preservation; the source documents historical production in Tricent et al. Red Jacket 11-4-14-32W1.
Useful negative tests: Core proves pervasive calcite cement; historic Moosomin 4-28-14-31W1 was abandoned after attempted production because of poor reservoir quality.
Sources: K91 pp. 33–34, 42, 64 (photo 3)
Cautions: Production statements are observations reported in 1991, not current operating status.

UPPER GRAVELBOURG MEMBER
Coastal marine setting of reduced salinity backed by extensive swamp/coastal-plain environments.
Evidence: Terrestrial palynomorphs coexist with marine species and low-salinity ostracode/foraminiferal assemblages in the regional comparison.
Orientation and confidence: Rocanville A at Wapella is interpreted as a more landward counterpart than upper Gravelbourg to the southwest; exact correlation boundaries require care. Moderate regional facies relation, limited local palynological sample density.
Reservoir-prone subset: Local sand lenses if present and uncemented; mud-rich intervals are potential seals.
Requirements: Confirm the actual sand and correct stratigraphic assignment in local logs/core before assigning a reservoir geometry.
Useful negative tests: No porous sand exists at the proposed horizon; facies/correlation is incorrectly projected from another district.
Sources: K91 pp. 18–20, 34

JURASSIC COMPOSITE INTERVAL
A time-transgressive stack of evaporitic, marine carbonate, coastal-plain, estuarine, tidal-flat and offshore-mud environments with intervening unconformities.
Evidence: Wapella Red Jacket records several distinct depositional phases; Rierdon contains marine mudstone above an erosive shell-rich basal lag. Regional Jurassic strata are progressively truncated toward the northern basin margin.
Orientation and confidence: Modern Jurassic zero edge is mainly a preservation/subcrop boundary, not a single Jurassic shoreline. High for the distinction; exact original northern extent is uncertain.
Reservoir-prone subset: Individual named porous members and lenses; total thickness cannot assign reservoir facies.
Requirements: Resolve the target member, its cap and lateral closure, and migration history; account for later Cretaceous erosion.
Useful negative tests: Target member removed at unconformity even where another Jurassic unit survives; thick composite consists largely of seal/nonreservoir.
Sources: K91 pp. 33–39, 42–43; ATLAS18
Cautions: Composite interval must not be added to the thickness of its constituent units in a 3D stack.

RED JACKET FORMATION, WAPELLA–MOOSOMIN LOCAL FRAMEWORK
Rocanville coastal/shelf deposits, Moosomin incised-valley/estuarine and tidal-flat deposits, then Burrows marine flooding and tidal progradation.
Evidence: Multiple actual cored facies and oil-stained sands establish a local Jurassic petroleum system; they do not prove an uninterrupted regional sand belt.
Orientation and confidence: Some historic pool/thickness trends are north-northeast to south-southwest and associated with salt-collapse interpretation, but channel and shoreline geometry differs by member. Moderate local geological hypothesis; low for extension toward Indian Head without correlation.
Reservoir-prone subset: Rocanville B sheets/channels; Moosomin A1 valley sands; A2 sand lenses; B tidal-channel sand.
Requirements: Member-specific permeability, seals and closures; salt-related subsidence/fractures may influence accommodation and migration but require direct evidence.
Useful negative tests: Thickened section is muddy or cemented; suspected collapse structure is absent; no charge; erosion removes the target.
Sources: K91 pp. 34–39, 43
Cautions: No separate regional Red Jacket surface exists in the inspected SPFPS Mesozoic service. Jurassic valleys must not be joined to younger pre-Cantuar valleys as one channel network.

ROCANVILLE MEMBER (A, B, C)
A: reduced coastal plain/swamp to nearshore; lower B: shallow-marine sheet sands and local channels; upper B: restricted to supratidal flats; C: renewed open-marine transgression.
Evidence: Rocanville A at Tidewater Wapella No. 6-33-14-1W2 has freshwater ostracodes at 760.4–760.5 m and terrestrial palynomorphs at 760.2 m, but only one palynological sample. Pondex Pat Parkman 5-22-10-1W2 at 965.5–967.0 m has erosive, cross-bedded basal B channel sand (photo 5).
Orientation and confidence: Basal B thickens north/east, tentatively suggesting sand sources in those directions; this is not a measured palaeocurrent azimuth. Moderate source-direction inference; high for individual core structures.
Reservoir-prone subset: Lower-B sheet sand and erosive channels; local porous sand below a carbonate-cemented cap.
Requirements: Sand connectivity and preserved pores, lateral sand-to-mud/cement termination, cap and charge.
Useful negative tests: Upper-B muddy/supratidal facies replaces reservoir; carbonate cement eliminates pores; the possible channel is only a misleading blocky log signature.
Sources: K91 pp. 24, 34–36, 43, 65 (photo 5)
Cautions: Source argues that lack of marine fossils in one A sample cannot exclude nearshore marine deposition.

MOOSOMIN A1
Erosive valley/lowland fill subsequently drowned into reducing, brackish tidal estuaries or coastal embayments; minor fluvial/splay influence is possible.
Evidence: CNW Wapella 6-2-15-1W2: basal oil-saturated sand and Rocanville clasts near 743.9 m; opposed cross-beds at 739.3–743.6 m; carbonaceous/micaceous material at 731.2 m. Pyrite, siderite, low-diversity trace fossils and mixed terrestrial/marine evidence support the estuarine interpretation.
Orientation and confidence: Wapella–North Wapella and Red Jacket–Rocanville are separate local reconstructed valleys. Their end positions are poorly controlled; proposed Red Jacket A1 fill had no core in the study. High for Wapella core observations; moderate for estuarine interpretation; low for remote valley boundaries.
Reservoir-prone subset: Clean, weakly cemented valley-axis or tidal-channel sand bodies within a heterolithic fill.
Requirements: Mud/cement top and lateral seals plus charge, with sufficient connectivity inside an otherwise compartmented fill.
Useful negative tests: Valley fill is mostly mud; sands tight or water-bearing; proposed continuation absent in control wells; later erosion breaches the trap.
Sources: K91 pp. 36–37, 43; photos 17–20 pp. 69–70; Appendix C.4 p. 87
Cautions: The published 45 km Red Jacket valley reconstruction is an interpretation, not a measured edge usable as an exact 3D boundary. Core/photo depths may require core-to-log shifts; do not turn them directly into TVD surfaces.

MOOSOMIN A2
Low-energy brackish coastal marine/possible lagoonal conditions with tidal reworking, overstepping A1 valleys and intervening highs.
Evidence: Aberford Wapella 12A-34-14-1W2 at about 712.3 m: wave/current ripples and heterolithic bedding. Arco South Wapella 11-23-14-1W2 at about 737.6 m: climbing ripples and pyrite nodule. Marine palynomorphs/foraminifera, fine sand/silt, pyrite and variable stacking support intermittent marine influence.
Orientation and confidence: Kreis proposes a possible seaward barrier-island complex south/west of the study area, but explicitly says existing well control cannot prove or disprove it. High for pictured sedimentary structures; moderate for restricted marine interpretation; low for barrier existence or position.
Reservoir-prone subset: Discontinuous stacked fine-sand lenses with low clay and limited carbonate cement.
Requirements: A cap/lateral seal between lenses, connected pores and charge; local top cement can contribute to retention.
Useful negative tests: No clean sand, pervasive cement, or an open-connected aquifer; alleged continuous barrier has no supporting wells.
Sources: K91 pp. 37, 43; photos 21–22 p. 71
Cautions: Do not render a continuous south/west barrier as observed geology.

MOOSOMIN B
Tidal-channel and subtidal to intertidal-flat succession, often with fining-up channel sand below an upper muddy tidal-flat interval.
Evidence: Saskoil North Wapella 16A-14-15-1W2 at about 676.6 and 678.6 m: truncating cross-beds and mud drapes. Tricent et al. Red Jacket 2-4-14-32W1 at about 669.8 m: mud-clast lag at the base of an oil-saturated sand. Flaser/wavy/lenticular bedding, burrows and mixed fresh/brackish/marine indicators are observed locally.
Orientation and confidence: Channel orientation cannot be transferred from total-Moosomin thickness alone. Some historic reservoir trends are NNE–SSW, but individual channel axes need well correlation. High for tidal evidence; moderate for local channel reconstruction; low for regional extension.
Reservoir-prone subset: Tidally reworked channel/point-bar sand, locally beneath muddy flat deposits.
Requirements: Sufficient permeability and interwell connectivity within the channel, effective mud/cement seals and a retained charge.
Useful negative tests: Channel compartments are isolated by mud; fine-grained flats dominate; sand is cemented or water-wet/uncharged.
Sources: K91 pp. 38–39, 43; photos 31–33 pp. 74–75; photos 39–41 pp. 78–79
Cautions: Historical production attribution in the report is not a statement about present rates or reserves.

BURROWS MEMBER (A AND B)
A: widespread shallow marine flooding mud; B: renewed tidal/intertidal progradation with heterolithic sand and mud.
Evidence: A is locally a 2.5–3.2 m grey mudstone/claystone marker with marine foraminifera and dinoflagellates. B contains bioturbated sand/silt/mud and fresh/brackish indicators.
Orientation and confidence: Local transgression followed by progradation; a single continuous shoreline direction is not established. Moderate from local correlations and palaeontology.
Reservoir-prone subset: Local B sand lenses; A is more plausibly a cap than a blanket reservoir.
Requirements: Identify porous B sand and cap continuity; verify operational log picks against core.
Useful negative tests: Mud-rich or cemented facies; inconsistent correlation; erosion at overlying Rierdon or later Cretaceous surface.
Sources: K91 p. 39
Cautions: The basal shell-rich Rierdon sand is geologically Rierdon but was included with top Burrows B for practical log picking in the report; geological and operational boundaries differ.

RIERDON FORMATION
Marine transgression: an erosive shell-rich basal sand/lag passes into calcareous marine mudstone.
Evidence: Basal Gryphaea-rich sand is locally under 1.5 m thick; the overlying mudstone provides a distinctive marine interval.
Orientation and confidence: Preservation is strongly modified by sub-Cretaceous erosion; no preserved edge should be read directly as the original shoreline. High for marine facies; variable local preservation.
Reservoir-prone subset: Any basal sand requires separate permeability and thickness confirmation; marine mudstone is principally seal/framework in this appraisal.
Requirements: Correct basal pick, retained permeable sand where present and a closed migration/retention geometry.
Useful negative tests: Thin or absent reservoir, pervasive carbonate cement, or erosional removal.
Sources: K91 p. 39; C03A pp. A-7–A-10
Cautions: Layer IDs should be cross-checked against current service before model use; this unit was not an original priority surface.

MANNVILLE GROUP (RESTRICTED USE IN CHRISTOPHER 2003)
Cantuar fills and onlaps an inherited eroded landscape with fluvial-to-estuarine and marine cycles; Pense records more extensive marine flooding after another erosional surface.
Evidence: Christopher defines restricted Mannville as Cantuar plus Pense, separated from the older Success Formation. Regional variations reflect valleys, uplands, marine incursions, local regression and subsequent erosion.
Orientation and confidence: Regional early marine onlap came from the northwest toward the southeast; local channels and coastal strands have their own orientations. Moderate to high at regional scale, low for unresolved local shorelines.
Reservoir-prone subset: Individual channel, mouth-bar, shoreface and other sand bodies within named members.
Requirements: A specific porous member, retaining seal/geometry and effective oil charge; total group thickness is insufficient.
Useful negative tests: Thick group consists of mud; the target member is absent or cemented; a connected sand carries water without oil.
Sources: C03 pp. 1–3, 45–53, 77–79
Cautions: Nested interval: do not add Mannville thickness to Cantuar/Pense or sum Cantuar with its Dina/Cummings members.

CANTUAR FORMATION
Multiple valley-fill, estuarine, coastal, tidal and shallow marine cycles, with strong inherited topographic control.
Evidence: In southeastern Saskatchewan the pre-Cantuar Assiniboia drainage links the Weyburn region to a broad Broadview basin west of the Moosomin upland and continues north toward Melville/Yorkton. Dina/Cummings cores near Wapella and Broadview show marked sand/mud and cementation differences over short distances.
Orientation and confidence: Marine flooding broadly NW→SE; onlap also moves outward from valley axes onto flanks. The Assiniboia valley is younger than the Jurassic Moosomin valleys. Moderate regional reconstruction; local axes require better control.
Reservoir-prone subset: Dina basal/fluvial-estuarine sands and reworked marine sands; Cummings fine sand/mouth-bar or shoreline sheets; other members require separate evidence.
Requirements: Member-specific sand quality and closure, preserved cap, charge and timing relative to erosion/structural movement.
Useful negative tests: Sub-Pense erosion removed the target; valley thick is muddy; carbonate cement/biodegradation blocks flow; only water is present.
Sources: C03 pp. 45–53, 77; Fig. 27; C03A pp. A-7–A-10
Cautions: Total Cantuar isopach cannot be displayed as Dina/Cummings net sand. SPFPS supplies formation-level surfaces but no separate Dina or Cummings surfaces in the inspected service.

DINA MEMBER
Lower valley-fill to estuarine sand, passing into transgressive marine/shoreface or deeper embayment deposits according to location.
Evidence: TW Sohio W Wapella 16-33-14-2W2, KB 613.3 m: interpreted Dina core from 684.7–704.1 m contains fine to medium sand, heterolithic mud/sand, carbonaceous debris and marine bioturbation/glauconite. Imperial TW Broadview 14-17-15-4W2, KB 617.5 m: adjusted Dina picks; porous weakly cemented sands alternate with calcite-cemented and shale intervals; a long core gap prevents a continuous description. Sohio St Hubert 14-1-15-3W2 at 698–707.1 m is a useful muddy/silty counterexample.
Orientation and confidence: Regional NW-derived marine flooding reworked older valley fill. Southeast Shield/country-rock sources contributed detritus; no exact local palaeoflow vector is measured here. High for described core lithology; moderate for member correlation and regional process.
Reservoir-prone subset: Clean, weakly cemented valley/channel sand; locally reworked estuarine or shoreface sand.
Requirements: Effective pores and seal/termination, correct correlation through erosional relief, and oil charge preserved against leakage or water flushing.
Useful negative tests: The candidate sand correlates to older Jurassic rock; clay/kaolinite/calcite occludes pores; the interval is an open aquifer or charge is degraded.
Sources: C03 pp. 46–52; C03A pp. A-7–A-10
Cautions: Appendix depths are reported core depths, not a surveyed TVDSS dataset; KB alone does not validate conversion. Broadview picks are explicitly adjusted in the source.

CUMMINGS MEMBER
Shallow marine/coastal sand–mud cycles following Dina transgression, with locally regressive coarsening-up sand and adjacent marsh/lignite environments.
Evidence: TW Sohio W Wapella 16-33-14-2W2: 676.7–684.7 m is largely mud/shale with plant carbon, sideritic material and thin very fine sand. Imperial TW Broadview 14-17-15-4W2: 707.7–710.2 m is described as well sorted, weakly cemented and very permeable, with pyrobitumen filling pores.
Orientation and confidence: Regional coastal belts shift during repeated onlap/regression. Lloydminster-area barrier examples in the report are not direct proof of a Wapella barrier complex. High for exact core contrast; moderate for local coastal interpretation.
Reservoir-prone subset: Clean reworked fine-sand lenses/sheets and local mouth-bar or shoreface sand, where present.
Requirements: A seal/termination, connected effective pores and mobile hydrocarbon charge, not merely evidence of former oil movement.
Useful negative tests: Nearby equivalent is predominantly mud, sand is cemented, or pyrobitumen represents degraded/immobile residue without recoverable oil.
Sources: C03 pp. 52–53; C03A pp. A-7, A-10
Cautions: Broadview pyrobitumen is evidence of past charge, not a flow test or proof of mobile oil/pay.

PENSE FORMATION
Widespread marine transgression and repeated generally upward-coarsening marine sand–mud cycles above a sub-Pense planation surface.
Evidence: Christopher describes more laterally consistent bedding/thickness than Cantuar members; capping sand can be strongly calcite cemented. The type core at Sohio Canadian Devonian Pense No. 1, 14-6-17-22W2, is 809.9–840.6 m below KB, outside the local Wapella corridor.
Orientation and confidence: Regional marine flooding across an eroded Cantuar landscape; do not assign local Wapella shoreline geometry from a distant type section. High for regional marine succession; low for corridor-specific sand distribution.
Reservoir-prone subset: Locally porous parts of marine sand cycles if cementation permits.
Requirements: Local permeability, top/lateral seal and charge; demonstrate that the target survives erosion.
Useful negative tests: Calcite cement destroys pores; a thin marine sheet lacks closure or contains water.
Sources: C03 pp. 77–79
Cautions: Included to explain the Mannville hierarchy; not a newly mapped prospect in this task.

DEPTH AND STRATIGRAPHIC DATUM
The companion CSV reports published core/sample depths and any published KB elevation. These are not validated TVDSS picks. A core depth, core/log shift, measured depth versus vertical depth, well-deviation survey and vertical datum all need reconciliation before numerical incorporation. Broadview Dina picks are explicitly adjusted. A modern regional model should use the official formation-top dataset with independently verified datum rather than converting every quoted core depth to a structural surface.
Original OF2014-1 structure-map legend verification is recorded separately in spfps_datum/; do not infer a top or base only from the word Structure.

SOURCE LINKS
K91 — Kreis, L.K. (1991), Stratigraphy of the Jurassic System in the Wapella–Moosomin Area, Southeastern Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Energy and Mines Report 217.
https://publications.saskatchewan.ca/api/v1/products/7275/formats/90738/download
C03 — Christopher, J.E. (2003), Jura-Cretaceous Success Formation and Lower Cretaceous Mannville Group of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Industry and Resources Report 223.
https://pubsaskdev.blob.core.windows.net/pubsask-prod/90783/90783-Final_Report_223_Text.pdf
C03A — Christopher (2003), Report 223, Appendix A: core descriptions.
https://pubsaskdev.blob.core.windows.net/pubsask-prod/93809/93809-Appendix_A.pdf
ATLAS16 — Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, Chapter 16: Triassic Strata, Alberta Geological Survey.
https://ags.aer.ca/publications/atlas-western-canada-sedimentary-basin/chapter-16-triassic-strata
ATLAS18 — Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, Chapter 18: Jurassic and Lowermost Cretaceous Strata, Alberta Geological Survey.
https://ags.aer.ca/publications/atlas-western-canada-sedimentary-basin/chapter-18-jurassic-and-lowermost-cretaceous
MB16 — Lapenskie and Bamburak (2016), Manitoba Geological Survey Report of Activities, GS-18, pp. 181–186.
https://www.gov.mb.ca/iem/geo/field/roa16pdfs/GS-18.pdf
SPFPS — Marsh and Love (2014), Saskatchewan Phanerozoic Fluids and Petroleum Systems Project, Open File 2014-1; Saskatchewan GeoAtlas Mesozoic service.
https://gis.saskatchewan.ca/egis/rest/services/Economy/Mesozoic/FeatureServer
