Stratigraphic Analysis of Carbonate Rocks in 2 Wells of the Field E6

Miocene (Cycle V)
Sarawak Basin, Malaysia

by

Anis Aliana Binti Azizdin

21005

Progress report submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the
Bachelor of Technology (Hons)
Petroleum Geoscience

September 2018

Department of Geosciences
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
32610 Bandar Seri Iskandar
Perak Darul Ridzuan
 ABSTRACT

Field E6 has been discovered long time ago but is considered non-economical due to poor
porosity layer. Located in the southern part of Central Luconia basin, the buildup of field E6 which
consists of limestone and dolomite layers with various porosity value covers a lateral extent of 11000
m from north to south with a height of ca. 200m. The main uncertainty of this field is the presence and
continuity of the tight and dolomite streaks layer. The thin section analysis has been done to identify
the porosity and types allochems presented in 33 thin section from depth 6272.1 ft up to 6347 ft which
helps to identify biostratigraphic age of the buildup. The carbonate platform growth and architecture is
interpreted by analyzing the seismic sequence stratigraphy while the well studies helps to identify the
high porosity (good layer) and low porosity (bad layer) for the reservoir characterization. Reservoir
layer 2 in the well log data is suitable for oil and gas accumulation based on its characteristics of having
high porosity, high permeability and consist of dolomite layer.

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 7
1.1 Background of Study ............................................................................................... 7
1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 9
1.4 Scope of Study ......................................................................................................... 9
1.5 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 12
2.1 The geology of Sarawak Basin and Central Luconia Province ............................. 12
2.2 Miocene Carbonate Formation of Central Luconia ............................................... 14
2.3 Hydrocarbon exploration in Central Luconia ........................................................ 15
2.4 Area of investigation and Stratigraphy of the Sarawak basin ................................ 17
2.5 Stratigraphy of Central Luconia............................................................................. 17
2.6 Carbonate Pore Types ............................................................................................ 20

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 23

3.1 Petrographical study............................................................................................... 23
3.2 Quantitative Analysis ............................................................................................. 25
3.3 Well study .............................................................................................................. 25
3.4 Seismic study ......................................................................................................... 25
3.5 Conceptual geological model ................................................................................. 25
3.6 Final Year Project 1 Gantt Chart (May 2018 – August 2018) ............................... 26
3.7 Final Year Project 7 Gantt Chart (September 2018 – December 2018) ................ 27
3.8 Project Milestones .................................................................................................. 28
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..................................................... 29
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 29
4.2 Map of Study Area ................................................................................................. 29
4. 2. 1 Base Map .............................................................................................. 29
4. 2. 2 Structure Contour and Well Location ................................................... 30
4. 2. 3 Seismic Section of field E6 ................................................................... 31
4.3 Thin section analysis .............................................................................................. 32

2
 4. 3. 1 Thin Section Composition Analysis ..................................................... 50
4. 3. 2 Biostratigraphic Age Determination ..................................................... 53
4.4 Study of the Well Log data of well E6-3 ............................................................... 56
4.5 Analysis of the Seismic Section of Carbonate Buildup E6 Field .......................... 58
4.6 Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy Analysis of the Carbonate Buildup E6 ................ 59

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 61

5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 61
5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 62

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 64

3
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Range diagram for some major Oligo-Miocene index benthic forams. (Papuan Basin of
Papua New Guinea) ................................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 2 Geographical map of Central Luconia. The red circle shows the location of Field E6 (from
Lunt, 2017)............................................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 3 Stratigraphic framework of offshore Sarawak (Ho, 1978) ..................................................... 13
Figure 4 Location of Central Luconia and province and tectonic activities around Central Luconia and
geological provinces in the Sarawak Basin (King et al., 2011). ........................................................... 14
Figure 5 Carbonate platforms of the Central Luconia. The arrow shows the siliciclastics influx
affecting the Central Luconia (Vahrenkamp, 1998). ............................................................................ 15
Figure 6 The petroleum province of Central Luconia consists of more than 200 carbonate build-ups,
over 100 wells and contains more than 65 Tcf discoverable gas reserves (Kosa, 2015). ..................... 16
Figure 7 Illustration showing the boundaries of Central Luconia cycles (Janjuhah et. at., 2017) ........ 17
Figure 8 Main development stages of carbonate buildup systems (Epting, 1980) ............................... 19
Figure 9 Growth pattern of Central Luconia build up (Epting, 1980) .................................................. 20
Figure 10 Carbonate pore types classification after Choquette and Pray (1977). ................................. 21
Figure 11 Template for thin section analysis ........................................................................................ 24
Figure 12 Base map of Central Luconia. The circled field indicates the E6 field. ............................... 29
Figure 13 Structure Contour and Well Location ................................................................................... 30
Figure 14 The seismic section of field E6 across transect A ................................................................ 31
Figure 15 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6272.1 ft ...................................................... 32
Figure 16 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6274.1 ft ...................................................... 32
Figure 17 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6276.1 ft ...................................................... 33
Figure 18 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6277.1 ft ..................................................... 33
Figure 19 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6279.1 ft ...................................................... 34
Figure 20 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6281.1 ft ...................................................... 35
Figure 21 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6285.1 ft ...................................................... 35
Figure 22 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6286.1 ft ...................................................... 36
Figure 23 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6288.1 ft ...................................................... 36
Figure 24 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6290.3 ft ...................................................... 37
Figure 25 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6292.3 ft ...................................................... 37
Figure 26 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6295.9 ft ...................................................... 38
Figure 27 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6296.5 ft ...................................................... 38
Figure 28 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6298.6 ft ...................................................... 39
Figure 29 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6300.5 ft ...................................................... 39
Figure 30 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6303.5 ft ...................................................... 40

4
Figure 31 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6305.5 ft ...................................................... 40
Figure 32 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6306.5 ft ...................................................... 41
Figure 33 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6308.5 ft ...................................................... 41
Figure 34 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6309.5 ft ...................................................... 42
Figure 35 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6312.5 ft ...................................................... 42
Figure 36 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6313.5 ft ...................................................... 43
Figure 37 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6315.5 ft ...................................................... 43
Figure 38 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6319.5 ft ...................................................... 44
Figure 39 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6323.5 ft ...................................................... 44
Figure 40 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6324.5 ft ...................................................... 45
Figure 41 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6327.5 ft ...................................................... 46
Figure 42 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6328.5 ft ...................................................... 46
Figure 43 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6332.5 ft ...................................................... 47
Figure 44 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6334.5 ft ...................................................... 47
Figure 45 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6338.5 ft ...................................................... 48
Figure 46 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6342.5 ft ...................................................... 48
Figure 47 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6347.5 ft ...................................................... 49
Figure 48 Porosity vs Depth based on the thin section data ................................................................. 52
Figure 49 Examples of component exists in the depth section of well E6-3 shown by arrow; 1.
Amphistegina; 2. (a) Alveolinella, 2.(b) Textularia 2.(c) Red Algae; 3. Lagenid; 4. Lepidocyclina; 5.
Cycloclypeus; 6. Encrusting Foram; 7. (a) Sorites, 7(b) Operculina; 8. Miogypsina ........................... 54
Figure 50 The well log data of well E6-3 ............................................................................................. 56
Figure 51 The interpreted top and base carbonate layer in field E6 ..................................................... 58

5
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Thin section composition analysis ........................................................................................... 51

Table 2 The distribution of foraminifera through depth ....................................................................... 53

6
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the background of the project and general aspects of carbonate reservoir
will be provided together with the summary of the geological setting of the Central Luconia
region, which is the area of interest for this project.

1.1 Background of Study

This study focuses on the reservoir architecture of the Field E6. The stratigraphic layer
of interest is referred to as in cycle V-1. This E6 field is a Shell development project. The
buildup is divided into 2 layers which are the lower cycle IV carbonates that are covered by a
tight layer (dense 5) and overlain by the upper cycle V carbonates layer. The Cycle V
carbonates layers are of upper Miocene age.

Figure 1 Range diagram for some major Oligo-Miocene index benthic forams. (Papuan Basin
of Papua New Guinea)
7
 A: Timescale of Grandstein et al., 2004
B: Later stage subdivision and range of main index foraminifera
C: Estimates of Sr isotope ratio at ‘stage’ boundaries scaled to Sr ages after McArthur
et al., 2001

Since Central Luconia is the major producer of gas in Southeast Asia, this study is an
opportunity to better understand the architecture of the buildup of field E6. The study is an
integrated project linking core data that will be correlated with petrographic data from the thin
section and seismic data. The type of foraminifera found in the thin section will help to
determine the biostratigraphic age of the layers in field E6 (Figure 2). Seismic data provides
information about the architecture of the geological layers beneath the subsurface.
The expected result is an interpreted seismic section showing architecture of the layers
of field E6 including the lateral continuity and determining the lateral equivalent of these layers
in support of planning horizontal wells. The result will be used for the geosteering when
conducting the horizontal drilling. It is crucial to determine the lateral composition of the layer
and recognize diagnostic attributes from the core and well log.

1.2 Problem Statements

As a major gas province, Central Luconia has high potential to develop and create
carbonate exploration opportunities. However, geological heterogeneities relevant for the
development of the field E6 are largely of sub-seismic scale. To support the hydrocarbon
exploration, the geometry and stratigraphy of the field must first be interpreted. However,
seismic data alone is inadequate to analyse the stratigraphy of the geological layers of this
carbonate platform.
So, the information from the core log is used to calibrate the seismic data to provide a
critical data of the geological layers. Other than that, petrographic study which requires
analysing and describing the thin sections is very important for providing the detailed
description of the texture, sedimentary structures, framework grain composition etc.
Petrographic analysis is important in describing the reservoir quality in terms of porosity and
permeability as well as the biostratigraphy age of the layers.
The architecture and petrophysical characteristics tight layer is the main uncertainties
that may affect the field performance. These tight layers may separate the gas or oil bearing
part of the field into two zones. In this study, the tight layer can be identified from core logs

8
but the petrographic study will support the evidence of the presence of the tight layer by
determining whether the tight layers presented are correlatable.
The tight layer is in between gas and oil zone. It is important to know whether the layer
is tight all the way or have porosity somewhere. For this project, two main key questions are:
i. Is the tight layer continuous or not?
ii. Are there high permeability streaks of dolomite layer and are these dolomite
layer which by far has the best porosity and permeability continuous or not.
Further determining the clay input which will affect the regional signal. For example,
if the tight layer contains only 5% porosity, the petrographic study is needed to identify the
type of porosity of the layer. If it is mouldic porosity, the layer is porous but not permeable for
the oil and gas to go through.
The conceptual geological model needs to be produced in this study since it consists of
three aspects to consider; stratigraphic aspect, depositional aspects and diagenetic aspect. The
purpose of having an updated geological model is to have a clearer view of the economic angle
of this project and as well as to help with the horizontal drilling because the continuity of the
layers and the architecture of different layers are still uncertain.

1.3 Objectives
The objectives of the research are:
1. To identify the stratigraphy of field E6 by correlating the stratigraphic layers of well
E6-3 and well E6-2.
2. To study the platform growth of carbonate buildup in field E6.
3. To update the conceptual geological model of field E6 and integrate the model based
on the stratigraphic aspect.
4. To optimize the position of the horizontal well.

1.4 Scope of Study

This study focuses on field E6 of Central Luconia province. Specifically, it is mainly
focusing on determining the stratigraphy of the field in order to update the conceptual
geological model of field E6 to support the drilling activities.

9
 This study includes the analysis and interpretation of the thin sections and core
description along well E6-3 to be correlated with the information of the petrographic study and
core description along well E6-2. Seismic data for this field is provided to support the study.
1114 ft of core samples were taken from a well. These cores are then described based
on their characteristics. Next, a petrographic study is conducted covering over 300 thin sections
for field E6.
This study will deal only 33 thin sections between depths 6272.1ft to 6347.5ft from the
well E6-3. Information obtained will be plotted together with the well log and seismic data by
using WellCad software.
As for the result of this study, all the data from other students which are working on the
same field will be combined and correlated to produce the updated conceptual geological model
thus analyzing the stratigraphy of field E6.

1.5 Study Area

Central Luconia province is a part of the Sarawak Basin, located in offshore northwest
Borneo. The basin covers an area of over 22,500 m2 .
It is characterized by massive carbonate buildups of Miocene to recent age. The
buildups are up to 2000m thick. They consist of complex geomorphologies such as build-in,
build-out and separated by horizontally bedded cemented layers.
Buildups of Central Luconia present exploration targets. These carbonate reservoirs are
economically significant and is one of the main gas contributors in Southeast Asia which
holding some 65 Tcf of gas in place and also producing minor amount of oil (Janjuhah et al.,
2017).
The Tertiary sedimentary succession in the Sarawak Basin is divided into eight
unconformity bound cycles (Kosa, 2015). These consist of transgressive and regressive unit.
Based on Janjuhah et. al. (2017), the deposition of carbonate in Central Luconia started in cycle
II during Late Oligocene, however carbonate buildups became dominant in cycle IV and V
(Middle to Upper Miocene).
Drilling development wells is challenging as they frequently encounter partial or total
mud losses of circulation due to karst or fractures (Kok et al., 2003). Alternatively, wells might
not produce hydrocarbons if they are drilled in low permeable layers.
Field E6 is located in a small carbonate buildup that extends 9,000m N-S direction with
height around 200m and on 1500m wide in E-W direction. It is a small field that is discovered

10
long ago, but always considered non-economic because of the poor porosity layer. The E6
buildup is located in the south of the Central Luconia province at 120 km northwest of the
Sarawakan coastline (Figure 1). There is a saddle in the middle separating the northern from
the southern buildup of this E6 field. Field E6 is gas bearing and has an oil rim of 20m. The
field is developed in 2018 with 6 horizontal wells.

Figure 2 Geographical map of Central Luconia. The red circle shows the location of Field E6
(from Lunt, 2017)

11
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The geology of Sarawak Basin and Central Luconia Province

The Sarawak Basin located on the northwestern part of Borneo forms the southern
margin of the Oligocene-Recent South China Sea basin.
Madon, et al., (2013) mentioned that the rifting and spreading of the seafloor in the
South China Sea marginal basin is closely related to the stratigraphic evolution of the Sarawak
Basin.
The concept of genetic sedimentary cycle introduces a stratigraphic scheme that is
widely used today for the Sarawak Basin. It subdivides the entire Tertiary sedimentary
succession offshore Sarawak into eight sedimentary cycles (Mat-Zin & Tucher, 1998).
Each cycle starts with a transgressive basal part (shale-tight), followed by a regressive
unit. It is then overlain by the basal transgressive unit of the next cycle. Figure 3 shows the
location of original cycle boundaries with reference to the present understanding of
biotratigraphic or foraminifera zonation that was introduced by Ho (1978).
.

12
 Figure 3 Stratigraphic framework of offshore Sarawak (Ho, 1978)

Central Luconia, a geological province of the Sarawak Basin offshore NW Borneo is

one of the largest carbonate provinces of Southeast Asia. Kosa (2015) stated that Central
Luconia rests on the substrate whose rigidity during the last 15 MA was instrumental for the
development of more than 200 carbonate build-ups ranging in size more or less 200 km2.
Central Luconia extends over an area of 240 by 240 km (Vahrenkamp, 1998). At the
northern part exists the Luconia shoals (present day sea bottom), the carbonate deposition is
still ongoing. However, most platforms have been buried by successive prograding marine
deltaic siliciclastics.
Vahrenkamp (1998) mentioned that more than 40 carbonate platforms have been drilled
and more than 20 were found gas bearing with reserves estimated to exceed 40 Tscf. Over 120

13
carbonate build-ups remain undrilled, giving possibly appealing exploration targets and
incentive to further understand the geology.

2.2 Miocene Carbonate Formation of Central Luconia

Central Luconia is located in the middle of areas of extensive tectonic activity

characterized by subsidence and faulting in the Northern part and zones of pronounced Early
to Mid-Tertiary compressional tectonic in the Southern part of Central Luconia as shown in
Figure 4 (King, et al., 2011).
A period of widespread carbonate deposition in Southeast Asia is recognized to be from
late Oligocene to Miocene. In the Luconia province, it was believed that the deposition of the
carbonate began during the early Middle Miocene on structural highs of faulted Upper Eocene
to Lower Miocene holomarine and neritic siliciclastics (Vahrenkamp, 1998).

Figure 4 Location of Central Luconia and province and tectonic activities around Central
Luconia and geological provinces in the Sarawak Basin (King et al., 2011).

14
 Carbonate deposition started in the early Miocene but was most abundant during middle
(cycle IV) to late Miocene (cycle V).
In the middle Miocene, while the carbonate deposition continued in the Northern part
of the province, the fluvio-deltaic clastics from Borneo prograded north-northwestward in
several cycles into the South China Sea, burying Luconia Platform as well as the central and
southern area of the platforms in Central Luconia (Vahrencamp, 1998; Zampetti et. al., 2004)
In the late Miocene, in response to sea level rise, an extensive development of carbonate
build up on horsts in Central Luconia commenced.
The ages of the top carbonate were believed to decrease from late middle Miocene to
Pliocene on the Southeastern to Northwestern transect in the buried part of the province with
continuous deposition of the clastics in the northernmost part of the province (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Carbonate platforms of the Central Luconia. The arrow shows the siliciclastics
influx affecting the Central Luconia (Vahrenkamp, 1998).

2.3 Hydrocarbon exploration in Central Luconia

According to Che Shaari and Nur Fadzlinda (2014), exploration activities onshore of
the Sarawak started during late 1960’s. The offshore region to the northwest of Borneo
15
experienced rapid exploration activities for hydrocarbon as well as high demand for fossil fuel
as a result of world industrialization in the late 1960’s.
Miocene carbonate pinnacles in Central Luconia province are one of the recognized and
searched-for exploration targets. The underlaying sequences of fluvial marine sediments
contain organic matters that are the source of hydrocarbon sources in Central Luconia.
The first offshore gas field was developed the 1970’s in Central Luconia (Janjuhah et
al., 2017a). Central Luconia is now known as the major gas contributor where about 60% of
the Malaysian gas reserves are located. Central Luconia is a mature gas province with more
than 65 Tcf of gas discovered to date in Miocene carbonate build-ups buried under Miocene-
Recent deltaic clastics.
The components of the buildups are corals, foraminifera and coralline red algae. They
are recognized as the main contributors for the growth of carbonate platforms in Central
Luconia.
200 carbonate build-ups have been mapped, 120 build-ups remain undrilled and this
gives possibly appealing exploration targets and motivations to discover the rest of the
hydrocarbons in the province (Figure 6). Further studies need to be done about the carbonate
platforms’ geological evolution, stratigraphy and chronostratigraphy since insufficient data is
available to study the Central Luconia’s carbonate platform in detail.

Figure 6 The petroleum province of Central Luconia consists of more than 200 carbonate
build-ups, over 100 wells and contains more than 65 Tcf discoverable gas reserves (Kosa,
2015).
16
2.4 Area of investigation and Stratigraphy of the Sarawak basin

The depositional styles of Central Luconia are significantly different from the
neighbouring basins, the West Luconia and Baram Delta (Kosa, 2015).
Central Luconia has an unremarkable structural history as well as having low and
uniform subsidence compared to the neighbouring basins which are characterized by high rates
of subsidence resulting in dominant aggradation of the delta-top sediments. The West Luconia
and the Baram Delta passing down-dip into the outboard basins through large delta systems
such as those of the current continental slope with up to 2.5 km of relief (Kosa, 2015).
Central Luconia consists of thinner, flatter and free of large-scale gravity-driven
deformation clastic strata. The prograding clinoforms are dominating the sediments in Central
Luconia, forming the basis of subdivision of the stratigraphy into eight regressive cycles
separated by major transgression as shown in Figure 7 (Janjuhah, et al, 2018; Kosa, 2015).

Figure 7 Illustration showing the boundaries of Central Luconia cycles (Janjuhah et. at.,
2017)
2.5 Stratigraphy of Central Luconia

Janjuhah et. al., (2018) stated that these cycles range in age from Eocene to present and
numbered I to VIII. The deep-water argillaceous as well as shallow marine siliciclastic

17
succession was deposited in an early synrift graben-filling sedimentation phase in Cycle I
(Figure 7).
In lower Miocene, Cycle II and III were formed during the opening of South China Sea
where the late phase of synrift sedimentation occurs.
Widespread carbonate deposition in middle to upper Miocene carbonate during Cycle
IV and V resulted from continuous subsidence and formation of half grabens during overall
sea level rise. During cycle V to VIII, this widespread carbonate deposition ceased due to the
influx of siliciclastic sediments coming from the uplifted Rajang fold-thrust belt.
Epting (1980) explained that the overall architecture of the Central Luconia carbonate.
They are determined by the net result of two main processes: the rate of skeletal carbonate
production and the rate of change of relative sea level. Based on the balance of these processes,
four stages of platform evolution can be recognized that resulted in different geometry of the
Central Luconia carbonate.

18
 Figure 8 Main development stages of carbonate buildup systems (Epting, 1980)

a) The first stage is when the rate of carbonate production is equal to degree as rising
sea level.
When the carbonate production equals the rate with the rising sea level, reef debris
aggrades and carbonate sedimentation in the lagoon will continue in a shallow marine
environment. Under these conditions the carbonate complex effectively grows upward and
characterized as a steep organic reef flank (Figure 8a).
b) The second stage that can be recognized is when the rate in sea level is lower than
the rate of carbonate production. This situation will create a build-out system where the reef
flat as well as the fore-reef slope migrates seawards and the lagoon is enlarged. The undisturbed

19
part of the carbonate may undergo a further differentiation into particular zones characterized
by different sedimentary environment (Figure 8b).
c) Next case is when the rise in the sea level exceeds the rate of carbonate production.
This case is in contrast with the second case and the reef-rim steps back and a build-in system
develops. The rise in sea level is not fast enough to drown the carbonate complex above the
photic zone. The actively growing reef flat will move inwards to the topographically elevated
areas. The carbonate complex will then submerged and establishing the shallow marine bank
(Figure 8c).
d) The final stage is when the fall in sea level greatly reduced the rate of carbonate
production. When the reef flat became inactive, the growth of coral or algae will be limited to
marginal rims. The lagoon may be infilled by intertidal and supratidal sediment depending on
the humid climate or arid climate, will be lignitic or evaporitic respectively (Figure 8d).

Figure 9 Growth pattern of Central Luconia build up (Epting, 1980)

Figure 9 shows the Miocene carbonate build ups of Central Luconia and notice that all
four cases that have been mentioned above occurred in a specific pattern in space and time.

2.6 Carbonate Pore Types

Carbonates pore types are very complex and varied compared to clastic porosity and are
divided into two types; fabric selective, not fabric selective and fabric selective or not. The
fabric selective pore types represent the porosity that does not cross the grains in vice versa.

20
 Figure 10 Carbonate pore types classification after Choquette and Pray (1977).

Fabric Selective
Interparticle Porosity is preserved in between grains
Intraparticle Porosity is preserved within the grains,
usually within corals.
Intercrystal Porosity between crystals, high permeability.
Mouldic Porosity formed in the dissolved grain
Fenestral Porosity larger than grain-supported
interparticles.
Usually related to algae and when the
microlaminae is preserved.
Shelter Porosity created due to the sheltering effect
of large sedimentary particles.
Growth framework Porosity created bye the in-place growth of a
carbonate framework.

21
 Not fabric selective
Fracture Very rare porosity type which occurs due to
fracturing
Channel Porosity elongates
Vug Pore bigger than average grain type.
When the dissolution occur in size bigger
than the original grain type
Cavern Porosity larger than channel or vug porosity
Fabric selective or not
Breccia Porosity that are interparticle in breccia
Boring Created by boring organism
Burrow Created by the burrowing organism
Shrinkage Created due to sediment shrinkage

22
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Petrographical study

For the study of the field E6, thin sections were selected from depth 5840.5 ft to 6347.5
ft in well E6-3 and from 5568.2 ft to 5948.3 ft for well E6-2. The workflow for the petrography
study in this project includes:

1. Core descriptions.
2. Thin section scanning.
3. Thin section component drawing.
4. Making photographs with magnification of the thin sections.

These thin sections were impregnated with blue epoxy resin to highlight porosity then
studied under transmitted light microscopy using microscope Olympus BX43 model.

For this project, a total of 33 thin sections from depth 6272.1 ft to 6347.5 ft were
selected for a detailed microfacies study under a polarized light microscope. The petrographic
observations and parameters were described and measured and recorded in the provided thin
section interpretation template (Figure 10).

23
Figure 11 Template for thin section analysis
24
3.2 Quantitative analysis

Based on the information from the thin sections, the observed characteristics including
lithology, pore type, cement type, component and diagenetic features are recorded to see the
variation or changes along the well. These attributes are quantified to look for the trend and
integration.
The quantification of the attributes such as the mineral components, porosity and its
percentages present in thin section will be determined by point counting preformed on thin
sections. Point counting in thin section will be conducted by using image analysis software
Jmicrovision.

3.3 Well study

After the thin sections descriptions have been completed, the descriptions data from
both well E6-3 (5840.5 ft to 6347.5 ft) and E6-2 (5568.2 ft to 6133.5 ft) will be merged for the
next phase of interpretation which is the log interpretation. The uninterpreted WellCad core
log and the data set will be given and the thin section findings will be digitized into WellCad.
For this project which involves stratigraphic analysis, the given data will be of the Sr-isotope
and C-isotope. Both of the isotopes can be an important correlation tool when the
biostatigraphic data is insufficient. From this log interpretation, the location of low porosity
zone or tight zone will be identified and analysed.

3.4 Seismic Study

Seismic data has been received from Shell, so the core log, well log and the thin section log
will be placed together with the seismic data. The seismic data need to be interpreted based on
the architecture of the platform growth such as the top and bottom of the carbonate layer. The
next step is to start to laterally interpret these data.

3.5 Conceptual geological model

A plausible conceptual geological model will be generated based on the interpretation

of subsurface data from the Field E6 as discussed above. A scaled cross section which shows
the architecture of these layers gives guidance for drilling of horizontal wells.

25
3.6 Final Year Project 1 Gantt Chart (May 2018 – August 2018)
This is the proposed Gantt chart for Final Year Project 1 from May 2018 to August 2018 (14 weeks) which shows the progress of the activities
throughout this project.
MAY 2018 - AUGUST 2018(FYP 1)
MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST
TASK PROGRESS (%) START END NO. OF WEEK
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
100% 14/5/2018 15/5/2018 1
Selection of Project Title
Confirmation of Project Title 100% 14/5/2018 24/5/2018 2

Establish project objectives, problem statement and 100% 21/5/2016 6/10/2018 4

scope of studies
Collecting and Organizing Information 100% 21/5/2017 6/10/2018 4
Preliminary Research Work 100% 21/5/2018 6/10/2018 4
Proposal Writing 80% 28/5/2018 20/6/2018 5
Submission of Extended Proposal 100% 22/6/2018 22/6/2018 1
Proposal Defense 100% 27/6/2018 27/6/2018 1
Petrographic Analysis
Thin section EX3 description 60% 6/6/2018 27/7/2018 8
Biostrat type section EX3 first pass 0% 3
Well Analysis
Produce a WellCad log 0% 4
Seismic Data Analysis 0% 6
Producing Conceptual Geological Model 0% 2
Submission of Interim Draft Report 0% 1
Submission of Interim Report 0% 1
Submission of Progress Report 0% 1
Pre-SEDEX 0% 1
Submission of Draft Final Report 0% 1
Submission of Technical Paper 0% 1
Submission of Dissertation (Soft Bound) 0% 1
Viva 0% 1
Submission of Project Dissertation (Hard Bound) 0% 1

INDICATOR
Completed
Plan

26
3.7 Final Year Project 2 Gantt Chart (September 2018 –December 2018)

This is the proposed Gantt chart for Final Year Project 2 from September 2018 to December 2018 (14 weeks). It shows the sequence of the activities
throughout this project resuming the progress of Final Year Project 1 until the end of this project.
SEPT 2018 - DEC 2018 (FYP 2)
SEP OCT NOV DEC
TASK PROGRESS (%) START END NO. OF WEEK
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
100% 14/5/2018 15/5/2018 1
Selection of Project Title
Confirmation of Project Title 100% 14/5/2018 24/5/2018 2

Establish project objectives, problem statement and 100% 21/5/2016 6/10/2018 4

scope of studies
Collecting and Organizing Information 100% 21/5/2017 6/10/2018 4
Preliminary Research Work 100% 21/5/2018 6/10/2018 4
Proposal Writing 80% 28/5/2018 20/6/2018 5
Submission of Extended Proposal 100% 22/6/2018 22/6/2018 1
Proposal Defense 100% 27/6/2018 27/6/2018 1
Petrographic Analysis
Thin section EX3 description 60% 6/6/2018 27/7/2018 8
Biostrat type section EX3 first pass 0% 3
Well Analysis
Produce a WellCad log 0% 4
Seismic Data Analysis 0% 12/9/2018 2/11/2018 6
Producing Conceptual Geological Model 0% 2
Submission of Interim Draft Report 0% 1
Submission of Interim Report 0% 1
Submission of Progress Report 0% 15/10/2018 2/11/2018 1
Pre-SEDEX 0% 1
Submission of Draft Final Report 0% 1
Submission of Technical Paper 0% 1
Submission of Dissertation (Soft Bound) 0% 1
Viva 0% 1
Submission of Project Dissertation (Hard Bound) 0% 1

INDICATOR
Completed
Plan

27
3.8 Project Milestones

Project milestone the focus events throughout the project execution as shown in diagram below.

28
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the map of study area is attached to provide some detailed
information on the location and structure of the field E6. This chapter will discuss more
about the result of the thin section description as well as the first pass of well log study
and seismic interpretation. The tight layer and reservoir layer will be determined in this
chapter.

4.2 Map of Study Area

4.2.1 Base Map

Figure 12 Base map of Central Luconia. The circled field indicates the E6 field.

29
 The location of interest for this study, field E6 is located in Block SK 319 which
covers about 2727 km2 in the Central Luconia basin. The field shaded in red in Figure
11 indicates field E6 which is at the coordinate 653694mE, 476178mN in UTM 49 N.
Located in the west of Balingian Province, the E6 field lies to the east of field E1.

4.2.2 Structure Contour and Well Location

Figure 13 Structure Contour and Well Location

The structure contour map in Figure 13 shows the elevation of field E6
carbonate platform. The light blue in the contour map indicates the highest elevation of
the carbonat platform and it becomes deeper in the region shaded with darker blue.
There are three wells in field E6; E6-1, E6-2 and E6-3. Based on the contour data, well
E6-2 is steeper than well E6-3. Originally, the E6 oil and gas field was discovered by
Shell’s well E6-1 in 1970 and appraised by well E6-2 on 1981 and E6-3 in 1999. The
field width is about 1500 meter and it is narrower in the southern part of the field, where
the E6-2 is located.

30
4.2.3 Seismic Section of field E6

Figure 14 The seismic section of field E6 across transect A

The seismic section in Figure 14 shows the cross sectional area across transect A in field E6. Transect A crosses from South to
North part of the field as shown in the top structure map attached on the right side of the seismic section. This seismic section helps to
identify the stratigraphic layers along the field. Furthermore, the correlation of the geological layers in well E6-2 and E6-3 can be identified.
With the scale of 1000m, the length of this buildup is approximately 11000m with height of circa 200m.

31
4.3 Thin Section Analysis

For this project, 33 thin sections have been interpreted starting from depth
6272.1 ft to 6347.5 ft. The completed thin section descriptions are recorded in the
template as attached in the template. The classification of the rock is based on Dunham.

Figure 15 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6272.1 ft

Thin section from depth 6272.1ft is a limestone comprises of 10% mud, 10%
cement, 65% components and 15% pores including fracture and vuggy pore type. Since
the thin section lacks mud and is grain supported, it is identified as grainstone based on
Dunham texture classification. The components are mainly comprises of red algae,
followed by large benthic foraminifera of species Miogypsina (0.5-1.0 mm),
Operculinid (0.5 mm), Cycloclypeus (1mm) and encrusting foram (2mm), small
benthic foram of Miliolid sp. and Lagenids, along with other allochems such as
brachiopods with prominent isopacheous and syntaxial cement. The large benthic
foraminifera are completely preserved. The diagenetic features that present in this thin
section are cementation, micritization, dissolution, compaction and fracturing.

Figure 16 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6274.1 ft

32
 The deeper depth thin section at 6274.1 ft is limestone comprises of 15% mud,
20% cement, 40% components and 25% porosity of type channel, fracture and vuggy.
It a packstone Dunham texture since it contains mud and is grain supported. The
components are composed of completely preserved large benthic foraminifera
including Cycloclypeus, Lepidocyclina, Miogypsina, Operculinid and Sorites, small
benthic foraminifera of miliolid species, and other allochems including red algae and
echinoid debris. The diagenetic features that present in this thin section are cementation,
micritization, dissolution, compaction, fracturing and recrystallization.

Figure 17 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6276.1 ft

At depth 6276.1 ft, the sample is dolomite and classified as wackestone. The
sample is contain 10% of skeletal grains, 5% mud, 65% cements and 20% pores. The
pore type in this thin section is dominated by inter-crystalline pores (70%), followed by
mouldic pore (20% )and vuggy (10%). Only large benthic foraminifera of Operculinid
sp. is present, no small benthic foram is found at this depth. Other skeletal grains
presented are red algae and echinoid debris. The diagenetic features that present in this
thin section are cementation, micritization, dissolution and compaction.

Figure 18 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6277.1 ft

33
 Going deeper to depth 6277.1 ft, the lithology is limestone and classified as
packstone with 10% mud, 15% cement, 45% component and 30% pores. The pore type
that can be identified in this thin section are interparticle (30%), intercrystalline (15%),
channel (10%), fracture (40%) and vuggy (5%). The only large benthic foraminifera
and small benthic foraminifera that exist in this depth are Cycloclypeus (0.5 mm) and
Miliolids respectively. Other than that, other components such as massive coral, red
algae, bryozoan and echinoid debris also present. The diagenetic features that present
in this thin section are cementation, micritization, dissolution, compaction and
fracturing.

Figure 19 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6279.1 ft

The thin section at depth 6279.1 ft is dolomitic limestone and classified as
wackestone. It consists 40% mud, 20% cement, 20% components and 20% porosity.
60% of the porosity is inter-particle, 20% is mouldic and another 20% is vuggy. Various
cement types are presented at this depth which are blocky, isopacheous, syntaxial,
micritic and dolomite cement. In terms of component distribution, the sample is
dominated by small benthic foraminifera of Miliolid sp. followed by the same
distribution of red algae and echinoid debris and 11% Lepidocyclina sp. that is
completely persevered with size 0.5 mm. The diagenetic features that present in this
thin section are cementation, micritization, dissolution, dolomitization, compaction,
fracturing and recrystallization.

34
 Figure 20 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6281.1 ft
Proceeding with the thin section at depth 6281.1 ft the texture is still wackestone
but there is an absent of dolomite. Through analysis, the thin section is dominated by
mud (50%), same distribution of cement and components (20%) and minor percentage
of porosity. The pore type presented is inter-particle and vuggy porosity. As for the
cement type, it is observed that isopacheous, syntaxial and micritic cement exist. The
sample is dominated by completely preserved Operculinid sp. of size ranging from 0.6
mm to 1.5 mm. Other skeletal grains that present are red algae, Miliolid, echinoid,
gastropod and brachiopods. Cementation, micritization and dissolution are the
diagenetic features that presented at this depth.

Figure 21 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6285.1 ft

The lithology and Dunham texture at depth 6285.1 ft is as same as previous
depth, 6281.1 ft. It is analysed that the compositions of the thin section are 20% mus,
40% cement, 30% components and 10% pores. The pore types are mouldic, intra-
particle and vuggy while the cement type presented are dominated by blocky cement
and minor amount of miritic cement. The only large benthic foraminifera that exist is
partially preserved.0.5 mm Operculinid sp. Red algae,echinoid debris, bivalves and
35
gastropod. Cementation, micritization and dissolution are the diagenetic features that
presented.

Figure 22 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6286.1 ft

At 6286.1 ft, the lithology is limestone and since there is no component

presented at this depth, the Dunham classification is mudstone. The other composition
are 10% mud, 85% cement and 5% pores. Total porosity are owing to the presence of
inter0crystalline and fracture pore type. The cement type is observed to be 100%
blocky. The diagenetic features that can be found are cementation, dissolution and fracturing.

Figure 23 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6288.1 ft

Thin section at depth 6288.1 is identified as limestone and wack-to-packstone.
The thin section had shown a composition of 50% mud, 5%cement, 40% components
and 5% pores. Most of the porosities that can be observed is inter-particle porosity with
minor percentage od intra-particle porosity. 90% of the cement is blocky while the
remaining is rim-cement. From the 40% of the component, the dominant skeletal grain
can be concluded as red algae with 43% composition, followed with 25% Miliolids,
16% partially preserved Operculinid and Sorites, 8% echinoid debris and 8%

36
brachiopods. The diagenetic features the present are cementation, micritization,
dissolution, compaction and fracturing.

Figure 24 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6290.3 ft

The same lithology and Dunham texture classification can be observe at depth
6290.3 which had shown a composition of 20% mud, 15% cement, 55% components
and 10% porosity. There are three pore types that can be observed in the thin section
which are inter-particle, inter-crystalline and fracture with composition of 30%, 60%
and 10% respectively. A variety type of cement exists across this depth including
blocky cement, isopacheous, rim-cement and micritic cement. From the 55% of
component present, majority of the component is small benthic foraminifera which
includes Miliolid and Textularia sp. 37% of the large benthic foraminifera are in cluding
completely preserved Miogypsina (0.5 – 2 mm) and Sorites sp. (0.8 mm – 2 mm) as
well as partially preserved preserved Opercilinid of size 0.25 mm. The diagenetic
features present are cementation, micritization, dissolution, compaction and fracturing.

Figure 25 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6292.3 ft

Dolomite layer exist at depth 6292.3 ft with wackestone texture, showing the
composition of 10% mud, 40% cement, 40% component and remaining 10% pores. The
37
pore types are mouldic, inter-particle and vuggy. The dominant cement type in this thin
section is isopacheous and minor cement type is syntaxial and meniscus cement. As for
the component, 47% is large benthic foraminifera including Sorites, Cycloclypeus,
Miogypsina and Operculinid. Other skeletal grains presented in at this depth are red
algae (33%), and 7% echinoid debris. Four diagenetic features that exist are
cementation, micritization, dissolution and compaction.

Figure 26 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6295.9 ft

At depth 6295.9 ft, dolomite layer is still present but the Dunham classification
is mudstone, consisting of 30% mud, 60% cement and 10% porosity. No component
can be found at this depth. Overall porosity is identified as inter-crystalline pores while
overall cement is dolomite cement. Solution seams is noticed to exist in the thin sample.
Two diagenetic features that can be recognized are cementation and dolomitization.

Figure 27 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6296.5 ft

The mudstone dolomite layer continues to exist at 6296.5 ft. the thin section
shows the composition of 20% mud, 55% dolomite cement, 5% components and 20%
pores. The total porosity is owing to the presence of inter-crystalline pores and fracture.
The observed digenetic features are cementation, micritization and dolomitization.

38
 Figure 28 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6298.6 ft
At deeper depth, 6298.6 ft, calcite started to appear, making the lithology to be
analysed as dolomitic limestone. The texture is still mudstone, with no noticeable
components present. The remaining composition are 15% mud, 75% micritic and
dolomite cements and 10% inter-crystalline porosity and fracture. The diagenetic
features are cementation and micritization.

Figure 29 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6300.5 ft

The thin section at depth 6300.5 ft is dolomite layer with mudstone texture,
comprising of 10% mud, 76% micritic and dolomite cement and 14% inter-crystalline
porosity. The skeletal grain is still absent at this depth. The cement is dominated by
dolomite cement and horsetails cement can be observed from this thin section. The
diagenetic features are recognized to be as same as the previous depth; cementation and
micritization.

39
 Figure 30 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6303.5 ft
From the analysis, it can be observed that the skeletal component exists in the
dolomite layer at depth 6303.5 ft. The sample is characterized as wackestone with
composition of 5% mud, 60% cement, 30% components and 5% pores. The dominant
porosity type with 90% composition is inter-crystalline with minor percentage of intra-
particle while the dominant cement type is dolomite cement with minor percentage of
isopacheous cement. The components that exist at this depth are 27% red algae, 36%
large benthic foraminifera, 27% small benthic foraminifera and 10% echinoid debris.
The large benthic foraminifera that exist are 1.5 mm completely preserved Alveolinella
as well as completely preserved 1.5mm Miogypsina of the same distribution. The only
small benthic foraminifera that dominated the thin section is miliolid. The diagenetic
features presented are including cementation, micritization, dissolution and
dolomitization.

Figure 31 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6305.5 ft

Thin section at depth 6305.4 has the same lithology and Dunham classification
as depth 6303.5 ft. It consists of 7% mud, 70% cement, 18% components and 5% pores.
The total porosities are including the dominant inter-crystalline pore and minor intra-
40
particle and vuggy porosity. Majority of cement is 70% dolomite with minority blocky,
isopacheous and micritic cement. The skeletal component exist at this depth are 50%
red algae, 10% completely preserved Alveolinella, 20% bivalves and 20% brachiopod.
Cementation, micritization and compaction exists as the diagenetic features of this thin
section.

Figure 32 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6306.5 ft

At depth 6306.5ft, the lithology of the layer is dolomite and classified as
mudstone. The thin section consist of 25% mud, 55% cement, 10% component and 10%
inter-crystalline porosity. The cement type is 70% dolomite and 30% micritic cement.
From 10% of the component, it is observed that only Amphistegina is presented in the
thin section. The Amphistegina is completely preserved, having a size of 1mm. the
diagenetic features are cementation and micritization.

Figure 33 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6308.5 ft

Proceeding to the deeper layer at depth 6308.5ft, the lithology of the layer is
concluded as dolomite layer with wackestone texture. It consists of 20% mud, 70%
cement, 5% components and the remaining 5% inter-crystalline pores. Majority od the

41
cement are dolomite, with 20% micritic cement and remaining 3% isopacheous cement.
The components that exist are red algae (34%) and Miliolid (66%). Three diagenetic
features that can be observed are cementation, micritization and dolomitization.

Figure 34 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6309.5 ft

With composition of 11% mud, 60% cement, 9% component and 20% porosity,
the thin section at depth 6309.5 ft is recognized as dolomitic limestone layer with
Wackestone texture. The pore types that can be observed are 10% mouldic porosity,
55% inter-crystalline porosity and 35% vuggy porosity. The dominant cement type is
dolomite cement. The only component that can be observed are red algae. Cementation,
micritization and dissolution exists as the diagenetic features in the thin section.

Figure 35 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6312.5 ft

At depth 6312.5, the thin section is grain-supported, hence classified as
grainstone texture. the lithology is concluded as limestone consisting 3% mud, 15%
cement, 72% components and 10% pores. Variety of pore types are presented iat this
depth but it is dominated by inter-particle (47%), followed by 25% mouldic porosity,
15% vuggy, 8%i intra-particle and 5% fracture. The cement type is consist of 92%
isopacheous and 8% blocky. 20% of the components are red algae, 43% large benthic
42
foram, 16% small benthic foram and 21% echinoid debris. Cementation , micritization,
dissolution and fracturing exists as the diagenetic features of this depth.

Figure 36 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6313.5 ft

The limestone layer is found to exist at 6313.5 ft with grainstone texture. the
thin section consists of 22% mud, 15% cement, 55% component and 8% pores. The
pore type presented are 70% mouldic porosity, 22% intra-particle and 8% fracture. The
cement type are 10% blocky, 50% isopacheous and 40% mictiric cement. The
distribution of the components are as 20% red algae, 30% large benthic foram, 23%
small benthic foram, 19% echinoid debris. 4% bivalves and the remaining 4% is
gastropod. The dominant large benthic foraminifera are sorites and Operculinid.
Alveolinella, Lepidocyclina, Miogypsina contribute 12.5% each to the composition of
the large benthic foraminifera. Cementation, micritization, dissolution and compaction
are the diagenetic features that presented.

Figure 37 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6315.5 ft

The same lithology and Dunham texture exists in 6315.5 ft with composition of
20% mud, 5% cement, 70% components and 5% pores. The pore types are including
mouldic, intra-particle, inter-particle and fracture. The dominant cement type is 80%

43
isopacheous and the remaining 20% is rim-cement. The component that can be
observed are red algae, large bentic foraminifera (Miogypsina, Opercilinids and
Sorites), small benthic foraminifera (Miliolid), echinoid debris and bivalve. As for the
diagenetic features, cementation, micritization, dissolution, compaction and fracturing
are noticed.

Figure 38 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6319.5 ft

At depth 6319.5 ft, wackestone dolomitic layer is noticed, comprising of 5%
mud, 72% cement, 8% component and 15% pores. From the total porosity, the dominant
porosity with 88% composition is intra-particle porosity and the remaining 10% is inter-
crystalline and 2% vuggy porosity. The majority of the cement type is dolomite cement
and the remaining is calcite cement of type blocky, isopacheous and micritic. Echinoid
fragment is abundant in the depth, showing about 43% composition and 29% is
Miliolid, 14% is completely preserved Sorites and the remaining 14% is red algae.
Diagenetic features are noticed to be cementation, micritization, dissolution and
dolomitization.

Figure 39 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6323.5 ft

44
 Depth 6323.5 ft consists of limestone layer (wack-to-packstone), comprises of
52% mud, 5% cement, 40% component and 3% pores. Low porosity can be observed
from this thin section with pore type fracture and mouldic. 70% of the cement is
isopacheous and 30% are micritic cement. As for the component, it can be concluded
from the analysis that 12% of it is red algae, 44% large benthic foram, 22% small
benthic foram, 19% bivalves and 3% gastropods. Overall, most of the large benthic
components are completely preserved, including the Cycloclypeus (0.0015 mm),
Operculinid (0.00025 mm) and Sorites (0.0005 – 0.0013 mm). The small benthic foram
that can be found are consisting of 29% Miliolids, 42% Textularia and 29% Rotaliids.
The observed diagenetic features are cementation, micritization, dissolution, fracturing
and recrystallization.

Figure 40 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6324.5 ft

After analyzing the thin section at depth 6324.5 ft, it can be observed that it has
the same lithology and Dunham texture as the thin section at depth 6323.5 ft. It is
comprised of 35% mud, 25% cement and 10% porosity. The porosity is just a small
composition but it is noticed that different types of porosity exist such as 5% mouldic,
3% intra-particle, 62% inter-crystalline, 20% fracture and 10% vuggy porosity. Three
types of cement are observed, including 30% blocky cement, 60% isopacheous cement
and 10% micritic cement. For this thin section, a variety of different component exist,
such as 7% red algae, 40% large benthic foraminifera, 31% small benthic foraminifera,
7% echinoid debris, 11% bivalves, 2% gastropod and 2%. The types of large benthic
foram presented are 7% Alveolinella, 7% Lepidocyclina, 13% Miogypsina, 13%
Operculinid and 60% Sorites. Most of the large benthic foramis observed to be
completedly preserved. The diagenetic features that exist within this depth are
cementation, micritization, dissolution, fracturing and recrystallization.

45
 Figure 41 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6327.5 ft
Wackestone limestone layer exists at depth 6327.5 ft with 40% mud, 25%
cement, 25% components and 10% pores. The pore type are dominated by inter-
particle, followed by intraparticle, vuggy, mouldic and fracture. For cement, blocky,
isopacheous and micritic cement are the cement type with composition of 10%, 50%
and 40% respectively. The component are 30% red algae, 30% large benthic foram
(14.5% Miogypsina, 71% Operculinids and 14.5% Sorites) and 40% of the echinoid
debris. the diagenetic features are as same as the previous layer with additional
compaction features.

Figure 42 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6328.5 ft

The same lithology and Dunham classification as depth 6327.5 ft is observed at
depth 6328.5 ft. it is comprised of 50% mud, 10% cement, 30% component and 10%
pores. The pore types are 20% inter-particle, 75% fracture and 5% vuggy porosity. The
dominant cement type is micritic cement with 5% of blocky cement. The composition
of the layer are 11% red algae, 31% large benthic foram, 34% small benthic foram, 7%
bryozoan, 10% echinoid debris and 7% bivalves. Overall, the components are
concluded as completely preserved. Cementation, micritization, dissolution,
46
compaction, fracturing and recrystallization are the diagenetic features that is noticed
in the thin section.

Figure 43 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6332.5 ft

At depth 6332.5ft, the limestone layer with packstone Dunham classification is
analysed. The thin section consists of 5% mud, 50% cement, 40% component and 5%
pores. The dominant porosity is interparticle with minor amount of mouldic porosity.
There are two types of cement type, namely isopacheous (70%) and micritic cement
(10%). As for the component, it can be concluded that 55% of the thin section is
dominated by large benthic foraminifera of Alveolinella (8%), Cycloclypeus (3%)
Lepidocyclina (7%), Miogypsina (8%), Operculinids(8%) and Sorites(66%). All of the
large benthic foraminifera in completely preserved. 16% of the components in the thin
section is small benthic foram which consist of 100% Miliolids. Other skeletal grains
that can be observed are 13% reg algae, 12% bryozoan and 4% echinoid debris.
Cementation, micritization, compaction and fracturing are the diagenetic feature that is
observed in the thin section.

Figure 44 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6334.5 ft

47
 The thin section at 6334.5 ft comprises of 15% mud, 55% cement, 10%
components and 20% porosity. The lithology and Dunham classification is analysed as
dolomitic limestone (Wackestone). The dominant porosity is inter-crystalline porosity
(80%), followed by vuggy (10%), fracture (5%) and mouldic (5%). In this thin section,
the solution seam is presented. The component of this thin section consists of 25%
large benthic foram (Sorites), 25% small benthic foram (Miliolid) and 50% of echinoid
debris. Most of the diagenetic features are found in the thin section such as cementation,
micritization, dissolution, dolomitization, compaction and fracturing.

Figure 45 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6338.5 ft

At depth 6338.5 ft, the thin section is analysed as limestone layer with mudstone
texture. This thin section comprises of 90% mud and 10% inter-particle porosity. No
diagenetic feature can be observed from this thin section.

Figure 46 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6342.5 ft

At depth 6342.5 ft, dolomite layer is present with mudstone texture. the thin
section is analysed to be comprises of 80% mud, 10% cement and 10% pores. The

48
dominant pore type with composition of 80% is intercrystalline and the remaining 80%
of the pore is fracture porosity. On the other hand, the dominant cement type can be
concluded as dolomite cement (80%) with some 20% of micritic cement. The diagenetic
features that can be observed are cementation and fracturing.

Figure 47 Example of thin section photographs at depth 6347.5 ft

At the deepest depth of the thin section description, 6347.5 ft, the lithology is
analysed as limestone with wackestone texture. the thin section consists of the same
contribution of the mud (30%), cement (30%) and component (30%) as well as 10%
porosity. The pore type can be observed as intra-particle (40%) and vuggy (60%) while
the dominant cement type is isopacheous cement (75%) with minor distribution of
blocky cement (10%) and rim-cement (15%). As for the component, 56% of the
component is large benthic foram which have the same distribution to the Lepidocyclina
(4mm), Miogypsina (1 mm), Operculinid (0.5 mm) Sorites (1 mm) and encrusting
foram (3.5 mm). Overall, the large benthic foram is completely preserved except for
Miogypsina and encrusting foram that are partially preserved. Cementation,
micritization, dissolution, compaction and recrystallization are the diagenetic features
that exists at depth 6347.5 ft.

49
 4.3.1 Thin Section Composition Analysis

DEPTH (ft) LITHOLOGY DUNHAM MUD CEMENT COMPONENT POROSITY

TEXTURE (%) (%) (%) (%)
6272.1 Limestone Grainstone 10 10 65 15
6274.1 Limestone Packstone 15 20 40 25
6276.1 Dolomite Wackestone 5 65 10 20
6277.1 Limestone Packstone 10 15 45 30
6279.1 Dolomitic Wackestone 40 20 20 20
Limestone
6281.1 Limestone Wackestone 50 20 20 10
6285.1 Limestone Wackestone 20 40 30 10
6286.1 Limestone Mudstone 10 85 0 5
6288.1 Limestone Wack-to- 50 5 40 5
packstone
6290.3 Limestone Wack-to- 20 15 55 10
packstone
6292.3 Dolomite Wackestone 10 40 40 10
6295.9 Dolomite Mudstone 30 60 0 10
6296.5 Dolomite Mudstone 20 55 5 20
6298.6 Dolomitic Mudstone 15 75 0 10
Limestone
6300.5 Dolomite Mudstone 10 76 0 14
6303.5 Dolomite Wackstone 5 60 30 5
6305.4 Dolomite Wackestone 7 70 18 5
6306.5 Dolomite Mudstone 25 55 10 10

6308.5 Dolomite Wackestone 20 70 5 5

6309.5 Dolomite Wackestone 11 60 9 20

6312.5 Limestone Grainstone 3 15 72 10

6313.5 Limestone Grainstone 20 15 57 8
6315.5 Limestone Packstone 20 5 70 5

50
6319.5 Dolomitic Wackestone 5 72 8 15
Limestone
6323.5 Limestone Wack-to- 52 5 40 3
packstone
6324.5 Limestone Wack-to- 35 25 30 10
packstone
6327.5 Limestone Wackestone 40 25 25 10
6328.5 Limestone Wackestone 50 10 30 10
6332.5 Limestone Packstone 5 50 40 5
6334.5 Dolomitic Wackestone 15 55 10 20
Limestone
6338.5 Limestone Mudstone 90 0 0 10
6342.5 Dolomite Mudstone 80 10 0 10
6347.5 Limestone Wackstone 30 30 30 10
Table 1 Thin section composition analysis
Based on Table 1, the values of each attributes are concluded as non-uniform,
producing the variability of the results. The lithology comprises of interbedding
sequences of limestone, dolomitic limestone and dolomite layer. Thicker dolomite layer
is presented from depth 6292.3 ft to 6309.5 ft with a hint of dolomitic limestone layer
at depth 6298.6 ft. The deeper part of the well is dominated by limestone layers with a
thin dolomite layer at 6342.5 ft.

For the Dunham texture, the thin section along the well is dominated by
mudstone, wackestone and packstone. This indicates the presence of mud (clay and fine
silt-size carbonate) throughout the well. However, some of the layers such as at depth
6272.1 ft , 6312.5 ft and 6313.5 ft , the Dunham texture of the thin section is identified
as grainstone, indicating that the thin sections lack mud and is grain supported.

The composition of mud, cement, components and porosity in each thin sections
will be recorded. The focus will be more on porosity since the information will be linked
with the well log data in the next stage of interpretation later. The porosity of the thin
sections from depth 6272.1 ft to 6347.5 ft are ranging from 5% to 20%. The low
porosity layer will help to determine the tight layer when correlated with the well log
data. Based on the thin section analysis on porosity as shown in Figure 48, the layer of

51
low porosity (5%) are at depth 6286.1ft to 6288.2 ft, 6303.5 ft to 6305.4 ft, 6308.5 ft,
6315.5 ft, 6323.5 and 6332.5 ft.

Figure 48 Porosity vs Depth based on the thin section data

52
4.3.2 Biostratigraphic Age Determination
Large Benthic Foraminifera Small Benthic Foraminifera
Encrusting
DEPTH (ft) Amphistegina Alveolinella Cycloclypeus Lepidocyclina Miogypsina Operculinids Sorites Miliolids Lagenids Heteolepa Textularia Rotaliids Elphidium
Foram
6272.1 14% 43% 29% 14% 50% 50%
6274.1 17% 17% 17% 17% 32% 100%
6276.1 100%
6277.1 100% 100%
6279.1 100% 100%
6281.1 100% 100%
6285.1 100%
6286.1
6288.1 50% 50% 100%
6290.3 42% 14% 42% 78% 22%
6292.3 14% 14% 14% 58% 100%
6295.9
6296.5
6298.6
6300.5
6303.5 50% 50% 100%
6305.4 100%
6306.5 100%
6308.5 100%
6309.5
6312.5 20% 10% 20% 50% 75% 25%
6313.5 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 25% 37.5% 83% 17%
6315.5 16% 16% 68% 100%
6319.5 100%
6323.5 7% 7% 86% 29% 42% 29%
6324.5 7% 7% 13% 13% 60% 92% 8%
6327.5 14.5% 71% 14.5%
6328.5 26% 18% 56% 90% 10%
6332.5 8% 3% 7% 8% 8% 66% 100%
6334.5 100% 100%
6338.5
6342.5
6347.5 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Table 2 The distribution of foraminifera through depth

53
Figure 49 Examples of component exists in the depth section of well E6-3 shown by arrow;
1. Amphistegina; 2. (a) Alveolinella, 2.(b) Textularia 2.(c) Red Algae; 3. Lagenid; 4.
Lepidocyclina; 5. Cycloclypeus; 6. Encrusting Foram; 7. (a) Sorites, 7(b) Operculina; 8.
Miogypsina

54
 The distribution of foraminifera can give some clues about the biostratigraphic age
along the well. Table 2 shows the distribution of the large benthic foraminifera and small
benthic foraminifera in well E6-3 from depth 6272.1ft to 6347ft below sea level. The
foraminifera that exists in this depth are Amphistegina sp., Alveolinella sp., Cycloclypeus sp.,
Lepidocyclina sp., Miogypsina sp., Operculinids sp., Sorites sp., encrusting foram for large
benthic foraminifera as well as Miliolids, Lagenids sp., Textularia sp. and Rotaliids sp. for
small benthic foraminifera (Figure 49). Miliolid sp. is found at almost each depth of this region.

There are some layers which is classified as mudstone where is does not consist of any
component. These layers are at depth 6286.1 ft, 6295.9ft to 6300.5ft, 6306.5ft and 6338.5ft to
6342.5ft.

Referring to figure 2, it shows the index benthic foraminifera which shows the time
scale of the existence of the foraminifera which can be used in determining the age of well E6.
When correlating the information in Table 2 with Figure 2, it can be observed that some
foraminifera in the index exists in this field which can be great indicator of the biostratigraphy
age for this section of well E6-3. These foraminifera are Austrotrillina sp., Alveolinella sp.,
Miogypsina sp., Lepidocyclina sp. and Cycloclypeus sp. and they exist during middle Miocene
to upper Miocene.

55
4.4 Study of the Well Log data of well E6-3

Figure 50 The well log data of well E6-3

The well log data for well E6-3 is provided as shown in Figure 50 consisting of grain
size, lithology, biostratigraphy, Dunham texture, gamma ray log, neutron log, density log,
porosity log and permeability log that has been interpreted based on the core sample. For the
first pass of well log interpretation, the tight layer zone is identified. The tight layer is
recognized by its characteristics which has low porosity and low permeability.

There are six tight layer zones that can be identified based on the well log data which
have been marked with an arrow in Figure 50. The top layer from depth 5840 ft to 6625 ft is
not really reliable since it is not really interpreted. The tight layers are identified to exists at
56
depth 5890 ft (Tight Layer 1), 5975 ft (Tight Layer 2), 6112.5 ft to 6137.5 ft (Tight Layer 3),
6256.3 ft to 6268 ft (Tight Layer 4), 6315 ft to 6330 ft (Tight Layer 5) and 6350 ft to 6332 ft
(Tight Layer 6).

The reservoir layers are established by applying porosity cutoff at 10% porosity in the
porosity curve attached in the well log data. There are five reservoir layers that can be
established according to the porosity value more than 10% which are at depth 6012.5 ft to
6112.5 ft (Reservoir Layer 1), 6137.5 ft to 6256.3 ft (Reservoir Layer 2), 6268 ft to 6135 ft
(Reservoir Layer 3), 6330 ft to 6350 ft (Reservoir Layer 4) and 6362.5 ft to 6487.5 ft (Reservoir
Layer 5).

For this project, the porosity data from the interpreted thin sections are correlated with
the porosity log from the well log. However, the interpreted thin sections are only from depth
6272.1 ft until 6347.5 ft as marked with blue dashed line in Figure 50. Based on Table 1, the
low porosity zone of the thin section has been interpreted to be at depth 6286.1ft to 6288.2 ft,
6303.5 ft to 6305.4 ft, 6308.5 ft, 6315.5 ft, 6323.5 and 6332.5 ft. However, the information did
not match the porosity log from the well data. Only layer at depth 6332.5 that has low thin
section porosity correlate with the sixth tight layer zone from the well log data.

The detailed study will be perform at the next stage of interpretation by using WellCad
Software to produce the most accurate result.

57
4.5 Analysis of the Seismic Section of Carbonate Buildup E6 Field

Figure 51 The interpreted top and base carbonate layer in field E6

The top and base layers of the carbonate buildup in field E6 has been identified and marked based on the seismic section as shown
in Figure 51. From the seismic cross section, it can be observed that the carbonate buildup is overlain by the siliciclastic progression. The
top of the carbonate buildup is recognized to be at 1550m below sea level whereas the base of the carbonate layer is noticed at depth
1800m below sea level. The carbonate layers are identifies from the seismic cross section due to the high amplitude response which shows
the acoustic impedance contrast between the layers. This is due to the reason that the carbonate rock has higher compressional wave velocity
and density which contributes to high acoustic impedance. The base of the carbonate platform is marked with yellow dash line in figure
14. However, the base of carbonate layer shots has low continuity compared with the top of carbonate. The thickness of the carbonate
platform is approximated to be 200m

58
4.6 Seismic Sequence Stratigraphic Analysis of the Carbonate Buildup E6

The stratigraphy of carbonate buildup E6 is interpreted through the analysis of the seismic dataset by characterizing the boundaries of
discontinuities on the basis of the reflection termination patterns and their continuity. The boundaries and discontinuity occur due to the activity
of the sea level rise and carbonate production. Few terminations that are found in the seismic section of field E6 as shown in figure with blue
arrows indicating onlap and green arrows indicating downlap.

At about 1800 ms where the base of the carbonate layer lies, the carbonate buildup is about 9750 m length and the onlapping occurs at
the north part of the buildup. Onlapping indicates that transgression had occurred where the rate of sea level rise is high and the shoreline is
brought to the higher ground. This means that the carbonate production were moving towards the land which later terminates against the inclined
surface which is known as onlapping.

59
 The first stage of the growth of the platform is marked in orange at the reflector.
Later on, in stage 2 of the platform growth, the platform is built upward and outward
until the reflector marked in red. The downlapping event occurs at the southern part of
the buildup, which had brought the carbonate outward or toward the sea. The
downlapping event is also known as regression. The first and second stage of platform
growth shows that the rate of carbonate production is in balance with the rate of sea
level rise which has resulted in wide lateral carbonate deposition.
In the third stage of the platform growth, it can be shown that the rate of sea
level rise exceeding the rate of carbonate production and cannot keep pace with the rise
of sea level which has resulted in the catching up phase. The onlapping termination
occurred at the north and south part of the buildup. The length of the buildup has
reduced to about 4000 m at the stage 3.

60
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

For conclusion, this study is mainly about supporting the development of the E6
field, especially the architecture of the platform. Field E6 covered a small area and
recognized as a landward located field. It is a coral atoll comprises of different layers
of 4 stages and developed through six horizontal wells.

Due to the uncertainty of the field architecture, it is difficult to conduct the

deviated drilling in part of the lateral extends of tight layers and permeable dolomite
streak. Thus, the thin sections description, well log studies and seismic data
interpretation is performed to study the architecture and solve the uncertainty issues of
the lateral extends of tight layers and permeable dolomite streaks between two wells;
E6-2 and E6-3.

Based on the thin section analysis, the low porosity layers and dolomite layers
are identified since it have the characteristics of tight layer. Other than that, the
components that exist in the thin section can also be interpreted to determine the
biostratigraphic age of the buildup.

The porosity varies between 3% to 30% with average of with dominant porosity
of about 10%. The available pore types that can be observed in the thin section are
mouldic, interparticle, intercrystalline, fracture, vuggy, intraparticle and microporosity.
The good or most important pore type that will generate a good reservoir rock are
mouldic porosity, followed with microporosity and interparticle porosity.

However, having a high porosity layer is insufficient to make the drilling

process successful, the stored hydrocarbon need to bring upward for drilling. Hence, it
is important for the pores to be connected so the layer is highly permeable. The
intercrystalline porosity is by far producing the highest permeability, thus, the dolomite
layer is targeted for gas and oil well.

Based on the provided seismic cross section, the depth of top carbonate layer
and base carbonate layer is identified. The well log data gave the information that
enables to identify the tight layer zone (bad layer) based on porosity and permeability
61
of the core sample description. Other than that, reservoir layers (good layer) are also
identified by applying the cutoff in the porosity log. Six tight layer zones and five
reservoir layers exist in well E6-3 according the well log data.

Based on the well log data, it is recommended that Reservoir Layer 2 is targeted
for oil and gas well since it generally has high porosity, high permeability and contain
a streak of dolomite layer.

The seismic analysis had been done to evaluate the pattern of the carbonate
platform growth. The interpreted data shows that there are three stages of carbonate
platform growth which is mainly affected by the rate of sea level rise and the rate of
carbonate production. The first two stages shows carbonate platform buildout while
stage 3 is showing that the carbonate platform is catching up due to the rate of sea level
exceeded the rate of carbonate platform.

5.2 Recommendations

More information could be extracted to determine the stratigraphy and

architecture of field E6 if the data of thin section analysis is merged from the top depth
of the well until its base layer. Furthermore, it will be easier to examine the lateral
continuity of the tight layer and reservoir layer if the well log data from well E6-2 is
included as well in the interpretation stage since it can be correlate with the well log
data from well E6-3.

When analyzing the porosity of thin section, a more detailed study should be
made on the pore type since not all pore types have the ability to store the hydrocarbon
such as the micro porosity.

Shorter interval of the depth in thin section analysis could give a better accurate
study of the continuity and porosity of the layer. The conceptual geological model of
Field E6 should be able to be used in predicting the suitable layer for conducting
horizontal drilling and predicting the volume of the reservoir.

Since the seismic interpretation done in this project is based on 2D seismic data
in jpeg format, a proper 3D seismic data in .pet would give a better insight in

62
interpreting the carbonate platform growth which will help to view the whole platform
architecture thus make the interpretation more efficient and accurate.

63
 REFERENCES

Abdullah, C. S., & Khazali, N. F. (2014). The Awakened Giants. International Petroleum Technology
Conference. Doha: IPTC.
Epting, M. (1980). Sedimentology of Miocene Carbonate Buildups, Central Luconia, Offshore
Sarawak. Geol. Soc. Malaysia, Bulletin, 17-30.
Janjuhah, H. T., Salem, A. M., & Ghosh, D. P. (2017). Sedimentolgy and Reservoir Geometry of the
Miocene Carbonate Deposits in Central Luconia, Offshore, Sarawak, Malaysia. Journal of
Applied Science, 153-170.
Janjuhah, H. T., Salem, A. M., Gosh, M. Y., & Hassan, M. H. (2017). Development of Carbonate
Buildups and Reservoir Architecture of Miocene Carbonate Platforms, Central Luconia,
Offshore Sarawak, Malaysia. SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conferences. Jakarta:
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Kok, K. H., Pruimboom, J., David, F. M., & Jit-Chiun, T. (2003). Geosteer with Resistivity Forward
Modeling to Prevent Drilling into the Loss Corculation Zone of a Prolific Carbonate
Reservoir. SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference & Exhibition . Abu
Dhabi: SPE/IADC.
Kosa, E. (2015). Sea-level changes, shoreline journeys, and the seismic stratigraphy of Central
Luconia, Miocene-present, offshore Sarawak, NW Borneo. Marine and Petroleum Geology,
35-55.
Kosa, E., Warrlich, G. M., & Loftus, G. (2015). Wings, mshrooms and Christmast trees: The
carbonate seismic geomorphology of Central Luconia, Miocene-present, offshore Sarawak,
northwest Borneo. AAPG Bulletin, 2043-2075.
Madon, M., Ly, K. C., & Wong, R. (2013). The structure and stratigraphy of deepwater Sarawak,
Malaysia: Implications for tectonic evolution. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 312-333.
Mat-Zin, I., & Tucker, M. (1999). An alternative sratigraphic scheme for the Sarawak Basin. Journal
of Asian Earth Sciences, 215-232.
Pierson, T. K., Al-Jaaidi, O., & Hague, P. (2011). Effects of Syn-depositional Tectonics on Platform
Geometry and Reservoir Characters in Miocene Carbonate Platforms of Central Luconia,
Sarawak. International Petroleum Technology Conference. Bangkok: IPTC.
Vahrenkamp, V. C. (1998). Miocene carbonates of the Luconia province, offshore Sarawak:
implications for regional geology properties from Strontium-isotope stratigraphy. Geol. Soc.
Malaysia, Bulleton, 1-13.

64
Zampetti, V., Schlager, W., Konijnenburg, J.-H. v., & Everts, A.-J. (2004). Architecture and growth
history of a Miocene carbonate platform from 3D seismic reflection data; Luconia province,
offshore Sarawak Malaysia. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 517-534.

65