Revealing Hydrocarbon Potential in A Tig

Revealing Hydrocarbon Potential in a Tight Sand Reservoir
A Case Study of the Baturaja Sands in Sumpal Field, South Sumatra Basin
Budi R Permana
Yan Darmadi
Irvan Rahmawan
Torang Siagian
IPA18-318-G
42nd IPA Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2018
May 7, 2018
Presentation Outline
• Introduction
• Opportunity Identification
• Key Questions
• Baturaja Sandstone
• Distribution in the wells
• Relative size to PRT
• Challenges of characterizing the potential
• Pay Identification and Fluid determination
• Sand Distribution in the field
• Pressure Prediction
• Permeability Prediction
• Well Testing and Result
• Discussion and Tenacity to Explore
• Conclusion
2 May 7, 2018
• Introduction
• Key Questions
• Conclusion
3 May 7, 2018
Introduction
• Sumpal Field is located 145 NW of

Palembang
• Discovered in 1995
Sumpal Field
• 7 wells of exploration and appraisal
wells drilled
• 3 Current producers from the fractured

Pre-Tertiary rocks
• Indication of hydrocarbons in BRF

section in many of the exploration and
development wells
• Only one non-producing well not P&A

(Sumpal 2)
• Subsurface re-evaluation done to

determine potential in shallow section
4 May 7, 2018
BRF Opportunity Identification
• Potential HC bearing interval is located in the

siliciclastic section BRF
• Interval is identified by higher total gas reading

(typically 10X the background)
• BRF Details for Sumpal 2

• 8 meters thick
• Difficult to determine sand from shale on GR
due to presence of Kaolinite
• Low resistivity contrast between zones with
gas shows and no gas shows
• Neutron-Density crossover helpful for
determining sand vs. shale
• Key Questions – How extensive, how well

connected, what is the reservoir quality and HC
Pre-Tertiary Basement phase, if any, in this interval.
5 May 7, 2018
• Introduction
• Key Questions
• Conclusion
6 May 7, 2018
Distribution of the BRF Sandstone
A B
RAYUN-2 SUMPAL-4 TETANGGA-1 SUMPAL-5 NORTH SUMPAL-1 SUMPAL-3
SUMPAL-2
Gross 8 m
Net 5 m
• Logs show this sand to be thin, but laterally extensive

• Average gross=11 m, net= 7 m A
• There is stratigraphic variability in thickness and complete pinch-
out to the southeast Rayun-2
• Wells which encountered net sand recorded elevated mud gas

North Sumpal-1
Sumpal-4
Tetangga-1 Sumpal-5
Sumpal-2 B
0 5 Km
Sumpal-3
4
Comparison of BRF Sandstone to the Producing PRT
A B
BRF Sand Reservoir

LKH
Fracture Basement Gas Reservoir
Estimated GWC
Sumpal BRF sand is a small reservoir compare to Sumpal Fracture Basement

Rayun-2
A
North Sumpal-1
Sumpal-4
Tetangga-1 Sumpal-5
Sumpal-2
0 5 Km
Sumpal-3
8 May 7, 2018
Challenges of Characterizing the BRF Opportunity
Technical Challenges:
• Reservoir distribution between the wells.
• Reservoir properties (porosity, permeability, Sw) ( no cores are available ).
• Reservoir fluid.
• Reservoir pressure.
Non-Technical Challenges:
• Not economic to develop?
9 May 7, 2018
Baturaja Sandstone
Classification of Benthonic marine Environment (adapted from Hedgpeth 1957, Murray 1973, Berggren 1978 and Ingle 1980)
• The age is Lower Miocene (equivalent with BRF Limestone

Formation)
• Sandstone that has been deposited outer neritic to bathyal
(Tetangga-1 Biostratigraphy). The sand could be deposited as
shelf bars or sheet sand
Sumpal Stratigraphic
Column
(before 2017)
Modified from Steel and Miliken, 2013
10 May 7, 2018
• Introduction
• Key Questions
• Conclusion
11 May 7, 2018
Pay Identification and Fluid Determination
• The presence of reservoir rock which is defined primarily by the Neutron-

Density and resistivity and gas log shows an anomaly that exhibits
hydrocarbon pay.
• In this well there are 2 zones with pay, an upper and lower interval.
• Fluid in the interval was determined using Gadkari and Chauvin (2001)
method. This indicates an oil bearing reservoir.
• Introduction
• Key Questions
• Conclusion
13 May 7, 2018
Sand Distribution (1) – Seismic Data
3D Seismic Survey
2D Seismic Survey
The area of Sumpal BRF sand was

covered by two 3D seismic survey and
some 2D seismic lines
14 May 7, 2018
Sand Distribution (2) – Seismic Cross Section
• Moderate to good quality seismic data

at the BRF level.
• Base of BRF sand produces seismic

event.
• Due to thin sand, a forward model was

built to determine if seismic data could
resolve BRF sand distribution.
15 May 7, 2018
Sand Distribution (3) – Seismic Forward Modelling
• For 75 meter thick sand, the reservoir
can be clearly resolved.
• For 38 meter thick sand, only the top

and base of the sand can be resolved.
• The thickest BRF from the wells is 18

meters (Sumpal 4)
• Current seismic data cannot be used to

delineate sand distribution.
• Sand distribution model in Sumpal

Shallow is only based on well data and
conceptual model
Apparent thickness
Amplitude at top reflector
16 May 7, 2018
Sand Distribution (4) – Net Sand Maps
A B
• Several stratigraphical scenarios were established due to an absence of seismic control
• Two examples are representing:
• Wide spread sand distribution (A) (amalgamated bar to Sheet-like associated with outer shelf)
• Shelf bars (B)
17 May 7, 2018
• Introduction
• Key Questions
• Conclusion
18 May 7, 2018
Pressure Prediction
• Reservoir pressure prediction came from pore-pressure calculation

after Sumpal-2 well drilling.
• Based on pore-pressure calculation, BRF sand zone is over

pressured (11.5 ppg).
• There is an uncertainty due to lack of pressure data acquisition at

the shallow zone.
19 May 7, 2018
• Introduction
• Key Questions
• Conclusion
20 May 7, 2018
Permeability Prediction
Higher Resistivity than Density-Neutron logs High gas reading with total gas
Suban Baru indicate good quality >2000 unit across the sand
reservoir
• There is no analog of producing reservoir for BRF sand in Corridor Block.
• The nearest analog is Suban Baru (Telisa Formation) that having permeability ~ 1 mD
• Log Comparison between Sumpal-2 (right) versus Suban Baru-A1. This comparison shows that Sumpal BRF sand
probably has better reservoir properties rather than Suban Baru. Actually the reservoir quality of the Telisa looks
better on a purely porosity basis but the N/D cross-over is more encouraging in the Sumpal.
• Base case permeability for modeling was 4 mD.
21 May 7, 2018
• Introduction
• Key Questions
• Conclusion
22 May 7, 2018
Well Testing Purpose and Results
• All build up trends from monitoring data is

below the low case test design (4 mD).
• After the second fluid breakdown, the

wellhead pressure was build up to 500 psi
within 30 hrs, this possibly due to improved
connectivity and/or near wellbore is still
pressurized by mini-frac fluid.
• Based on the build up trend, the BRF

reservoir in the Sumpal field is interpreted to
low permeability.
• Reservoir pressure from PTA gave

permeability range 0.2-0.5 mD
• Reservoir pressure is about 2565 psi
23 May 7, 2018
SGS Results
• After the first and second clean up, SGS was carried out twice
• Both result shows the average gradient is ≥ 0.43 psi/ft which mean wellbore is full of water/completion fluid.
24 May 7, 2018
Proven Hydrocarbons in BRF
• Well testing was stopped with discouraging result (no
hydrocarbon ?)
• Field engineer noticed increasing annulus pressure, and

bleeding off the valve.
• The fluid has oil odor and brought the sample to the
lab.
• 40o API oil was taken from this well test, and proving
the reservoir fluid is oil, corresponding to the gas log
analysis
25 May 7, 2018
Updated Stratigraphic Column Post Test
Sumpal Stratigraphic Sumpal Stratigraphic

Column Column
(before 2017) (after 2017)
26 May 7, 2018
• Introduction
• Key Questions
• Conclusion
27 May 7, 2018
Discussion and Tenacity to Explore
• South Sumatra Basin Corridor Block has been explored and exploited since Dutch era. At that time,
only the shallow oil reservoirs were discovered and produced such as Suban Burung Field in
Palembang Formation.
• During 70’s until 90’s deeper reservoirs were discovered and produced from Baturaja Limestone,
Talang Akar sandstone Formation, and Pre-Tertiary Fracture Basement Formation.
• The next potential of hydrocarbon resources in this block are the Lower Palembang, Telisa, and
Baturaja Sand Formations. These reservoirs are challenging to identify since they are thin and typically
are not fully logged or cored.
• Mud log gas data can be very helpful at identifying this potential and in the case of Sumpal Shallow,
correctly identified the hydrocarbon presence and type in this reservoir.
• These reservoirs are more economically challenging to develop since they are low permeability and
therefore need a different development methodology than previously produced reservoirs.
28 May 7, 2018
• Introduction
• Key Questions
• Conclusion
29 May 7, 2018
Conclusion
• Well testing of this interval proved that it is oil bearing but also that it is extremely tight.
• Through detailed log analysis, the Sumpal upper section interval (BRF Sand) was identified as
reservoir section with the potential oil accumulation.
• The challenge for the future is to identify and commercialize the reservoirs which have been
bypassed. In Sumpal field, the Sumpal upper section reservoir (BRF sand) is one such example.
• In order to develop this reservoir and others like it in the basin, horizontal multi-stage frac wells will
need to be employed to produce these types of reservoirs.
30 May 7, 2018
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge:
Special recognition to:

• Rama Gholib for his eagerness to find the oil of Sumpal BRF sand.
• Simon Paulus, Dedi Fauzi, Eben Subakti, William Beveridge, and Mark Boyd.
31 May 7, 2018
https://conocophillips.academia.edu/BudiPermana
32 May 7, 2018

Revealing Hydrocarbon Potential in A Tig

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Revealing Hydrocarbon Potential in A Tig

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Revealing Hydrocarbon Potential in a Tight Sand Reservoir

42nd IPA Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2018

• Sumpal Field is located 145 NW of

• 3 Current producers from the fractured

• Indication of hydrocarbons in BRF

• Only one non-producing well not P&A

• Subsurface re-evaluation done to

• Potential HC bearing interval is located in the

• Interval is identified by higher total gas reading

• BRF Details for Sumpal 2

• Key Questions – How extensive, how well

• Logs show this sand to be thin, but laterally extensive

• Wells which encountered net sand recorded elevated mud gas

BRF Sand Reservoir

Fracture Basement Gas Reservoir

Sumpal BRF sand is a small reservoir compare to Sumpal Fracture Basement

• Reservoir properties (porosity, permeability, Sw) ( no cores are available ).

• The age is Lower Miocene (equivalent with BRF Limestone

Modified from Steel and Miliken, 2013

• The presence of reservoir rock which is defined primarily by the Neutron-

The area of Sumpal BRF sand was

• Moderate to good quality seismic data

• Base of BRF sand produces seismic

• Due to thin sand, a forward model was

• For 38 meter thick sand, only the top

• The thickest BRF from the wells is 18

• Current seismic data cannot be used to

• Sand distribution model in Sumpal

Amplitude at top reflector

• Several stratigraphical scenarios were established due to an absence of seismic control

• Two examples are representing:

• Shelf bars (B)

• Reservoir pressure prediction came from pore-pressure calculation

• Based on pore-pressure calculation, BRF sand zone is over

• There is an uncertainty due to lack of pressure data acquisition at

• There is no analog of producing reservoir for BRF sand in Corridor Block.

• Base case permeability for modeling was 4 mD.

• All build up trends from monitoring data is

• After the second fluid breakdown, the

• Based on the build up trend, the BRF

• Reservoir pressure from PTA gave

• Reservoir pressure is about 2565 psi

• Field engineer noticed increasing annulus pressure, and

Sumpal Stratigraphic Sumpal Stratigraphic

Special recognition to:

Вам также может понравиться