PROCEEDINGS

JOINT CONVENTION MALANG 2017, HAGI – IAGI – IAFMI- IATMI (JCM 2017)
Ijen Suites Hotel, Malang, September 25 – 28, 2017

Fault Seal Analysis to Reduce Uncertainty in Reservoir Simulation at Rantau Field, PT.
Pertamina EP

Aris Endartyanto1), Imam S. Ronoatmojo1), Abdurahman2), Grace Stephany T. 2)

1) 2)
PT. Elnusa, Tbk; PT. Pertamina EP

Abstract Rantau consisted of 5 compartments which are

Compartment-A (Compartment A1 and A2), Compartment-
Faults can be act as a transmitter of or barrier to fluid flow
B, Compartment-C (Compartment C1 and C2),
and pressure communication. Modern fault-seal analysis
Compartment-D (Compartment D1, D2, D3 and D4) and
methods utilize seismic data, structural and microstructural
Compartment-E. Rantau has many main reservoir layers
information from high resolution core analysis, and wellbore
which made up of deltaic deposits sand bodies lying in
and production data to predict fault behaviour and to reduce
Keutapang Formation (Late Miocene – Early Pliocene), the
uncertainty and risk in faulted siliciclastic reservoir
deposits of deltaic sedimentation. Which is predominantly
exploitation. Identification of the sealing characteristics of
consists of shale interbedded with sandstone varies in size
faults is crucial in making decisions at hydrocarbon
from fine sand to pebble conglomerate. The oil production
exploration, appraisal and development stages. Keeping in
had been started since 1928 by BPM, the number of wells in
view the importance of fault seal and seal integrity, two main
Rantau Field are 566 wells. It had reached the peak of oil
fault and other 38 minor faults of Rantau Field, North
production 32,477 BOPD and gas 27.4 MMSCFD in 1973.
Sumatra Basin, compartementalising the field in different
blocks, were evaluated by conventional fault seal and
As an effort to increase production again in this mature field,
geomechanical analyses. The faults analysed show sealing
Pertamina EP has been doing waterflooding program in
behaviour based on observable high average shale gouge
selected main reservoir layers. Since the intensity of
ratio values (>40%).
production and injection activities has been simultaneously
increasing, a breakthrough perspective methods related to
Rantau Field showed some hydrocarbon in Pliocene interval.
pore pressure become a deep concern, one of them is
Regionally, it has two major direction NW-SE structure
Geomechanic coupled by Reservoir Simulation in order to
which is sinistral strike slip movement and become active
obtain solution of sanding problem and recommendation of
since Pliocene until Recent due to shearing tectonic activity.
optimum injectivity pressure. In relation to waterflooding
Rantau Field also have 40 faults that have relatively NE-SW
program, the definition of reservoir compartementalization
direction that derived from seismic interpretation result.
and reservoir connectivity are become very important.
Backthrust fault formed by reversal tectonic activity and it
generate saddle-like Rantau anticline.
This paper discuss the problems appear when doing massive
injection activity such as fluid movement analysis controlled
Keywords: fault seal analysis, shale gouge ratio,
by compartementalization due to faults existed at Rantau
geomechanical analysis, mechanical earth model
Field.

Introduction Data and Method

Rantau is a mature field covering an area approximately 13
km2 in size with length ± 7.5 km towards NW – SE and width
± 2 km towards NE – SW, lied on North Sumatera basin.
Rantau field is located NW – SE anticline with saddle shape
in the middle and elongated towards ± N 295o E. Rantau is
Located approximately 135 km to the northwest of Medan
and ± 45 km to the Northwest of Pangkalan Brandan.
The Late Miocene static model is used as input background
to conduct detailed fault seal analysis and this will be a
subject of evaluation of this work. New technique of fault
seal analysis (FSA) using SKUA Paradigm software is used
to reduce the uncertainty and risk in faulted reservoir area
using different source of data like structural input, facies and
petrophysical property distribution to predict the leaking or
sealing behaviour.
PROCEEDINGS
JOINT CONVENTION MALANG 2017, HAGI – IAGI – IAFMI- IATMI (JCM 2017)
Ijen Suites Hotel, Malang, September 25 – 28, 2017
The two major faults and other fault bounded the Rantau
field and having clear impact on fluid flow across the fault,
and trap mechanism (Figure 1a) are:
1. NE – SW fault direction
2. W – E fault direction
3. NW – SE fault direction
These faults will be evaluated and define the seal capacity
and structure configuration. The seismic section running
NW-SE direction along the area passing through Rantau
wells define the main structure elements and fault bound the
study area (Figure 1b).
Figure 1a. Fault existed at Rantau field
Figure 1b. NW-SE seismic section of main bounding fault
in Rantau field
Prior to fault seal, a suite of geometric analysis function has
been implemented that allows the testing of the relationship
between geocelullar grids and fault input data in addition to
seismic horizons, these analyzes allow for the rapid clean-up
of input data to help streamline the geocelullar modelling
processes.
In this study, the workflow for analyzing fault seal shown in
Figure 2 below. We might also follow a shorter version of
this workflow, which is to assign a facies to each layer
(stratigraphic unit), rather than using a grid property, and
then compute the fault seal properties using the dominant
facies value for each stratigraphic unit.
The shale gouge ratio (SGR), is an attempt to predict the
proportion of shaly material in the fault zone. It was defined
in publication by Yielding et al. (1997) and Freeman et al.
(1998). At any point on the fault where summation is over
all unit with thickness and clay content that have slipped past
that point.
SKUA calculates SGR using rock types (sand or shale)
adjacent to the fault, clay content of the rock types, and fault
displacement. SGR is calculated as ratio, where the higher
ratio most likely the fault is sealing (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Typical fault analysis workflow (SKUA)
SKUA calculates the juxtaposition by assigning
juxtaposition values to adjacent grid cells along the fault
baed on the facies of the adjacent cells. SKUA creates a
color-coded property for juxtapositon that has three
categories. For example, for a facies that is all sand
juxtaposed against another all sand facies (with zero clay
content), the juxtaposition unit is 2. For shale against shale,
the juxtaposition unit is 0.
The algorithm uses these juxtaposition units, that clay
content of the facies, and the fault geometry to calculates the
juxtaposition value, which is an estimate of the degree to
which sand is juxtaposed against sand along the length of the
fault. This calculation takes into account the clay content of
the facies, as follows:
PROCEEDINGS
JOINT CONVENTION MALANG 2017, HAGI – IAGI – IAFMI- IATMI (JCM 2017)
Ijen Suites Hotel, Malang, September 25 – 28, 2017
where:
J = juxtaposition at cell location
C1 = clay content of facies in the cell on right side of
fault
C2 = clay content of facies in the cell on left side of fault
(adjacent to C1)
Figure 3. SGR teorethical and formulation (SKUA)
Result and Discussion
Different properties were populated in a grid static model
and can be extracted along the faults, either on the up
downthrown side of the fault, in addition to cross fault
calculation to define the overlapping area. Cross fault
averages have computed to understanding a define high
cross fault permeability.
Understanding of the sedimentary architecture and clay
content is consider key for juxtaposition analysis and often
represent the largest uncertainty with defined Sand-Shale
cutoff for reservoir to non reservoir zone. The juxtaposition
of any discrete property, such as lithofacies (Figure 4) this
allow for the identification of key windows such as sand:
sand windows or critical reservoir overlaps areas.
This step is a first indication on sealing potentiality in Rantau
Field. By extracting the lithofacies property to all Rantau
faults, as an example the southern major bounding fault
shows at upper part shale to shale juxtaposition areas which
need high SGR values are required in these area for fault to
be sealing and at lower part sand to sand juxtaposition (Z-
600 and Z-800) areas need low SGR values to be non sealing
(Figure 5).
Figure 4. Lithofacies property model of Rantau field
Figure 5. Juxtaposition of of Rantau field
A variety of clay mixing algorithms (SGR) and clay
smearing predictions were computed and combined on the
faults a clay distribution prediction for faults is the common
approach used to predict fault sealing capacity and fault
permeability’s. The most upper part of the fault showing
presence of low SGR values indicate possible fault weak
points with Rule of thumb when SGR more 40% its
reflecting high likelihood of sealing behaviour and when
SGR 25-40% posibbly sealing, and SGR <25% high
likelihood of non-sealing faults.
As an example the southern fault (see Figure 5), SGR appear
to be low value on the lower part of the fault plain (zone Z-
600 – Z-800) indicating high ability for leaking through the
the lower part of the fault take consecration the high
percentage of the sand related to shaly and muddy content.
Ater calculation of SGR and juxtaposition from each fault in
Rantau field were done, hereafter sealing and non-sealing
characteristic of all existed fault is analyzed individually.
Then to simplify further analysis, these properties transfered
back into grid and show as a maps. As for sealing and non-
sealing faults map of Rantau field shown in figure below
(Figure 6).
PROCEEDINGS
JOINT CONVENTION MALANG 2017, HAGI – IAGI – IAFMI- IATMI (JCM 2017)
Ijen Suites Hotel, Malang, September 25 – 28, 2017
Figure 6a. SGR value of faults in Z-400 layer
Figure 6b. Juxtaposition of faults in Z-400 layer
Figure 6c. Sealing characteristic of faults in Z-400 layer
Furthermore, validation is conducted by comparing fault seal
analysis result with its pore pressure property (Figure 7). As
an illustration if we compared by overlying fault
characteristic map (see Figure 6c) with pore pressure at same
main layer Z-400 (Figure 7), there are exist a pattern
alignment between FSA and pore pressure property. As we
can see in an area isolated by sealing fault tend to have
differrent pressure regime with their adjacent block. This can
be assumed that Z-400 reservoir have been
compartementalized by existing faults which act as a
reservoir communication barrier.
Figure 7. Pore pressure properties at Z-400 layer
If we conduct validation with actual field data, there are two
adjacent wells having different production behaviour from
Z-400 reservoir. One well produces water while the other
well produces oil. It can be said that the two adjacent wells
are separated by a sealing west-east fault direction
(Compartement C and Compartement B2).
Conclusions
A fault analysis integrated with pore pressure modeling and
validated against wells data in Rantau field gave a fairly
accurate result. The nature of a sealing or non-sealing of a
fault (one individual fault) will give different result of each
different reservoir. As in the East-West fault located in the
middle of Rantau field has sealing character in Z-400 and Z-
560 reservoirs, whereas in Z-290, Z-600, and Z-800 has non-
sealing character. It takes effect in fault treatment if we want
to do a reservoir simulation process.
Acknowledgement
We thank to our colleagues form PT. Pertamina EP who
provided data, insight and expertise that greatly assisted this
reserarch.
References
El-Din M. Y., Hafez N. A., and Mahrous O., 2016, ISSN
2348-7968, IJISET Vol 3 Issue 1.
Yielding, G., B. Freeman, and D.T. Needham, 1997,
Quantitative fault seal prediction, APPG Bulletin, v. 81,
p. 897-917.
Jones M. R., and Hillis R. R., 2003, An integrated,
quantitative approach to assessing fault-seal risk, AAPG
Bulletin, v. 87, p. 507-524
Child C., Sylta, Moriya S., 2002, The impact of fault seal
properties on hydrocarbon migration modelling of the
Oseberg-Syd area, Viking Graben, AAPG Hedberg
Conference 2002.
Gringarten E., and Gokcesu U., 2016, Determining Fault
Seal Potential, SKUA-Paradigm Tutorial
SKUA-Paradigm Help Menu 2017 and Tutorial