© IPA, 2011 - 32nd Annual Convention Proceedings, 2008

IPA08-E-038

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirty-Second Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2008

LOW RESISTIVITY LOW CONTRAST PAY IN COMPLEX MIOCENE RESERVOIRS OF THE

MALAYSIA THAILAND JOINT DEVELOPMENT AREA (MTJDA)

Chai Shin Ni*

Steve Carney*
Libny Leal*
Dave Boardman*
Keith Shepstone**

ABSTRACT petrology and extensive test data are available.

Carigali Hess Operating Company is currently
developing and producing from four fields in Block
A-18 within the Malaysian Thailand Joint
Development Area (MTJDA). Located in the North
Malay Basin the Cakerawala, Bumi, Bulan and
Suriya fields have a number of technical challenges.
These include complex geology associated with
thick intervals of stacked pay, complex fluvial to
marginal marine depositional setting and significant
reservoir heterogeneity.
Low resistivity low contrast (LRLC) intervals are
an important subset of the Block A-18 reservoirs
which until recently were poorly understood. They
are volumetrically significant (10-40% of GIIP),
hence there is an incentive to understand them fully.
An integrated multidisciplinary approach was used
to identify these reservoirs in the wells, define their
lateral distribution, their reservoir properties and
potential deliverability.
Using these data, a holistic multidisciplinary
approach was adopted to fully understand the
depositional setting, distribution, sedimentological
characteristics, key depofacies/lithofacies, the pore
system and controls on reservoir quality. These
were tied in with petrophysical analysis in order to
understand the log response in various low
resistivity low contrast lithofacies, and to define log
cut-offs. In addition, a study of potential
deliverability was carried out through analysis of
mini-DST and dual packer MDT data. Analysis of
test data, together with PLT interpretations from co-
mingled test intervals, has been used to validate the
petrophysical cut-offs required to define net pay.
This study helped characterize reservoir intervals
more accurately and the results will be incorporated
into reservoir models to facilitate reserve estimates
and optimize field development and management.
INTRODUCTION

Although most reservoirs in the Block A-18 are
defined using conventional petrophysical
approaches, LRLC reservoirs are common in the
shallow section (Sequence I-II, equivalent to EPIC
regional stratigraphy Group D, Madon et al. 1999).
These reservoirs are usually fine grain (sands and
silts), clay-rich and heterolithic. They are often
bioturbated or laminated and grade into each other
and conventional reservoirs vertically and laterally.
As part of the Block A-18 field development, a
comprehensive data acquisition program was
employed resulting in a orld class subsurface
database. Modern log suites from 60 wells,
approximately 1792 feet of core, detailed
sedimentological analysis, image analysis,
* Hess Oil & Gas Sdn. Bhd.
** Carigali Hess Operating Company Sdn. Bhd.
The study area is located in Block A-18 within the
Malaysia Thailand Joint Development Area
(MTJDA), in the north Malay Basin. Lower
Pliocene to Upper Miocene sediments were studied
in four fields, Cakerawala, Bulan, Bumi and Suriya
(Figure 1). Structurally the fields form part of the
central inversion zone (CIZ), which extends to the
south into block PM301 and is characterized by
north-south trending horst and graben features. The
Miocene hydrocarbon system within the study area
consists of a thick interval (~7000 feet) of
interbedded sands and shales with abundant source
rich shales and coals. However, not all the source
rocks within the study areas are mature enough to
generate hydrocarbon, some reservoirs rely on
vertical migration from deeper mature source rocks.
The Miocene sediments in Block A-18 have been
grouped into genetic sequences (0 to XV) based on
flooding surfaces, sequence boundaries and regional
markers. The main focus of this study is Sequence I
and II (equivalent to Group D, EPIC classification).
Sequence I and II are the most important
hydrocarbon bearing intervals in Block A-18
accounting for approximately 57% of the total GIIP.
Most of the reservoirs are conventional, although
the LRLC reservoirs represents an important subset
(10-40% of multi TCFs of GIIP), which needs to be
understood in order to efficiently develop the fields.
In general, North Malay Basin reservoirs were
deposited in upper delta plain to restricted marine
shelf setting (Figure 2). Repetitive sub-regional
transgressive and regressive events developed
during active basin subsidence, culminating in a
regional transgression in Late Miocene. Repeated
delta progradation from the north and northwest
took place on a gentle southerly sloping basin axis.
Clay abundance and morphology appears to be
controlled by depositional environment. These
reservoirs can be highly heterogeneous at mm-cm
scale. These beds can not be resolved by
conventional logs and the gradational nature of
these rocks makes even high resolution image logs
difficult to interpret. Bioturbation is common, and
often bed boundaries are obscured due to reworking,
which may result in the development of mottled or
chaotic reservoirs.
LRLC could be incorrectly considered wet, tight or
misidentified as shale or even completely
overlooked due to logging resolution limitations. In
the Block A-18 there are a number of factors that
contribute to the development of LRLC reservoirs,
including the presence of mm-cm scale laminated
clean sands with shales and silts or shaly sands.
Reservoirs may also have disseminated pyrite which
is a conductive mineral. Sand/silt filled burrows
within clay rich reservoirs are also abundant.
Breccias with mm-cm scale clay clasts are also
quite common as are very fine-grained sands/silts
with microporosity.
Prior to this study, LRLC reservoirs were poorly
defined and not well understood. An integrated
approach has improved our understanding of
reservoir characteristics and flow potential; in the
process we have also refined and improved our
petrophysical models.
APPROACH
Block A18 Fields have a comprehensive subsurface
database including Q Marine 3-D seismic coverage,
and extensive modern log data suites, including
FMI image and NMR data. There is also
approximately 2700 feet of core data with XRD,
routine and special core analysis and petrology data.
Comprehensive sedimentology studies are also
available. Carigali Hess has systematically
acquired well test data including MDT, mini-DST
and DSTs. All available Block A-18 Sequence I
and II data were methodically integrated in order to
understand the rock characteristics and potential
deliverability of LRLC reservoirs (Figure 3).
Firstly, a detailed understanding of the depositional
setting of LRLC reservoirs was gained after
reviewing various internal technical reports and an
extensive publications database. Key LRLC
lithofacies and depofacies were defined for all cores,
and characterized in terms of grain size, clay
content, sorting, ichnofacies and bioturbation index.
All cores of different vintages were digitized and
updated in a consistent format in order to generate a
uniform core database.
Conventional core analysis data were then
integrated with sedimentological data, to determine
the petrophysical characteristics of each facies in
terms of porosity, permeability, grain size etc. A
petrology study was carried out to facilitate rock
typing, sandstone classification, pore system
identification and the key factors controlling
reservoir quality. These petrographic data proved
invaluable in determining the type and morphology
of clays and scale issues in laminated and
bioturbated LRLC rocks. XRD and SEM data were
also acquired to facilitate mineralogy identification.
All core-based data were depth matched to log data
and LRLC reservoirs were characterized using logs.
DST and dual packer MDT data were then reviewed
over interpreted LRLC intervals, in an attempt to
determine pay potential.
KEY FINDINGS
An improved understanding of the nature and
distribution of Block A-18 LRLC reservoirs was
achieved by integrating all available log, core,
sedimentology, petrology and test data. In
particular an improved understanding of the
depositional environment, lateral continuity,
depositional facies, lithofacies, log definition and
controls on reservoir quality has been achieved.
Integration of this dataset showed consistent trends
in the differences between LRLC and conventional
reservoirs. LRLC reservoirs can now be
differentiated from conventional reservoirs and non-
reservoirs with some confidence. Interrogation of
test data has allowed an improved understanding of
pay delineation and flow potential.
Important LRLC depositional environments,
lithofacies, petrology, log responses and flow
potential are outlined below.
Depositional Environment
Depositional environment plays a key part in
reservoir continuity and connectivity. Block A-18
reservoirs tend to be fine grained and highly
heterogeneous at many scales, due to their marginal
marine and estuarine depositional setting, and
repetitive transgressive-regressive events. Within
these settings, a number of complex clay rich
depositional facies are found. They are tidal
mudflat, tidal mixed flat, offshore transition zone,
restricted marine shelf and local complex fill within
tidal channels and sandflats (Figure 4).
Low basin gradient and sea level changes have
resulted in a mosaic of variable depofacies and
associated lithofacies, juxtaposed to each other with
significant heterogeneity over short distances.
LRLC depofacies often grade into each other or
conventional reservoirs vertically and laterally.
Another feature associated with common drops in
sea level is an abundance of hard grounds. These
are often reflected as Glossifungites ichnofabrics in
core. A modern example from the Great Sand
Straits, Queensland, Australia and core examples
from Cakerawala-1AST are shown in Figure 5.
The Great Sandy Straits is also a good modern day
example of lateral facies variation in a tidal setting.
Aerial photographs (Figure 6) clearly show the
significant changes in depositional facies over
extremely short distances and the ephemeral nature
of these features. Tidal flats are often incised by
small tidal creeks and channels with complex fills
(Figure 7).
Lithofacies
LRLC reservoirs in Sequence I and II are mainly
comprised of fine grained bioturbated and/or
laminated sandstones, and sandy/silty claystones.
They are mostly deposited in shallow marine,
deltaic to estuarine environments and are often
associated with offshore transitional, tidal sandflat,
mudflat or restricted marine shelf depofacies.
Common LRLC lithofacies observed in the Block
A-18 include rippled heterolithic (Hr), bioturbated
heterolithic (Hb), and bioturbated muddy sandstone
(Sbm). Occasionally LRLC intervals are also
associated with bioturbated sandstone (Sb) and
rippled sandstone (Sr) (Figure 8).
Based on detailed evaluation of available core
descriptions, core photographs and petrological
descriptions, LRLC reservoirs in Sequence I and II
are found in the following proportions; bioturbated
sandstone (50%), rippled heterolithics (27%) and
bioturbated heterolithics (14%). Rippled and
bioturbated sandstones only represent a total of 9%
and tend to exist as thin (cm scale) intervals within
thicker LRLC zones (Figure 8).
LRLC reservoirs are rarely associated with sand
dominated lithofacies, (massive sandstone,
laminated sandstone and cross-bedded sandstone),
as these tend to be clean and have relatively low
clay content. Mudstones also seldom associate with
LRLC reservoirs as they have very little sand,
although they sometimes grade into bioturbated
muddy sandstones, bioturbated heterolithics and
rippled heterolithics. LRLC definition in extremely
mud rich rocks is challenging, as these lithofacies
grade into each other often at mm-cm scale.
A brief summary of these lithofacies is outlined
below:
• Rippled heterolithics (Hr) are deposited in
areas with fluctuating energy associated with
strong tidal or wave processes. Common
associated structures include wave current and
bidirectional ripples and lenticular to wavy
laminations. The bases often have load features
and common synaeresis cracks, indicating
intermittent flow and a stressed environment.
They tend to be mm to cm scale, interbedding
shale/siltstone and very fine- to fine-grained
sandstone. Typical sand content is in the 10-
30% range. Gross packages can be up to 20
feet thick but are more commonly much thinner
(1-10 feet). They tend to have very little
bioturbation. Image log analysis suggests that
wavy resistive and conductive laminae can be
identified but ripple sets are rarely seen.
Typical log response is serrated, moderate to
high gamma ray responses, sometimes with
slight neutron density convergence or shale
cross-over.
• Bioturbated heterolithics (Hb) are deposited
in a lower energy, distal tidal flat or estuarine
setting which has resulted in colonization by
burrowing organisms. In addition to moderate
 to abundant bioturbation, wave ripples may also
be preserved. Sand content is typically in the
range of 10 to 50 %. Although the log response
is very similar to rippled heterolithics, cm scale
mottled and disrupted thin beds and
occasionally burrows may be seen on image
logs. A highly serrated gamma ray log response
is common and converging neutron density logs.
• Bioturbated sandstones (Sb) are typically
fine-grained and clean (low mud content) sands
with moderate to intense biogenic reworking.
Some primary structures may be preserved.
These reservoirs result from the activities of
burrowing and grazing organisms on marginal
marine and estuarine sands. Typically these
reservoirs have highly variable ichnofabrics,
and tend to form thin beds, often less than 1
foot thick. Bioturbated reservoirs in the Block
A-18 often have distinctive resistive/conductive
mottling on image logs, and some remnant
bedding may be observed. Conventional logs
typically have a high gamma ray response and
are often more in gauge than the adjacent
(washed-out) shales.
• Bioturbated muddy sandstones (Sbm) are
fine to very fine grained muddy sandstones
which may have clay patches. Like bioturbated
sandstones (above), they are deposited in
marginal marine, estuary, mouth and flood tide
deltas but tend to be more mud-rich. Similar to
bioturbated heterolithics, bioturbated mudstone
shows highly serrated gamma ray log response
and converging neuron density logs.
• Rippled Sandstones (Sr) are occasionally
classified as LRLC reservoirs when they have
relatively high clay content. These reservoirs
are often sand-rich heterolithics, or packages of
very fine to fine grained sandstones with mud
drapes and carbonaceous lags, with very low or
absent bioturbation. This lithofacies is
deposited as bed load sediments, with
oscillatory to unidirectional currents resulting in
the preservation of wavy to flaser laminations,
or ripple lamina. On image logs these intervals
appear to be disrupted by resistive clay drapes,
which have a wavy response in sand lithology.
On logs, this lithofacies appears as serrated with
moderately-high gamma ray and neutron
density crossover.
The five lithofacies identified above are
consistent with key LRLC depositional
environments/depofacies encountered in the study
area.
Petrology and Pore System
Fundamental to understanding LRLC reservoirs is
the integration of petrology data. Some 300
samples were analyzed in detail in terms of grain
size, sorting, mineralogy, cements, clay content and
morphology by LRLC lithofacies.
Reservoir quality is mainly controlled by grain size,
clay content and morphology, which in turn is
controlled by depositional environment. Reservoirs
are poorly cemented with sideritisation of clay
minerals being the only significant shallow
reservoir diagenetic event. LRLC reservoirs also
often have point to point grain contacts and are
often poorly compacted. This may be an important
factor in very clay rich reservoirs where some
reservoir quality has been preserved due to the lack
of compaction and low cementation.
Core analysis data in LRLC reservoirs can be
problematic due to the micron to mm scale
heterogeneity (laminae/burrows), or shale parting in
laminated clay-rich rocks which can give
erroneously high readings (Figure 9). There is also
an issue of how representative core plug data are of
the whole log section. Porosity and permeability
could be misleadingly high if taken on the small
sandy burrow/laminae, and would not necessarily
be representative if those burrow/laminae are
isolated within a thick mudstone. In A-18 LRLC
reservoirs, permeabilities have been measured
which vary by more than two orders of magnitude
from a single core plug.
LRLC reservoirs in Block A-18 are highly
heterogeneous at a mm to cm scale. The
complexity and heterogeneity rock types can be
seen in Figure 10. The brown colouration on
photographs is associated with muddy lithologies
and blue dye is pore space. Low power thin section
photographs have been categorized as clean
(conventional reservoirs), bioturbated and laminated
(LRLC reservoirs). With the following
characteristics:
• Clean reservoirs typically have low clay
content, although minor claystone clasts and
micron to mm scale wavy or ripple laminations
may be present.
• Bioturbated reservoirs can have a large range
of clay content and may appear as isolated mm
 scale burrows within claystones to mottled,
sand rich intensely burrowed rocks.
• Laminated reservoirs like bioturbated rocks
can have a large range of clay content and may
be represented as isolated mm scale siltstone or
fine grained sandstone laminae to sandstones
with rare claystone laminae which grade into
conventional reservoirs.
Reservoir quality in LRLC reservoirs varies subtly
according to lithofacies (Figure 11). A core
porosity-permeability cross plot of LRLC reservoirs
shows that porosity range is small for LRLC
intervals, typically 13%-22%. Core permeability
range is very large and typically ranges from 1 to
>100 md (2 orders of magnitude).
• Bioturbated reservoir properties; bioturbated
heterolithics and muddy sandstones do not
show a distinctive trend on the core porosity-
permeability cross plot, since their quality
depends on the degree of bioturbation and clay
content. Reservoir quality is best in the heavily
bioturbated sand rich reservoirs with larger
burrows or mottled fabric. Porosity ranges
from 13-32% in bioturbated heterolithics with a
mean of 18%. Core permeability ranges from
1-394md with an average of 26md, however
permeabilities rarely exceed 50md.
• Laminated reservoir properties; rippled
heterolithic, laminated reservoirs tend to have a
strong porosity-permeability relationship. They
are mainly controlled by sandstone laminae
quality issues such as grain size and sorting.
They also grade into conventional sand-rich
reservoirs. Clay morphology is in the form of
discrete laminae associated with ripple, wavy or
flazer bedding which may be sideritised.
Reservoir quality in laminated intervals can be
higher than bioturbated rocks with permeability
ranging from 8 to 715md with a mean of 92md.
Interestingly porosity is similar to the
bioturbated reservoirs ranging from 15% to
30% with a mean of 21%.
Mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP) data
were analyzed by lithofacies for selected LRLC
reservoirs (Figure 11) in order to better understand
the LRLC pore systems. Key observations can be
found below:
• Bioturbated heterolithics and bioturbated
muddy sandstone reservoirs have similar pore
throat profiles, typically with high pore entry
pressures and high irreducible water saturations.
These reservoirs do not have a plateau
associated with a dominant pore throat range
but have a continuum of small pore throat sizes.
Pore throat sizes are typically < 0.5 microns
pore throat radius. This profile is probably a
result of reworking and mixing of fine grained
sands, silts and muddy facies by burrowing
organisms.
• Rippled heterolithic reservoirs have a range of
pore throat profiles. These range from high
entry pressure, low irreducible reservoirs
similar to bioturbated and heterolithic lithotypes
(above) to low entry pressure, and relatively
low irreducible water saturation examples. The
dominant pore system in the best reservoirs
ranges from 1-10 microns pore throat radius
(meso to macro porous). This range is a result
of clean sandstone and siltstone laminae which
will dominate flow, intercalated with clay rich
laminae/drapes. The range in rock quality is
consistent with core analysis porosity and
permeability data.
Petrology analysis indicates that LRLC reservoirs
are clay-rich (often >50% clay content), with
abundant laminae or disseminated clays.
Conventional reservoirs have lower clay content
and tend to be clean. Sandstones in both LRLC and
conventional reservoirs have low cement content
and are poorly compacted. These observations are
consistent with the macroscopic lithofacies
characteristics described above.
Log Characteristics
LRLC reservoirs were identified in the MTJDA
early in the life of the development and great care
has been taken to identify LRLC intervals by
incorporating log, core and test data. Identification
of LRLC intervals can be problematic and if care is
not taken they can be incorrectly interpreted as wet,
tight, shale or even completely overlooked due to
logging tool resolution limitations.
Approximately 2700 feet of core, rock and
photographic data were analyzed in conjunction
with detailed sedimentological descriptions, image
log (FMI), petrology and test data. These cored
intervals were then depth matched to the
petrophysical logs. This enabled characterization of
typical log responses corresponding to LRLC and
conventional lithofacies.
An example of conventional and LRLC reservoirs
defined from this study are seen in the Cakerawala-
1AST well (Figure 12). Block A-18 reservoirs fall
into 2 broad categories, conventional and LRLC.
Typical log responses are outlined below:
• Conventional reservoirs typically consist of
moderate to clean sandstones, with grain sizes
ranging from silt to fine sand, low to moderate
gamma ray and distinctive neutron-density
cross-over in gas bearing intervals. Resistivity
is generally high in gas bearing intervals, often
>5 ohms. Generally porosity and permeability
of conventional intervals are good, typically
greater than 20% porosity and 100s of md.
• LRLC intervals typically comprise silty to very
fine sand, which are often heterolithic or muddy.
Significant clay content results in a moderate to
high gamma ray response. Neutron-density
logs tend to converge often without cross-over
even in gas bearing intervals. Resistivity
measurements are often in the 1 to 3 ohmm
range. Porosity has a larger range, between 13-
20%, and permeability is highly variable, in
some cases seeing two orders of magnitude
difference from the same core plug.
An extensive image log database is available in
Block A-18 and these data are an important tool to
determine LRLC intervals, especially when
calibrated to core data. Unfortunately, LRLC
intervals tend to grade into each other over very
short distances and bioturbated, muddy lithofacies
pass into laminated reservoirs. Also laminated
reservoirs are often reworked by burrowing
organisms so the distinction is not always clear.
This makes detailed analysis very challenging and
interpretative especially with older vintage image
logs. LRLC reservoirs in block PM301
immediately to the south of the MTJDA have used
various thin bed image log analysis to help delineate
LRLC reservoirs (Alessio et al. 2005).
Comparisons between core based LRLC
identification and log based identification shows
very good agreement. It is therefore possible to
differentiate with confidence between conventional
and LRLC reservoirs based on log character alone.
Properties of LRLC intervals (such as porosity and
permeability) are seen to be significantly different
in nature from conventional reservoirs.
Flow Testing and Potential
Calibration of core and log data with flow test data
is a key component of understanding LRLC
reservoirs. A review of all available LRLC tests
was carried out in order to better understand their
flow potential. DSTs, dual packer MDT (mini-
DSTs) and a small SCAL dataset were all integrated
with core and log data to provide an insight into
flow potential, deliverability and also to help define
reservoir cut-offs.
• SCAL data: End point gas relative
permeability (Krg’) has been calculated as
[Kgas/K Klinkenberg]. It was found that the
best discrimination of this data was achieved by
plotting against Swir, as shown in Figure 13.
The LRLC data can be seen to represent the
poorer absolute permeability plugs, whereas
data from conventional reservoirs show good
absolute and relative permeability. Small scale
sand prone samples within the LRLC dataset
can have good reservoir properties, as
evidenced by the Cak-3 sample at 5565.5 feet,
which is bordering on the conventional pay end
of the classification. Figure 13 also shows core
photos representing the poor relative
permeability samples. Bioturbated, heterolithic
and muddy sandstone samples in Cak-3
(3934.5’) and Cak-1Ast (3898.8’ and 4125.3’)
show zero gas relative permeability at
approximately 70 to 75% Swir. The first two of
these samples contain sandy burrows within a
mudstone background which are relatively
isolated, while the Cak-1Ast samples appear at
first sight to be relatively sand rich, but as
shown by the thin section, in fact contain
unconnected sand burrows (dyed blue on the
section); any connectivity is likely to be
tortuous and gas flow blocked by the high water
saturation. This is consistent with the zero gas
relative permeability results from these samples.
• Drill stem tests: Five drill-stem tests were
performed over LRLC intervals. These tests
uniformly required very high drawdowns to
achieve flow. One of the test examples from
Bumi-2 test intervals is shown in Figure 14,
with the associated PLT interpretations. The
PLT interpretation shows that only pay
discriminated by the 70% Swe pay flag
contributes, while that from the 75% flag alone
does not. This provides a useful discriminator
between reservoirs that have flow potential and
those that do not, and agrees well with the
SCAL data results above.
• Mini DST: Figure 15 illustrates an example of
a dual packer-DST result with the petrophysical
interpretation for the Cakerawala-5 well. The
figure shows that the two intervals successfully
 tested with the dual packer MDT were defined
as pay with the 70% Swe flag (blue), while no
flow was seen in the intervals with between
70% and 75% Swe. The Swe flag provides
better discrimination of likely pay bearing
intervals in this well than porosity, and this
result is confirmed in another three wells. This
suggests that a Swe of 70% can be used to
discriminate flow potential and agrees well with
DST and SCAL data in the studied reservoirs.
This Swe is considered to reflect an effective
permeability cutoff, which is more typically
used than an Swe cutoff. However due to
significant uncertainty in effective permeability
data, Swe provides a proxy to discriminate flow
potential in LRLC reservoirs.
Although there is currently insufficient production
data in the Block A-18 fields to be catagoric, direct
producibility of LRLC pay via wellbores is likely to
be moderate to poor. Clay rich intervals dominated
by muddy bioturbated sandstones and heterolithics
are expected to be especially poor due to the
amount of mud in the system. Rippled heterolithics
intervals which tend to have more clean sand may
have better direct flow potential. Cakerawala Field
is located in a deposition sand rich fairway and
reservoir connectivity will be improved due to high
sand content. Bumi Field is located away from the
Main sediment fairway and sand content is lower
which may reduce reservoir connectivity. This
interplay between conventional reservoirs and
LRLC intervals is not well understood at present in
Block A-18. The best chance for significant
recovery from these units is thought to be by cross-
flow within the reservoirs, relying on depletion of
the better quality sands with subsequent cross-flow
from the poorer quality units. There are a number
of possible mechanisms for this cross-flow,
including down-cutting of channel sands, vertical
communication due to bioturbation and continuous
facies gradation from channel through to tidal flat.
There are significant uncertainties in attempting to
estimate recovery factors by these processes using
simulation modelling as the transmissibility
estimates required are very difficult to quantify.
Hard data is required for any meaningful calibration
and dual packer MDT’s will provide a viable
method for collecting pressure data from LRLC
intervals in infill wells drilled in central portions of
the field, once significant depletion has occurred.
CONCLUSIONS
LRLC reservoirs are an important subset of the
complex LRLC reservoirs of the Block A-18 Fields
and may represent between 10 and 40% of multi
TCFs of GIIP. These reservoirs have been
effectively identified and described through the
application of a holistic multidisciplinary reservoir
characterization approach.
Integrating data shows that:
• Identified lithofacies from core are
consistent with conceptual depositional
environment
• Petrology data confirms that LRLC
intervals (identified from lithofacies) have
significantly poorer quality and are more
heterogeneous than conventional reservoirs.
• Comparisons between core and log data
shows that LRLC intervals can be identified
based on log character alone.
• Dynamic data, including SCAL, MDT and
DST shows that LRLC intervals with Swe
less than 70% are likely to have flow
potential. Swe here is used as a proxy for
effective permeability.
These are essential steps towards realizing the
potential of these heterogeneous and complex
reservoirs over the full life of the field. Key to
realize their potential is through understanding of
lateral reservoir architecture, continuity and
effective permeability and dynamic production data.
Going forward, the application of new technologies
is essential to advance our reservoir characterization
process. Electrofacies (fuzzy logic and neural
network) approaches are currently under review to
build on the foundation provided by this study.
Defining LRLC electrofacies in all wells is seen as
an essential step to provide an accurate assessment
of LRLC associated GIIP and reserves. The
development of this a priori dataset is also seen as
an important step in characterizing LRLC reservoirs
for use in later geostatistical modeling and in
understanding static (net to gross, porosity and
saturation) and dynamic parameters (permeability,
relative permeability).
Further LRLC work is planned to characterize these
intervals in reservoir models and estimate recovery
potential in these zones. It can be expected that
given their differences in character from
conventional reservoirs that their dynamic behavior
will also be significantly different.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of
Malaysian Thailand Joint Authority (MTJA) and for
allowing us to publish this technical paper as well
as Carigali Hess Operating Company Sdn. Bhd.
Shareholders, Hess Oil & Gas and Petronas Carigali
for their continued support. Thanks are also
extended to the entire Carigali Hess development
team for their significant contribution to this paper.
In addition, appreciation is extended to Duncan Barr,
Terry Eschner and Jochen Kassan for their
invaluable sedimentological work and contribution
to the paper’s contents. Alvin Low is also
acknowledged for his efforts in compiling this
report.
REFERENCE
Alessio, L., Howells, C., Chu, J., Abbas, S.A.,
Wade, B. and Ball, S., 2006. Application of Critical
Technologies Enabling Low Cost Development of
Thin-Bedded Heterogeneous Gas Reservoirs in the
North Malay Basin. SPE Paper 101807 presented at
the 2006 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Adelaide, Australia, p. 1-13.
Benton, M.J. & Harper D.A.T, 1997. Basic
Paleontology. Addison Wesley Longman, 342 pp.
Clifton, H. E., 1982. Estuarine Deposits. In Scholle,
P.A., and Spearing, D.A., Sandstone Depositional
Environments, AAPG Memoir 31, p. 179 – 190.
Emery, D., and Myers, K.J., 1996. Sequence
Stratigraphy, Blackwell Science, 297 pp.
Gunter, G.W., Finneran, J.M., Hartmann, D.J., and
Miller, D.J., 1997. Early Determination of
Reservoir Flow Units Using an Intergrated
Petrophysical Approach, SPE 38679, Proceedings
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Formation
Evaluation and Reservoir Geology, Part 1, p. 373-
380
Johnson, H.D., and Baldwin, C.T., 1996: Shallow
clastic seas, in Reading, H.G. (ed.), Sedimentary
Environments: Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy,
p. 232– 280.
Madon, M., Abolins, P., Mohammad Jamaal,
Hoesni and Mansor, 1999. Malay Basin: The
Petroleum Geology and Resources of Malaysia,
Petronas, Kuala Lumpur, p. 173-217.
Madon, M., Yang, J.S., Abolins, P., Abu Hassan,
Redzuan, M. Yakzan, Azmi and Bahari Zainal,
Saiful, 2006. Petroleum System of the Northern
Malay Basin. Geological Society Malaysia Bulletin
49, p. 125-134.
McIlroy, D., Flint, S., Howell. J., 1999.
Applications of High-Resolution Sequence
Stratigraphy to Reservoir Prediction and Flow Unit
Definition in Aggradational Tidal Successions.
GCSSEPM Foudation 19th Annual Research
Conference Advanced Reservoir Characterization,
December 5-8, 9. 121-132.
Posamentier, H.W., and Allen, G.P., 1999.
Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy – Concepts and
Applications, SEPM Concepts in Sedimentology
and Palaeontology #7, 210 pp.
Reading, H.G., and Collinson, J.D., 1996. Clastic
coasts, in Reading, H.G. (ed.), Sedimentary
Environments. Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy, p.
154 – 231.
Reineck, H.E., and Singh, I.B., 1975. Depositional
Sedimentary Environments- with Reference to
Terrigenous Clastics, Springer-Verlag, 439 pp.
Zaitlin B.A., Dalrymple R.W. & Boyd R., 1994.
The Stratigraphic Organisation of Incised-Valley
Systems Associated With Relative Sea-Level
Change. In: Incised Valley Systems: Origin and
sedimentary Sequences (Ed, by R.W. Dalrymple, R.
Boyd and B.A. Zaitlin). Spec. Publ. Soc. Sedim.
Geol., 51, Tulsa, p. 45-60.
Figure 1 - The study area is located in Block A-18 within the Malaysia Thailand Joint Development Area
(MTJDA), in the north Malay Basin. Lower Pliocene to Upper Miocene low resistivity low
contrast reservoirs were studied in four fields, Cakerawala, Bulan, Bumi and Suriya.

0 10 20 km (after Emery and Myers, 1985)

Figure 2 - Generalized conceptual depositional environment of tide-dominated delta (after Emery and
Myers, 1985). The main hydrocarbon bearing section within the MTJDA consists
predominantly of tidal and fluvial influenced clastics deposited in a restricted marine to and
upper delta plain setting.
 Depositional Models Sequence Strat / Layering Models Depofacies / Lithofacies

Facies C

Facies B

Facies A
Duncan Barr, 2006

Petrology
Rock Types and Pore Types Relative Perm
Q Pore Throats
Cap Pressure
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X C
X X X X
X
X

Pc
X
X X B
Rel K

X X
X X X X X
XX X X
XX X X X X
X X A
X X X X
X
X
Pore Throat Size

B C

Core Permeability
A
Core Porosity Sw Cum. Pore Space
F Classification L Sw

Formation Evaluation Reservoir Flow Units

Flow Lorenz Plots
VShale Sw Units Storage Flow Deliverability

C
C
Gas C

Depth
B B
B
A Water
A
% Flow Capacity

A
Pressure (based on Gunter, 1997)
% phieh % Kh K/phie (1-Sw) % Storage Capacity

Figure 3 - A multidisciplinary approach was adopted in order to understand the rock characteristics and potential deliverability of LRLC reservoirs. This
includes integrating all available core, log, test data and technical reports. This holistic approach helps in developing a good understanding of
LRLC reservoirs in terms of depositional setting, layering, facies, rock types, formation evaluation and flow unit.
 Lagoonal Muds

Restricted Shelf Muds

Coastal & in-channel
sandflats, mudflats &
mixed flats

Lower Longtitudinal bar

Lower Shoreface / Muddy Sands

Figure 4 - The LRLC clay-rich and fine-grain intervals are often associates with marginal tidal-deltaic or
shallow marine depositional settings. Key associated depofacies including tidal sand, mud and
mixed flats, restricted marine shelf and lagoonal muds.

Cak-1AST
Glossifungites Surfaces – Further Complexity

Glossifungites Ichnofacies

Glossifungites Surfac
es

Glossifungites Ichnofacies

(after Joachen Kassan, 2007)

Figure 5 - The figure shows Glossifungites ichnofabrics, modern hard ground example from the Great Sand
Banks Queensland, and common Glossifungites surfaces in Cakerawala-1AST core.
Glossifungites surfaces are common in Sequence I & II of Block A-18. They represent a
discontinuous surface where sedimentation has temporarily ceased and erosion occurred.
 Mangrove

Sand Flats

Tidal channel

Mixed and Muddy Tidal Flats

(Sandy Straits, Queensland)

Figure 6 - Aerial photographs showing the significant changes in depositional facies over extremely short
distance and the ephemeral nature of these features. Note: Field of view is less than 3km. Deep
tidal channels are adjacent to tidal mudflats and mangroves and large tidal sand shoals.
Sandflats often fringe the edge of tidal mudflats.

Heterolithic tidal flats Meandering tidal channel

Heterolithic tidal
channel fill

20 ft

Tidal sand flats

Tidal creek

Heterolithic tidal flats

Heterolithic tidal channel fill

0 100 200 m
(after Duncan McIlroy et al., 1999)

Figure 7 - A feature of tidal environments is the presence of tidal, sandflats, mudflats and mixed flats in
very close proximity often grading into each other. Tidal flats are often incised by small tidal
creeks and channels with complex fills and associated channel margins.
Figure 8 - Common low resistivity low contrast lithofacies observed in the MTJDA include Bioturbated
Muddy Sandstone (Sbm), Rippled Heterolithic (Hr) and Bioturbated Heterolithic (Hb).
Occasionally these intervals are also associated with Bioturbated Sandstone (Sb) and Rippled
Sandstone (Sr).

Figure 9 - LRLC thin section examples showing reservoir complexity. Brown colouration are mud rich
lithologies, blue dye is pore space. Note: Bioturbated slide shows mottled, chaotic muddy
facies. Laminated slide shows discrete clay-rich laminae and sand-rich lithologies with complex
relationship (mud drapes). Clay-rich slide is from claystone with thin (mm scale) ‘isolated’
burrows and laminae.
Figure 10 - MTJDA reservoirs can be extremely heterogeneous at a mm-cm scale. Reservoirs are often
fine grained, clay rich and grade into each other.

CORE PROPERTIES OF LRLC INTERVAL MERCURY INJECTION CAP PRESSURE of LRLC

SHALLOW SECTION (by lithofacies) INTERVALS
Cakerawala & Bumi FIeld

1000
10000

1000
CORE PERMEABILITY (MD)

100 100
HEIGHT (FT)

10

1 10

0.1

Bioturbated Muddy Sandstone Bioturbated Muddy Sandstone

Rippled Heterolithics Rippled Heterolithics
0.01 Bioturbated Heterolithics Bioturbated Heterolithics
1
0.000

0.500
0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

0.450

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

SW (V/V)
CORE POROSITY (V/V)

Figure 11 - Core porosity vs. permeability plot (left) categorized by key LRLC lithofacies illustrates limited
range of porosity (13%-32%) compared to wide range permeability (1md->100md). This is
mainly resulting from variable clay content and morphology in these rocks. MICP plot (right)
demonstrates the pore throat profile of LRLC reservoirs. Typically high entry pressure, high
irreducible water and lack of plateau trends indicate heterogeneous pore throat profile.
However, some rippled heterolithics do have a meso to macro pore system resulting in a better
developed plateau.
 POR RT

CORE OBSERVATION
Very Coarse Sand
0 V/V 0.5 0.2 OHMM 20

Very Fine Sand

VOL

Medium Sand
Coarse Sand

CORE INTERVAL
Fine Sand
1 V/V 0
PHIE MSFL

Granules
Pebbles

TVDSS

LITHOFACIES

PAYFLG75
PAYFLG70
COAL 0 V/V 0.5 0.2 OHMM 20

Clay
Silt

SEQUENCE
FEET
0 1
RHOB PHIT KK LLS
PHIE

SAND
1.95 G/C3 2.95 0 V/V 0.5 0.01 MD 10000 0.2 OHMM 20
1 V/V 0

GR TNPH PHIT KK LLD

VSH
0 V/V 1 0 GAPI 150 0.45 V/V -0.15 0 V/V 0.5 0.01 MD 10000 0.2 OHMM 20

LRLC
Hb
4030

Reservoirs
Typical
4040 Sr

II_10

Reservoirs
LRLC
4050
Hb

4060
Core #4
Ml
Hr

4070 Hr
Sr

Reservoirs
4080 Sr

Typical
II_20

Sr
4090 Sr
Sr
4100

Grain-Size VSh Lithofacies Gamma Ray RHOB-NPHI Porosity Permeability Resistivity

Silt - fine Low-Mod Sm, Sr & Sx Low-Mod (Cross-over) 20-35% 10-1000md >3 Ohms

Grain-Size VSh Lithofacies Gamma Ray RHOB-NPHI Porosity Permeability Resistivity

Silt - very fine Mod- high Sbm, Hb, Hr Mod-high (Converge) 10-20% 1-50md <3 Ohms

Core Derived Reservoir Flag

Conventional Reservoirs
LRLC Reservoirs

Figure 12 - An example taken from Cakerawala-1AST showing the typical characteristic of both
conventional and LRLC reservoirs defined from this study. LRLC reservoirs typically have
converging neutron-density logs without cross-over, resistivity ranging 1-3 ohmm and
moderate to high gamma ray.

Figure 13 - Special core analysis (SCAL) relative permeability data plot against irreducible water saturation
illustrating points from conventional and LRLC reservoirs. LRLC reservoirs represent the
poorer relative permeability samples in the plot.
 WELL: BUMI-2
Depth Range: 3600' - 3730'

Neutron
Gamma Ray Resistivity Porosity Permeability Saturation Lithology
Sequence

Density PHIE

PAYFLG75
PAYFLG70
1 V/V 0
MDT RHOZ RT PHIT VOL

SAND
1.95 G/C3 2.95 0.2 OHMM 20 0.5 V/V 0 1 V/V 0
GR TVDSS TNPH RXOZ PHIE KK SWE VSH FLOW
FEET 0.45 V/V -0.15 0.2
0 GAPI 200 OHMM 20 0.5 V/V 0 0.01 MD 10000 1 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1 0 MMSCFD1.5

1
0
0

1
1 DST#2
2
2
1

0
O_25

0
3650

4’ Flow Interval from PLT

matches 70% Sw flag

3700 4
9
DST#2
O_30

10

Figure 14 - Production logging tool analysis taken from Bumi-2. Note: Only pay defined by a 70% Swe cut
off flows whilst those defined by Swe 75% Swe cut off do not.

WELL: CAKERAWALA-5
Cak-5 Dual Packer MDT Results
Depth Range: 3900' - 4020'

Neutron PHIE
Gamma Ray Resistivity Porosity Permeability Saturation 1 Lithology
V/V 0
Density CARBSHALE

DUAL PACKER MDT

0 V/V 1 CARBSHALE
0 V/V 1
DUAL PACKER

COAL
Sequence

COAL
PAYFLG75
PAYFLG70

0 1
0 1
MDT

RHOB PHIT VOL

SAND

1.95 G/C3 2.95 0.5 V/V 0 1 V/V 0

GR TVDSS TNPH RT PHIE KK SWE VSH
FEET 0.45 V/V -0.15 0.2
0 GAPI 200 OHMM 2000 0.5 V/V 0 0.01 MD 10000 1 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1
I_10

3950

Flow from intervals #1 0.93 mmscf/d

with 70% Sw pay flag
#2 0.46 mmscf/d

Tight intervals with only #3 No Flow

75% Sw pay flag
I_20

#4 No Flow
4000

Figure 15 - Dual-packer-DST result from Cakerawala-5. Two intervals successfully tested with the dual
packer MDT were defined as pay with the 70% Swe cut off, while the tight test were not.