Borneo Deltas: Challenging the Models

(and implications for deltaic reservoirs in SE Asia)

Joseph J Lambiase

Lambiase Geoscience Pte. Ltd.

Singapore
 Acknowledgements

Colleagues and former students at Universiti Brunei

Darussalam including Salahuddin Husein, Abdul
Razak Damit, Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim, Cheong Yaw
Peng and Erlangga Septama

Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Shell

Petroleum, Esso Production Malaysia Inc. and Total
E&P Indonésie for sponsoring various aspects of the
research
 Traditional Delta Models
• Shoreline morphology, sand body geometry
and facies distribution reflect dominant
hydrodynamic processes
• Retrogradational stratigraphic successions are
rarely preserved
• Reservoir quality is best in progradational
topset sands
• Reservoir-degrading bioturbation is less on
deltas than on open marine coastlines
 Borneo Deltas
• Facies distribution reflects dominant
hydrodynamic processes, but shoreline
morphology and sand body geometry do not
• Retrogradational successions are very
common in the preserved stratigraphy
• Many topset beds have significant tidal
influence and are not high-quality reservoirs
• Bioturbation intensity is higher on the deltas
than on adjacent coastlines
200

Baram and
Trusan
South China Sea

Singapore Borneo
00

Mahakam

Indian Ocean

500 km 1000 1200 1400

 Hydrodynamic Environment
Baram Trusan Mahakam
Tidal Range (m) 1.7 1.7 1.2

Wave Height (m) 0.7 0.4 0.6

Fluvial Discharge 1590 140 1876

(m3/sec)

Grain Size fine sand fine sand fine sand

 Shoreline Morphology
Mississippi

Deltas in microtidal
environments are expected to
have fluvial or wave-dominant
morphologies and facies

Nile
fluvial-dominated
Tiber

wave-dominated mixed wave and fluvial

Shoreline Morphology
erosional
shorelines
10 km

marine
forams

seaward
limit of sand
Sand Body Geometry and Facies
lower shoreface retrogradational
sand/mud
upper shoreface
mouth bar
sands

delta front
mud tidal bar
sands

tidal sand
flats mixed sand
& mud flats tidal river
bottom mud

N
mud
mixed sand and mud
5 km sand

(Lambiase et al 2002)
 Baram Delta Hydrodynamics
(Facies reflect hydrodynamics, shoreline
morphology and sand body geometry do not)

fluvial
6 tide mixed

tidal range (m)

4

wave
wave tide
0.8 1.6 2.4
shoreline morphology wave height (m)
sand body geometry
facies
 Stratigraphy
(Retrogradational Succession)

tidal/river bottom mud

mixed sand/mud flats
tidal sand flats
tidal channel/bar sands 4
upper shoreface sands
lower shoreface sand/mud

metres
delta front mud
current ripples
large cross-bedding
wave ripples 2
flaser bedding
HCS/SCS
carbonaceous
lateral accretion
parallel lamination 0
Baram Field Stratigraphy
(Retrogradational)

shoreface
30
tidal

20
metres

shoreface

10 one cycle
sandstone
mudstone
tidal HCS/SCS
Ophiomorphia
shoreface Planolites
0
(after Tan et al. 1999)
 Modern Deltaic Sands

• Bioturbation intensity is related to the abundance of

organic matter
• Exceptionally large volumes of mud and organic
matter are transported by the rivers
• The small waves cannot efficiently disperse abundant
fine-grained material
• Subordinate mud and organic matter accumulates in
normally sandy environments
• This occurs preferentially near river mouths, where
bioturbation intensity is highest, reducing reservoir
quality
Sand Body Geometry and Facies
delta front 2 km

mangrove swamp
tidal mud flats
mixed sand/mud flats
tidal sand flats
tidal channel/bar sands
sand/mud channel levee
beach

(Lambiase et al 2003)
 Trusan Delta Hydrodynamics
(Facies reflect hydrodynamics, shoreline
morphology and sand body geometry do not)

fluvial
6 tide mixed

tidal range (m)

4

wave
wave tide
0.8 1.6 2.4
shoreline morphology wave height (m)
sand body geometry
facies
 Stratigraphy

tidal

metres
1

mangrove swamp
tidal mud flats
mixed sand/mud flats
wave
tidal sand flats
tidal channel/bar sands 0
sand/mud channel levee
beach
(Lambiase et al 2003)
 • Subsidence generates accommodation space
• Hydrodynamics prohibits sand penetration into the basin
• Progradation is limited to delta-front mud
• High sediment supply forces channel switching
• Aggradation of sandy delta plain facies

mangrove swamp
mud
mixed mud & sand
sand
~ 25 m

km
5
~

~ 8 km (Lambiase et al 2003)
Sand Body Geometry and Facies

medium sand
fine sand
bioturbated fine sand N
sandy mud
mud
peat beaches 10 km

(after Salahuddin Husein 2008)

 Sediment Transport

medium sand mud N

fine sand peat beaches
bioturbated fine sand ebb sand transport
sandy mud 10 km
flood sand transport
(after Salahuddin Husein 2008)
Mahakam Delta Hydrodynamics
(Once again, facies reflect hydrodynamics, sand
body geometry and shoreline morphology do not)

fluvial
6 tide mixed

tidal range (m)

4

wave
wave tide
0.8 1.6 2.4
shoreline morphology wave height (m)
sand body geometry
facies
 Stratigraphy
10 10 10
A B C
tide-dominated estuarine mud offshore mud
distributary
channel
sharp sharp
contact contact
5 transitional
contact 5 5 intertidal sand bar

fluvial-dominated tide-dominated sharp

distributary distributary contact
channel channel sharp
contact
erosional intertidal sand flat
0 contact
pre-transgression 0 0
deposit

B A C mud
sand
peat beach deposit
current ripples
large cross-bedding
lag deposit
flaser bedding
parallel lamination

(after Salahuddin Husein 2008)

 Subsurface Analogue
(More retrogradational successions)
modern Miocene
Mahakam Attaka Field
Delta (after Trevena et al. 2003)
25
offshore

1605

20 intertidal
bar

1610

15
metres

estuary
1615
mud
10 sand
peat beach deposit
1620 current ripples
distributary large cross-bedding
5 channel lag deposit
flaser bedding
1625
parallel lamination
0
(after Salahuddin Husein 2008)
Baram, Trusan and Mahakam Deltas

• Sand body geometry is not easily predicted

from facies distribution
• Retrogradational successions are very
common in the preserved stratigraphy
• Many topset beds have significant tidal
influence
• Bioturbation intensity is highest on the deltas
 Some Reasons Why

• Small waves cannot rework delta morphology so

shoreline morphology and sand body geometry often
reflect relic hydrodynamics
• High sediment supply rates cause deposition during
transgression, generating retrogradational successions
• Low wave energy allows significant tidal influence,
generating heterogeneous topset sands
• Abundant organic matter and mud in river waters
promotes bioturbation
 Mississippi Delta

fluvial-dominant wave-dominant
mouth bar mouth bar

offshore barrier
shoal islands

(after Penland et al 1988)

 Some Reasons Why

• Small waves cannot rework delta morphology so

shoreline morphology and sand body geometry often
reflect relic hydrodynamics
• High sediment supply rates cause deposition during
transgression, generating retrogradational successions
• Low wave energy allows significant tidal influence,
generating heterogeneous topset sands
• Abundant organic matter and mud in river waters
promotes bioturbation
 Highly Aggradational,
Retrogradational Succession

mangrove swamp
mud
mixed mud & sand
sand
 Some Reasons Why

• Small waves cannot rework delta morphology so

shoreline morphology and sand body geometry often
reflect relic hydrodynamics
• High sediment supply rates cause deposition during
transgression, generating retrogradational successions
• Low wave energy allows significant tidal influence,
generating heterogeneous topset sands
• Abundant organic matter and mud in river waters
promotes bioturbation
Wide Zone of Tidal Deposition

medium sand sandy mud

fine sand mud
bioturbated fine sand peat beaches
 Some Reasons Why

• Small waves cannot rework delta morphology so

shoreline morphology and sand body geometry often
reflect relic hydrodynamics
• High sediment supply rates cause deposition during
transgression, generating retrogradational successions
• Low wave energy allows significant tidal influence,
generating heterogeneous topset sands
• Abundant organic matter and mud in river waters
promotes bioturbation
Tidally-Influenced Topset Beds
Trusan Baram Mahakam

mangrove swamp tidal sand flat lower shoreface

mud flat tidal channel/bar storm sand
mixed flat upper shoreface offshore mud
intertidal sand bar distributary channel estuarine mud
Diverse Sand Body Geometries

Trusan Baram Mahakam

5 km 5 km 10 km
 Variable Reservoir Properties

Trusan Baram Mahakam Mahakam

(lower reaches) (distributaries)

large, continuous large, continuous discontinuous long, continuous

sand bodies sand bodies sand bodies sand bodies
fine-grained tidal fine-grained tidal fine-grained tidal fine to medium-
flat and tidal and shoreface and shoreline grained channel
channel sand sand sands sands
permeability permeability permeability permeability
barriers common barriers common barriers common barriers rare
heterogeneous heterogeneous heterogeneous homogeneous
reservoirs reservoirs reservoirs reservoirs
 Conclusions
• The “Borneo Deltas” are markedly different from
established delta models
• The application of standard models leads to
inaccurate prediction of facies distribution,
stratigraphic succession, sand body geometry and
reservoir quality
• Many of the Tertiary deltas of SE Asia were deposited
in similar low energy, tropical environments
• Accurate reservoir assessment can be achieved only
by applying an appropriate depositional model