Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Geoscience
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/energy-geoscience

Petrophysical interpretations of subsurface stratigraphic correlations,

Baram Delta, Sarawak, Malaysia
Hisham Ben Mahmud a, *, Muhammad Hilmi Bin Muhammad Hisham b,
Walid Mohamed Mahmud c, Van Hong Leong d, Mian Umer Shafiq e
a
Curtin University Malaysia, CDT250, Miri, 98000, Sarawak, Malaysia
b
Emerson Automation Solutions, Klang, Selangor, Malaysia
c
University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya
d
Xiamen University Malaysia, Jalan Sunsuria, Bandar Sunsuria, 43900, Sepang, Selangor, Malaysia
e
NFC IET, Petroleum and Gas Engineering, Multan, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Petrophysical well log data help to predict hydrocarbon reserves before field development which in-
Received 22 March 2020 volves huge financial commitment. In this study, reservoir characterization was performed with a view to
Received in revised form obtain information on the geological formation type and petrophysical parameters. Wireline log data
18 April 2020
obtained from five wells were used to develop a 3D model of X-field in the Baram Delta which was in
Accepted 28 April 2020
turn evaluated using the PETREL software. Suites of gamma ray, sonic, density, resistivity and neutron
logs aided the delineation and correlation of the sandstone formation. Fourteen hydrocarbon-bearing
Keywords:
sands were defined from well log data and divided into two-reservoir zones, shallow and deep. Well
Oil reserve
Well logging
correlation assisted in the delineation of the reservoir sands across the wells. The quality of the reservoir
Effective porosity formation was evaluated from average petrophysical properties: with an average thickness of 62 m, an
Shale volume average porosity of 0.19, an average net-to-gross ratio of 0.068, an average V-shale of 0.45, and an average
Water saturation water saturation of 0.95. A rollover anticline structure was identified across the field using the fault as a
Oil saturation description tool. Variation of petrophysical parameters and uncertainty in the reservoir properties were
included to predict the effect on the volume of oil in place. This study revealed that the discovered
hydrocarbon reserve resource accumulations in the Field X for the fourteen-mapped reservoir sands have
a total proven reserve resource estimate of 740MMSTB at P90, 655MMSTB at P50 and 593MMSTB at P10.
Reservoirs A and B are the only intervals with the highest recoverable oil, a volume of 256MMSTB at P90,
215MMSTB at P50 and 181MMSTB at P10, respectively. These analyses facilitated an improved reservoir
description of shaly sandstone, which contributes to better planning of hydrocarbon re-development and
future recovery, and thereby improving the energy supply security of the regions.
© 2020 Sinopec Petroleum Exploration and Production Research Institute. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Wireline logging records the formation properties when a well
crosses into a field. Reservoir geology can be understood by using
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hisham@curtin.edu.my (H.B. Mahmud).
Production and Hosting by Elsevier on behalf of KeAi
wireline methods. Sonic Log, Neutron Log and Density Log are
porosity-lithology logs that are sensitive not only to porosity but
also to the fluid content in rock matrix materials. Lithology can be
determined by checking the Density-Neutron recording when it is
compatibly scaled for limestone. Clay effect, on the other hand, has
to be considered and put in place for the analysis as Neutron-
Density log produces a negative separation for clay formation.
Thus, Gamma Ray log can be used as an appropriate correction and
is the first tool to be used for clay content approximation. The
choices of tools depend on the availability and company prefer-
ences. The determination of reservoir property is important for
identification and evaluation of hydrocarbon reserves, hydrocarbon

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engeos.2020.04.005
2666-7592/© 2020 Sinopec Petroleum Exploration and Production Research Institute. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi. This is an open access article
under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114
sources, seals and aquifers.
This work presents a case study on a mature oil field (Field X),
which is located at Baram Delta, in the northern part of Sarawak on
the offshore of Miri district, East Malaysia. The field was discovered
in November 1971; however, its production began in 1982 and has
peaked since 2000 as oil recovery has been maximized due to
additional opportunities identified within the field. The field is in a
tertiary basin developed by uplifting and folding the Cretaceous-to-
Eocene Eugeosynclinal sediments. Stable platforms characterized
by carbonate build-ups are located on the southwestern part of
Central Luconia Province as shown in Fig. 1 (http://geoseismic-
seasia.blogspot.com/2008/11/baram-basin.html). River banks and
source area for palaeo-Baram Delta System provided by major
orogeny comprises folded and uplifted Late Eocene deposits.
Wrench fault zones of Central Sabah are marked as the northeast
boundary of the boundary (Johnson et al., 1989). Baram Delta
consists of thick accumulation of Middle Miocene to clastic sedi-
ments. It also contains coastal to coastal fluviomarine sands and
shales that deposited in a form of wave-influenced deltaic envi-
ronment. Northwestward, a major regressive, sand-rich deltaic
wedge was built out for the stratigraphic succession. However, the
regression was interrupted by relatively brief transgression that
subsequently produced deposits of laterally extensive marine
shales as shown in Fig. 2 (Johnson et al., 1989). There are, also
northwestward, eight mainly shaly sedimentary cycles within the
Baram Delta Province. Field X of the present study belongs to Upper
Cycle V and Lower and Middle Cycle VI as shown in Fig. 2. Baram
Delta Province is a rapid subsiding area compared to the more
stable Central Luconia Province since the Middle Miocene. A
possible transform fault, the major Northwest-Southeast trending
West Baram hinge-line was marked as boundary of these two areas.
The northwestward progradation of Baram Delta caused a series of
fractures that may be related to basement faulting. These processes
most likely have developed into counter-regional growth faults as
sediment loading. A curvilinear trend across the basin can be
observed in Fig. 1 that displays a major growth faults. They are
Fig. 1. Northwest Borneo offshore geological provinces (http://geoseismic-seasia.blogspot.com/2008/11/baram-basin.html).
101
mostly SW-NE oriented in the South of growth faults and becoming
more severe in the North with E-W trending in offshore Sarawak
(Walstrom, 1972).
Formation of a series of Northeast-Southwest trending anti-
clines was a result of superimposed Late Miocene to Pliocene
regional compressional deformation increasing towards southeast.
The intersection between these anticlines with the earlier growth
faults trap is where hydrocarbon accumulated (Pauzi et al., 2000).
Hydrocarbon accumulations were mostly found on the side of the
growth faults for Baram Delta including Field X providing contin-
uous hydrocarbon source. It was indicated, by examining data ex-
ploits from an exploratory well in offshore Sarawak, in the previous
studies that oil reserves are present in offshore Sarawak; however,
uncertainties of the field structure in both shallow and deep res-
ervoirs have made further field development somewhat chal-
lenging (Pauzi et al., 2000; Wu et al., 2016). Moreover, the most
recent study conducted by Wu et al. (2016) focused on deeper
reservoirs. In order to reduce geological uncertainties, the present
work studied the shallow and deep reservoirs. Shaly sands, as seen
in Baram Delta, departed from Archie conditions; therefore fresh
water formation were taken into consideration as well as thin-bed
reservoirs and shaliness, which are crucial to avoid overestimation
of water saturation and the potential of missing any hydrocarbon
bearing zone (Alao et al., 2013).
Reservoirs generally are thin stacked at a shallow depth of
around 2000 ft subsea and consist of unconsolidated, loose, very
fine sand and heavy crude. These characteristics along with the
field structural uncertainties have made it somewhat difficult to
effectively develop the field. This study described the field forma-
tions, reservoirs and fluid characteristics by utilizing wireline log-
ging data to create comparison and correlation of intervals from
one well to another through stratigraphic correlation based on
Gamma Ray Log (GR), Density log (LDT), Sonic Log (LSS), Neutron
Log (CNL) and Laterologs and Spherically Focused Logs (LLD, LLS
and MSFL) logs and other parameters such as volume of shale,
porosity and water saturation.
102 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114
Fig. 2. Stratigraphic framework of Baram Delta Province (Johnson et al., 1989).
The main focus of this study is to identify and estimate the
petrophysical properties to improve the understanding of subsur-
face stratigraphic correlations. Evaluated petrophysical properties
include porosity and water saturation. In addition, stock tank oil
initially-in-place (STOIIP) was estimated based on parameters ob-
tained in the search of a potential reservoir. This was achieved by
integrating the studies on understanding petrophysical parameters
distribution and reservoir quality so that a better understanding of
subsurface stratigraphic correlations through the petrophysical
interpretation was obtained.
A well/stratigraphic correlation and compartmentalizing the
reservoir area by reservoir geology analysis was produced in this
study, in addition to providing petrophysical parameters quanti-
tatively and the distribution of reservoir properties. Reserve esti-
mation was also made, and the potential reservoirs were identified
from reservoir and structural model with uncertainty and optimi-
zation analysis. A better understanding on the subsurface strati-
graphic correlation was also obtained by means of both qualitative
and quantitative analyses.
2. Methodology
The geological features of Field X formations were represented
using PETREL and interaction of Interactive Petrophysics (IP).
Complex interpretations of the shale volume, fluid types, and li-
thology, special minerals, and shaly sands were analyzed. The
procedure consists of the following steps:
2.1. Well screening
To achieve the objectives of this study, petrophysical data of five
wells (wells X1, X2, X3, X4, and X5) were selected from the Field X
which consists of nine wells with data obtained using the wireline
logs. To obtain better understanding of the well properties, the well
logging data were used as input to PETREL. The geological structure
(faults, thickness) and requirements for log interpretation (petro-
physical properties) were considered as main factors to determine
the reservoir properties (Rahimzadeh Kivi et al., 2017).
2.2. Stratigraphic correlation
To develop a stratigraphic relationship, the data obtained by the
Gamma Ray Log were used. Normalization of the GR curve was
done to ease the process of correlation. It's necessary to ensure the
consistency between all GR logs performed on the five selected
wells.
2.3. Volume of shale
Volume of shale (Vsh) is a common factor for assessing the
reservoir quality with the input dataset of Gamma Ray, resistivity,
neutron and neutron density log (Alao et al., 2013; Rahimzadeh Kivi
et al., 2017). Linear method was adopted to determine the Vsh.
2.4. Porosity
Porosity was measured to determine the storage capacity of the
reservoir. Density Log, together with the available data, was used to
obtain the porosity since this is the most appropriate logging
technique to find the total and the effective porosity (Alao et al.,
2013). In regard to the effective porosity, the effect of shale vol-
ume, not included in total porosity, was calculated. Density Log was
used to find the total porosity while the effective porosity was
mathematically determined by Eq. (1):
 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114 103

reservoir with shaly sand and of low salinity. The Pickett Plot
Fe ¼ F  ðVsh  Fsh Þ (1) approach was used to determine the constants, a, m and n. The
value of m was determined by the slope in the log-log plot of Rt
where: (Lateral Log Deep) against effective porosity (F). Thereout, water
resistivity was obtained at formation temperature when the line
Fe ¼ Effective porosity (dimensionless), got intercepted at PHIE ¼ 1 (as shown in Fig. 3).
F ¼ Total porosity (dimensionless),
Vsh ¼ Volume of shale (dimensionless),
Fsh ¼ Porosity of shale/clay formation (dimensionless)

2.6. Reservoir and geology structural model

2.5. Water saturation
Several models were developed to calculate the water satura-
tion. The water saturation in each of the reservoir formation was
calculated using the Waxman-Smits model. According to
Koerperich (1975), the Waxman-Smits model is suitable for
Fig. 3. Log-log plot of Rt (LLD) against effective porosity (PHIE), Pockett Plot Approach.
Once the reservoir and rock geology studies were done, the
static modeling can be started by inputting data from the IP soft-
ware to PETREL. The petrophysical and well data calculated during
the mapping section, along with the pre-well data calculated dur-
ing reservoir geology analysis, were used to populate the
“container” type model as shown in Fig. 4. The “upscaling” of the
data is required to remove the difference of data obtained by the
well log and the model. Once the upscale well data are matched to
represent the original well data, the “scale up well logs” tab can be
used for this purpose. The cutoff (referred to as net sand) criteria
were set according to the brownfield described by Saboorian
(2017).
After the upscaling process, the petrophysical modeling panel
presented in PETREL can be used to evaluate the hydrocarbon
distribution and lateral heterogeneity. Petrophysical properties like
porosity and water saturation were distributed in the model.
Sequential Gaussian Simulation (single algorithm) was used to
distribute the properties. This method is widely used by re-
searchers as it can simulate the continuous reservoir variables of
especially complex heterogeneity and with faster processing time
compared to the Kringing method (Yu and Li, 2012). PETREL soft-
ware was used to calculate the bulk volume, pore-volume, net
volume, STOIIP, and hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV). The net
volume was calculated using Eq. (2):

Fig. 4. 3D grid model of Field X.

104 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114

show the possibility of hydrocarbon accumulation that might be

Net volume ¼ Bulk volume  N=G (2) found in this area. Time and depth structure maps combined with
Then pore volume was calculated from Eq. (3): five well logs were used to generate fourteen sand layers, namely
Sands A to N based on well correlation, which was in turn used to
Pore volume ¼ net volume  F (3) trace the lateral continuity of the reservoir structure.
The selected well logs of five wells were correlated with PETREL
HCPV calculation can be expressed by Eq. (4): software. The standard true vertical depth was used to measure the
depth in the correlation. Fig. 6 represents selected well log curves
HCPV ¼ Pore volume  Oil saturation (4)
for wells X1 to X5. It shows different sand layers generated to
Finally, HCPV is used to find STOIIP using Eq. (5): distinguish different reservoir formations. All wells were correlated
using Gamma-Ray well log that demonstrates deep and standard
HCPV resistivities. All generated correlations are shown in Fig. 6, where
STOIIP ¼ (5)
Bo the yellow line indicates correlations based on sandstones, while
the black line indicates a shale layer. Some sands and shales are
seen to pinch out, and at other intervals, the mineral volume
2.7. Uncertainty and optimization analysis variation suggests facies changes. The evaluated depth and thick-
nesses of various overlaying shale units suggested a comfortable
After completing the base case static modeling, the next step room for accumulation of matured hydrocarbon-prospective
was to perform the uncertainty analysis of the input values on sequence in the studied area of Baram Delta. The thickness of the
STOIIP. The base values and uncertain parameters are shown in lithology unit (i.e. Sand B, C and I) thickened at one end with
Table 1. subsequent thinning at the other end could be made out of the
delay in depositional periods or differences in the volume of sedi-
ments deposited per time.
3. Results and discussion
Fig. 6 displays the GR versus depth, which was used as a
discrimination tool to identify the formation lithology. It was noted
3.1. Geological structure (stratigraphic correlation)
there is a low variation of GR values between Sands A and B across
the baseline of wells X1, X2, and X3, indicating the presence of both
Fig. 5 shows five-well location where wellX1 was identified as
sand and shale layer as it has moderate to high GR counts (75e105
the most updip one followed by wells X2, X5, X3, and X4, and also it
API). Whereas the variation increases to the right of the baseline in
shows the main fault located in the southern part of the field in-
wells X4 and X5, indicating a shaly layer as it exhibits high GR
tersects with its crest that is marked by A-A and BeB line. The fault
counts (105e125 oAPI). Over a selected interval of interest (SSTVD
growth confirms that the field structure takes a shape of rollover
2000e5500 ft), some of clean sands with a low value of shale
anticline, supported by a study of Pauzi et al. (2000). Also it could
content were observed among different reservoir layers, particu-
larly Sands A, B, C, D, F, G and I, which designates sandstone for-
Table 1 mation. While the variation of shale content was clearly observed,
Uncertain parameter (Adams, 2005; Arvin and Ghafoor, 2014). showing a high shale content in these zones (150 oAPI), particularly
Uncertain Parameters Base Case Uncertainty those defined in well X5. Such high deviation which was recognized
in well log analysis, shows that the studied zone is low in perme-
Fluid Contacts All Sandse From log ±15 ft
Formation Volume Factor (FVF) 1.3 ±10% ability and rich in clay. Therefore, from the GR logs, the main
Water Saturation Sw (Upscaled Log) ±10% reservoir can be identified with a thick shale layer in between with
Porosity PHIE (Upscaled Log) ±10% reservoir formations acting as the seal. The thickness is within the

Fig. 5. Graphics showing the well locations and field structures.

 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114 105

Fig. 6. Well correlation of five wells in Field X (Sand A e Sand N).

Fig. 7. ‘Spiky’ GR log trend at wells in the east direction of Field X.

range of 15e70 ft where the highest thickness of seal was noted on
the top of Sand D in well X5, while the thinnest layer of seal was
identified on the top of Sand L in well X4.
Fig. 7 shows the spiky GR log trend which indicates the logs
were run in unconsolidated formation. In well X3, the GR log gives a
smooth line which is an indication of consolidated formation, while
in wells X4 and X5, GR log yields a spiky trend (as indicated with a
red circle in Fig. 7) which might be an indication of the unconsol-
idated layer. This overlying and underlying sequence of sharp
boundaries confirms to the existence of an abrupt change from low
gamma coarse-grained unit to a high gamma finer unit and back
again. To identify the main reservoirs, Field X formations were
divided into two parts to enhance the interpretation of both
shallow and deep reservoirs. Table 2 provides shallow and deep
reservoirs information that was used in this study.
3.2. Petrophysical evaluation
The petrophysical evaluation in this study consists of two major
components: the rock and fluid properties, due to the limitation on
data availability. In this section, each reservoir was analyzed both
qualitatively and quantitatively. The obtained information was used
to understand the reservoir and identify the potential of
hydrocarbon-bearing locality.
106 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114

Table 2
Provides main reservoirs information using stratigraphic correlation processes.

Reservoir Type Reservoir ID TVDSS (ft) Uncertainty and Optimization ID

Shallow  Sand A 1500 e (4946)  Sand A/B

 Sand B  Sand C/D
 Sand C  Sand E/F
 Sand D
 Sand E
 Sand F
Deep  Sand G 4600 e (5200)  Sand GHI
 Sand H  Sand JKLMN
 Sand I
 Sand J
 Sand K
 Sand L
 Sand M
 Sand N

3.2.1. Evaluation of formation rock and porosity Table 3

As shown in Table 2, the shallow reservoir is located within a All reservoirs rock properties, shale volume, total and effective porosity.

depth range of 1500e4946 ft and mainly consists of sandstone and Reservoir Sand ID Vsh PHIT PHIE
shale through the GR, Neutron and RHOB Logs. This indicates that Shallow Formation Sand A 0.53 0.29 0.20
the reservoirs may consist of a shaly sandstone formation. Fig. 8 Sand B 0.46 0.30 0.23
shows the comparison of shale volume using well logs, GR and Sand C 0.46 0.27 0.20
Neutron-Density Logs of well X1, indicating that both logs are Sand D 0.47 0.27 0.20
Sand E 0.47 0.24 0.16
similar trend, and showing the separation of sandstone and shale
Sand F 0.43 0.26 0.18
zones. This trend may represent another shaly reservoir formation. Average 0.272 0.195
However, the GR Log was chosen to be the most ideal to be used in Deep Formation Sand G 0.47 0.22 0.20
obtaining Vsh of main reservoir layers as listed in Table 3. Even Sand H 0.50 0.21 0.19
though Sand N has the lowest value of Vsh, 0.33, but this informa- Sand I 0.56 0.20 0.18
Sand J 0.46 0.22 0.20
tion alone cannot indicate a reservoir formation, the identification Sand K 0.34 0.24 0.22
of which also relies on the effective porosity (PHIE). Sand L 0.41 0.20 0.18
In addition to Vsh, the porosity of reservoir formations was also Sand M 0.43 0.19 0.17
determined using Neutron-Density Logs as seen in Fig. 6. Bulk total Sand N 0.33 0.20 0.19
Average 0.21 0.191
porosity (PHIT) and effective porosity (PHIE) of each zone were
computed and listed in Table 3. The PHIE considers the amount of
shale present in the pore medium. Results obtained within interval
investigation show that Sand B in shallow formation has the formations can represent a potential reservoir and hydrocarbon
highest effective porosity of 23% compared to Sand E with the fluid may be found in all of these formation layers. Table 3 sum-
lowest value of 16%. Most of sand layers in formation of the depth marises porosity, PHIT and PHIE and shale volume values for all
(shallow) have a higher value of PHIE (20%). While the deep for- sand layers studied.
mation represented by Sand K records the highst effective porosity Fig. 9 shows the porosity trend decreases as going deeper into
of 22% whereas Sand M the lowest value of 17%. Most of sand layers the reservoir. The effect of porosity reduction could be a result of
in the deep formation have a relatively high PHIE of more than 19%. shale dispersion. Also the rock compaction may contribute to the
Therefore, the effective porosity indicates that there are two increment in the rock bulk density, which can reduce the rock
rock types, a high porosity sandstone and a low porosity shale. porosity. Therefore, the potential of hydrocarbon saturation may
Overall, the average porosity recorded in both formations, shallow take place in shallow reservoir sands of high porosity.
and deep, is 19.5% and 19.1%, respectively. Therefore, such

Fig. 8. Comparison of shale volume with different logs, GR and Neutron-Density logs of well X1.
 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114 107

Fig. 9. Porosity changing with respect to the subsurface depth.

 Fig. 10. Cross-plot of Neutron-Density log showing the gas effect occurred at Well X2 and the points of gas saturationin Sand A, Sand B, Sand E, and Sand F.

Fig. 11. The thickest gas column (3 ft depth) detected at Sand A of well X2.

Table 4
3.2.2. Hydrocarbon evaluation
The fluid properties of water and oil saturation for all reservoir formations with the
As the porosity of different sand layers was identified, hydro- oil-water contact.
carbon accumulation was predicted based on the fluid properties
Reservoir Sw So OWC (TVDSS), ft
obtained from logging interpretation. X-Field has been expected to
contain hydrocarbon fair oil source with some gas. The gas hy- Sand A 0.91 0.09 2300
Sand B 0.91 0.09 2800
drocarbon was identified using the Neutron-Density cross-plot and
Sand C 0.88 0.12 3070
the gas effect mostly appeared in well X2. Fig. 10 shows the gas Sand D 0.87 0.13 3220
effect occurred in well X2 and the points show that gas saturation Sand E 0.91 0.09 3720
took place in Sands A, B, E and F. The gas saturation is also sup- Sand F 0.91 0.09 3950
ported by the stratigraphic correlation that provided information of Sand G 1.00 0.00 4300
Sand H 1.00 0.00 4860
well X2, an updip well. Thus the gas migrates to the crest due to the
Sand I 1.00 0.00 5400
gravitational effect. Sand J 0.95 0.05 5600
Since the target field mainly contains oil reservoirs where the Sand K 1.00 0.00 6250
gas fluid is present in a relatively small amount with less than a 3 ft Sand L 1.00 0.00 6360
Sand M 1.00 0.00 6500
of gas column, identified at SSTVD 1787e1790 ft in well X2 in Sand
Sand N 1.00 0.00 6750
A as shown in Fig. 11, thus the ratio of gas column to total thickness
All Zones 0.95 0.05
 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114
Fig. 12. Petrophysical parameters of Field X formations.
Fig. 13. Pay zone thickness and net/gross percentage of different wells in Field X.
Fig. 14. Pay and reservoir zones detected in well X1.
109
amounts to 0.3%. Based on these facts, Field X is characterized as an
oil field, and it is important to identify its potential oil column;
however, this study only focused on oil saturation. Since the water
saturation can only be obtained from well logs, the Waxman Smits
model was used for this purpose and then oil saturation was
calculated. The logs of each well were analyzed to identify the oil-
water contact (OWC) layer of each reservoir in Field X. Table 4
summarises the average watereoil saturation and also the OWC
of reservoir formations. The oil saturation in reservoir layers of
Sands A, B, C, D, E and F is 9%, 9%, 12%, 13%, 9%, and 9%, respectively.
3.2.3. Reservoir net pay
With both rock and fluid properties, the pay zone was detected
using cutoff criteria that were set up based on the field potential.
The cutoff was also chosen based on a brownfield since it has been
in production for 35 years. Based on the pay zone summary in
Fig. 12, we saw that the rock and fluid properties are different from
the ones recorded in the previous section. The values recorded are
higher because of the cutoff set up. The calculation of the average
values of this pay region only considered the points that meet the
cutoff criteria. As seen in Fig. 12, Sand B has the highest potential for
re-development plan but other sands are also good contenders.
Among others, only Sand N has the lowest porosity with less than
10% but is relatively high oil saturation. Therefore, Sand N is also
kept among the contenders but further development is required to
extract oil from such a tight formation. On the other hand, re-
development costs can be reduced with the extraction of the full
potential from the existing wells. So, in this study, the net pay
thicknesses, as well as the net-to-gross ratio, were studied to
identify the best well for re-development. The histogram in Fig. 13
shows well 3 records the highest net-to- gross (NTG) value of 15%
followed by wells X2, X5, X1 and X4 with 8%, 5%, 4%, and 2%
respectively. However, the highest net pay thickness is recorded by
110 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114

Table 5
Presents volumetric estimation summary of all reservoirs in the Field X.

Reservoir Bulk volume (  106 ft3) Net volume (  106 ft3) Pore volume (  106 RB) HCPV (  106 RB) STOIIP (  106 STB)

Sand A 68,645 34,323 1226 159 123

Sand B 33,559 16,780 688 147 113
Sand C 30,221 15,111 542 63 49
Sand D 36,460 18,230 679 128 98
Sand E 64,353 32,177 1128 167 129
Sand F 38,960 19,480 595 83 64
Sand G 7018 3509 110 16 12
Sand H 7212 3606 115 18 13
Sand I 42,041 21,020 726 65 50
Sand J 23,054 11,527 392 13 10
Sand K 35,952 17,976 545 46 35
Sand L 55,561 27,781 1 0 0
Sand M 22,683 11,342 342 45 35

All Sands 465,719 232,860 7088 950 731

well X2. Thus, in terms of net pay, well X2 records a net pay key volume calculations such as STOIIP that would aid future
thickness of 340 ft followed by wells X3, X1, X5 and X4 with 242, redevelopment plans. The next section contains further elaboration
200, 138 and 108 ft, respectively. Therefore, wells X2 and X3 would on the static model.
be recommended for re-development over the other three wells.

3.3. Reservoir and structural geology analysis

3.2.4. Potential hydrocarbon zone
Most of the remaining oil column or pay zone is attributed to
Sands A and B. Both sand reservoirs have a high potential for further
re-development as they show good petrophysical parameters.
Other reservoirs also have good potential but mostly in the shallow
reservoirs, Sands A to F. However, the shallow reservoirs can
contribute to an increment of recovery factor through secondary
and tertiary oil recoveries. The summarized pay zone or oil column
for well X1 is shown in Fig. 14 and the other four wells are attached
in Supplementary Figure A. A better understanding of Field X
subsurface was accomplished by creating a static model and
simulating all petrophysical properties. The model also provided
This section further explains and identifies hydrocarbon accu-
mulation from the newly established static model and also the
remaining reserve calculation as of 1st January 2015. Field X's
STOIIP was calculated at 731 MMSTB, with 79% in the shallow
reservoirs and 21% in the deeper ones. Table 5 shows the summary
of volumetric estimations of all reservoirs. From the table, the four
STOIIP values ranked in the forefront and recorded are in Sands A, E,
B, and D, consecutively.
Fig. 15 shows a good correlation between the petrophysical
parameters of Sand A and STOIIP distribution. The shale composi-
tion in Sand A is very high as it moves eastward. However, the

Fig. 15. Distribution of (a) shale volume, (b) porosity, (c) water saturation, and (d) STOIIP across Sand A of Field X.
 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114 111

overall porosity of the reservoir is good with an average ranging
between 20% and 28%. Moreover, the shale volume and water
saturation within the red circle, have an average value of 0.6e0.9
and 0.5e0.7 respectively. Also hydrocarbon accumulation was
observed in a high amount, but appears to be highly surrounded by
shale formation. Therefore, even though this area has a high po-
tential for further development, a precaution is required in
emplacing suitable development wells in this area. As noticed in
Fig. 15, oil accumulations are scattered throughout the field due to a
lack of interconnection between the formation pores (Tiab and
Donaldson, 1996). Hence, tertiary oil recovery is recommended
for future development so that oil can be displaced from the tight
rock formation.
Moreover, Fig. 16 shows Sand B is good in porosity distribution
ranging from 20% to 25% throughout the reservoir. This indicates
that the reservoir rock formation has a high potential to produce
more oil and gas, thus, increasing the recovery factor of the field.
This is proven with the hydrocarbon accumulation or STOIIP dis-
tribution trend. As compared to Sand A, hydrocarbon accumulation
of Sand B was less scattered throughout the reservoir and the
accumulation occurred in the western and southern parts of the
field. To recover more hydrocarbons from Sand B, the suggested
location for further development planning is the southern anticline
structure of Field X due to the high amount of STOIIP recorded
therein.
Overall, uncertainty and optimization analyses need to be dis-
cussed to identify all STOIIP calculated. Moreover, uncertain pa-
rameters that could cause a significant impact on STOIIP calculation
must be considered, and will be discussed in the next section.

Fig. 16. Distribution of (a) shale volume, (b) porosity, (c) water saturation, (d) STOIIP, and (e) STOIIP (3D view of south anticline structure) across Sand B. According to the color
legend, the distribution of different parameters can be clearly visualized. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version
of this article.)
112 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114

Table 6 3.4. Uncertainty and optimization analysis

The percentage error of static model as compared to the dynamic model and manual
calculated STOIIP.
The established model was validated before analyzing any un-
Static Model as of January 1, Dynamic Model as of January 1, Error certain field parameter by comparing STOIIP values from the dy-
2015, MMSTB 2015, MMSTB % namic and manual calculation with the ones calculated by a static
731 692 5.6 model using petrophysical parameters. In Table 6, the calculated
Static Model as of January 1, Manual calculated STOIIP (using Error error shows higher value in the manual calculation of STOIIP
2015, MMSTB formula), MMSTB % compared to the dynamic model at an error rate of 10% and 5.6%,
731 804 10.0 respectively. Manual calculation of STOIIP recorded higher error
percentage because of the petrophysical parameters used for the
calculation are field average. This may be inaccurate as the values

Fig. 17. Distribution of STOIIP calculation based on uncertain parameters by using Monte Carlo method for (a) Sand A/B, (b) Sand C/D, (c) Sand E/F, (d) Sand GHI, (e) Sand JKLMN, and
(f) all sands of Field X.
 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114 113

Table 7 reducing STOIIP by 6% and FVF case increasing it by 11%. Mean-

Summarize all cases, P10, P50, and P90 for all reservoirs of the Field X. while, the least uncertain impact on STOIIP is water saturation (Sw)
Reservoir STOIIP (MMSTB) with Sw case reducing STOIIP by 6% and Sw case increasing it by 7%.
Low (P10) Reference (P50) High (P90)
Furthermore, the combination of these uncertain parameters has
an impact on STOIIP, with 29% for the low case and 22% for the high
Sand A/B 181 215 256
case.
Sand C/D 115 132 158
Sand E/F 153 172 204
Sand GHI 56 67 77
Sand JKLMN 55 70 80 4. Conclusions and future perspectives

All Sands 593 655 740

identified in the study rather than that petrophysical values ob-
tained in each reservoir, Sands A to N, are unique. However, since
the recorded errors are less than 10%, the static model is considered
valid. To optimize the recorded STOIIP values, the Monte Carlo
method was adopted to identify low, base and high case values.
In optimizing the model, all reservoirs were analyzed to identify
the values for all cases. The distribution of STOIIP values consid-
ering uncertain parameters can be seen in Fig. 17 and the cases for
all reservoirs are summarized in Table 7. When comparing the base
case and the reference case (P50), the value obtained for the
reference case (P50) is less than that of the base case. The reason is
that the reference case (P50) is calculated using high and low values
for each variable, and thus represents the statistical average of all
variables that affect STOIIP calculation.
The impacts of porosity, fluid contact, formation volume factor,
water saturation and of the combination of these uncertainties
were assessed as seen in Fig. 18 in terms of STOIIP obtained by the
static model for Sands A to N of Field X. Based on the assessment,
the porosity was found to have the largest impact on Field X's
STOIIP. The low porosity case reduced STOIIP by 12% and the high
porosity case increased it by 41%. The second largest impact lies in
the fluid contacts: the low fluid contacts case reducing STOIIP by
10% and the high fluid contacts case increasing it by 17%. This is
followed by the Formation Volume Factor (FVF) with the FVF case
The study shows the effectiveness of well log data in the esti-
mation of reservoir petrophysical properties and hydrocarbon-
bearing sandstone. The well logs data consisting of gamma ray,
sonic velocity, density, resistivity and neutron logs enabled the
delineation and correlation of the shaly sandstone reservoirs. A
rollover anticline structure was identified across the field using the
fault as the identification tool. Fourteen hydrocarbon-bearing areas
of sand, namely Sands A to N were identified from the study area.
The target reservoir was characterized by the following petro-
physical properties: gross ranges between 107 and 339 ft, net/
gross: 2%e15%, Ø: 16%e23%, Vsh: 33%e53%, Sw: 86%e100%, and
Hcpv: 5%e13%. Reservoirs C and D were ranked higher compared to
other mapped reservoirs in the study area. They were characterized
by high hydrocarbon saturation of 12%e13%, moderate water
saturation of 88%e87% and excellent porosity of 20%.
This study also shows that the estimation of oil reserve accu-
mulations in the Field X for the fourteen-mapped reservoir sands is
a total proven reserve resource of 740 MMSTB at P90, 655 MMSTB
at P50 and 593 MMSTB at P10. Reservoirs A and B are the only
intervals with the highest recoverable oil, with a volume of 256
MMSTB at P90, 215 MMSTB at P50 and 181 MMSTB at P10. The
result will help to plan the re-development approach and also serve
to provide a very effective reservoir management strategy
throughout the field life. It is recommended that further studies
should involve biostratigraphy and seismic data of all the wells.
This will provide more reliable data for further interpretation of the
field and hence contribute significantly to the efficient develop-
ment of hydrocarbon in the study field.

Fig. 18. Tornado plot of Field X.

114 H.B. Mahmud et al. / Energy Geoscience 1 (2020) 100e114
Declaration of competing interest
No conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engeos.2020.04.005.
References
Adams, S.J., 2005. Quantifying Petrophysical Uncertainties. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/93125-MS.
Alao, P.A., Ata, A.I., Nwoke, C.E., 2013. Subsurface and petrophysical studies of shaly-
sand reservoir targets in Apete Field, Niger Delta. Int. Scholar. Res. Notices.
http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2013/102450.pdf.
Arvin Kh, S., Ghafoor, K., 2014. Sensitivity & Uncertainty Analysis of Original Oil-in-
Place in Carbonate Reservoir Modeling. A Case Study. Petroleum & Coal 56 (3),
332e338, 2014.
Johnson, H.D., Kuud, T., Dundang, A., 1989. Sedimentology and reservoir geology of
the betty field, Baram Delta province, offshore Sarawak, NW borneo. Bull. Geol.
Soc. Malays. 119e161.
Koerperich, E.A., 1975. Utilization of Waxman-Smits equations for determining oil
saturation in a low-salinity, shaly sand reservoir. J. Petrol. Technol. https://
www.onepetro.org/journal-paper/SPE-5038-PA.
Ming Wu, I.Z., Parashar, S., Lee, C.Y., Kamarul Zaman, M.N., Amri M. Bukhari, M.K.,
Jabbar, S.F., , et al.Mansur, H., 2016. First Meta-Sedimentary Basement Reservoir
Formation Evaluation in Offshore Sarawak: A Detail Insight on Fracture
Morphology.
Pauzi, N., Low, F.N., Husin, M.T., Maksari, H., 2000. Bokor: Development and Tech-
nology Challenges of a Mature Field, 2000.
Rahimzadeh Kivi, I., Zare-Reisabadi, M., Saemi, M., Zamani, Z., 2017. An intelligent
approach to brittleness index estimation in gas shale reservoirs: a case study
from a western Iranian basin. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 44, 177e190.
Saboorian-Jooybari, H., 2017. A structured mobility-based methodology for quan-
tification of net-pay cutoff in petroleum reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 20
(2), 317e333.
Tiab, D., Donaldson, E.C., 1996. Petrophysics. Theory and Practice of Measuring
Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport Properties. Gulf Publishing, Houston, Wal-
strom. J. E. 1972. A Review of Formation Evaluation.
Walstrom, J.E., 1972. A Review of Formation Evaluation. Society of Petroleum En-
gineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/4187-MS.
Yu, X., Li, X., 2012. The Application of Sequential Indicator Simulation and
Sequential Gaussian Simulation in Modeling a Case in Jilin Oilfield. Future
Control and Automation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-642-31003-4_14.
Web Reference
Seismic Atlas of SE Asia Basins. Compilation of seismic images of geological features
in Southeast Asia basins, related to hydrocarbon potential of this region. http://
geoseismic-seasia.blogspot.com/2008/11/baram-basin.html; 2011; Countries
covered in this atlas: Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, Thailand,
Vietnam.