RHU FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1

GROUP 10

GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS DEPARTMENT FINAL REPORT

MUHAMMAD HIDAYAT BIN MAZLAN (2018272898)

SUHAIL DARWISY BIN SUHAIMI (2018226076)
SARAH ASYIQHIN BINTI ABDUL HALIM (2018876122)
SITI NUR ZULAINIE BINTI ZULKEFLE (2018254314)
NURZAYANI NAJIHAH BINTI YAZID (2018435948)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.0 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.1 Location of the Field ..................................................................................................... 3

2.2 History and Geological of Malay Basin............................................................................... 4

2.2.1 Malay Basin................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.2 Exploration Opportunities at Malay/Penyu Basin ......................................................... 5

2.3 General Geology .................................................................................................................. 6

2.3.1 Regional Geology .......................................................................................................... 6

2.3.2 Stratigraphy Setting ....................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Petroleum System ................................................................................................................ 9

2.4.1 Source rock .................................................................................................................... 9

2.4.2 Reservoir rock ............................................................................................................... 9

2.4.3 Migration ..................................................................................................................... 10

2.4.4 Seal .............................................................................................................................. 10

2.4.5 Trap ............................................................................................................................. 10

2.5 Well Log Correlation ......................................................................................................... 11

2.6 Depositional Environment ................................................................................................. 12

2.7 Reservoir Properties Model ............................................................................................... 12

2.8 Volumetric Calculations .................................................................................................... 15

2.8.1 Gross Rock Volume Calculation ................................................................................. 15

2.8.2 Hydrocarbon in Place Calculation (HIP) .................................................................... 18

2.9 Uncertainties ...................................................................................................................... 20

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 21

References ................................................................................................................................ 22
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Gross Rock Volume for Minimum case for Rhu field ............................................. 16
Table 2: Gross Rock Volume for Most Likely case for Rhu field .......................................... 16
Table 3: Gross Rock Volume for Maximum case for Rhu field ............................................ 17
Table 4: Parameters input from Petrophysics Department ...................................................... 18
Table 5: Summary of Hydrocarbon In Place Calculation ........................................................ 19

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Block PM417 Location (GEOExPro,2019)................................................................ 3

Figure 2: Cross-section of Malay Basin NW-SE section........................................................... 4

Figure 3: Chrono-stratigraphy of the Malay Basin .................................................................... 6

Figure 4: Generalised stratigraphy, hydrocarbon occurrences, and structural history of the

Malay Basin (EPIC, 1994 ). ....................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5: Well correlation between Rhu-1 and Rhu-2 ............................................................. 11

Figure 6: Surface 3D model of contour data from top view .................................................... 12

Figure 7: Lithofacies property 2D model (top view) ............................................................... 13

Figure 8: Porosity property 2D model (top view) ................................................................... 13

Figure 9: Net-to-gross (NTG) property 2D model (top view) ................................................. 14

Figure 10: Water saturation property 2D model (top view) .................................................... 14

Figure 11: Structural map of Rhu field ................................................................................... 15

 CHAPTER 2
GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS

2.0 Objectives
The objectives of geology and geophysics section covers:

i. Analyze reservoir geometry and location based on map, location, history,

fundamentals geology knowledge.
ii. Evaluate regional geology, geology and stratigraphy setting and petroleum systems.
iii. Propose reservoir characteristics and connectivity based on well correlation,
depositional environment.
iv. Propose reservoir model; Litho-facies, Porosity map, Permeability, Net-To-Gross,
Water saturation
v. Determine volumetric assessment; Gross Rock Volume (GRV), Hydrocarbon-in-place,
Uncertainties

2.1 Introduction
Geology and Geophysics (G&G) is the most important department in the Field Development
Plan (FDP). This is because it determines the most important concern, which is whether the
field of interest is commercially producible or not. This department will concentrate and rely
on the data provided to generate results for the petroleum system, well correlations, gross rock
volume (GRV), stratigraphic settings, and hydrocarbon in place estimations.

The G&G department's responsibilities include determining the productive layer,

determining the connection or grouping of the sand layers, drawing structure maps, and
computing the total mass volume of the reservoir. Petroleum G&G streamline the discovery of
new and commercially viable oil and gas reserves, as well as the creation and expansion of
existing fields.

2
2.1.1 Location of the Field
Rhu Field is located about 140 km northeast of Kerteh in the central part of Malay Basin.
The field is divided into two fault blocks that are Fault Block 1 and Fault Block 2. The
stratigraphic group D is gas and oil bearing in the field.

The Rhu-Ara Cluster contains two discovered oil fields which are Rhu Field and Ara
Field located in the Malay Basin's central region, lies within the Penyu Basin 150km off the
coast of oil centre Kerteh, Terengganu. This cluster is categorized into block PM417 having block
size of 14,177 sq km. It is discovered and owned by Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS),
Malaysia’s national oil corporation. This shallow water cluster has an average water depth of
75 m.

Figure 1: Block PM417 Location (GEOExPro,2019)

Bertam field is the nearest facility located around 60 km from the Rhu-Ara cluster. There are
4 discovered wells in this cluster known as Rhu-1, Rhu-2, Rhu-3 and Ara-1. As has been
reported, two wells were drilled in the Rhu Field. The first well named Rhu-1 which is a wild
cat well was drilled in the west of the Fault Block 1. The second well is an appraisal well known
as Rhu-2 which was drilled to appraise the structure's east area. Rhu and Ara fields are located
close between each other about 9 km apart which allows for synergy developments that can
offer great cost optimization.

3
2.2 History and Geological of Malay Basin

2.2.1 Malay Basin

The Malay Basin is located between Vietnam and Peninsular Malaysia in the southern
part of the Gulf of Thailand. The basin is approximately 80,000 km2 in size and contains up to
14 km of silt (Abd Rahim Md Arshad et al., 1995). The basin continues northwest to join
Thailand's Pattani Trough and southeast to join Indonesia's West Natuna Basin. Its northern
flank extends into Vietnamese territory.

The Malay Basin is separated from the Penyu Basin by the Tenggol Arch, while the
Malay Basin is separated from Thailand's Pattani Basin by the Narathiwat High. The Malay
Basin is a 500 km long and 250 km broad elongate NW-SE trending basin underlain by a pre-
Tertiary basement of metamorphic, igneous, and sedimentary rocks which are thought to be
offshore continuation of eastern Peninsular Malaysia. In Peninsular Malaysia, there are three
sedimentary basins which are Malay Basin, Penyu Basin and Sumatra Basin. Malay Basin
holds the largest oil and gas prolific that contains upto 12,000m of sediments and occupied an
area of 78,000 sq.km. Malay Basin can be divided into six regions which are North, South,
Northeast, Southeast and Central Basin that are based on their respective petroleum play types
and geographical locations. Rhu Field is situated in the Central of Malay Basin.

The Malay Basin is located in the heart of Sundaland, Southeast Asia's cratonic core. It
is one of the region's deepest continental extensional basins, and it is thought to have developed
during the early Tertiary period. The Malay Basin is asymmetrical both longitudinal and cross-
sectionally. though, the southeastern flank is slightly steep compared to northern steep.

Figure 2: Cross-section of Malay Basin NW-SE section

4
 The Malay Basin is a complicated rift made up of multiple extensional grabens.
Because of their enormous depths, most of these grabens have not been penetrated, but have
instead been interpreted using magnetic, gravity, and seismic data.

It was reported that petroleum exploration in the Malay Basin only began in 1968 and
is now relatively maturing with many oil and gas accumulations have been found and many
are actively producing as of now.

2.2.2 Exploration Opportunities at Malay/Penyu Basin

ESSO started drilling in the Malay Basin in 1969, and by 1975, significant amounts of oil
and gas had been discovered in the the Seligi, Pulai, Tapis and Bekok formations of Oligocene
to Early Miocene age. The first discovered oil was in the Seligi, Tapis, Pulai, and Bekok fields,
and the first gas in the Angsi, Besar, and Belumut fields.

Conoco drilled the basin's first two wildcat wells, Penyu-1 (1970) and Pari-1 (1973). The
largest inversion anticline overlying the Kuantan Graben was tested by Penyu-1. Pari-1
experimented with a basement drape feature over a basement high (Pari High) that separated
the Pekan and Kuantan grabens. These exploration wells represented the two major play types
that became the focus of exploration in the following years. The exploration licence for the
block, known as PM14 at the time, covered the entire Penyu Basin and changed hands twice,
first to Petronas Carigali in 1978 and then to Texaco in 1990.

Cherating-1, Merchong-1, Rumbia-1, and Rhu-1 were the four exploration wells drilled by
the latter in 1991. The first three, Cherating-1, Merchong-1, and Rumbia-1, all failed to test
inversion anticlines. The Cherating-1 well, which was drilled on a gentle inversion structure
within the central Cherating Graben, discovered 15 metres of gross oil-bearing sands in late
synrift Oligocene sediments, but the recoverable hydrocarbon volume appeared to be non-
commercial.

Texaco's fourth well, Rhu-1/1A, was designed to target Oligocene synrift sandstones atop a
basement ridge, but instead discovered oil in basal Miocene sands of the Upper Penyu
Formation. Texaco drilled the Rhu-2 well in 1993 to assess the stratigraphic continuity and
structural geometry of the hydrocarbon column discovered at Rhu-1/1A. Unfortunately, the
well failed to produce any oil from the targeted zones as sand encountered in Rhu-1/1A was
discovered to be mostly water wet.

5
2.3 General Geology

2.3.1 Regional Geology

The central part of Malay Basin basement faults mostly trend to east-west which these
basement faults happened to influence the geometry of compressional anticlines. The basin is
considerably deeper in the north and thicker which makes it has deeply buried sedimentary
succession because the geographic and stratigraphic is primarily controlled by basin
morphology. The field was located in the D-sand group. It is deposited by the progradational
stacking of dominantly fluvial/estuarine channels and culminates with a localized erosional
unconformity.

Figure 3: Chrono-stratigraphy of the Malay Basin

6
 During the Middle-Late Miocene, the Malay Basin experienced inversion. Tjia revealed
the structural evidence for basin inversion (1994b). He discovered compressional anticlines,
inverted, and raised half-grabens, and reverse throws on conventional half-graben faults. Near
general, the strength of inversion is greater in the basin's centre than on its flanks. The strength
of the inversion likewise increases towards the southeast. Ginger and colleagues (1993).

Furthermore, ESSO has mapped three primary lineaments which are also known as fold
and fault. These lineaments commonly trend north-south in the northern one-third of the basin,
but in the southern two-thirds, east-west and northwest-southeast trending lineaments
predominate. These lineaments were related to the following three tectonic phases.

Beginning in the Late Cretaceous - Late Eocene and ending in the Late Miocene, the
extensional phase represents a period of basin opening and rapid sediment accumulation. Basin
subsidence occurred as a result of block faulting. Some of the major east-west faults discovered
in the study area are thought to be associated with this early stage of basin formation. Next
phase is known as a compressional phase in the Late Miocene-Pliocene that formed the
majority of the domal and anticlinal characteristics which trapped hydrocarbons. Some of the
features and faults in the area are considered to be related to fault block and shale
readjustments.

The basement is relatively shallow due to the readjustment of the fault blocks in the
south and southeast, which caused uplifting, tilting, and subsequent erosion. In some areas of
the southeastern Malay Basin, at least 800 metres of sediment have been eroded. Next phase
was followed by an extensional phase of basin rejuvenation. During the Pliocene-Recent,
extensive marine incursion and sedimentation process happened. Several of the domal or
anticlinal features kept growing for a certain time during this period, and it is considered that
this continual structural growth was caused by basement readjustments that resulted in more
ductile sediments and ‘flow’ of shale.

7
2.3.2 Stratigraphy Setting
The Malay Basin strata are subdivided into seismostratigraphic units. The groups are
labelled alphabetically, in ascending order, from A to M. This nomenclature, developed by
Esso in the late 1960s, is typically favoured over those provided by other operators. The Malay
Basin's stratigraphic evolution is directly tied to its structural evolution, which happened in
three stages:

1. 1. a preMiocene (Oligocene or possibly older) extensional or synrift phase.

2. an Early to Middle south than in the north. The onset of Miocene thermal/
tectonic subsidence phase, which was accompanied by basin inversion.
3. a Late Miocene-Quaternary subsidence phase, representing a tectonically
inactive period.

Figure 4: Generalised stratigraphy, hydrocarbon occurrences, and structural history of the Malay Basin (EPIC,
1994 ).

In this Field Development Plan of Rhu Field, the stratigraphic group D is gas and oil
bearing in the field. Based on the Petroleum Geology & Resources of Malaysia, group D were
formed by the progradational stacking of primarily fluvial/estuarine channels, culminating in a
confined erosional unconformity along with Group E. The central part of basin experiencing
compression anticlines which involve reservoirs in Group D and E. Upper Miocene and later

8
reservoir sandstones of Group D and E have been interpreted as tidal, deltaic to lower coastal
plain deposits. (Mazlan Madon, 1994)

Early Oligocene continental alluvial clastics filling graben basins and topography are
thought to be the oldest basinal sediments. Sediments from the late Eocene to the early
Oligocene may be found in the oldest grabens. Recent seismic data show several kilometres of
sediments beneath the known upper Oligocene strata, implying that the basin formed well
before the Oligocene.

2.4 Petroleum System

The petroleum system is a combination of geological processes and components that
generate and store oil and gas. A mature source rock, migratory pathway, reservoir rock, trap,
and seal are the components of a petroleum system. In the petroleum system, there are two
processes: trap formation and the generation, migration, and deposition of hydrocarbons. The
location of Rhu field shows that it’s in the centre of Malay Basin and the field maturation
process is occurred in the stage of Upper Miocene Group D.

2.4.1 Source rock

A source rock is a deposition that is high in organic materials. The amount of organic content,
which is usually expressed as total organic carbon (TOC), determines the classification of the
source rock. The coal and coaly shale source rock from fluvio-deltaic environment are
identified in Group D. The Middle and Upper Miocene fluvial deltaic shales and coals are
known as good oil-prone source rocks with TOC of 60 % (Akihiko and others, 1997).

2.4.2 Reservoir rock

The reservoir rock is where the permeable rocks material stores the hydrocarbon. The Group
D sandstones have been recognised as the major hydrocarbon resource. The reservoirs in Group
D and E are overpressure and are generally formed by marine sandstones. Because of its high
porosity and permeability, sandstone is a good reservoir material because it allows
hydrocarbons to flow easily. Group D, which was formed during the middle to upper Miocene,
consists of reservoir rocks deposited in fluvial-deltaic, coastal plain, and shallow marine
environments (Madon M. ,1994; Petronas, 1999).

9
2.4.3 Migration
The oil produced by source rocks escapes from the source beds and travels through porous
rocks or until it comes into contact with a trap. This is because source rock is very low in
permeability. In this Rhu-field case, the collision between India and Asia activated the fault in
the Malay Basin, providing a migratory pathway for hydrocarbon resources (Tjia, 1994).

2.4.4 Seal
The fundamental function of a sealing rock is to act as a barrier to petroleum migration
produced by accumulation. The widespread regional shale and sealing faults found in Group D
are thought to form the seal rock for the majority of the reservoir in the Malay Basin (Tjia,
1994). The interbedded claystone as well as shale units in upper Group D that exist in these
groups provide top seal to the reservoir. The presence of shale in the sand unit acts as a seal for
the hydrocarbon traps.

2.4.5 Trap
Compressional anticlines and fault-dip closure are the two primary structural traps in the
Malay Basin (Ismail, Abdullah, & Rudolph, 1994; Ngah, 1990; Bishop, 2002; Tjia, 1994).
Traps in reservoir Group D were associated with normal faults. This sort of trap is often found
in the basin's southern region.

10
2.5 Well Log Correlation
Well correlation using Gamma Ray log and Neutron-Density log to determine the
interconnection between two wells. Figure 5 shows the well correlation between Rhu-1 and
Rhu-2.

Figure 5: Well correlation between Rhu-1 and Rhu-2

11
2.6 Depositional Environment
Based on Figure 4, hydrocarbons can be found from Group D down to Group K. The
depositional environment varies with the stratigraphy. The Upper Miocene reservoirs of Group
D have been interpreted to be tidal, deltaic to lower coastal plain deposits. This is interpreted
based on the findings in the literature of Mazlan Madon, 1994.

His study in Jerneh Field occurred in the Jerneh and Bintang formation at Central of Malay
Basin that was done in the depth between 1250 m to 2000m. The Bintang formation especially
is in the D-sand unit that formed during the Upper Miocene; the depositional environments
obtained from the study are brackish, shallow and marine. It was suggested based on his
findings that it is in a shallow marine environment. The facies association on delta plain
interpretation is because of the abundance of coal and marine facies association interpreted as
shallow marine deposits because of the presence of mudrocks.

2.7 Reservoir Properties Model

In this Field Development Plan (FDP) for Rhu field, the Reservoir Properties Model was
modelled using the Petrel E&P Software 2017 develop by Schlumberger. The essential input
data are the top structure contour map data, the well correlation, the well coordinate and the
well top well bottom profile. The well surface of the property model can be constructed after
the geologist has determined the input and data obtained.

Figure 6: Surface 3D model of contour data from top view

12
 From the interpreted well correlation, the data was utilised to correlate the surface and
subsurface of the model. This surface model created was upscaled by inserting property data
like porosity, lithofacies, net-to-gross (NTG) and water saturation (Sw). This method was
developed to estimate the potential zone for this Rhu field.

Figure 7: Lithofacies property 2D model (top view)

Figure 8: Porosity property 2D model (top view)

13
Figure 9: Net-to-gross (NTG) property 2D model (top view)

Figure 10: Water saturation property 2D model (top view)

14
2.8 Volumetric Calculations

2.8.1 Gross Rock Volume Calculation

The gross rock volume (GRV) is the entire volume between the mapped surface that
identifies the top of the reservoir or potential reservoir and predicted hydrocarbon contact. The
GRV is determined by integrating the depth of the top sand unit, the base or thickness, and the
hydrocarbon contact.

In this report. the GRV is calculated using software ImageJ method approaches. Figure 4
shows the structural map of Rhu field. The structural maps provided are composed of contour
lines that show the top depth of each layer from a top-view perspective.

Figure 11: Structural map of Rhu field

Before obtaining the gross rock volume, the surface area of the contour maps was calculated.
After computing the surface area using the techniques described above, the gross rock volume
may be determined using Equation-1.

𝐺𝑅𝑉(𝑎𝑐 − 𝑓𝑡) = [𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (ft 2 ) × 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 (ft)] ÷ 43560 Equation-1

The deterministic method was used to compute the GRV. As a result, the GRV is calculated
in three ways: minimum, most likely, and maximum. The main objective of the gross rock
volume is to determine the amount of hydrocarbon originally in place, the amount of gas
initially in place, and the amount of stock tank oil first in place.

15
Table 1: Gross Rock Volume for Minimum case for Rhu field

Well Sand Unit Area, ft𝟐 Thickness, ft Volume, ft𝟑 Total, acre-ft

U.1 5935525.366 92.02 546187044.1

U.2
13935642.5 75.12 1046845464

U.3 20309319.63 56.46 1146664186

U.4 6873611.74 19.8 136097512.5

Rhu-Field U.5 13134610.23 60.36 792805073.5 372416.45

U.6
30870499.81 208.48 6435881801

U.7 11354746.83 43.05 488821851.2

U.8 17371319.57 145.47 2527005858

U.9 16766575.71 185.02 3102151839

Table 2: Gross Rock Volume for Most Likely case for Rhu field

Well Sand Unit Area, ft𝟐 Thickness, ft Volume, ft𝟑 Total, acre-ft

U.1 6595028.184 92.02 606874493.5

U.2
15484047.22 75.12 1163161627

U.3 22565910.7 56.46 1274071318

U.4 7637346.378 19.8 151219458.3
Rhu-Field U.5 14594011.37 60.36 880894526.2 429145.32
U.6
34300555.35 208.48 7150979779

U.7 12616385.37 43.05 543135390.2

U.8 19301466.19 145.47 2807784287
U.9 18629528.57 220.91 4115449157

16
Table 3: Gross Rock Volume for Maximum case for Rhu field

Well Sand Unit Area, ft𝟐 Thickness, ft Volume, ft𝟑 Total, acre-ft

U.1 7254531.002 92.02 667561942.8

U.2
17032451.94 75.12 1279477790

U.3 24822501.77 56.46 140147845

U.4 8401081.016 19.8 166341404.1
Rhu-Field U.5 16053412.5 60.36 968983978.8 455175.66
U.6
37730610.88 208.48 7866077757

U.7 13878023.91 43.05 597448929.3

U.8 21231612.81 145.47 3088562715
U.9 20492481.43 185.02 3791518914

17
2.8.2 Hydrocarbon in Place Calculation (HIP)

To calculate HIP for Stock Tank Oil Originally in Place (STOIIP) and Gas Initially In Place
(GIIP), the oil and gas formation volume factor must be obtained from Reservoir Department
and the remaining parameters shown in Table 7 come from the Petrophysics Department. The
oil and gas formation volume factor calculated by Reservoir Department were 1.285 bbl/stb
and 0.00085 bbl/scf respectively. The following equation is used to calculate the Oil Originally
in Place (STOIIP) and gas initially in place (GIIP).

7758 × 𝐺𝑅𝑉 × 𝑁𝑇𝐺 × 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 × 𝑂𝑖𝑙 saturation

𝑆𝑇𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃 =
𝑂𝑖𝑙 formation volume factor

43560  GRV  NTG  Porosity  Gas saturation

GIIP =
Gas formation volume factor

Table 4: Parameters input from Petrophysics Department

Porosity Water Saturation Net to Gross

Sand Most Most Most
Unit Min Max Min Max Min Max
Well Likely Likely Likely
(1P) (3P) (1P) (3P) (1P) (3P)
(2P) (2P) (2P)
U.1 0.107 0.122 0.136 0.782 0.861 0.940 0.269 0.366 0.462
U.2
0.097 0.147 0.197 0.697 0.840 0.982 0.493 0.644 0.794
U.3 0.077 0.105 0.132 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.354 0.602 0.849
U.4 0.073 0.128 0.182 0.940 0.970 0.900 0.379 0.581 0.782
Rhu- U.5 0.144 0.158 0.172 0.963 0.981 0.999 0.508 0.689 0.869
field
U.6
0.127 0.151 0.174 0.916 0.931 0.946 0.207 0.225 0.242
U.7 0.099 0.129 0.159 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.567 0.627 0.686
U.8 0.140 0.154 0.167 0.840 0.896 0.952 0.430 0.447 0.464
U.9 0.102 0.136 0.169 0.847 0.923 0.998 0.501 0.510 0.519

18
Table 5: Summary of Hydrocarbon In Place Calculation

Well Sand Stock Tank Original Oil In Place Gas Initially In Place (GIIP),
unit (STOIIP), MMbbl MMMscf
Minimum Most Maximum Minimum Most Maximum
likely likely
U.1 4.03 4.41 7.53
U.2
2.1 2.14 2.52 17.85 18.19 21.38
Rhu-1 &
U.3 0.43 1.11 2.18
Rhu-2
U.4 0.031 0.047 0.33
U.5 0.3 0.25 0.02
U.6 1.97 2.31 2.48
TOTAL 4.83 5.86 6.88 21.88 22.59 28.91

19
2.9 Uncertainties

Uncertainty happens due to imperfect knowledge or information. There are several

uncertainties that applies in this department especially in physical measurement. Firstly,
volumetric calculations are uncertain due to the inaccuracy of ImageJ software measurement
to validate the gross rock volume and hydrocarbon in place computation. A specific approach
is unknown, since different geologists have different approaches, such as using planimeter or
square methods to calculate the GRV. To helps improve measurement precision, the area
calculation of contour maps must be repeated numerous times.

Next, the parameter obtained from Petrophysics Department and Reservoir Department such
as Net to Gross (NTG), porosity, oil/gas saturation and gas/oil formation volume factor are
influenced by uncertainties due limited information. These data were used for every sand unit
to determine the OIIP and GIIP.

The calculation of the GRV and HIP is also affected by uncertainty in the top structural
maps' borders. The area calculation above the contour lines 1640 m is under-estimated since
the top structural maps provided were drawn in a way that contour lines were left out.
Hydrocarbons have been identified by Petrophysical Department that could be present in
contour lines that out of the boundaries.

Lastly, there is a lot of uncertainty in the knowledge concerning the trap and fault in the
formation. For this field, there is no seismic data provided, hence an assumption must be made.
This seismic data is highly valuable in proving the presence of any faults or traps for well
correlation purposes.

20
Conclusion

The objectives of Geology and Geophysics Department have been successfully achieved.
The reservoir in the Rhu field is mainly made up of sandstone and silt which allows
hydrocarbons to flow easily. In this field, claystone and shale units acts as a seal, preventing
oil and gas from migrating upward and becoming trapped in normal fault formed by tectonic
events.

The GRV for Rhu field is calculated using ImageJ software. The GRV for cases of minimum,
most likely and maximum in both Rhu field is 372416.45 ac-ft, 429145.32 ac-ft and 455175.66
ac-ft respectively.

The stock tank oil originally in place (STOIIP) for the minimum, most likely and maximum
cases is 4.83, 5.86 and 6.88 MMbbl respectively. While for gas initially in place (GIIP) for
minimum, most likely and maximum cases is 21.88, 22.59 and 28.91 MMMscf respectively.

In a nutshell, Rhu-field has a good reservoir rock with good permeability for oil and gas
production. These promising and positive data from our department led to a decision to proceed
to other departments.

21
References
1. Madon, Mazlan & Karim, R.B.A. & Fatt, R.W.H. (1999). Chapter 6. Tertiary
stratigraphy and correlation schemes.
2. Madon, Mazlan. (1999). Chapter 8. Malay Basin.
3. Liew, K. K. (1997). Structural analysis of the Malay Basin. Bulletin of the Geological
Society of Malaysia, 40, 157–176. https://doi.org/10.7186/bgsm40199712

4. Khalid B. Ngah. (1996). New Exploration Targets in Malaysia: Deep Sandstone

Reservoirs in Malay Basin and Turbidites in Sabah Basin: ABSTRACT. AAPG
Bulletin, 80. https://doi.org/10.1306/522b36e1-1727-11d7-8645000102c1865d

5. Madon, Mazlan. (1994). Depositional and diagenetic histories of reservoir sandstones

in the Jerneh Field, central Malay Basin. Malaysia. Bulletin of the Geological Society
of Malaysia. 36. 31-53.

6. Madon, M. (2021). Five Decades Of Petroleum Exploration And Discovery In The

Malay Basin (1968–2018) And Remaining Potential. Bulletin Of The Geological
Society Of Malaysia, 72, 63–88. https://doi.org/10.7186/bgsm72202106

7. Petronas. (1999). The Petroleum Geology and Resources of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur:
Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS).

8. Tjia, H. (1994). Inversion tectonics in the Malay Basin: evidence and timing of events.
Geological Society of Malaysia, 36, 119-126.

9. Ismail, M. T., Abdullah, S. A., & Rudolph, K. W.(1994). Structural and Sedimentary
Evolution ofthe Malay Basin. AAPG International Conferenceand Exhibition. Kuala
Lumpur: AAPG Search and Discovery Article.

10. Bishop, M. G. (2002). Petroleum system of Malay Basin Province, Malaysia. U. S.

Geological Survey Open File Report.

11. Ngah, K. (1990). Structural framework of South eastern Malay Basin. AAPG Search
and Discovery.

22