SEDIMENTOLOGICAL CHARACTERISATION OF SHALLOW

MARINE CARBONATES IN THE MATRA FIELD USING STAR

BOREHOLE IMAGES

Syahrizal*
Paul V. Grech†
& Gde Wirawan#

* PT. Exspan Nusantara, INDONESIA

†
Baker Atlas Geoscience Perth, AUSTRALIA
#
Baker Atlas Geoscience Jakarta, INDONESIA

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

Introduction
The Matra Field is located in the northern part of South Sumatera Basin, about 100 km
west of Palembang City (Figure 1). The Field comprises the Baturaja Formation, a
carbonate platform complex which overlies a weathered and fractured pre-tertiary
basement (Figure 1). Simultaneous Acoustic and Resistivity Imager (STAR) data was
acquired in Matra-2 and Matra-3. Both the acoustic and resistivity image logs, together
with openhole logs and cuttings, provided a high-resolution database for structural and
sedimentological interpretation. The sedimentological interpretation presented here defines
palaeo-depositional environment and processes present in terms of lithofacies and sediment
transport directions.

Sedimentology
Seven rock types were identified using wireline logs and eleven image fabrics were
recognised from the image logs (Table 1 and 2). Image fabric is defined as the spatial
arrangement and orientation of the texture of a borehole image. Lithology is combined
with fabric to form image facies. An image facies is analogous to a sedimentary
lithofacies, in that it incorporates information about interpreted lithology, and the contained
rock fabric. For this work, image facies are interpreted as either depositional environments
or depositional processes.

Eight image facies were interpreted; deep marine, deep marine to shallowing upward,
shallow marine, turbidite/storm sediments, debris flow, carbonate platform
(undifferentiated), carbonate platform reef/patch reef, and carbonate platform forereef.
Typical image facies interpretations are illustrated in Figures 2 to 6. These
environments/processes developed as six depositional phases over the interval of study in
the Matra Field (Figure 7).
 Baturaja Formation
Phase 1: Initial deposition over the fractured and weathered meta-sedimentary basement in
the area near Matra-3 was conglomeratic, with clasts being sourced from basement highs
(Figure 2). Coarsening-upward trends are common, with the clasts being angular to
rounded. The lowermost coarsening-upward cycle is clast supported, with angular to sub-
rounded pebble-sized clasts of low to moderate sphericity that are tabular and appear to be
flat lying.. The clast-supported nature of the conglomerate may indicate that these
sediments accumulated in a sub-aerial alluvial environment. A cobble-sized clast at the top
of this cycle shows a fractured internal fabric, suggesting that it originated from the
underlying fractured basement. The overlying two conglomeratic cycles are matrix-
supported with pebble sized sub-angular to rounded clasts (Figure 2). The matrix-
supported nature of the conglomerate implies that deposition was in a debris flow setting,
possibly in a subaqueous environment.

In Matra-2, a marine setting is interpreted to have been established during this time,
dominated by a carbonate platform (Figure 3). Initial deposition, although dominated by
carbonates, was also influenced by muddy siliciclastic input. However, as time progressed,
this input decreased, either from lack of sediment input, or possibly due to the increased
carbonate ‘production’, diluting the concentration of mud-rich material. Isolated patch
reefs are also interpreted to have begun forming over the platform. A broad northerly
palaeocurrent direction is interpreted for the lower part of the platform, changing to a NNW
direction.

Phase 2: marks a relative sea-level rise that flooded the area around Matra-3 where a
forereef developed. Most of the forereef slopes to the SE in Matra-3, and a SW in Matra-2
(Figure 4). Some overlying vuggy limestones intersected in Matra-2 are though to be reef
sediments.

Phase 3: The establishment of a carbonate platform dominated phase 3 with reefs restricted
to Matra-2. Palaeocurrent directions are broad, but in Matra-2 sediment transport
directions are to the NNW.

Phase 4: An extensive and thick forereef/reef depositional setting dominates Phase 4.

Palaeoslope is generally NW to S.

Phase 5: Platform carbonates again dominate the area during Phase 5, with reefs restricted
to an interval in Matra-3. Sedimentary structures indicate palaeoflow towards the NW.

Marine Shales
Phase 6: This phase is dominated by mudstone deposited in a deep marine environment
with shallowing up phases. Shallowing-upward trends were identified by the increasing
proportion of coarse grained sediments up-section, such as heterolithics and sands. Image
fabrics correlate well with this trend, with deeper marine sediments being dominated by
massive and poorly bedded mudstone, while shallower sediments are dominated by
laminated and bedded mudstone (Figure 5).
Overall Phase 6 is made up of two cycles that may represent sequence stratigraphic
packages. The coarsening-upward intervals making up these cycles may be interpreted as
parasequences. In Matra-3, storm or turbidite sands were identified in the upper part of the
first parasequence (Figure 6).

Palaeocurrent direction in the first cycle is towards the S to SW. In both wells, the
dominant palaeocurrent direction within sediments from the lowermost parasequence is
towards the SW to the WSW. The overlying parasequence shows a wide spread of dips
with a preferred northerly direction. The uppermost parasequence is dominated by a
southerly palaeoflow.

The second, overlying cycle shows a wide spread of dips with no distinct orientation. In
Matra-3 the uppermost interval shows a NNW palaeoflow direction.

Three steepening-upward dip trends are noticed in the mudstones above the carbonate
platform in Matra-3. These are interpreted to either be the result of mud drape over the
carbonates, or possibly rotated block sections due to faulting. However, no faults were
identified separating the individual cycles. If these are mud drapes, then they may indicate
the presence of a reef buildup lateral to these mudstone sediments at this level.

Conclusions
The objectives of this study were to provide a structural and sedimentological interpretation
of STAR image data in Matra-2 and –3. The sedimentological interpretation presented
here illustrates the usefulness of STAR images for defining image facies in rocks that are
difficult to subdivide using conventional wireline logs. From this interpretation, the
geological development of the Matra Field carbonate platform complex was elucidated. By
integrating this interpretation with other data in the Matra Field, for example seismic and
production data, an assessment of the reservoir distribution and how best to tackle its
development can be made (Figure 8).
 Tables
Mnemonics Lithologies
M MUDSTONE: GR reading 75 to 85 GAPI, Sonic 110 to 120 us/ft and CNCF 35 to 45%.
Generally conductive on STAR and low velocity pseudocolours on the CBIL (dark colours).
H HETEROLITHICS: GR reading 60 to 75 GAPI, Sonic 100 to 120 us/ft and CNCF 30 to
35%. On both STAR and CBIL it is shown as alternating dark and light colours (conductive
and resistive for STAR and low and high velocity in CBIL) on a centimetre scale.
S SANDSTONE: GR reading 45 to 55 GAPI, Sonic 100 to 120 us/ft and CNCF 20 to 30%. A
resistive response is generated on the STAR log and high velocity pseudocolours on the CBIL
(light colours).
Cgl CONGLOMERATE: GR reading 35 to 50 GAPI, Sonic 85 to 95 us/ft and CNCF 25 to 35%.
Either conductive or resistive clasts in a resistive or conductive matrix. Can be either matrix
or clast supported.
Lst LIMESTONE: GR reading generally 20 to 35 GAPI, Sonic 60 to 80 us/ft and CNCF 5 to
25%. Resistive on on the STAR and high velocity pseudocolours on the CBIL (light
colours).
Cem CEMENT: Similar to SANDSTONE, but with a more resistive STAR response.
Msed META SEDIMENTS: GR reading 20 to 65 GAPI, Sonic 50 to 75 us/ft and CNCF 20 to 25%.
Generally highly resistive STAR response and very high velocity pseudocolours on the CBIL
(lighter colours).
Table 1: Description of lithologies identified from logs in Matra-2 and -3.

Mnemonics Fabrics
b BEDDED: Interval showing regular and clear bedding surfaces. Generally can be seen on
both the STAR and CBIL images. The contrast between beds is generally not high. Bedding
is usually > 5 centimetres.
pb POORLY BEDDED: Interval with irregular and poor bedding surfaces. Low contrast
between beds.
l LAMINATED: Similar to BEDDED but smaller scale, with laminae being <5 cm apart.
d DEFORMED: Irregular bedding, generally non-palaeohorizontal.
m MASSIVE: Low contrast image with no apparent internal structure. Few or no recognisable
planar structures such as bedding.
cha CHAOTIC: Image response shows no regular internal structure. However it is made up of a
conductive ‘matrix’ with resistive patches.
ucr UPWARD COARSENING – RESISTIVE: Resistive clasts set within a more conductive
matrix showing a coarsening upward trend. Clast supported.
ucc UPWARD COARSENING – CONDUCTIVE: Conductive clasts set within a relatively
resistive matrix showing a coarsening upward trend. Matrix supported.
ng NOT GRADED: A conglomeratic texture made up of resistive clasts set within a conductive
matrix showing no preferred grading. Matrix supported.
vug VUGGY: Ovoid conductive patches set within a resistive matrix. The conductive patches
have smooth, curved margins. Poorly developed bedding present in some intervals, but well
defined bedding fabrics are rare. Restricted to limestone lithologies. Best identified from the
CBIL static image log.
wea WEATHERED: Conductive, irregular patches in a resistive matrix. Conductive patches
appear to ‘fit’ with each other like a jigsaw puzzle framework.
Table 2: Classification of fabrics identified from STAR and CBIL image logs in Matra-2 and -3.
 Figures
Figure 1 Location map and stratigraphic table of the South Sumatra Basin showing the Early
Miocene Baturaja Formation and the Transgressing Telisa Formation.

Figure 2 Conglomeratic sediments at the base of Phase 1 in Matra-3. These are interpreted as
alluvial sediments, with the lowermost coarsening-upward cycle (clast-supported)
deposited in a continental environment, while the overlying matrix-supported
conglomerates weredeposited as debris flows in a water-logged setting. The fractured
fabric of the cobble at the top of the first cycle suggests that clasts were being sourced from
the underlying fractured meta-sediments.

Figure 3 Bedded limestone overlying basement, interpreted as a carbonate platform depositional

setting (Matra-2). A decreasing-upward mud content indicates either a decrease in the
influx of siliciclastic deposits, or an increase in the 'production' of carbonates, diluting the
concentration of the siliciclastic sediments.

Figure 4 (A) Chaotic limestone with increasingly steep dips are interpreted as a forereef in Matra-3.
It is expected that clasts from the reef debris should be visible, however, none were seenin
either Matra-2 or –3. This coul be the result of diagenetic processes, maskingthe variation
of resistivity and velocity parameters. A vuggy texture along carbonate platform bedding
planes can also be seen at the base of the section. (B) A sequence of forereef sediments
overlying bedded carbonate platform sediments, with capping reef sediments. Vugs are
seen to follow bedding planes in lower part of the reef, with a more extensive vuggy texture
in the upper part (Matra-2)

Figure 5 (A) Heterolithics have been interpreted to represent shallower marine environments than
the massive and laminated mudstone intervals (Matra-2). Heterolithics were identified at
the top of shallowing-upward cycles, possibly representing parasequences. (B) Mudstone
interval dominated by massive to very poorly bedded fabric, interpreted to have been
deposited in a deep marine setting (Matra-2).

Figure 6 Deformed and bedded sandstone and mudstone deposits in Matra-3 at the top of the first
interpreted parasequence. These sediments are interpreted to have been deposited in a
turbiditic flow, or during a storm.

Figure 7 Schematic section presenting the interpreted environments for the two wells in the study
and their possible correlation. The datum chosen is the transgressive surface flooding the
carbonate platform.

Figure 8 Flow diagram of the steps involved with the integration of the image fabrics identified from
the image logs, to the various other data sets, to provide a flow model. This model can be
used to understand the flow anticipated from the reservoir, as well as providing a basis for
optimum well distribution in the field development plan.
 Time Age Tectonic Stratigraphic
(Ma) Summary Column
0 Quat.

Plio.
E L
U. PALEMBANG
5 FM
Compression

Late
M. PALEMBANG
FM
10
L. PALEMBANG

Middle
FM

Miocene
15
Basin Sag Stage
TELISA FM

20

Early
BATURAJA FM

25 Late Graben Fill

Late
Oligocene
30 Graben Fill
Localised Uplift

Early
and Erosion
LEMAT FM
35

Late
Start of Rifting?

40
LAHAT FM
(KIKIM TUFFS)

Eocene
Middle
MIDDLE KIKIM SAND
45
LAHAT FM

50

E
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+ + +

PRE-TERTIARY BASEMENT

Figure 1 Location map and stratigraphic table of the South Sumatra Basin showing the Early
Miocene Baturaja Formation and the Transgressing Telisa Formation.
 Debris flow
in a water-logged
environment

Alluvial debris,
possibly continental

Weathered
Baesment

Figure 2 Conglomeratic sediments at the base of Phase 1 in Matra-3. These are interpreted as alluvial sediments, with the
lowermost coarsening-upward cycle (clast-supported) deposited in a continental environment, while the overlying matrix-
supported conglomerates weredeposited as debris flows in a water-logged setting. The fractured fabric of the cobble at the
top of the first cycle suggests that clasts were being sourced from the underlying fractured meta-sediments.
Figure 3 Bedded limestone overlying basement, interpreted as a carbonate platform depositional
setting (Matra-2). A decreasing-upward mud content indicates either a decrease in the
influx of siliciclastic deposits, or an increase in the 'production' of carbonates, diluting the
concentration of the siliciclastic sediments.
a) b)

Carbonate Platform
Reef
Forereef
Carbonate
Platform
Figure 4 (A) Chaotic limestone with increasingly steep dips are interpreted as a forereef in Matra-3. It is expected that clasts from the reef
debris should be visible, however, none were seenin either Matra-2 or –3. This coul be the result of diagenetic processes, maskingthe
variation of resistivity and velocity parameters. A vuggy texture along carbonate platform bedding planes can also be seen at the base
of the section. (B) A sequence of forereef sediments overlying bedded carbonate platform sediments, with capping reef sediments.
Vugs are seen to follow bedding planes in lower part of the reef, with a more extensive vuggy texture in the upper part (Matra-2)
a) b)

Figure 5 (A) Heterolithics have been interpreted to represent shallower marine environments than the massive and laminated mudstone intervals (Matra-2).
Heterolithics were identified at the top of shallowing-upward cycles, possibly representing parasequences. (B) Mudstone interval dominated by massive to
very poorly bedded fabric, interpreted to have been deposited in a deep marine setting (Matra-2).
Figure 6 Deformed and bedded sandstone and mudstone deposits
in Matra-3 at the top of the first interpreted
parasequence. These sediments are interpreted to have
been deposited in a turbiditic flow, or during a storm.
 Matra - 2 Matra - 3
GR DT GR DT

Deep Marine

Deep Marine
Phase 6
(shallowing upward)

DATUM
Phase 5 Platform carbonates Reef
Reef
Phase 4
Forereef

Reef Platform carbonates

Phase 3
Platform carbonates
Phase 2 Forereef
Alluvial to marine
debris flow
Platform carbonates
Phase 1 Patch Reef
Basement Sandstone Platform
beds Carbonates
Heterolithic Chaotic
50 beds Carbonates

Marine Muds Reef Buildup

Feet
Conglomerate
(coarsening Basement
0 upward)

Figure 7 Schematic section presenting the interpreted environments for the two wells in the study and their possible correlation. The datum chosen is the
transgressive surface flooding the carbonate platform.
 IMAGE FABRICS
+ PETROPHYSICAL
FLOW PARAMETERS

FACIES + FABRIC FLOW

PALAEOCURRENTS CHARACTERISTICS

+ SEISMIC

GEOLOGY/
SEDIMENTOLOGY

3D FLOW MODEL
+
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST
LOCATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT
WELLS

Figure 8 Flow diagram of the steps involved with the integration of the image fabrics identified from
the image logs, to the various other data sets, to provide a flow model. This model can be
used to understand the flow anticipated from the reservoir, as well as providing a basis for
optimum well distribution in the field development plan.