See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238424417

Integrated geological and geophysical analysis by hierarchical classification:

Combining seismic stratigraphic and AVO attributes

Article in Petroleum Geoscience · November 2008

DOI: 10.1144/1354-079308-800

CITATIONS READS

8 189

6 authors, including:

Alexis Carrillat Raul Ysaccis

Schlumberger Limited Schlumberger Limited
47 PUBLICATIONS 160 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 104 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jonathan Hall
hyres geoscience solutions limited
18 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jonathan Hall on 29 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Integrated geological and geophysical analysis by hierarchical
classification: combining seismic stratigraphic and AVO attributes
Alexis Carrillat1,*, Tanwi Basu1, Raul Ysaccis1, Jonathan Hall1, Amiruddin Mansor2 and
Martin Brewer2
1
Schlumberger DCS, 18th floor, West Wing, Rohas Perkasa, No. 8 Jalan Perak, 50450 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2
Exploration Sabah, Petronas Carigali, Level 10, Tower 2, Petronas Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur City Center, 50088
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
*
Corresponding author (e-mail: acarrillat@slb.com)

ABSTRACT: The benefits of seismic attribute classification in subsurface studies

have been published widely. The approach is usually the same and, in most cases,
driven by a two-step procedure – an unsupervised classification and a supervised
scheme where training is used to redefine classes based on well-log data flagging a
specific fluid or lithology. In parallel to the multi-attribute analysis, interpreters have
also benefited from recent advances in computing power, enabling the generation of
multi-trace or texture attributes.
In these two workflows, the focus is either on the seismic texture facies for seismic
stratigraphic purposes, or on the reservoir facies for fluid and lithology mapping.
This paper presents a case study in which both texture facies and fluid prediction are
linked by performing a hierarchical classification scheme whereby a multi-attribute-
based volume, which captures seismic texture information, is combined with
amplitude versus offset (AVO) attributes to map fluid response into a single,
coherent reservoir facies volume. This methodology is then applied for exploration
data screening in offshore Borneo in the Greater Samarang sub-block (East Baram
Delta, offshore Sabah, Malaysia). In this case study, the geological analysis, seismic
geomorphology, seismic stratigraphy and combined fluid response from AVO
attributes facilitate the development of new play concepts in the highstand system
tracts and in the morphology generated by incised valleys in shoreface deposits.

KEYWORDS: seismic attributes, interpretation, seismic stratigraphy, seismic facies, geomorphology

INTRODUCTION geomorphology studies and/or supervised 3D seismic strati-

Classification of seismic attributes has been employed in the
petroleum industry for about 15 years, using methods based
either on artificial neural networks (ANN) (McCormack 1991)
or on statistics such as Bayesian classification (Sønneland et al.
1994). Although focused initially on classification of horizon-
based attributes derived from the Hilbert transform of the
seismic trace, or the well-known waveform classification based
on one or two picked horizons, recently there are a growing
number of approaches moving away from the limitations of
surface-based attributes. Nowadays, true three-dimensional
(3D) attribute analysis preserves the real nature of spatial
information in complex geological settings (Carrillat et al. 2002).
These new interpretation and reservoir characterization work-
flows benefit from blending or combining seismic 3D volume
attributes to produce ‘hybrid’, ‘multi-attribute’ seismic facies, or
‘meta-attributes’ volumes (e.g. de Rooij & Tingdahl 2002).
In addition, recent 3D applications have been steered
towards seismic texture attributes, also called multi-trace
attributes, for 3D seismic facies characterization. These
attributes work regardless of the dip of the reflectors, data
frequency, the rotation, or transition and scale of the attributes
(Randen et al. 2000). These multi-trace attributes allow seismic
Petroleum Geoscience, Vol. 14 2008, pp. 339–354
DOI 10.1144/1354-079308-800
graphic mapping that fully honour the stratigraphic and geo-
metric aspect of the seismic data. As a result, these approaches
tend to preserve the depositional and structural information
captured in the seismic data and, thus, geometry, shape, rela-
tionship and connectivity of the geobodies in 3D space. How-
ever, there are several constraints related to inherent limitations
of the method when performing classification of seismic at-
tributes. Some of these are addressed in this case study.
+ Seismic facies classification results produce discrete values,
although sometimes an associated uncertainty, or distance to
the cluster centre, is also generated as a by-product of the
classification.
+ When running seismic stratigraphic mapping from 3D
stratigraphic or texture attributes, the lithological and fluid
response aspect is preferably absent or not considered
fully.
+ Conversely, when multi-attribute analysis is performed to
map reservoir properties, for example when using inversion-
derived attributes, such as acoustic impedance (AI), Pois-
son’s ratio and density, the seismic geomorphology and
seismic stratigraphic facies information are not incorporated
directly.
1354-0793/08/$15.00  2008 EAGE/Geological Society of London
340 A. Carrillat et al.
Fig. 1. Location map of the Greater Samarang sub-block and study area.
This case study addresses these limitations by applying a
hierarchical approach in two steps. First, an unsupervised
classification is run to generate a multi-attribute volume that
captures seismic stratigraphy and texture information as a
discrete set of seismic facies. This seismic facies volume is then
combined in a systematic way with amplitude versus offset
(AVO) attributes to map fluid response by a hierarchical
classification-estimation scheme based on a relationship ident-
ified between the AVO attributes and the water saturation from
log data. The final result is a single, coherent volume that
incorporates both the seismic stratigraphic framework and
reservoir fluid information.
GEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
The study area is located in offshore Borneo in the Greater
Samarang sub-block in the East Baram Delta Province, off-
shore Sabah, Malaysia (Fig. 1). The Baram Delta Province owes
its name to the wave-dominated and tidal-influenced delta that
is fed by the still-active Baram River. The Baram Delta is
characterized mainly by northwestwards outbuilding and pro-
grading successive phases (Koopman 1996). The Baram Delta
depocentre developed mostly during the Early Miocene and is
likely due to a fault-controlled depression that formed at the
intersection of two major and deeper located crustal faults,
namely the West Baram Line to the west and the Jerudong–
Morris fault to the east (Madon 1999). The Morris fault is a
left-lateral fault zone that is the major N–S- to NE–SW-
trending structural lineament visible in the Greater Samarang
sub-block; it subdivides the block into the Sumandak–Glayzer
area to the east and Samarang area to the west of the main fault
zone (Fig. 1). The East Baram Delta structural style is charac-
terized by growth faults and rollover anticlines with crestal
collapse structure. The Samarang Field, located to the west of
the Morris fault, is one of the most illustrative examples of the
aforementioned structural style and most of the hydrocarbon
accumulations are located in the back limb of the rollover
anticline and within the collapsed crestal part.
To the east of the Morris fault, the Sumandak area is located
on the footwall side, which is characterized by a large anticlinal
structure, known as the Glayzer Anticline, located in the
southeastern part of the sub-block (Fig. 1). The series deposited
above that anticline are characterized by a mainly eastward
structural dip direction and show a well-developed incised
valley system known as the Sumandak Complex (Stump 2004,
Petronas Carigali unpublished report).
STRATIGRAPHY
In terms of stratigraphy, the framework is built from regional
studies and the most recent biostratigraphic data analysis
(Petronas Carigali, pers. comm.) based on calcareous nanofos-
sils, foraminifera (planktonic and benthic) and palynological
data. The results of graphic correlation analyses of these data
are consistent, but challenge traditional chronostratigraphic
interpretations in the area. To the east of the Morris fault or
Sumandak area they indicate a thick Lower Pliocene section
resting upon thin, earliest Upper Miocene that is unconform-
ably underlain by Middle Miocene rock.
To the west of the Morris fault or Samarang area, only rare
and inconsistent occurrences of Miocene calcareous nanofossils
have been observed at shallow well depths; however, they are
 Geophysical analysis by hierarchical classification
Table 1. Correlation between Shell Stages with Carigali chronostratigraphy and the depositional sequences from the present study
West
With respect to the Morris fault
Shell Stages Stratigraphic markers
D & above
E to H
Stage IVF
H to S
Stage IVE
S & down
Stage IVD
Stage IVC
likely to be reworked. The youngest occurrence of the plank-
tonic foraminifera suggests that this section is early Pliocene in
age. Across the Morris fault, biostratigraphic data are very
similar and indicate a thick Lower Pliocene section resting
unconformably upon Upper Miocene.
WELL CORRELATION AND STRATIGRAPHIC
FRAMEWORK
A consistent chronostratigraphic correlation across the Morris
fault was achieved based on biostratigraphic information, show-
ing with confidence the subdivision of the depositional
sequences into two broad geological time-equivalent series,
namely the Miocene and Pliocene intervals (Table 1). Marker
correlation was done in an integrated effort guided by the
seismic stratigraphic interpretation and refined from well-log
shape analysis. It should be noted that lithostratigraphic corre-
lation was never attempted for the present geological investi-
gation. Seismic horizon interpretation was guided by the
principles of seismic stratigraphy defining unique depositional
surfaces using standard reflection termination and geometrical
relationship criteria. Based on the seismic sequence strati-
graphic approach, 15 seismic horizon picks were carried over
the Greater Samarang sub-block, following the same nomen-
clature of seismic sequences defined by Stump (2004, Petronas
Carigali unpublished report). The sequence set starts from
Sequence 2 at the top and goes down to Sequence 8. Each of
these sequences reflects a major depositional and/or tectonic
episode in the history of offshore Sabah.
In this chronostratigraphic reference framework, it appears
that seismic stratigraphic Sequences 7, 6 and 5a were deposited
during the Miocene age while Sequences 5, 4, 3, and 2 were
deposited during the Pliocene. Further subdivisions within the
broad packages (for example Sequences 7, 7a, 4, 4a, 3, 3a, 2b,
2ab, 2a) were introduced based on log-shape analysis together
with finer seismic stratigraphic criteria.
Shale packages were distinguished between and within the
sequences (irrespective of thicknesses) when they showed
lateral continuity across the field. Shale packages show quite
non-uniform distribution depending on their location with
respect to the Morris fault. For example, to the east of the
Morris fault quite thick shaly sequences are evident acting as
very effective seals, especially in the Sumandak complex. To the
west of the Morris fault the Samarang field exemplifies good
quality sealing shales. Table 1 highlights the Mio-Pliocene
boundary as established between Sequences 5 and 5a, which
corresponds to hiatus SBH60 (Dr Bill Krebs pers. comm.;
341
↔ East
Hiatuses Age Sequences
SBH 10-40 SQ 2 (2a)
SBH 50 Pliocene SQ 2b or 2ab
SQ 3
SQ 4
SQ 5 –5A
SBH 60-70
SQ-6
Miocene
SBH 75-90 SQ-7
SQ-7A
Wong Hin Fatt et al. 2006) and corresponds to the boundary
between Shell Sabah Offshore Stage 4E and 4F (Levell 1987).
DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT
The Greater Samarang sedimentation style can be subdivided
into three major cycles. The first cycle, starts from Sequence 8
through Sequence 5a, formed during the end of rifting as a part
of post-rift infill related to opening of the South China Sea in
the offshore Sabah area. This cycle corresponds mainly to
inner-neritic to fluvio-deltaic sediments (Thies et al. 2006). The
Sequence 8 to 5a package is overlain by a second cycle starting
from Sequence 5 through Sequence 2 that mainly formed as
shallow-marine to lower coastal plain deposits. Sequence 1, in
turn, overlies this and has limited geographical extent.
The interpretation of the depositional environment within
each sedimentary package was done using all available data in
an attempt to overcome the difficulty of distinguishing unique
patterns from log shape of gamma ray alone and relating those
to depositional environments. A top-down first-pass approach
was followed from macro- (seismic) to a micro-scale (core
data); then a bottom-up second pass was made to ensure
consistency at the different scales. Macro-scale investigation
from the seismic data provided the maximum information on a
regional scale for depositional environment due to its extensive
data and apparent ease of identifying the stratal termination
patterns. Seismic facies from 3D seismic attribute analysis using
stratal geometry helped to identify the continuity of different
depositional units and their sand to shale-prone nature. Log
shapes from the well data were examined next to refine the
depositional unit definition and precision of interpretation.
INPUT FROM CORE DATA
Cored intervals limited to Sequence 4 were available from four
wells only. The distribution of core data introduces a bias due
to unbalanced sampling both geographically and in stratigraphic
coverage. However, the cores were used as a calibration point
to decipher the correct depositional environment of Sequence
4. This calibration was then used to guide the interpretation of
the rest of the sequences above and below in their correct
depositional and sequence stratigraphic perspective and in
terms of predictive succession of depositional sequences. A
typical facies association is a coarsening-upward sequence
starting from the offshore transitional facies through lower to
middle shoreface and finally the foreshore/beach at the top of
the sequence. The lower shoreface to offshore transitional
environment is characterized by hummocky cross-stratified
342 A. Carrillat et al.
Fig. 2. Locations of key seismic sections on representative time slice
and well locations.
sandstone and mud-rich heterolithic rocks, while the lower
shoreface to middle shoreface is characterized by hummocky
cross-stratified sandstone and sand-rich heterolithic rocks. This
unit is overlain by cross-bedded upper shoreface overlain by
bioturbated sandstone. The topmost unit is characterized by
organic hash layers alternating with massive or swash-laminated
sandstones, which typically characterize beach sandstone or the
foreshore sediments. Hence, the sedimentology of the core
lithofacies, their distribution and vertical association, sedimen-
tary structures and special characteristics show the Sequence 4
cored intervals to be wave-dominated, laterally continuous
shoreface sands.
DESCRIPTION FROM SEISMIC LINES
Several inlines, crosslines and random lines were interpreted in
detail to build the sequence stratigraphic framework. The
locations of some of these lines are shown in Figure 2.
Examples of two key seismic inlines (Inline 1; Fig. 3 and Inline
2; Fig. 4), one key seismic crossline (Crossline 1; Fig. 5) and one
random line (Random 1; Fig. 6) are detailed hereafter and then
integrated to build a consistent stratigraphic framework.
Interpretation of seismic Inline 1 (Fig. 3)
Inline 1 is located to the east of the Morris fault in the
Sumandak area along a north–south axis. The whole sedimen-
tary package on this north–south strike section clearly reveals
two main packages based on their age of deposition. Sequence
8 to Sequence 5a were deposited during the Miocene, while the
packages above Sequences 5 to 2 were deposited during the
Pliocene. Sequence 5a and those below – the Miocene package
– were formed as a post-rift infill package related to the rifting
and opening of the South China Sea. In the region there were
several periods of fault reactivation resulting in repetitive rift
infill sequences, which characterize the typical half-graben,
formed during active rifting. The upper portion of each of these
cycles is characteristically sand-prone inner-shelfal to fluvio-
marine sediments (Thies et al. 2006). It is difficult to identify
classic depositional systems tracts within these rift infill stages.
However, they consist primarily of aggradational highstand
system tracts.
In the Pliocene depositional history, Sequences 5 and 4a
represent the prograding delta-front deposits of a highstand
showing well-developed, low-angle clinoforms that downlap on
to the top of Sequence 5a. Sequence 4 has been interpreted
from the core as shoreface sands and is seismically character-
ized by parallel, continuous, high-frequency reflection patterns.
This sequence is deeply eroded by a major incision, which is
filled by Sequences 3a and 3 formed during the transgression
and highstand as transgressive back-fills and early highstand
deltas. The incision is very well defined in the northern half of
the field in and around the Sumandak Complex. The sediments
corresponding to this incision must have been transported to
deeper offshore. Sequence 3 is overlain by early and late
highstand progradation of the shoreline in the form of lower
coastal plain, and deltas in Sequences 2b and 2ab. Near the base
of Sequence 2b local channel incisions are seen possibly
corresponding to distributary channels of the lower coastal
plain. Sequence 2a might indicate the onset of the next
lowstand since minor incisions in the sedimentary package are
observed at the top of Sequence 2ab, especially towards the
north. Sequences 4a and 5 represent prograding delta fronts of
the previous highstand.
Interpretation of seismic Inline 2 (Fig. 4)
Inline 2 is situated to the west of the Morris fault, intersecting
two oppositely dipping growth faults: the Deep Growth fault
and the Samarang fault. Based on limited biostratigraphic data,
the whole sedimentary package on this north–south strike
section is classified into the same two chronostratigraphic
packages. All the sequences are well developed on the southern
side of the Deep Growth fault and the Samarang fault whereas,
on the northern side, only Sequence 2 down to Sequence 5a are
well developed. Sequences below 5a are hard to interpret due to
the active mud diapirism and low quality of the seismic signal
below Sequence 5a. To the south of the Deep Growth fault,
Sequence 7 and 7a show sand-prone packages, while Sequence
6 is shale prone.
In the Pliocene, Sequence 4a shows consistent progradation
at the base, representing a prograding delta front and Sequence
5 is a shale-prone package of the prodelta of the same
highstand delta. Sequence 4 is again seismically characterized by
parallel, continuous, high-frequency reflection patterns of the
shoreface sands. To the south, Sequence 4 is eroded by a minor
incision, which dies out conformably to the north. Sequence 3a
and 3 formed as transgressive back-fills and early highstand
deltas, which are overlain by early and late highstand prograda-
tion of the shoreline in the form of lower coastal plain deposits
in Sequences 2b, 2ab and 2a.
Interpretation of seismic Crossline 1 (Fig. 5)
Crossline 1 is situated to the north of the Samarang field,
intersecting the Morris, the Haselfoot, the Deep Growth and
 Geophysical analysis by hierarchical classification
Fig. 3. North–south Inline 1 showing the interpretation of seismic sequences east of the Morris fault. LCP, lower coastal plain; TST,
transgressive system tract; HST, highstand system tract.
the Samarang faults from east to west. The whole sedimentary
package on this west–east dip section is highly segmented by all
these faults together with the central collapse structure
in Samarang area. The presence of these faults and mud
diapirism illustrates the tectonic complexity of the area. Later-
ally, two structural segments can be distinguished to the east
and west sides of the Morris fault. The Miocene package is well
developed and thicker on the eastern side of the Morris fault.
The package is truncated against the uplifted mud diapir in the
middle of the line. The Pliocene package starts with the
shale-prone Sequence 5 followed by the deltaic package of
Sequence 4a. Top-sets and some clinoforms of the delta are still
visible on the eastern side, while on the western side they are
unclear. Sequence 4 shows parallel, continuous, high-frequency
seismic reflections on both sides of the Morris fault, while
Sequence 3 and above show considerable differences in the
reflection patterns, illustrating different depositional styles for
these two areas. Sequences 3, 2b, 2ab, 2a all show parallel,
continuous, high-frequency seismic reflections on the western
side, while the eastern side shows similar deposition patterns as
in the previous lines (Inlines 1 and 2).
Interpretation of seismic Random line 1 (Fig. 6)
Random line 1 is situated on the eastern side of the Morris fault
and passes through two key wells used for calibration, one of
them having core data available in Sequence 4. The line has
been flattened at the top of Sequence 2b. The Pliocene package
starts with Sequence 4a and 5, which show well-developed long
clinoforms. Remnant lowstand erosions are identified in the
top-sets of the lower coastal plain deltas whereas the delta front
343
areas are characterized by low-angle clinoforms and slump scars
related to fast sedimentation and sediment failure. Several
transgressive surfaces have been interpreted and marked as
dashed lines (Fig. 6), which indicate the boundaries between the
successive deltaic packages. The high amplitude continuous
reflectors indicate possible sand-prone distributary mouth bars.
Sequence 4 is characterized by a deep incision forming the
promontories within the incised valley complex (Sumandak
Complex). The incised complex is filled by shale-prone trans-
gressive back-fills and some early highstand deltas in Sequences
3a and 3. The maximum flooding surface corresponding to this
sequence has been interpreted, and separates the shale-prone
transgressive back-fills below from early highstand prograding
sand-prone delta deposits above, characterized by small-scale
clinoforms. The deltaic deposits are overlain by an early and
late highstand progradation of the shoreline in the form of a
lower coastal plain marking the uppermost part of Sequence 3.
Above Sequence 3, lower coastal plain deposits and deltas are
the dominant environments in Sequences 2b, 2ab and 2a. The
lower coastal plain characteristically shows continuous reflec-
tors in Sequences 2ab and 2a.
From Sequence 3a to 2b, top-sets of the deltaic package
corresponding to the distributary mouth bars are well defined
and they seem to be marching offshore (Fig. 6) within strati-
graphic time, while the shoreline is prograding northwest, i.e. an
offshore direction. The stepwise basinwards progradation of
the mouth bars is highlighted by black arrows on Figure 6.
Some of the most offshore deltaic package might actually be
shelf-edge deltas (Fig. 6). This overall regressive trend of the
basin correlates well with the regional sequence stratigraphy.
344 A. Carrillat et al.
Fig. 4. North–south Inline 2 showing the interpretation of seismic sequences west of the Morris fault. Abbreviations as Figure 3, except SMRG
fault, Samarang fault.
FOCUS ON SEQUENCE 4
In the depositional environment analysis and among all the
sequences, more focus was put on Sequence 4, because of its
trap potential represented by promontories sculpted in shore-
face sands and topped by shale-prone transgressive back-fills.
This sequence has been penetrated by 17 wells located in both
Sumandak and Samarang provinces. The continuity of the
reflectors, together with the core information, points to a
shoreface deposition of laterally continuous sheet-like sands,
which have been interpreted as highstand deposits. Sequence 4
is eroded by a major incision, which is a marine erosional event
that created the promontories or buried hill topography in the
Sumandak Complex (Fig. 1). In terms of geomorphology, the
eastern and southern parts of the Sumandak area are character-
ized by a smooth topography while the central and western
parts show rough terrains and deep incisions. This geomorpho-
logical expression, together with seismic interpretation, strati-
graphic framework and well data integration, leads to the
inferred coastline. Calibration points for the lower coastal plain
environment, coming from well data located on the Glayzer
Anticline area and to the north of the Sumandak Complex,
indicate the shallow-marine environment of the deposits imme-
diately above the top of Sequence 4. The promontory and hill
topography defines canyons that are orientated mainly in an
east–west direction (Fig. 7). In areas of very high erosion (e.g.
northern part of the Sumandak Complex) the canyons actually
traverse the whole marine shelf and continue towards the
coastal plain. In these particular situations the added effect of
submarine and subaerial erosions is a possibility.
Projecting the estimated coastal plain base level of Se-
quence 4 basinwards (dotted line on Fig. 7), and flattening on
that reference surface along a random line defined in the
canyon dip direction allows the restoration of Sequence 4
configuration at the time of deposition and enables a finer
seismic stratigraphic analysis (Fig. 7). This reconstructed
cross-section shows the depositional pattern of the overlying
unit (Sequence 3a) on top of the Sequence 4 unconformity. It
indicates that the early coastal onlaps of Sequence 3a are very
close to the coastal break of Sequence 4, meaning that most
of the Sequence 4 palaeotopography was under water. It also
clearly shows the successive system tracts of Sequence 3a
transgressive system tract topped by a maximum flooding
surface (MFS) and marking the base of the progradational
clinoforms of the next highstand. This later one is topped by
a sequence boundary marking the base of the next lowstand
system tract characterized by toplaps located downdip off the
shelf break of the previous highstand.
After projecting the estimated coastal plain base level of
Sequence 4 over the entire Sumandak area, the depth difference
from this conceptual horizon down to the erosional top of
Sequence 4 was calculated; the result is the palaeotopography
shown in Figure 8. It would represent the erosional relief of
Sequence 4, which could be the potential accommodation space
available for the prodeltaic shale and sand–shale progradation
 Geophysical analysis by hierarchical classification
Fig. 5. East–west Crossline 1 showing the interpretation of seismic sequences. Abbreviations as Figures 3 and 4.
of Sequence 3a and 3. Palaeotopographic restoration was done
using a constant interval velocity of 2600 m s
1 for the shale
package of Sequence 3 and 3a. It shows that a relief in the order
of up to 500 m was sculpted in Sequence 4 by the erosional
unconformity (Figs 7 and 8). Assuming that most of the
erosional relief of Sequence 4 was under water as mentioned
before, the map actually gives an indication of the palaeo-
bathymetry during deposition of Sequence 3a and 3.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVOLUTION
Using the seismic horizon interpretation obtained from the
seismic sequence stratigraphic approach, a qualitative analysis
of the structural evolution was made by successive flattening of
depositional surfaces.
Considering first the deeper level around 2500 ms two-way
travel (TWT) time, an additional set of SW–NE faults,
referred to as deeper growth faults, can be observed. These
deeper growth faults dip SE and mainly affect Sequence 6
and below (Fig. 9a). Among the key structures, the Glayzer
Anticline is distinguished on the eastern part of the sub-block
by its axial trend towards north–south and plunges to the
north. The Morris fault and the Haselfoot fault, located in the
centre of the Greater Samarang sub-block, delimit the lower
part of the central graben. This graben represents a crestal
collapse on the top of the Glayzer Anticline (Fig. 9b). Further
to the west on the same dip section (Fig. 9b), the Deeper
Growth fault and the Samarang fault drape the shale diapir
zone where a shale ridge is developed, splitting the area into
two provinces that could be differentiated as Samarang Prov-
ince and Sumandak–Glayzer Province. This division by a
shale ridge is important and could impact the hydrocarbon
345
charge history of the area since each province may have its
own hydrocarbon kitchen and its particular migration style.
One of the major unconformities and a key calibration
horizon is Sequence 5a. The top of this sequence is close to the
Miocene–Pliocene boundary as interpreted from biostrati-
graphic data on key reference wells. Based on that calibration
point, the estimated timing of the different tectonic phases is
outlined below.
Tectonic reconstruction, shown in Figures 9a–d, suggests
that the Greater Samarang structures are related to four
tectonic phases, described below.
Phase 1
Phase 1 is an extensional phase that can be associated with the
opening of the South China Sea and a rapid sediment accumu-
lation, occurring from Late Eocene to Late Miocene (Ngah
1990; Thies et al. 2006). It has been defined as an initial rifting
phase that developed a series of syn-rift, half-graben sub-basins
controlled by growth faults that trend NE–SW, which is the
sub-perpendicular direction to the rifting motion, and filled by
a stratigraphic column that goes from Sequence 8 to Sequence
6 (Fig. 9a). The NE–SW growth faults observed in the study
area were generated during this initial phase of basin formation.
Growth faulting might have triggered shale mobilization that
produced the shale ridges identified in the area. As can be seen
on Figure 9a, the shale ridge constitutes the landward flank of
the Samarang Province and the basinward flank of the
Sumandak–Glayzer Province. The growth faulting that charac-
terizes this phase is, at the end of this period, affected by a
minor inversion which is recognized by the erosion/
peneplanation at the top of Sequence 6.
346 A. Carrillat et al.
Fig. 6. NW–SE Random line 1 showing the interpretation of seismic sequences in the Sumandak area flattened on top of Sequence 2b.
Abbreviations as Figures 3 and 4, except MFS, maximum flooding surface; DMB, distributary mouth bar; DF, delta front; TS, transgressive
surface; LS, lowstand.
Phase 2
Phase 2 is a compressional phase in Late Miocene–Pliocene,
which was produced by the tectonic inversion of the previous
growth fault system, forming the Glayzer Anticline and part of
the Samarang Anticline. This phase controlled the deposition
from Sequence 5a to Sequence 4/Sequence 3 (Fig. 9b). The
onset of this compressional phase is well documented by the
onlapping relationship of Sequence 5a on the top of Sequence
6, which in turn locally shows erosional truncation (Fig. 9b).
The compression led to uplifting, tilting and subsequent ero-
sion. This tectonic instability is expressed by an east–west
slump scar and listric faults as recognized on the northern side
of the Glayzer structure. It slides to the north parallel to the
plunging direction of the Glayzer Anticline. The slump affected
mainly Sequence 5a and the lower section of Sequence 5 and it
has its décollement level on top of Sequence 6. As long as the
compression progressed, the area was uplifted and underwent
subsequent erosion, evidenced by the incised valleys docu-
mented at the top of Sequence 4 in the Sumandak area and, to
a small extent, in the southwest part of the sub-block; i.e. east
and west of the Morris fault. Palaeotopographic restoration of
Sequence 4 indicates that up to 500 m of sediments in some
parts of the Sumandak area have been eroded. This erosion led
to a series of hills in Sumandak, which later were overlain by the
shale-dominated Sequence 3 to create the Sumandak buried
hills. Another evidence of this uplift/erosion is the local angular
unconformity recognized in the southwestern part of the area at
the top of Sequences 4 and 3 (Fig. 9b). The end of this phase
is characterized by the crestal collapses of the Glayzer and
Samarang Anticlines; both of them could be related to
de-watering of the shale diapir. It is believed that during these
collapses, the Morris fault was generated and the Haselfoot and
Samarang faults were accentuated. These collapses could also
have favoured the later charging of the hydrocarbon-bearing
sands. The deposition of Sequence 3 is contemporaneous with
the collapse period and could mark the transition to the next
extensional phase; therefore a regional subsidence could have
characterized the area by this time. This possible tectonic
relaxing could have been synchronous to the flooding of the
Sumandak area that induced the muddy infill of its incised
valleys complex. The resulting shale-dominated section of
Sequence 3 provides the top seals for the hydrocarbons trapped
in the Sequence 4 shoreface sandstones of the Sumandak
buried hills.
Phase 3
Phase 3 is a second extensional phase, which created a
rejuvenation of the basin and involved the deposition from
Sequence 2b to Sequence 2 during Pliocene time (Fig. 9c). The
major extension is associated with the activity of the Morris
fault that produced accommodation space in the central part of
the area through the whole phase; while the extensional activity
of the Samarang fault in the western part is restricted mainly to
Sequences 2b and 2ab time. Additional synthetic and antithetic
faulting to the Samarang and Morris faults happened at this
time; this episode would reactivate the previous crestal collapse
faults and would create a greater subdivision of the half-graben
 Geophysical analysis by hierarchical classification
Fig. 7. Random section along a south Sumandak Canyon flattened on estimated coastal plain base level at top of Sequence 4 (flattened on dotted
line). Abbreviations as Figures 3 and 6, except SB, sequence boundary; LST, lowstand system tract.
by multiple block-faulted compartments. This tectonic over-
print helped to define the geometry of the Samarang field,
located behind the main antithetic fault on the back-limb of the
Samarang Anticline (Fig. 9c).
Phase 4
Phase 4 is a regional compressional phase, which took place
from the Pleistocene to the Recent and produced the second
tectonic inversion (Fig. 9d). This phase affected the top of
Sequence 2 and it has controlled the subsequent deposition
until the present time. This late inversion phase is believed to
have played a critical role in the trapping mechanism of
hydrocarbons in the Samarang field by sealing some of the
faults. Based on the regional stress regime, this inversion is
likely to provide the same potential for sealing as other faults
having similar strike directions. Other evidence supporting
inversion is the erosion/peneplanation of seismic reflectors at
seabed and the pop-up features visible at some locations along
the Samarang fault.
SEISMIC ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS
In the Greater Samarang study, seismic attributes were ex-
tracted to provide information about potential reservoir qual-
ity and hydrocarbon indicators for screening purposes. The
value of traditional Hilbert transform attributes (Taner et al.
1979) has been demonstrated in many case histories as well as
wave shape classification using neural networks, where the
seismic trace is decomposed into components of amplitude
and frequency information, such as in VRS spectral decompo-
sition attributes (Sønneland 1996). The key limitation with all
interpreted surface-based attributes, in particular instan-
347
taneous attributes, is that they are sensitive to the quality of
the seismic pick and signal consistency. In a structurally
complex setting, as in the Samarang field, correlation across
small fault blocks, energy defocusing below fault planes, and
signal: noise ratio impact directly on the quality of the seismic
correlation and therefore the extraction of seismic attributes.
In addition, given the depositional environment dominated by
relatively homogeneous shoreface deposits, the sensitivity to
variation in the rock quality is low from a geophysical
perspective. The subtle variations of rock property can be
overwhelmed by structural imprint and imaging issues if a
careful analysis is not made.
In this study, 3D seismic attributes were considered mainly
as they capture the information in 3D space and can be
rendered with transparency tools, visualized and inspected as
needed along inlines, crosslines, time slices, stratal slices or as
geobodies. The approach was first to run unsupervised classi-
fication of two sets of key attributes aiming at different
objectives in the classification results and let the natural
clustering of these attributes reveal the data characteristics. This
unsupervised classification step is done before refining the
classification in a second step using supervised neural network-
based classification and estimation.
Unsupervised classification of seismic attributes
The unsupervised seismic attribute classification, using K-mean
clustering (Coléou et al. 2003) had two key objectives. The first
was to characterize seismic reflection patterns or seismic
textures in the seismic volume, and the second was to look for
indications of possible fluid response or direct hydrocarbon
indicators (Fig. 10).
348 A. Carrillat et al.
Fig. 8. Three-dimensional reconstruction showing palaeotopography at the time of deposition of Sequence 3a. LCP, lower coastal plain.
The seismic texture facies cube
The parameters and signal characteristics of a group of seismic
reflectors characterize a seismic facies, which differs from that
of a neighbouring set of reflectors. The lateral and vertical
distribution and associations of the seismic facies reveal pat-
terns that can be interpreted in 3D space and provide infor-
mation about the geology and/or the depositional environment.
Ideally, three-dimensional seismic facies mapping should
honour the stratigraphic and structural framework of the
seismic data. To automate this procedure, a computation is
made of the dip and azimuth throughout the data volume. This
information is incorporated in the multi-trace attributes to
guide the 3D seismic texture analysis through the data volume
(Randen et al. 2000). Analogous to the interpreter’s eye that
follows the local orientation of reflectors and stratigraphy
across a seismic section, the texture attribute generation is
dip-steered. These attributes are referred to as 3D texture
attributes, since they are able to describe the reflector-geometry
in a small 3D neighbourhood (local orientation-guided or
multi-trace attribute). The combination of the 3D texture
attributes, containing orientation and/or continuity infor-
mation, enables mapping of the stratigraphic patterns from
seismic data.
There are essentially two main categories of 3D texture
attributes (Carrillat et al. 2002). The first includes texture
attributes that portray kinematic features of the seismic traces,
such as local orientation, signal discontinuity, or unconformity.
The second category includes generic texture attributes that
capture dynamic features in the seismic signal, such as spectral
representations or amplitude behaviour from spatial derivatives.
In this study both types of seismic texture attributes are used
to characterize seismic reflection geometries into a seismic
texture facies volume. The first pass for seismic texture analysis
was made using the following set of attributes: Chaos, Variance,
Flatness, Gradient Magnitude, and a discrete representation of
spectral attributes VRS (Sønneland 1996). The set providing the
best natural clustering of the data and avoiding correlated
attributes included Chaos, Gradient Magnitude, Flatness and
the discrete combination of spectral attributes. The final
texture-facies classification, using unsupervised classification
with K-mean clustering, mapped four distinct reflection tex-
tures and texture associations (Fig. 10).
1. The laterally continuous, parallel seismic reflection facies
showing good reflectivity and low heterogeneity of the trace
(coded red in the texture-facies cube).
2. The laterally continuous to sub-parallel facies with relatively
good reflectivity contrast and low seismic heterogeneity of
the trace (coded green in the texture-facies cube).
3. The laterally semi-continuous to wavy seismic reflection
facies showing poor reflectivity contrast (coded blue in the
texture-facies cube).
4. The laterally discontinuous to chaotic seismic reflections
facies showing poor reflectivity contrast (coded grey in the
texture-facies cube).
This seismic reflection classification method was used as an
independent way to evaluate the lithological associations away
from the wells based on the seismic reflection patterns. The red
class (laterally continuous, parallel seismic reflections) and the
green class (laterally continuous, sub-parallel with relatively
 Geophysical analysis by hierarchical classification
Fig. 9. Structural framework and tectonic evolution showing the four tectonic phases interpreted in the Greater Samarang sub-block.
good reflectivity contrast) appear to be sand-prone from well
cross-validation analysis, while the blue class (laterally semi-
continuous to wavy seismic reflections) and the grey class
Fig. 10. Unsupervised classification workflow of seismic attributes.
349
(discontinuous to chaotic seismic reflections) appear shale-
prone (Fig. 11).
The seismic amplitude-dependent facies cube
Using the same unsupervised classification method (i.e. without
calibration from well data), the algorithm was also fed with
attributes that are amplitude dependent, such as RMS ampli-
tude, pseudo-Relative Acoustic Impedance (trace integration
method) and reflection strength. Since these three attributes
show some degree of linear correlation, a principal component
analysis was run to select only the first two components as
inputs to generate a seismic facies cube capturing the potential
Direct Hydrocarbon Indicator (DHI). The unsupervised classi-
fication with K-mean clustering produced an ‘amplitude-
dependent’ facies cube, which clearly highlights the bright spots
in the seismic data (Fig. 10). Based on the natural clustering of
the input attributes, this ‘amplitude-dependent’ facies cube was
classified into four classes; which have been interpreted and
associated with the following facies (Fig.12).
1. a most likely fluid-related class based on high amplitude
and high RAI response (colour coded red in the facies
classification volume; Fig.12);
2. a most likely shale-prone class (colour coded grey in
Figure 12);
3. a most likely wet sand-prone class (colour coded light
blue);
4. an intermediate class associated to the wet sand-prone class
(colour coded yellow).
The interpretation of seismic facies classes is based on
analysis and cross-checking at the well locations between the
350 A. Carrillat et al.
Fig. 11. Comparison of seismic sections at gas well case. Saturation Swt (left track) and gamma ray log (right track) displayed along the well.
seismic facies and well-log responses. The unsupervised
approach reveals a strong potential for identifying DHIs based
on the match obtained in the Sumandak area facies mapping
and also for discriminating between the shale-prone and sand-
prone intervals (Fig. 11).
This ‘amplitude-dependent’ facies cube was used as a basis
for rapid screening of the Greater Samarang sub-block to
identify potential areas of interest for further more detailed
analysis.
AVO modelling and analysis
AVO forward modelling was carried out on three cases – gas
case, oil case and wet case – in order to understand and
calibrate the near and far offsets stacks (Fig. 12). Both Vp and
Vs data were available from Dipole Sonic Imager (DSI) logs in
the three key reference wells.
The wet case was analysed on a well located to the west of
the Morris fault over the available logged interval (Sequences 3
to 6). The Vp and Vs data derived from the sonic log were used,
together with density, to generate a synthetic gather from 0 to
35 using the Zoeppritz (1919) equations. AVO analysis was
then performed at different stratigraphic levels of interest. The
results from AVO analysis were compared with the near and far
offset stacks, the full stack amplitude data and the ‘amplitude-
dependent’ facies cube on well-tied sections. The modelled
AVO response supports the near and far offset stacks near the
borehole in showing no hydrocarbon-related amplitude
anomaly for the wet case. This model suggests up to 10%
amplitude increase between the zero offset and the far offset
(35). Based on that information, amplitude scaling between the
near stack and the far stack using an RMS window of 30
samples (60 ms) was applied.
The same process was used for the gas and oil cases. The
synthetic gather analysis at the top Sequence 4 gas sand shows
a negative reflection coefficient, a decrease in relative amplitude
and an increase in absolute amplitude with offset (class III
AVO anomaly).
The oil case analysis revealed a weak, negative, reflection
coefficient with a weak negative amplitude gradient at the top
of Sequence 4, corresponding to the known oil sand.
Supervised and hierarchical classification of seismic
attributes and AVO volumes
The supervised classification of seismic attributes is a natural
follow up to the unsupervised classification, where the neural
network is guided by training data established from existing
well-log responses. In this study, a hierarchical, supervised,
classification scheme, using an artificial neural network with
back-propagation through multi-layered perceptrons (MLP),
was used to incorporate the AVO attributes. Hierarchical
means that existing classes defined during the unsupervised
classification step are refined by finer segmentation (hierarchy)
based on a new set of seismic attributes and log data. This
hierarchical classification scheme enables the combination of
 Geophysical analysis by hierarchical classification
Fig. 12. Hierarchical classification workflow.
post-stack attributes – here texture or amplitude-dependent
facies cubes – with offset stack attributes, such as near stack, far
stack and AVO response [Far(Far–Near_scaled)] in a sys-
tematic way. During the unsupervised classification step, the
multi-attribute based texture facies volume and the ‘amplitude-
dependent’ facies volume have defined ‘containers’ that are
then populated with new information derived from the seismic
AVO attributes (Fig. 12).
The hierarchical classification involved three key steps
(Fig. 12):
1. offset stacks and AVO attribute analysis against saturation
logs at the well locations and selection of key discriminat-
ing attributes;
2. correlation analysis and supervised neural network estima-
tion (for non-discrete values as opposed to classifica-
tion) from best AVO seismic attributes and saturation log
set;
3. hierarchical classification using either the unsupervised
texture facies cube or unsupervised ‘amplitude-dependent’
Table 2. Blind well test of attributes-based HC prediction
Number of wells in training set Prediction success in Sumandak area (%)
16 90
7 70
3 70
351
cube by selection of the class of interest (sand-prone or
highest DHI potential).
In the case of the unsupervised ‘amplitude-dependent’ facies
generated from principal component analysis of RMS ampli-
tude, pseudo-RAI and reflection strength, the hierarchy starts
from the class defined as the most likely to be sand-prone and
hydrocarbon sensitive. This class is then populated selectively
by the neural network estimation model for saturation derived
from the best AVO attribute trained on selected well-logs (Fig.
12). Here, the cross-plotting analysis of saturation log versus
AVO attributes revealed that the best correlation was obtained
from the AVO response cube [Far(Far–Near_scaled)].
In order to quantify the prediction error, the estimation
workflow was run iteratively with different sets of input well
data and verified with blind well tests not included in the neural
network training (Table 2). The blind well test results derived
from the supervised estimation workflow provided confidence
in the AVO response cube to presence or absence of
hydrocarbon-bearing sands, actually gas sand (Fig. 11). Out of
Prediction success outside Sumandak area (%)
62
60
60
352 A. Carrillat et al.

Fig. 13. Sequence 4a leads in buried hill play and multi-attributes section display. The white ellipses highlight two potential prospects from
combined AVO signature results, texture facies, stratigraphic and structural setting.

the 17 wells used for the validation analysis, the success rate for
prediction of hydrocarbon-bearing sands is 0.63. If one consid-
ers only the sequences shallower than Sequence 5a, the success
rate for prediction of hydrocarbon-bearing sand goes up to
0.72. The poorer, deeper success rate is due to a fairly weak
AVO response in the AVO attributes below 2000 ms TWT.
Due to the semi-quantitative nature of the input AVO
attributes, the method proved to be inconclusive when it comes
to distinguishing between low and high gas sand saturation.
14 illustrates that fact where a wet well resulted from a relatively
promising area when AVO attributes were considered alone.
On the other hand, when the results from both facies and
AVO, based on the hierarchical classification scheme are
considered, the drilled wet sands appear without ambiguity and
the map clearly highlights where other potential plays are
located (Fig. 14). Updip from the wet well, the anomaly brought
up by the combined facies and AVO attribute map corresponds
to a drilled and proven oil and gas accumulation (Fig. 14).

RESULTS AND DATA SCREENING CONCLUSIONS

The result from the hierarchical classification of the ‘amplitude-
dependent’ facies cube combined with the AVO response
attribute was used for guiding the data screening and final
interpretation of the sequence stratigraphic framework and
depositional environment. The AVO fluid response revealed by
the hierarchical classification was used in parallel with the
original amplitude and the texture facies volume to find the best
prospects in terms of AVO signature and optimal setting to
ensure geologically consistent and reliable sand and seal associ-
ation, as interpreted from the sequence stratigraphic frame-
work. Examples of comparative analysis of each seismic facies
volume with original amplitude and far offset stack cubes for
delineation of new prospective areas are illustrated in Figures
11 and 13.
In both the Samarang and Sumandak–Glayzer areas, top seal
capacity is a strong control on hydrocarbon distribution. Figure
This case study demonstrates the value of a combined method
based on seismic geomorphology, seismic stratigraphy, and
fluid response from AVO data calibrated with existing well data
to improve the prospect generation process in a consistent and
systematic manner. This integrated workflow facilitated the
development of new play concepts in the highstand system
tracts and in shoreface deposits incised during the lowstands to
form buried hills, and improved the risk evaluation of those
plays.
Geological analysis provided detailed depositional environment
interpretation distributed within a consistent stratigraphic and
structural framework driven by seismic sequence stratigraphy.
The geophysical analysis was driven by the interpretation of
the depositional sequences. Sequences 8 to 5a are Miocene
deposits characterized mostly by post-rift infill: shelfal to
fluvio-marine deposits showing aggradational stacked
 Geophysical analysis by hierarchical classification
Fig. 14. Sequence 4a top map showing leads in buried hill play from combined facies and AVO (top) and far stack envelope (bottom).
highstands. Sequence 5a is dominated by highstand prograding
delta deposits. Sequences 5 to 2 were deposited mostly during
the Pliocene to possibly Pleistocene Sequence 5 shows high-
stand delta and delta front, while Sequences 4a and 4 show
shoreface deposits and deltaic progradation with lowstand
incisions. Above, Sequences 3a and 3 represent the next
transgressive fill, deltas and delta front to lower coastal plain
associated with shelf-edge deltas that fill in the massive incised
valley system sculpted in Sequence 4. Sequences 2b to Sequence
2 are dominated mostly by lower coastal plain deposits and
delta fronts to shelf-edge deltas of late highstand.
The structural interpretation suggests that the depositional
sequences can be grouped into four main packages connected
to the structural evolution of the Greater Samarang area.
Starting from the oldest package, in the Miocene, an extension
was observed along SSE-dipping faults followed by minor
inversion, compression in the Late Miocene–Pliocene, with
mud diapirism and crestal collapses, followed again by a
Plio-Pleistocene extension, this time along WNW-dipping
faults and, finally, a recent inversion.
Seismic attribute analysis was performed on post-stack data
to deliver 3D seismic facies and texture (stratal geometries)
characterization via unsupervised classification. The unsuper-
vised multi-attribute classification was then refined by a hier-
archical supervised approach to incorporate AVO data (near
and far offset stacks) and to calibrate the multi-attribute
response with well-log data.
353
Analysis and mapping of the multi-attribute volumes,
together with amplitude data and incorporation of the geologi-
cal model within the sequence stratigraphic framework, enabled
the identification of leads in a consistent manner, reconciling
the geological framework from seismic texture attributes and
AVO attributes for hydrocarbon mapping.
The authors wish to thank Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd for permission
to publish and show the data and the Petronas Carigali Exploration
Sabah team for support.
REFERENCES
Carrillat, A., Randen, T., Sønneland, L. & Elvebakk, G. 2002. Automated
mapping of carbonate mounds using 3D seismic texture attributes. Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, 21, 552–555.
Coléou, T., Poupon, M. & Azbel, K. 2003. Unsupervised seismic facies
classification: A review and comparison of techniques and implementation.
The Leading Edge, 22, 942–953.
de Rooij, M. & Tingdahl, K. 2002. Meta-attributes – the key to multivolume,
multi-attribute interpretation. The Leading Edge, 21, 1050–1053.
Koopman, A. 1996. Structure. In: Sandal, D.T. (ed.) The Geology and Hydrocar-
bon Resources of Negara Brunei Darusalam 2nd edn. Syabas, Bandar Seri
Begawan, 61–78.
Levell, B.K. 1987. The nature and significance of regional unconformity in
the hydrocarbon-bearing Neogene sequence offshore West Sabah. Bulletin
of the Geological Society of Malaysia, 21, 55–90.
Madon, M.B.H. 1999. Petronas Chapter 5 – Basin types, tectonostratigraphic
provinces and structural styles. In: The Petroleum Geology and Resources of
Malaysia. Petronas, Kuala Lumpur, 77–111.
354 A. Carrillat et al.

McCormack, M.D. 1991. Neural computing in geophysics. The Leading Edge,
10, 11–15.
Ngah, K. 1990. Structural framework of Southeastern Malay basin. PhD thesis,
Imperial College, University of London, UK.
Randen, T., Monsen, E., Signer, C., Abrahamsen, A., Hansen, J.O., Saeter, T.
& Schlaf, J. 2000. Three-dimensional texture attributes for seismic data
analysis. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, 19, 668–671.
Sønneland, L. 1996. A method of processing seismic data signals (VRS/Orthogonal
polynomial spectral decomposition). PCT Patent Application No. WO/9837437.
Sønneland, L., Tennebø, P., Gehrmann, T. & Yrke, O. 1994. 3D model-based
Bayesian classification. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts,
13, 510–511.
Taner, M.T., Koehler, F. & Sheriff, R.E. 1979. Complex seismic trace analysis.
Geophysics, 44, 1041–1063.
Thies, K., Ahmad, M., Mohamad, H., Bischke, R., Boyer, J. & Tearpock, D.
2006. Structural and stratigraphic development of extensional basins: a case
study offshore deepwater Sarawak and Northwest Sabah, Malaysia. Search
and Discovery, Article 10103 (AAPG Annual Convention Calgary, June
2005).
Wong Hin Fatt, R., Boyce, B., Krebs, W et al. 2006. Chronostratigraphic
chart of sedimentary basins of Malaysia. In: Petroleum Geology Conference and
Exhibition, Abstracts, Kuala Lumpur, 14, 82–84.
Zoeppritz, K. 1919. Erdbebenwellen VIIIB. On the reflection and propaga-
tion of seismic waves. Göttinger Nachrichten, I, 66–84.

Received 14 January 2008; revised typescript accepted 12 May 2008.

View publication stats