SD Puteri Shahirah Nazihah 20585

Seabed Hazard Based on Quantitative Analysis Using Seismic Data
and Well Data in Bundi Field, Malay Basin
by
Puteri Shahirah Nazihah Binti Salihan
20585
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the
Bachelor of Technology (Hons)
Petroleum Geoscience
December 2018
Department of Geosciences
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
32610 Bandar Seri Iskandar
Perak Darul Ridzuan
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
Seabed Hazard Based on Quantitative Analysis Using Seismic Data

and Well Data in Bundi Field, Malay Basin
by
Puteri Shahirah Nazihah Binti Salihan
20585
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY (HONS)
PETROLEUM GEOSCIENCE
Approved by,
__________________
(Miss Nur Huda Bt Mohd Jamin)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

TRONOH, PERAK
December 2018
ii
CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that I am responsible for the work submitted in this project, that the
original work is my own except as specified in the references and acknowledgements,
and that the original work contained herein have not been undertaken or done by
unspecified sources or persons.
__________________________________________
PUTERI SHAHIRAH NAZIHAH BINTI SALIHAN
iii
ABSTRACT
Safety always being the major concerns in all industry especially oil and gas
exploration. Unsafe seabed will lead to poor installation of platform which could
potentially harm the workers and expensive exploration cost. Bundi-1 and South
Bundi-1 wells was set up and drilled in 1990 by Esso Production Inc. (EPSI) to test
the hydrocarbon potential and reservoir quality within Bundi field area. Unfortunately,
at significant depth they encountered with abnormal pressure from the logging reading
and finally these wells have been unplugged and abandoned till now. Thus, hazard
assessment in this area is essential to identify all possible constraints and hazards from
natural and geological features which may affect the operational or environmental
integrity of a proposed drilling operation. Plus, this study was conducted with aim to
evaluate and assess potential hazard in seabed and Group A/B quantitatively whereby
this technique was still not well developed. Geological parameters such as
geomorphology, fault, porosity, shallow gas and buried channel were selected as a
main indicator for hazard identification throughout this study which each of these
geological parameters were interpreted through TWT map and dip map that has been
produced through horizon picking using Petrel. Seismic attributes such as variance
and dip were applied to observe gas seepage and sediment flow that have been one of
the major geological hazards in the subsurface exploration. Other than that, five
geological parameters for this hazard study were further correlated using SPSS
software to see the relation between each parameter either dependent or independent
variable plus evaluate the percentage of hazard occurrence in this field. From result of
quantitative analysis, identified hazard were plotted and produced a hazard map of this
area based on the percentage of hazard occurrence for future development uses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to acknowledge all the contributions from all parties who were involve
directly or indirectly which helping and providing continuous guidance either in
knowledge and spirit for me throughout this 8-months journey completing my Final
Year Project (FYP) entitled “Seabed Hazard Based on Quantitative Analysis Using
Seismic Data and Well Data in Bundi Field, Malay Basin”.
Special acknowledgement to my devoted supervisor, Miss Nur Huda Bt Mohd Jamin

who patiently coached me continuously without any judgements. Her tireless support
and encouragement keep me motivated to complete and improve my FYP.
Millions of thank you are also directed to my colleagues and research assistants, Mr.
Jamal and Mr. Mukhriz for sparing their time in aiding me in certain tough aspects in
my project and Petrel software usage. Being here today would not be possible without
the encouragement and support from my family. Thus, I would like to extend my
special gratitude to them.
v
Contents
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................ iv
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of Study ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statements ................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Scope of Study ......................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Study Area ............................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................ 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Tectonic Setting of South-East Asia ........................................................................ 5
2.1.1 Pre-Tertiary Evolution History ........................................................................ 7
2.1.2 The India-Asian Collision ................................................................................ 9
2.2 Geographic location of Malay Basin and Bundi field. ........................................... 10
2.3 Tectonic setting of Malay Basin ............................................................................ 12
2.3.1 Tectonic setting of Bundi ............................................................................... 13
2.4 Stratigraphy and paleoenvironment of Malay Basin .............................................. 15
2.4.1 Stratigraphy of Bundi Field............................................................................ 16
2.5 Drilling hazard ....................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 3 .......................................................................................................................... 22
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 22
3.1 Data availability ..................................................................................................... 22
3.1.1 3D seismic data set ......................................................................................... 22
3.1.2 Well data ........................................................................................................ 23
3.2 Project Workflow ................................................................................................... 24
3.3 Data gathering, loading and preliminary study ...................................................... 25
3.4 Geophysical Study ................................................................................................. 25
3.4.1 Well Correlation............................................................................................. 25
3.4.2 Synthetic generation for wells and Seismic-Well tie ..................................... 26
vi
3.4.3 Horizon and Fault Picking ............................................................................. 27
3.4.4 Generation of TWT structure maps................................................................ 27
3.4.5 Seismic Attribute Analysis............................................................................. 27
3.5 Hazard Studies ....................................................................................................... 29
3.5 Quantitative Analysis ............................................................................................. 31
3.6 FYP 1 Gantt Chart ................................................................................................. 33
3.7 FYP II Gantt Chart ................................................................................................. 34
3.9 Project Milestone ................................................................................................... 35
• Final Year Project I (May-August 2018): .............................................................. 35
• Final Year Project II (September-December 2018): .............................................. 35
CHAPTER 4 .......................................................................................................................... 36
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .......................................................................................... 36
4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 36
4.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 36
4.2 Well Information .................................................................................................... 38
4.3 Well Correlation..................................................................................................... 40
4.4 Seismic Interpretation ............................................................................................ 42
4.4.1 Fault Interpretation......................................................................................... 42
4.4.2 Horizon Interpretation ........................................................................................... 43
4.5 Quantitative Hazard Assessment ........................................................................... 46
4.5.1 Normality Testing .......................................................................................... 48
4.5.2 Spearman Correlation .................................................................................... 49
4.6 Qualitative Hazard Assessment ............................................................................. 51
4.6.1 Geomorphology ............................................................................................. 51
4.6.2 Shallow gas and polygon fault ....................................................................... 53
4.6.3 Presence of Buried Channel ........................................................................... 55
4.6.4 Hazard zoning ................................................................................................ 58
CHAPTER 5 .......................................................................................................................... 59
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 59
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 59
vii
5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 60
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Summarizing of potential offshore hazard ............................................................... 2
Figure 2: Study area is indicated by the red mark.................................................................... 4
Figure 3:Global plate tectonic framework of Southeast Asia. After Hamilton (1979). ........... 6
Figure 4: Major tectonic elements of Southeast Asia. Modified from Metclafe (1996). ........ 7
Figure 5: Distribution of land-masses and oceans during Permo-Triassic times. After
Metcalfe (1996)........................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 6: Extrusion tectonics hypothesis model. After Tapponnier et al., 1982. ..................... 9
Figure 7: Geographic location of Malay Basin (Madon et al., 1999) .................................... 11
Figure 8: Oil and gas discoveries in the Malay Basin (Madon et al., 1999) .......................... 11
Figure 9: Shear model for kinematic evolution of Malay Basin (Mazlan Madon, 1997 a) .. 14
Figure 10: Cross sections of the Malay Basin (A) NW-SE section. (B, C, D) NE-SW
sections. Modified from Esso (1985) ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 11: Stratigraphy and depositional environment of Malay Basin (EPIC, 1994) .......... 18
Figure 12: Polarity at seabed.................................................................................................. 23
Figure 13: Workflow of project ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 14: Synthetic seismogram (Theory) ........................................................................... 26
Figure 15: Final Year Project I Gantt Chart ........................................................................... 33
Figure 16: Final Year Project II Gantt Chart ......................................................................... 34
Figure 17: Base map of the study area (modified from Madon et al.,1999) .......................... 36
Figure 18: Arbitrary cross section between South Bundi-1 and Bund-1 wells. ..................... 37
Figure 19: Location of Bundi-1 and South Bundi-1 wells relative to seismic data. .............. 37
Figure 20: Well correlation between Bundi-1 and South Bundi-1 well................................. 41
Figure 21: Fault interpretation in inline 794 .......................................................................... 42
Figure 22: 11 picked faults from study area .......................................................................... 43
Figure 23: Horizon picking (inline and crossline) of Bundi field .......................................... 43
Figure 24: Horizon interpretation at crossline 3077 .............................................................. 44
Figure 25: TWT structure maps of picked horizon which A) seabed and B) Group A & B.. 45
Figure 26: TWT map of Group A & B after applying dip angle attribute ............................. 46
Figure 27: Time slice of Group A & B after applying RMS amplitude attribute .................. 47
Figure 28: Time slice of Group A & B after applying sweetness amplitude attribute ........... 48
Figure 29: Free spans around pipeline ................................................................................... 52
Figure 30: Map showing the features of seafloor based on dip angle. ................................... 53
viii
Figure 31: Cross section of crossline for each section from 0-300 ms. ................................. 53
Figure 32: Z-slice after applying sweetness attribute. High amplitude indicates the zone is
accumulated with gas ............................................................................................................. 54
Figure 33: Fault polygon around 0 – 300 ms formed within Group A and B which act as a
conduit for gas seeping .......................................................................................................... 55
Figure 34: Cross section of crossline for each section from 300-600 ms. ............................. 55
Figure 35:Z-slice after applying variance (coherence) attribute. ........................................... 56
Figure 36: Spectrum of channel types based on plan view (Miall, 1977) .............................. 56
Figure 37: Cross section of each zone within channel [1] low sinuosity meandering channel.
The channel from Group A & B seems to be preserved until seabed area (younger age).
Depression of a reflector indicate the erosion during channel cut-off. .................................. 57
Figure 38: Cross section of each zone within channel [1] high sinuosity meandering channel
with orientation of channel N-S ............................................................................................. 57
Figure 39: Hazard zoning map based on quantitative and qualitative analysis of five
geological parameters. ........................................................................................................... 58
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Stratigraphic section of Bundi and South Bundi field ............................................. 17
Table 2: Classification of shale (Wilson and Wilson, 2014) ................................................. 19
Table 3: Effect of different solution on shale (O'Brien and Chenevert, 1973) ...................... 21
Table 4: Log data availability of Bundi-1 and South Bundi-1 well ....................................... 23
Table 5: Types of Seismic Attributes and its uses ................................................................. 28
Table 6: Description of Geological Parameters ..................................................................... 29
Table 7: Degree of relationship.............................................................................................. 31
Table 8: Key milestone of FYP I ........................................................................................... 35
Table 9: Key milestone of FYP II .......................................................................................... 35
Table 10: Well information of Bundi-1 well ......................................................................... 38
Table 11: Well information of South Bundi-1 well ............................................................... 39
Table 12: Hazard status based on dip angle classification ..................................................... 46
Table 13: Hazard status based on RMS amplitude classification .......................................... 47
Table 14: Hazard status based on sweetness amplitude classification ................................... 47
Table 15: Hazard status based on presence of fault and buried channel ................................ 48
Table 16: Result of data normality testing ............................................................................. 48
Table 17: Guildford rule of thumb ......................................................................................... 49
Table 18: Correlation dip angle with other variables ............................................................. 49
ix
Table 19: Correlation porosity with other variables .............................................................. 50
Table 20: Correlation shallow gas with other variables ........................................................ 50
Table 21: Correlation fault with other variables .................................................................... 50
Table 22: Correlation buried channel with other variables .................................................... 51
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Offshore geological hazards refer to any geologic features or process, existing or

potential that would prevent the exploration and development of petroleum resources.
Once offshore hazards have been identified, special procedures may be required for
bottom-founded structures and facilities and proposed drilling sites need to carefully
be assessed. There are a lot of potential geologic hazards that has been faced in oil and
gas industry such as active faulting and seismicity, slope instability, mass wasting
process, buried and filled channels, hydrocarbon seeps, shallow gas, gas hydrate and
complex seabed morphology. Sometimes drilling delays caused by pipe stuck in
difficult formations which lead to expensive proposition.
This study is the first step in making a census of the geohazard-bearing features
present in Bundi field. Indeed, well in that field was unplugged and abandoned after
drilled at certain depth due to abnormal pressure detected.
In that case, further hazard study on this area are needed to quantify the risks
posed present hazard that will impact and cause adverse effect on any upcoming
exploration and development drilling operation. A few of geological parameters will
be used and played as main variables for identification, evaluation and analysis of
presence seabed hazard. From the tittle itself, ‘quantitative analysis’ refer to use
numerical method to observe and interpret the presence of hazard, define its
probability and measure its real extent and thickness.
Figure 1: Summarizing of potential offshore hazard
1.2 Problem Statements
Quantitative analysis on hazard present in Bundi area have not yet being well
developed. Most from the previous study, their proposed model mainly focused on
qualitative analysis of the geological hazard in that area. From these statistical results,
it has the advantage of being able to withstand the supervision of technical experts and
can produce the hazard results in a format that stating the qualities of uncertainty and
possibility, both of which are fundamental components of risk assessment.
Throughout geohazard assessment, few geologic variables will be used to

determine the degree of hazard including the location of hazard characteristic,
potential magnitude and rate of occurrence (recurrence) of hazard event. However,
geological parameters such as structure and morphology will be mainly used in this
study to show the features of seabed hazard clearly.
1.3 Objectives
The ultimate goal of this project is to evaluate and assess potential hazard qualitative
and quantitatively in Bundi field for future development process. Apart from that, this
project outcome may contribute in reducing uncertainties and minimizing the risk of
development and exploration in this area. The key objectives of study as follow:
2
• To be able generate seabed map and subsurface map by correlating seismic
data and well data from Bundi and South Bundi.
• To identify the accurate geological parameters for hazard analysis
• To produce statistical analysis of the geological hazard in Bundi.
• To propose a model and hazard map using qualitative and quantitative analysis
1.4 Scope of Study
If geohazards exist on the seabed, they must be identified, ranked with all
associated risks determined, at the earliest opportunity in the well planning process.
Only such processes can then ensure that “best” operational guidelines and
contingencies will exist to prevent and eliminate risks and operational loss at lowest
possible levels. This study is about detecting and imaging hazard in a seabed of Malay
Basin which involves:
• Seismic well tie between 3D seismic data and well data from Bundi and South
Bundi gas field
• Horizon picking, and interpretation based on the geological parameters that
has been set for hazard study
• Produce a hazard map and quantitative analysis of the hazard for Bundi field
1.5 Study Area
Malay Basin is situated in the southern part of the Gulf of Thailand, between
Vietnam and Peninsular Malaysia. This basin was resulted due to tectonic extension
in Late Eocene to Early Oligocene, followed with Indian-Asian continent collision
(Tapponnier et al., 1986; Hutchison, 1989). The basin composed of a thick succession
(>8 km) of Oligo-Miocene to Recent sediments, which then overlie by a pre-Tertiary
basement composed metamorphic, igneous and sedimentary rocks. Malay Basin’s
structural evolution can be classified into three stages of tectono-stratigraphic (Tjia,
1994; Madon, 1998; Negah et al., 1996 and Tjia and Liw, 1996): 1) a pre-Miocene
syn-rift phase; 2) an Early to Middle Miocene post-rift phase dominated by thermally-
induced subsidence and basin inversion; and 3) a Late Miocene to Recent phase
dominated by thermally-induced subsidence but lacking significant basin inversion.
The presence of folding in the Malay Basin as seen in seismic sections justifies the
presence of compressional forces. This project focused on Bundi field which is located
approximately 270km NNE of Kemaman supply.
3
Figure 2: Study area is indicated by the red mark
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter mainly describes about the geographic location and regional geology of
study area from previous study done by other researchers. It comprises of the theory
of basin evolution and sediment formation with study area. Potential offshore
geohazard
2.1 Tectonic Setting of South-East Asia
At present, South East Asia is known as a region of many islands where the
continental crust and transition are basically underlying the shallow shelf seas of
approximately 200 m while the oceanic crust underlies deeper ocean basin. The series
of mega tectonic features in Southeast Asia can be described basically by plate
tectonics, a rigid lithospheric entity interaction called a plate. Three large lithospheric
plates are: Indian-Australia, Pacific, and Philippine plate that surrounds Southeast
Asia and still collide with Eurasia as small as about 6 to 8 cm per year.
The border between these three plates is an active subduction zone that surrounds
the region from the Ryuku arc in the northeast, through the Philippines, Java, and
Sumatra, to Myanmar to the northwest. These active plate margins are found in
between shallow to deep seismicity, the advanced Benioff-Wadati zone, the trench,
the rise complex and the volcano arc. The Indian-Australian slab movement in the
north causes a highly oblique convergent boundary across the arc of Sumatra, which
causes a strong right-lateral shear component for the deformation associated with
subduction (McCaffrey, 1996; Malod and Kemal, 1996).
Certain region within South-East Asia is the pre-Tertiary continental core
(Sundaland) that underlies most of it western region from Myanmar to western Borneo
(Figure 3). It is located to the south of the Eurasian Plate and is attached to and located
in between India and South China (Figure 3). During the Mesozioc and early
5
Cenezoic, the region from Peninsular Malaysia to southwestern Borneo was a
contagious part of this continental terrain that formed a vast landmass (Figure 3).
However, the western part of the South-East Asia was relatively older than the eastern
part. This might be due to tectonic evolution in Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
approximately 50 to 60 million years ago.
Figure 3:Global plate tectonic framework of Southeast Asia. After Hamilton (1979).
The South China Sea basin in the other hand, is the oceanic crust that was spread
during the Oligocene (32 million years ago) and cover the region between Vietnam
and Borneo (Taylor and Hayes, 1980; Briais et al., 1993). During the rifting, the
Luconia and Reed Bank blocks are pulled together from the north-west of Borneo and
eventually collided with the West Borneo Basement to form an uplifted accretionary
prism named the Rajang Fold-Thrust Belt (Figure 3) (Hazebroek and Tan, 1993).
6
Figure 4: Major tectonic elements of Southeast Asia. Modified from Metclafe
(1996).
2.1.1 Pre-Tertiary Evolution History
It all started during Palaeozoic and Mesozoic when the supercontinent Pangaea
started to break up and evolution of Tethys Ocean occurred. During Palaeozoic, the
Tethys Ocean covered the area between Pangaea, Gondwanaland and Laurasia.
Metcalfe (1988, 1991, 1996) claimed that South-East Asia is believed to have several
major tectonostratigraphic terranes which formed during the splitting og Pangaea and
the opening and closure of successive Tethys.
There is evidence that suggests that the South-East Asian tectonostratigraphic
terranes were once part of the supercontinent Gondwanaland during early Palaeozoic
period (Hutchison, 1989: Metcalfe, 1996). Late Palaeozoic-Mesozoic floras and
faunas that is unrelated to Gondwanaland but have affinities with South and North
China were found in East Malaya and Indochina. Hutchison (1989) believed that these
terranes were once part of the Gondwanaland and started rifted off the mass land
sometime during the Ordovician and Silurian, and settled to the north, south-east of
Laurasia by the late Permian. On the other hand, the Sibumasu contain the obvious
Gondwanaland features of Carboniferous-Early Permian glaciomarine diamictites and
7
Early Permian cool-water faunas suggesting that it is composed of terranes originated
from NW Australian Gondwanaland as to have this kind of features, the Sibumasu
must have been close to Godwanaland at least until Carboniferous-Permian times.
Hutchison (1993) believed that due to glaciation that this terrane became separated
from Gondwanaland during the late Early Permian and eventually collided with East
Malaya-Indochina during the late Triassic Indosinian Orogeny (Metcalfe, 1996).
Figure 5: Distribution of land-masses and oceans during Permo-Triassic times. After

Metcalfe (1996).
The Carboniferous-Permian rifting phase of these continental ended with the

collision of the Sibumasu terrane and the East Malaya-Indochina terrane in the late
Triassic and the closure of the Palaeo-Tethys Ocean and had resulted in the Indosinian
Orogeny (Hutchison, 1989). This tectonic evolution involved the suturing of the
allochthonous continental terranes that had rifted off from Gondwanaland since the
Late Palaeozoic (Gatinsky and Hutchison, 1986; Sengor and Hsu, 1984; Sengor, 1987;
Melcalfe, 1988, 1996). This eventually resulted the creation of the Song Ma Suture
(Late Devonian), the Bentong-Raub Suture (Late Triassic), and the Woyla-Meratus-
Boyan Sutures (Middle-Late Cretaceous).
8
2.1.2 The India-Asian Collision
Collision of India and Asian plate occurred about 50-45 million years ago has been
major caused for the formation of South-East Asia in Cenozoic time (Dewey et al.,
1989). This event involved the processes of strike-slip tectonics, marginal basin
formation, and arc collision during the Cenozoic.
Figure 6: Extrusion tectonics hypothesis model. After Tapponnier et al., 1982.
Tapponier et al. in 1982 had demonstrated the overview of India-Asia collision during
the Middle to Late Eocene by conducting a simple experiment of continental
indentation using plasticine. The event is believed to cause the extrusion of continental
along major strike-slip faults. Sundaland were displaced to the south-east and east by
almost a thousand kilometers away from the collision zone and this displacement was
taken up along major strike-slip fault zone. From the India-Asia collision also, pull-
apart basins namely Pattani Trough and Malay Basin were formed along the NW-
trending strike-slip faults (Daines, 1985; Polochan and Sattayarak, 1989). The
extensional basins from the Fulf of Thailand to Natuna was named as the Malay-
Natuna-Lupar Shear Zone by Daines (1985). Major strike-slip faults such as the Wang
Chao, Three Pagodas and Red River show left-lateral displacement of several hundred
kilometers (Lacassin et al., 1993; Maluski et al., 1993; Scharer et al., 1990, 1993, 994)
supporting the extrusion model.
9
2.2 Geographic location of Malay Basin and Bundi field.
The Malay Basin is located in the southern part of Gulf of Thailand, between
Vietnam and Peninsular Malaysia, which estimated coverage area about 80,000 km2
and composed of sediments deposit approximately 14km (Arshad, Mohd, & H.D.,
1995) and approximately 250km wide and 500km long. Malay basin was made up
from two parts which is the southern part which control by a NW-SE structural trend
meanwhile northern part with northerly trending structure. The basin continues
southeastwards close to Indonesia’s Natuna Basin and northwestwards to merge with
Thailand’s Pattani Trough (Madon, Abolins, Hoesni, & M., 1999). Extending from
Bintang to Bergading field, a major basement saddle which seperates from a smaller
north-trending sub-basin from the main NW-trending main Malay Basin in the
Malaysia-Thai Joint Development Area (JDA).
Average of sediment within Malay Basin about of 338000 km3. Malay
Basin’s northeast part lies in between Vietnam's border. According to Ngah
(1990) Malay Basin is located near to 3 basin which are the Pattani Basin, West
Natuna Basin and Penyu Basin. It is also seen as the southeast end of the Three
Pagodas which is the main slip of the strike slip fault elongated from Malaysia to
Thailand. It is located entirely offshore where the water column is less than 200
meters. It runs almost perpendicular to the Penyu Basin in the east and west and while
West of Natuna Basin in the south and is parallel to the Pattani Basin in the Gulf of
Thailand to the north. The Tenggol Arch and Pattani Basin by Narathiwat High has
been main boundary which separated Malay Basin with Penyu Basin.
According to Madon et al. in 2010, exploration and development of petroleum

within Malay Basin started in 1968 and currently they already in mature stage. Total
oil and gas accumulations which have been discovered so far were about 13 fields and
still producing. Early exploration activities within this basin in pre-1980s has been
reviewed by Armitage (1980), Ahmad Said (1982) and Chua and Wong (1997). In this
study, the well data was coming from Bundi and South Bundi area which both are gas
fields. Bundi and South Bundi are wildcat well drilled by Esso in Block PM 5 to test
hydrocarbon and reservoir quality of groups E, F, H and I. Bundi well is located
approximately 280 km North-Northeast (NNE) direction from Kemaman Supply Base
meanwhile South Bundi well located 275 km North-Northeast (NNE) direction from
Kemaman Supply Base.
10
Figure 7: Geographic location of Malay Basin (Madon et al., 1999)
Figure 8: Oil and gas discoveries in the Malay Basin (Madon et al., 1999)
11
2.3 Tectonic setting of Malay Basin
Malay Basin was composed of two parts which the southern part with NW-SE
structural trend meanwhile northern part with northerly-trending structures. Collision
of Malaya and Indochina which caused by indentation of India to Eurasia, this basin
developed by transtensional shear and extensional of crust in pre-Tertiary (Tapponeir,
Peltzer, Le Dain & Armijo, 1982). During late Eocene-Oligocene to early Miocene,
extension occurred which resulting in formatin of synrift half-graben, whereby now
seen only as basin flanks.
Malay Basin is known due to its complex structure that consists several extensional
grabens whereby most of the grabens have not been penetrated because of their great
depth but were interpreted from magnetic, gravity and seismic data. From seismic
mapping, several smaller grabens were found the west-central margin including
Dungun Graben described above and the Tok Bidan Graben (Liew, 1994). The
structural history of Malay Basin can be divided into two phase which were synrift
phase and a post-rift phase. Madon, Abolins, Hassan, Yakzan and Zainal (2006)
claimed that the synrift phase occurred when there were active faulting and extension
about Eocene to Oligocene time meanwhile the post-rift phase (early Miocene and
later) was when the extensional faulting had stopped, however the sedimentation kept
continues causing but the basin to subside. The post-rift thermal subsidence produces
by a broad sagging of the basin which was then interrupted by basin inversion during
early to middle Miocene (Tjia, 1994).
During late Upper Miocene which is in late of Group I times, basin inversion of
Malay Basin started which occurred episodically and it seems to have continued well
into Pliocene. Resulting from basin inversion event causing sedimentary basin to be
uplifted and produced structural evidences such as compressional anticlines, inverted
and uplifted half-grabens and reverse throws on half-graben normal faults. These
features are mostly found in the axial (along same line as axis of rotation) region of
the basin. Inversion in the Malay Basin occurs when the initial sinistral shear is
reversed causing fault block bounded by East trending faults to rotate clockwise
causing sinistral oblique slip to occur along the bounding faults. This oblique slip then
causes shortening in the North-South direction, causing reverse dip-slip activation of
faults. Due to this shearing, the intensity of this inversion is greater at the centre and
towards the Southeast. Many of the anticlines are oriented roughly E-W and are en
12
echelon, parallel to the basement normal faults that bound major synrift half graben.
The location and geometry of the inversion anticlines appear to have been strongly
controlled by the basement fault.
2.3.1 Tectonic setting of Bundi
Bundi and South Bundi structures were formed by a combination of structural

events occurring during extensional and compressional phase of the structural history
of Malay Basin. The early extensional phase during Oligocene gave rise to the
formation of half-grabens. These half-grabens are not clearly seen on seismic at South
Bundi due to poor seismic resolution below the Group K level.
The later compressional phase of the Malay Basin resulted in the structural
inversion and east-west orientation of the Bundi-South Bundi-West Bundi anticline.
Associated with this tectonic movement is the formation of fault-bend-fold with
displacement of the major NW-SE trending basement involved fault sometimes as
reactivated pre-existing normal fault as seen on seismic as the north bounding faults
for South Bundi and the east bounding fault of West Bundi.
The Bundi prospect is relatively low relief anticline structure and being part of the
fault-bend-fold associated with displacement on the major NW-SE trending basement
involved fault to the south of the prospect. The resulting closure is fault independent
although an additional fault splay from the southern bounding fault has displacement
up to 40 m in the group H and I within the structural closure. Area and relief vary with
increasing depth. The shallower group E section has a 30 m vertical relief with an area
of 4450 acres, whereas the deeper group I section has a 65 m relief covering an area
of about 3300 acres. Dips are gentle and do not exceed 5˚ even in the deeper sections.
The crest of the anticline shifts slightly to the south in the younger section and the
direction of critical closure changes from north to east.
13
Figure 9: Shear model for kinematic evolution of Malay Basin
(Mazlan Madon, 1997 a)
Figure 10: Cross sections of the Malay Basin (A) NW-SE section. (B, C, D) NE-SW
sections. Modified from Esso (1985)
14
2.4 Stratigraphy and paleoenvironment of Malay Basin
Each of Malay Basin strata is perfectly divided into seismostratigraphic units called
Group whereby these groups are bounded by seismic reflector. Seismic reflector act
as a division between beds or facies with different properties whereby these reflectors
usually define as major sequence boundaries such as unconformities on the basin
flanks. This nomenclature was created by Esso in 1960s which this group was arranged
alphabetically in order of increasing age from A to M and currently still preferred
within oil and gas industry. The stratigraphic development of the Malay Basin is
directly related to its structural evolution. According to Ismail, Rudolph and Abdullah
(1994), extensional phase occurred resulted in basin development which subsidence
was controlled by faulting. Initially, sedimentation in isolated depocentres deposited
thick syn-rift succession of alternating sand-dominated and shale-dominated,
fluviolacustrine sequences. Group M to K which fill the extensional sub-basins
comprise the deposits of braided streams, coastal plains, lacustrine deltas and lakes.
Initially, sediments deposited in confined depositional centers producing thick
succession of alternating sand-dominated and shale-dominated in fluviolacustrine
arrangements. Group M to K consists sediment which were deposited in braided
streams, coast plains, lacustrine environments.
During Lower Oligocene, extensional faulting event ceased, and the event
continued with thermal subsidence and causing deposition of Group L to D. In Upper
Miocene, existence of abundance coal bearing strata within the succession shows the
basin surely at or near to sea level. Group I and J composed of progradational to
aggradational fluvial to tidally-dominated estuarine sands. Group H and F were said
deposited during sea level rise which sediments dominantly from marine to deltaic
environment are dominantly marine to deltaic sediments with fluvial/estuarine
channels influences. Meanwhile, Group E and D composed of sediments dominantly
deposited in fluvial/estuarine channels area with and cultimated with erosional
unconformity (Madon et al., 1999).
During Upper to Middle Miocene time, inversion of half-grabens occurred

localized resulted from reactivation of bounding faults and uplifted of southeastern
part of Malay Basin which have been caused by tectonic subsidence and
15
compressional deformation. Observation from seismic data shows obvious
unconformity that already overlain by undeformed marine sediments such as Group A
and B and this unconformity represents truncates and uplifted of older strata such as
Group H at the southern part of the basin. Group A and B composed of marine clays
and silts which were deposited during marine transgression in nearshore to shallow
marine environment.
2.4.1 Stratigraphy of Bundi Field
Bundi-1 is planned as a deep well to test porosity development in a basin

margin position on strike with, but structurally deeper than the successful Larut-1 well,
45 km to the southeast. On the other hand, South Bundi-1 well was drilled primarily
to test the hydrocarbon potential and reservoir quality of groups E, F, H, and I
sandstones found to be hydrocarbon bearing in the Bundi-1 well. It was also drilled to
further evaluate Bundi prospect and provide useful geologic and stratigraphic controls
in this northern part of Malay Basin.
The group E section in Bundi-1 and South Bundi-1 is made up of sandstones

interbedded with shales and siltstones. Coaly bed can be scattered throughout the
section. The sandstones thickness ranges from 3 m to 20 m in Bundi-1 whilst in South
Bundi-1 the sandstones thicknesses vary from 3 m to 15 m. They are made up of
channel and point bar sandstones deposited in lower coastal plain environment. The
age of this group is Late Miocene and is about 370 m of thickness in Bundi-1 and 399
m thick in South Bundi-1.
The drilling of Bundi-1 and South Bundi-1 is terminated shallower than

targeted end due to severe abnormal pressure. The development of the overpressure
has been described by Madon (2007) as disequilibrium compaction being the main
mechanism and was generated when burial and sedimentation rate is high during syn-
rift phase at the centre of the basin. It was also described that the overpressure at the
basin flanks are generated due to lateral transfer of the excess pressure into permeable
rocks.
16
Table 1: Stratigraphic section of Bundi and South Bundi field
Group Stratigraphic Description
Group A • Age: Pliocene to Recent
& Group B • Composition: Unconsolidated claystones and siltstone

rich in fossils and pyrite
• Environment: inner neritic to holomarine environment
• Thickness: 1008 m at Bundi-1, 1012 m at South Bundi-1
Group D • Age: Late Miocene

• Composition: intercalated claystones siltstones and
sandstone
• Environment: delta front with varying lagoonal and tidal
flat influences
• Thickness: 136m at Bundi-1, 147m at South Bundi-1
Group E • Age: Late Miocene

• Composition: Sandstone interbedded with shales and
siltstones, coal bed scattered throughout the section
• Environment: channel and point bar in lower coastal plain
environment
Group F • Age: Middle to Late Miocene

• Composition: alternating shales and siltstones with minor
sandstone beds
• Environment: coastal fluvial plain environment with
varying tidal influences
Group H • Age: Middle Miocene

• Composition: shales interbedded with siltstones, thin
sandstones and abundant coaly beds
17
• Environment: lower coastal plain with tidal and marine
influences
Group I • Age: Early Miocene

• Composition: shale and sandstone sequences
• Environment: tidal influence coastal fluvio-marine
environment
Figure 11: Stratigraphy and depositional environment of Malay Basin (EPIC, 1994)
18
2.5 Drilling hazard
75% of drilled formation was made up of shale which more than 90% caused wellbore
instability problems. Clay minerals properties in the shale formation was agreed to be
the main cause in instability which lead to serious operating problems with severe
economic consequences exploration and production oil and gas that occurred almost
twenty years ago whereby cost the industry at least half a billion dollars per annum
(Anderson et al., 2010). According to Talabani, Chukwu and Hatzignatiou (1993), apart
from shale’s mineralogy which may lead to instability, shale instability in borehole also
may also depends on [1] overburden/overlying pressure, [2] the pore pressure in the
shale which exceeds the hydrostatic pressure, [3] clay absorbing water rate, tectonic
forces and [4] the microfractures presence along cleavage planes on clay platelets. Roy
and Cooper (1993) mentioned that shale’s effect can cause collapse of well through
caving, sloughing or heaving which surely lead to holes enlargement. Accumulation of
drill cuttings or shales around drill bit and drilling pipes will resulting in bit-balling that
significantly reduce the diameter of borehole plus indirect problems include clogging
the surface and shaft lines due to the scattering and fragmentation. This issue will also
lead to holes tightness and drill pipes trapped that may cause well abandonment.
O'Brien and Chenevert (1973) were among the first to try to directly link shales
instability to their clay mineral compositions. They classified the shales problem into
the five main categories, where clay mineralogy is related to their relative hardness and
their tendency to hydrate and disperse, thus leading to problems such as sloughing,
caving, dispersion and bit-balling as table 1.
Table 2: Classification of shale (Wilson and Wilson, 2014)

Class Characteristics Clay Minerals
1 Soft, highly dispersive (Gumbo), mud making High smectite, some illite
2 Soft, dispersive, mud making High illite, fairly high smectite
3 Medium hard, moderately dispersive, sloughing High in mixed-layer, illite,
chlorite
4 Hard, little dispersion, sloughing Moderate illite, moderate
chlorite
5 Very hard, brittle, no dispersion, caving High illite, moderate chlorite
19
Incorrect drilling fluid used can affect the productivity due to interaction between the
drilling fluid filtrate and the clay within the potential producing formation. Drilling
fluid or mud significantly used throughout drilling operations usually used to maintain
bottom-hole pressure, transport cuttings, lubricating drill strings (Talabani, Chukwu
& Hatzignatiou, 1993). Chenevert, Kelly et al. and Simpson examined the utilization
of oil-based mud to prevent from bit balling occurrence and to control the stability of
borehole. According to Degouy et al. (1993), they claimed that there are several
advantages of oil-based mud compared to water-based fluid which are enhance
stability of borehole, longer life, low reservoir damage factor, reduced torque in
deviated wells and excellent stability for high temperatures and with the presence of
pollutants. From research made by O'Brien and Chenevert (1973), they surely claimed
that K-based mud will create sudden effect on the swelling and spreading of the shale.
Table 3 shows that using of K+ in chloride solution is more effective compared to Ca2+,
Mg2+ and Na+ as it more recover from well blocking due to Class 2 shale (high illite
and fairly smectite) swelling. From field experience in most wells, the use of K+ in
drilling fluid able to provide shale stabilization for more than 48-72 hours. However
outside of this period, encountered shales begin to swell and in part particularly where
caustic potash is used instead of caustic soda. Using of SO / 50 salt mixtures produce
better results. Both alkalinity of mud and filtrate are maintained as low and close as
possible. The use of biopolymers alone is not recommended for drilling through the
sloughing of shale formation as loss of fluid will occurred to the formation in the form
of a polymer solution. This problem occurred due to increase in osmotic pressure
which resulting in weakening the bundle of shale bonds that can cause shale swelling
and heaving.
All in all, when penetrating through shale which contains water formation it is
more secure to keep up a similar level of salinity and total solid dissolved in both water
and mud formation systems. Drilling mud containing the same ions as in the shale
formation should be used when drilling through the formation of troublesome shale.
If initial step dip exists, the pore pressure must exceed and the plug back cementing
job under pressure is better when drilling through step dip gumbo-plastic shales.
20
Table 3: Effect of different solution on shale (O'Brien and Chenevert, 1973)
Solution %Linear swelling Appearance %Shale recovery
Water - Total disintegration 1.3
10% CaCl2 2.18 Partial 5.0
disintegration
10% NaCl 2.00 Intact, easily 8.8
crumbled
10% KCl 1.49 Intact, firm 46.0
10% KCl + polymer 0.0 Intact, firm 91.6
21
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data availability
This chapter laid out the technique utilized for the task by integrating the accessible
information which are geophysical well logs, seismic areas, check shot and base guide
of the seismic lines. Those two complementary sources are used to determine the
probability of hazard either seabed hazard or drilling hazard occurrence in Bundi field
from the seabed map or structural map which have been produced.
3.1.1 3D seismic data set
Commonly, seismic information gives a relatively consistent data and

subsurface perspectives that can resolve and show basic and stratigraphic changes
through reflection events. The dataset has undergone zero-phase processed with SEG
normal polarity, in which a positive (peak) event (black seismic reflection on seismic
sections) represents a downward increase in acoustic impedance, and a negative
(trough) event (white seismic reflection on seismic sections) represents a downward
decrease in acoustic impedance (Brown, 2004). From figure 11, it can be concluded
that the seismic data in this project is in American Polarity. A 3D Bundi field seismic
data in Malay Basin which has the total of 815 inline from 290 ms to 1105 ms
meanwhile and 3401 crosslines which from 603 ms to 4004 ms.
22
Figure 12: Polarity at seabed
3.1.2 Well data
A composite well log contains diverse kind of logs including Gamma Ray,
Resistivity, Neutron Porosity, Density, Caliper logs and additionally sonic log will be
utilized in assessing petrophysical properties in the wells. This composite log well logs
give a total data on the lithology patterns and any abnormal occurrence along the wells.
Table 4: Log data availability of Bundi-1 and South Bundi-1 well
Log Availability
Well Final Depth Gamma Resistivity Neutron Density Caliper Sonic

Name Ray Porosity
Bundi -1 2784 m RKB / / / / / /
South 2645 m RKB / / / / / /

Bundi-1
23
3.2 Project Workflow
Figure 13: Workflow of project
24
3.3 Data gathering, loading and preliminary study
Data gathering has been the most vital part in this examination since all the
imperative investigation and assessments require adequate or a few arrangements of
information. The information was loaded into Petrel 2013 software. Earlier starting
the research, it is vital to have some concise on the local topography of the study area
which is Bundi field, Malay Basin. The review of the area additionally incorporates
on the well summary of Bundi and South Bundi well to study on the drilling progress
of the area. Different sources additionally have been utilized for the literature research
on possible offshore hazard for example, online sources and perusing materials. A
brief discussion on this information will incredibly aid more entire comprehension and
having an entire thought on this extent of concentrate for up and coming investigation.
3.4 Geophysical Study
The geophysical study aimed to provide geophysical understanding in the

study area. Interpretation of Bundi field seismic data was conducted along two wells.
The main steps in the geophysical covers:
• Well correlation
• Synthetic generation for wells and Seismic-Well tie
• Horizon and fault interpretation
• Generation of TWT structure maps
3.4.1 Well Correlation
Well logs give detailed information at the location of borehole. When there are
more than one wells drilled in the area of interest, their stratigraphy can be correlated
with than one another using well correlation method. This correlation is based on
characteristics of the well log response. To remove post-depositional tilting, datum
(flatten) the logs from different wells on what is believed to be a time marker
(correlation horizon that is registered to a common depth).
Well correlation is done based on the top and base of the formation data
provided from well completion report. On other hand, the correlation also was done
based on the lithology marker which is coal. Coal was detected based on the Gamma
Ray and Resistivity log. Gamma ray is used to measure radioactivity material in
sediments meanwhile resistivity it is used to measure resistance of formation.
25
3.4.2 Synthetic generation for wells and Seismic-Well tie
Seismic well tie aims to bridge the gap between the time and depth domains by first
introducing a synthetic seismogram. A ‘tie’ between the changes in the rock properties
in a borehole and seismic reflection data at the same location is essential in providing
an accurate horizon picking for seabed and formation tops.
Synthetic seismogram is the seismic traces at a wellbore generated from wireline log
data (Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary; 2013). Seismic waves in theory, is the
combination of density and velocity values of a solid body, and in the case of
geophysics, the solid body is the lithology within the subsurface. Therefore, by
collecting the density and velocity values of the lithologies, it is possible for a user to
generate a synthetic seismic trace by combining sonic log (velocity) and RHOB log
(density). After combining the sonic and density logs by multiplication, reflection
coefficient will then be produced. Reflection coefficient then needs to be convolved
with wavelet to produce synthetic seismic trace.
[𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡]𝑅(𝑐)
𝑍2 − 𝑍1
=
𝑍2 + 𝑍1
[𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒]𝑍 = 𝜌𝑣
Where, 𝜌 = 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 , 𝑣 = 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
Figure 14: Synthetic seismogram (Theory)
26
3.4.3 Horizon and Fault Picking
Fault interpretation is the first step in seismic interpretation. Faults are

interpreted before horizons because horizons are displaced by faults. This means that
by marking the faults first, it allows a clearer view of the horizon displacement shown
in seismic.
Horizons interpretation is the second and final step in seismic interpretation
before producing TWT maps. Horizon interpretation is done based on well tops data
that interpreted during well log correlation.
Well tops, are horizon markers that are marked based on well log data. Since
well data is considered to be more accurate than seismic due to various reasons such
as a much higher vertical resolution compared to seismic. Other than that, well logs
also provide information regarding the type of lithology that is available at depths
penetrated by wells. Seismic data could not provide this information as it only shows
the boundaries between different lithology instead of the type of lithology itself.
3.4.4 Generation of TWT structure maps
TWT maps or Time maps are maps that are produced through the horizon
interpreted during seismic interpretation. It is called time map because their unit is in
Two Way Time. This is because the seismic interpretation is done at seismic cube
which in TWT unit. Reason for this is because the seismic data are gathered by using
the reflection theory of waves and this measurement is done based on the time taken
for the seismic wave travel from the shot point to reflector and from reflector to
receivers thus the term “Two Way Travel Time”.
Producing TWT Maps is done simultaneously with Quality Control (QC) of
seismic interpretation. In the majority (99%) of cases, upon the completion of horizon
interpretation, usually there will be mis-ties in seismic interpretation. Mis-ties happen
at the crossing point between Inline and Crossline interpretation. This results in a
condition termed “Bull’s Eye” in which the presence can be seen in TWT maps and
thus, the QC process is done only after TWT maps are produced.
3.4.5 Seismic Attribute Analysis
Seismic attribute is characterized as the quantifiable properties from the

seismic data. As indicated by Backe et al (2011), seismic attribute allows the detailed
interpretation on the subsurface structural as well as ease the interpretations by
27
revealing structures that are below the seismic data resolutions. As a continuation of
seismic fault and horizon interpretation, the determination of the seismic attribute to
be extracted is vital in providing additional information of the study area. However,
seismic attribute such as Coherence (Variance) and Structural Smoothing, Sweetness
and RMS Amplitude can be tested for this study.
Table 5: Types of Seismic Attributes and its uses
Seismic Attributes Uses of attributes

Coherence (Variance) • Measure of similarity between waveforms or traces in 2D
or 3D seismic volumes
• Utilised to highlights the discontinuity features.
Structural Smoothing • Enhance the visualization of reflectors and smooths along
coherent reflections while preserving important
discontinuities such as faults or channels.
Sweetness • Designed for “sweet spots” identification whereby this
sweet spot refer to hydrocarbon (HC) prone within seismic
dataset.
Root Mean Square • Indicate porosity and permeability which high RMS
(RMS) Amplitude amplitude refer to good lithology variation across dataset
28
3.5 Hazard Studies
Hazard survey usually was conducted to minimize the risk of harm to

personnel and equipment, and to protect the natural environment. The risk
management process is a key factor in the success and sustainability of oil and gas
facilities and must be cultivated into the entire process life cycle. Jensen and Cauquil
(2013) stated that purpose of any hazard survey is to determine all constraints and
hazards that may arise man-made, natural and geological features which may affect
operational or environmental integrity of a proposed drilling operation, and to allow
appropriate operational practices to reduce any risk identified. In addition, the
proposed hazard survey area should be sufficient coverage to plan any potential relief
well locations and provide sufficient data to fully assess potential hazards in these
locations. As such, hazard identification happens at every major step to improve
performance and reduce the risk of a major accident. Few geological parameters have
been selected which act as main indicator in identifying potential hazard within Bundi
field, Malay Basin:
Table 6: Description of Geological Parameters
Geological Parameters Description
Seabed structures that potentially harm to oil and gas

Geomorphology
development such as slope. Slope are arbitrarily
classified as:
1. Flat slope: Horizon seafloor

2. Gentle: Slope less than 5o
3. Moderate: 5o -10o
4. Steep: Slope more than 10o
Steep slope considered to be hazards especially those

with sediment cover which can lead to slide.
Fault Active faults however pose a potential hazard to offshore

operation and facilities. Active faults are hazardous
because of possible ground rupture and as potential
sources of shaking.
29
Porosity Unconsolidated sediment can lead to failure sediment
flows, turbidities (mass movement) or subsidence.
Identified by irregular erosional contact between

Buried Channel
younger and older sediments. The channel was cut
during lower sea level and have been subsequently
buried by transgressing seas. Infilling sediments in the
channels may shows crossbedding or unconformable
bedding. Shallow-buried channel are hazardous because
the load-bearing capacity may differ between the
younger and older sediments. In addition, bearing
capacity within buried channel can vary. Channel fill, if
permeable can cause the loss drilling fluid during drilling
operations.
Shallow gas Using seismic attributes, shallow gas or gas-charged

sediments can be detected. Gas-charged sediments refer
to unconsolidated sediments saturated with gas under
normal or near-normal pressures. The ability for these
sediments to support manmade structure may be
significantly reduced. The presence of gas also can result
in liquefaction and cause sediments more susceptible to
failure due to ground motion.
30
3.5 Quantitative Analysis
From five geological parameters that have been selected which act as main
indicator in identifying potential hazard, quantitative analysis of the hazard which is
the crucial method throughout this project will be done using Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS software is used to perform quantitative analysis
and this software has been widely used by researchers to perform quantitative analysis
since its development in the 1960s by Norman H. Nie, in collaboration with C. Hadlai
Hull and Dale Bent.
First step in data analysis is to truly screen each of these 5 variables or geological
parameters to get a univariate analysis. This step can be done with Normality Testing.
This testing was done to determine whether the data population has been drawn from
normally distributed. Normally distributed data was required in most of this statistical
data analysis. Normality of data was tested using Shapiro-Wilk W Test and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test. Shapiro-Wilk W Test is ratio of two estimates of the
variance of a normal distribution based on a random sample of n observations
meanwhile Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test is based on the maximum difference between
the observed distribution and expected cumulative-normal distribution.
Correlation is one of the statistical methods which indicate how strongly two
variables are related to each other or the degree association between the two. This
correlation is measured by the correlation coefficient, r.
Table 7: Degree of relationship
Correlation Coefficient, r Strength of Relationship
<.2 Negligible relationship
.2 - .4 Low relationship
.4 - .7 Moderate relationship
.7 - .9 High relationship
>.9 Very high relationship
31
If the data was normally distributed, Pearson correlation can be used however
Spearman correlation can be applied for randomly distributed data. The Pearson
correlation evaluates the linear relationship between two continuous variables. A
relationship is linear when a change in one variable is associated with a proportional
change in the other variable. The Spearman's rank-order correlation is
the nonparametric version of the Pearson product-moment correlation.
32
3.6 FYP 1 Gantt Chart
For this Final Year Project 1 (FYP 1), the crucial output throughout these 14 weeks is to generate several TWT structure to further analyze
on hazard presence which will be conducted on Final Year Project 2 (FYP 2) later. Throughout this 14 weeks, preliminary studies on this
study area, methodology from other researches have been made to gain deeper understanding tectonic setting of Bundi field. Data loading,
seismic well tie, well correlation, fault and horizon picking was carried out within this FYP 1 to be able generate TWT structure map by
the end of FYP 1.
Figure 15: Final Year Project I Gantt Chart
33
3.7 FYP II Gantt Chart
For this Final Year Project II (FYP II), the crucial output throughout these 14 weeks is to generate quantitative analysis using SPSS
software and generate hazard map for uses of upcoming development in Bundi field. In FYP 2, the progress will be more focusing on the
main part of this project which identifying hazard presence quantitatively in the field.
Figure 16: Final Year Project II Gantt Chart
34
3.9 Project Milestone
Several key milestones have been identified from Final Year Project I and
Final Year Project II. The key milestones are summarized as below:
• Final Year Project I (May-August 2018):
Table 8: Key milestone of FYP I
Week Milestone
6 Submission of Extended Proposal
7 Proposal Defense Presentation
12 Generate Seabed and Subsurface Map
13 Interim Report Submission
• Final Year Project II (September-December 2018):
Table 9: Key milestone of FYP II
Week Milestone
5 Identify Hazard
8 Quantitative Analysis of Hazard
10 Produce Zoning and Hazard Map
10 Pre-SEDEX
12 Submission of Technical Paper
13 VIVA Presentation
14 Final Submission of Dissertation
35
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter examined the results of geological, geophysical, petrophysical and hazard
study in Bundi field. Basically, this section includes a description on the geological
interpretation from well log as well as well correlation from 2 wells which are Bundi
and South Bundi to gain a general understanding on the sediment distribution in the
study area.
4.1 Study Area
Figure 17: Base map of the study area (modified from Madon et al.,1999)
This project focused on Bundi field which is located approximately 270km
NNE of Kemaman supply. From figure 17, we can clearly see that within Bundi area,
2 wells which are Bundi-1 and South Bundi that is separated by major fault. The base
36
map indicates position of wells used within the seismic survey. The distance between
the Bundi-1 and South Bundi-1 wells is 4704 m. From the cross section, the area within
South Bundi-1 wells seems to be uplifted due to the fault occurrence. A 3D Bundi field
seismic data in Malay Basin which has the total of 815 inline and 3401 crosslines
which ranging from 290 ms to 1105 ms and from 603 ms to 4004 ms.
Figure 18: Arbitrary cross section between South Bundi-1 and Bund-1 wells.
Figure 19: Location of Bundi-1 and South Bundi-1 wells relative to seismic data.
37
4.2 Well Information
Throughout this project, there are two wells that being used to study deeper on
the subsurface of Bundi field which are Bundi-1 and South Bundi-1 well. Bundi-1 is
a wildcat well drilled by EPMI in Block PM 5. It is located approximately 280 km
NNE of Kemaman Supply Base meanwhile South Bundi-1 was an exploration well
drilled by EPMI in Block PM 5 which was located around 275 km NNE of Kemaman
Supply Base.
Table 10: Well information of Bundi-1 well
Bundi-1 Well
Vertical wildcat
Classification
Bundi structure
Prospect
6o 41’ 40.90’’ N
Latitude
104o 11’ 15.94 E
Longitude
Atwood Hunter / Semi-Submersible
Rig Name/Type
72 m
Water Depth
22 m
Rotary Kelly Bushing
(RKB) Elevation
2979 m RKB
Proposed Total Depth
2784 m RKB
Final Total Depth
25/01/1991
Date Spudded
01/03/1991
Date Abandoned
45 MMBL
Pre-Drill Reserves
Plugged and abandoned as gas discovery
Status
38
Table 11: Well information of South Bundi-1 well
South Bundi-1 Well
Vertical wildcat
Classification
Bundi structure
Prospect
6o 39’ 29.38’’ N
Latitude
104o 11’ 40.448 E
Longitude
Chris Chenery / Semi-Submersible
Rig Name/Type
69 m
Water Depth
22 m
Rotary Kelly Bushing
(RKB) Elevation
2612 m
Proposed Total Depth
2645 m
Final Total Depth
16/09/1991
Date Spudded
13/10/1991
Date Abandoned
60 MMSTB Recoverable oil
Pre-Drill Reserves
Gas shows
Status
39
4.3 Well Correlation
Well Correlation usually used to correlate structural or stratigraphic units between

two wells that have two wells that have equal in time, age or stratigraphic position. To
distinguish stratigraphically critical markers, the cored well along with several
neighboring wells were utilized to interpret the first order stacking pattern and
depositional environment.
In general, correlation logs usually focus on transgressive and regressive cycles,
which are usually easily seen on well logs. Transgressive is a regressive cycle faced
by the maximum flood surface, so the order pattern based on log correlation is usually
selected on the surface of the maximum flood.
Once the main order is selected, they have been correlated across the field. The
correlation process is guided by maintaining a consistent arrangement pattern and the
thickness for each interval. The arrangement pattern provides a good guide for
correlation in that a coarsening upward sequence capped by maximum flooding
surface shale will generally remain a coarsening upward sequence across the length of
the field the chance of misinterpretation to happen is minimized. Coals also can be the
key to this well correlation which is described by low Gamma Ray and high Resistivity
value. In Gamma Ray log, coal can be seen by a sharp deflection of log towards the
left. Flooding surfaces are mud, therefore is characterized with high Gamma Ray
values.
For this project, there are 10 correlations between Bundi-1 and South Bundi-1
wells, composed of 5 top formations and 5 lithologies correlation. Those 5 top
formations are top of Group D, E, F, H and I meanwhile another 5 lithologies
correlation were based on coal presence in those wells.
40
Horizon A Horizon A
Horizon B Horizon B
Horizon C Horizon C
Horizon E Horizon A
Figure 20: Well correlation between Bundi-1 and South Bundi-1 well
41
4.4 Seismic Interpretation
4.4.1 Fault Interpretation
Fault able to act as an important role in the migration and accumulation of the
hydrocarbon however it also may be caused hydrocarbon migrated away from the
reservoir rock. Fault is interpreted as a point of discontinuity of the reflectors which is
displaced at the adjacent fault block. 11 faults were interpreted and picked from the
study area. Faults are marked when there is an observable displacement identified in
the seismic sections. Faults were interpreted at every 10 seismic intervals for both
Inline and Crossline. This is considered as the optimized interval for fault
interpretation. Interpretation interval should be carefully considered based on
complexity of fault system and time available. Figure shows the image of fault in
Inline 794 seismic section. After all the faults are interpreted in the seismic section,
they are modelled to produce a fault model.
Figure 21: Fault interpretation in inline 794
42
Figure 22: 11 picked faults from study area
4.4.2 Horizon Interpretation
Throughout this study, three horizons have been picked which are seabed, Group A
and B and Top of Group F. Seabed was interpreted as the first reflector which seismic
waves reached. Based on the well report, Group A and B which in have a thickness
around 1400 m whereby the top of formation of this group start around 325 m below
the subsurface. Meanwhile, the top of Group F started around 1629 m. The horizons
were picked for every 50 intervals for crossline and evert 25 intervals for inline. The
intervals are chosen based on the structure of the field. If the structure is more
complicated, the smaller the interpretation interval can be chosen. From the horizons
picked, TWT surface maps were generated using Petrel 2013.
Figure 23: Horizon picking (inline and crossline) of Bundi field

43
Figure 24: Horizon interpretation at crossline 3077
44
A B
Figure 25: TWT structure maps of picked horizon which A) seabed and B) Group A & B
45
4.5 Quantitative Hazard Assessment
Through this analysis, these two TWT maps produced as shown in figure 25 were
applied with surface and volume attributes such as sweetness, coherence (variance),
RMS amplitude and dip angle for possible hazard identification. Once each attribute
was applied on the surface map and seismic volume, the surface map or time slice (Z-
slice) was overlaid by seismic grid (100 crossline x 100 inline) to evaluate the degree
of possible hazard within each grid. Once the hazard has been assessed for all grid,
normality testing was done as a preliminary step before testing the correlation between
all variables. However, the correlation testing used must be depends on the data
normality.
A. Geomorphology: Dip angle attribute was applied on surface map to evaluate

any distinct features with steep slope which may be cause “punch-through”
events for jack-up rigs during platform installation.
Table 12: Hazard status based on dip angle classification
Dip Angle Hazard Status

1o -3o Horizontal / Safe
4 o -7 o Moderate
8 o and above Steep / Critical
Figure 26: TWT map of Group A & B after applying dip angle attribute
46
B. Porosity: RMS amplitude was applied on a seismic volume and the hazard
was assessed via time slice (Z-slice) approximately close to surface map. High
porous sediment can lead to failure sediment flow.
Table 13: Hazard status based on RMS amplitude classification
RMS Amplitude Hazard Status

20000-70000 Low porous / Safe
70000-12000 Moderate
12000 and above High porous / Critical
Figure 27: Time slice of Group A & B after applying RMS amplitude attribute
C. Shallow gas: Shallow gas-charged sediments was assessed via time slice (Z-
slice) of seismic volume after applying sweetness attributes. Gas accumulation
within shallow area may cause blow event throughout drilling operation.
Table 14: Hazard status based on sweetness amplitude classification
Sweetness Amplitude Hazard Status

10000-20000 No gas / Safe
20000-31000 Moderate
31000 and above High gas composition / Critical
47
Figure 28: Time slice of Group A & B after applying sweetness amplitude attribute
D. Fault and buried channel: Shallow buried channel considered as hazardous
due to its tendency to trap biogas and deposits of sediment within the channel
may form unstable base. Next, active fault can result in ground rupture. These
two parameters were not distributed in such other parameters does, thus the
classifications were as follows:
Table 15: Hazard status based on presence of fault and buried channel
Fault / Buried Channel Hazard Status

Absent Safe
Present Hazardous
4.5.1 Normality Testing
From the result of normality test using Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test and Shapiro-Wilk
W Test, the significance value was less than 0.5 which indicate the rejection of
research hypothesis of normal distribution and we conclude that the data was non-
normal distribution.
Table 16: Result of data normality testing
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Dip Angle 0.195 272 0 0.866 272 0
Porosity 0.249 272 0 0.83 272 0
Shallow Gas 0.199 272 0 0.853 272 0
Fault 0.541 272 0 0.218 272 0
Buried Channel 0.466 272 0 0.541 272 0
48
4.5.2 Spearman Correlation
Since the data was composed of non-normality distribution, further correlation

statistical analysis was conducted using Spearman correlation. The relationship
between variables was determined as in table 17.
Table 17: Guildford rule of thumb
Correlation Coefficient, r Strength of Relationship
<.2 Negligible relationship
.2 - .4 Low relationship
.4 - .7 Moderate relationship
.7 - .9 High relationship
>.9 Very high relationship
A. Dip angle VS others: From the correlation coefficient, the dip angle seems to
have moderate relationship with porosity and shallow gas variables. From
significance values show less than 0.5 indicate that there is significant
moderately relationship between dip angle with porosity and shallow gas.
Table 18: Correlation dip angle with other variables
Dip Angle Correlations

Shallow Buried
Porosity Fault
Gas Channel
Correlation
.423** .501** .177** .264**
Coefficient
Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00
B. Porosity VS others: From the correlation coefficient, the porosity seems to

have moderate relationship with dip angle and high relationship with shallow
gas variables. From significance values show less than 0.5 indicate that there
is significant moderately relationship between porosity with dip angle and
porosity with shallow gas. Unconsolidated sediments normally promote path
for the gas to escape from the deeper area. Other than that, unconsolidated
sediment may be easily be eroded by currents thus forming scour or depression
trough with moderate angle slope.
49
Table 19: Correlation porosity with other variables
Porosity Correlations
Dip Shallow Buried
Fault
Angle Gas Channel
Correlation
.423** .837** .182** -0.018
Coefficient
Sig 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.771
C. Shallow gas VS others: From the correlation coefficient, the shallow seems
to have moderate relationship with dip angle and high relationship with
porosity variables. From significance values show less than 0.5 indicate that
there is significant moderately relationship between shallow gas with dip angle
and shallow gas with porosity. Shallow high porous sediment may be filled by
gas which was seeped from the deeper area and certain areas of gas zone will
caused a depression of seafloor thus resulted in small shelf formation at the
edge of depression area.
Table 20: Correlation shallow gas with other variables
Shallow Gas Correlations

Dip Buried
Porosity Fault
Angle Channel
Correlation
.501** .837** .196** -0.014
Coefficient
Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.823
D. Fault VS others: From the correlation coefficient, the relationship of fault

with other variables seems to be negligible due to reflection coefficient less
than 0.2. However, fault may be correlate with other variables such as tectonic.
Fault is mainly dependent on an active tectonic movement within particular
area.
Table 21: Correlation fault with other variables
Fault Correlations
Dip Shallow Buried
Porosity
Angle Gas Channel
Correlation
.177** .182** .196** -0.012
Coefficient
Sig. 0.003 0.003 0.01 0.846
50
E. Buried Channel VS others: From the correlation coefficient, buried channels
seems to have no relationship with other variables. However, buried channel
can be correlate with other variables such as sea level and sediment supply.
When sea level static while sediment supply was at the highest point, buried
channel will be filled and sometimes excess of sediment supply within a
channel may formed sediment deposits with steep slope.
Table 22: Correlation buried channel with other variables
Buried Channel Correlations

Dip Shallow
Porosity Fault
Angle Gas
Correlation
.264** -0.018 -0.014 -0.012
Coefficient
Sig. 0.000 0.771 0.823 0.846
4.6 Qualitative Hazard Assessment
This study was not only focused on seabed itself, however one horizon from Group A
& B was also consider since it located around 250 m below seabed. In nowadays
industry, the hazard can be assessed up to 300 m using 2D High Resolution in order
to avoid any “punch-through” events which usually occurred when the legs of jack-up
rig penetrated within the shallow gas zone and avoid any dealing with carbonate within
the shallow area which normally growth less than 100 m below seabed. Carbonate
outcrop at the shallow area considered as geohazard because carbonate usually harder
than clay which resulted in slippage during jack-up rig installation and sometimes can
lead to problem in drilling process including dredging and ploughing difficulties. In
Bundi field, the assessment was conducted using five geological parameters as main
indicator in hazard identification.
4.6.1 Geomorphology
From the dip map, certain features promote steep slope more than 8o produced unstable
seafloor which may be hazardous for any installation of man-made structures. This
unstable seafloor may be due to depositional current which cause the erosion of the
ground. From the seafloor of the study area exhibits distinct morphological features
that indicate scour. The scouring features are hardly to be seen on a dip map which
can only be viewed in a cross section. These are highlighted in sub areas where the
following sediment waves features can be seen. The following section describes the
51
morphology of this feature based on the seismic reflection profiles and 3D surface
images. From figure 30, we can clearly see that most of the features which promote
angle more than 8o are around the channel area.
I. Sediment scouring
A sediment scour is defined as ‘The removal or dissolution of parts of the
seabed by bottom currents, particularly those by currents. Transportation by
currents of the removed material can result in significant movement of masses
of sand, silt and mud on the sea floor. This migration of sediment can "strand"
drilling platform supports or wellhead plumbing by erosion of the surrounding
support sediments. An unexpected seabed scour may cause failure of a pile
foundation, which should be carefully checked for the design of tidal stream
turbine. From figure 31, we can clearly observe that the seabed which is first
reflector was relatively unstable due to sediment waves within section A, B, C
and D. Unstable seafloor may lead to “punch-through” event for jack-up rig
legs and cause free spans for the pipeline which up to a certain limit can lead
to breakage. Free spans pipeline occurred when the seabed sediments have
been eroded or scoured away and the pipeline is no longer supported on the
seabed as shown in figure 29. From figure 31, we can see that scouring activity
within zone A, B and C are repetitive from the zone beneath the seabed.
Figure 29: Free spans around pipeline
52
B A
Figure 30: Map showing the features of seafloor based on dip angle.
Figure 31: Cross section of crossline for each section from 0-300 ms.
4.6.2 Shallow gas and polygon fault
Identification of shallow gas zone was done by applying sweetness attributes on the
3D seismic volume. Historically, severe accident caused by gas accumulation within
shallow area has been reported approximately 27% of wildcat and appraisal wells
drilled. Example of accident related to shallow gas zone are smaller kick and blow out
throughout drilling operation. From the Z slice after applying sweetness attributes, we
can clearly see the accumulation of gas around channel and fault zone.
The accumulation of gas at shallow zone may cause gas seeping from upward
migration of deeper reservoir. The gas started to migrate upward through small
53
polygon fault which was normally formed within siliceous sediment. Polygon fault are
irregular shape which the faults can be planar or listric and may have triangular shapes
which may taper downwards or upwards (Lonergon, Cartwright & Jolly, 1998).
According Davies and Ireland (2011), array of polygonal fault can be triggered
thermally within siliceous sediment. This is due to conversion of opal A- to opal CT
which resulted in differential compaction and shear failure and thus fault initiation.
Gas-charged sediment within unconsolidated area considered as hazardous due to
large differences in load bearing capacity between the gas zone and surrounding area.
Presence of gas can result in liquefaction or cause the sediments to become more
susceptible to failure due to ground motion. The following section in figure 33 shows
the chaotic reflector within 300-600 ms which caused by accumulation of gas within
that zone.
A
B
Figure 32: Z-slice after applying sweetness attribute. High amplitude indicates the
zone is accumulated with gas
54
Figure 33: Fault polygon around 0 – 300 ms formed within Group A and B which act
as a conduit for gas seeping
Figure 34: Cross section of crossline for each section from 300-600 ms.
4.6.3 Presence of Buried Channel
Buried channels are classified as irregular erosional contact between young and older
sediments whereby these channels were cut during sea level drop and have been
subsequently buried by transgressing sea. Buried channel may become an interest in
oil and gas industry if it is at deeper part. However, buried channel at the shallower
part may be hazardous since sometimes the sedimentation within channel area may
formed steep slope and cause unstable seafloor. Apart from that, shallow buried
channel has a high tendency for gas accumulation and if the channel fill is permeable,
55
loss of drilling fluid may be occurred. To view buried channel clearly, application of
coherence (variance) is a must to evaluate any discontinuities of seismic traces.
B
1
C 2
Figure 35:Z-slice after applying variance (coherence) attribute.
Well-known classification is that single channels with varying sinuosity are divided
into straight and meandering, and that multiple channels with varying sinuosity are
divided into braided and anastomosing (Miall, 1977).
Figure 36: Spectrum of channel types based on plan view (Miall, 1977)
Schumm (1977, 1981) demonstrated that there is a strong relationships between the
channel pattern and the type of the sediment transported by the channel, thereby
allowing fluvial channels to be classified into three types: 1) bed-load channels, which
are a straight or of very-low sinuosity; 2) mixed-load channels, which are of moderate-
sinuosity; and 3) suspended load channels, which are of high sinuosity. From research
made by Ethridge and Schumm in 2007, equal width sinuous pattern suggests
moderate to high lateral stability, and low bed load to suspended load deposits. A wide
56
bend sinuous pattern suggests low to moderate lateral stability, and higher bed load to
suspended load deposits. As in figure 34, we can clearly observe that the seafloor
consists of two buried channel which (1) low sinuosity meandering (2) high sinuosity
meandering channel whereby both channels have an orientation from N-S. The high
sinuosity meandering channel have unequal width ranging from 210 m to 185.75 m
wide meanwhile low sinuosity meandering channel have an equal width about 299.252
m wide.
Figure 37: Cross section of each zone within channel [1] low sinuosity meandering
channel. The channel from Group A & B seems to be preserved until seabed area
(younger age). Depression of a reflector indicate the erosion during channel cut-off.
Figure 38: Cross section of each zone within channel [1] high sinuosity meandering
channel with orientation of channel N-S
57
4.6.4 Hazard zoning
After completed quantitative and qualitative analysis for hazard identification in this study area based on five geological parameters, hazard zoning
map is produced as shown in figure. This hazard zoning map provide highlights area that may be affected by or are vulnerable to a hazard which
has been discussed throughout hazard analysis. This map was zoned according to the degree of possible hazard proportion within each grid.
Figure 39: Hazard zoning map based on quantitative and qualitative analysis of five geological parameters.
58
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
As a conclusion, using Bundi and South Bundi well data and 3-D seismic data,
5 geological parameters were selected which are geomorphology, fault, porosity,
shallow gas and buried channel to identify any potential hazards in Bundi field. Two
surface maps were produced which are seabed and Group A and B. The interval
distance between these two maps is approximately 250 m. Hazard assessment was
normally conducted 300 m below seabed to avoid any area with gas leaking and
shallow carbonate growth during the installation of jack-up rig. During seismic
interpretation the horizon was hardly picked as this field was a gas field. However,
quality checking (QC) was a crucial step in seismic interpretation to avoid formation
of bull eyes on the TWT structure map. Few seismic attributes such as coherence
(variance), sweetness, dip and RMS amplitude were applied to assess the hazard more
clearly and accurately. Quantitative analysis using SPSS software was conducted by
applying normality and Spearman correlation to evaluate the correlation between each
of the geological parameters used. Geomorphology, porosity and shallow gas were
high to moderately correlated meanwhile correlation for fault and buried channel were
having negligible relationship. Once all the hazards have been identified quantitative
and qualitatively, hazard zoning map was produced based on the degree of possible
hazard within each grid. This zoning map can be used for reference in upcoming
exploration oil and gas within Bundi field.
59
5.2 Recommendations
The statistical method used in correlation of the parameters and hazard

calculation could lead to not so accurate results since this project only utilized well
data as a source of subsurface information from 2 wells only. Thus, for future study,
an area with more wells data present will have more reliable impact towards this
research. Other than that, this 3D seismic volume needs to be reprocessed to remove
any unwanted signal since this seismic volume still contains some noise in the shallow
area. Apart from seismic and well data, bathymetry data also can be used as additional
source to support this hazard assessment.
60
REFERENCES
Aird, P., & Norge, B. P. Assessing Geo-Hazards.
Briais, A., Patriat, P. and Tapponnier, P., 1993. Updated interpretation of magnetic
anomalies and reconstructions of South China Sea basin: implications for the Tertiary
evolution of Southeast Asia. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98, 6299-6328.
Chiocci, F. L., Cattaneo, A., & Urgeles, R. (2011). Seafloor mapping for geohazard
assessment: state of the art.
Conn, P., & Arthur, J. (1990). Quantitative Gas Hazard Analysis: Present Limitations
and the Way Forward. In Safety in Offshore Drilling (pp. 235-256). Springer,
Dordrecht.
Creaney, S., Hussein Abdul Hanif, Curry, D. J., Bohacs, K. M., and Hassan Redzuan
,1994, Source facies and oil families of the Malay Basin, Malaysia: AAPG Bull., 78,
p.1139.
Davies, R. J., & Ireland, M. T. (2011). Initiation and propagation of polygonal fault
arrays by thermally triggered volume reduction reactions in siliceous sediment.
Marine Geology, 289(1-4), 150-158.
EPIC, 1994. Regional study of the Malay Basin-Final Portfolios. Esso-PETRONAS

Integrated Collaborative Study, Unpublished report, Esso Production Malaysia
Inc.
Ethridge, F. G., & Schumm, S. A. (2007). Fluvial seismic geomorphology: a view

from the surface. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 277(1), 205-222.
Gallagher, J. W., & Heggland, R. (1995). Shallow gas evaluations based on

conventional 3-D seismic data. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts
1995 (pp. 518-520). Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
Heggland, R., Nygaard, E. T., & Gallagher, J. W. (1996, January). Techniques and
experiences using exploration 3D seismic data to map drilling hazards.
In Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference.
Ismail, M. T., Rudolph, K. W., & Abdullah, S. A. (1994). Structural and sedimentary
evolution of the Malay Basin. AAPG Bulletin (American Association of
Petroleum Geologists) ;(United States), 78(CONF-940803--).
61
Jensen, P. J., & Cauquil, E. (2013). Guidelines for the Conduct of Offshore Drilling
Hazard Site surveys, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (No.
373-18, p. 1). Report
Lonergan, L., Cartwright, J., & Jolly, R. (1998). The geometry of polygonal fault
systems in Tertiary mudrocks of the North Sea. Journal of Structural Geology,
20(5), 529-548.
Lacassin, R., Leloup, P.H. and Tapponnier, P., 1993. Bounds on strain in large Tertiary
shear zones of SE Asia from bounding restoration. Journal of Structural Geology, 15,
677-692.
Madon, Mazlan. (1999). Malay Basin.
Madon, M., Yang, J. S., Abolins, P., Hassan, R. A., Yakzan, A. M., & Zainal, S. B.
(2006). Petroleum systems of the Northern Malay Basin.
Roy, S., & Cooper, G. A. (1993). Prevention of bit balling in shales: Some preliminary
results. SPE drilling & completion, 8(03), 195-200.
Talabani, S., Chukwu, G., & Hatzignatiou, D. (1993, January). Drilling successfully
through deforming shale formations: Case histories. In Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Wilson, M. J., & Wilson, L. (2014). Clay mineralogy and shale instability: an
alternative conceptual analysis. Clay Minerals, 49(2), 127-145.
62

SD Puteri Shahirah Nazihah 20585

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SD Puteri Shahirah Nazihah 20585

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Seabed Hazard Based on Quantitative Analysis Using Seismic Data

and Well Data in Bundi Field, Malay Basin

Puteri Shahirah Nazihah Binti Salihan

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of

Seabed Hazard Based on Quantitative Analysis Using Seismic Data

Puteri Shahirah Nazihah Binti Salihan

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

Special acknowledgement to my devoted supervisor, Miss Nur Huda Bt Mohd Jamin

1.2 Problem Statements ................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Scope of Study ......................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Study Area ............................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Pre-Tertiary Evolution History ........................................................................ 7

2.1.2 The India-Asian Collision ................................................................................ 9

2.2 Geographic location of Malay Basin and Bundi field. ........................................... 10

2.3 Tectonic setting of Malay Basin ............................................................................ 12

2.3.1 Tectonic setting of Bundi ............................................................................... 13

2.4 Stratigraphy and paleoenvironment of Malay Basin .............................................. 15

2.4.1 Stratigraphy of Bundi Field............................................................................ 16

2.5 Drilling hazard ....................................................................................................... 19

3.1.1 3D seismic data set ......................................................................................... 22

3.1.2 Well data ........................................................................................................ 23

3.2 Project Workflow ................................................................................................... 24

3.3 Data gathering, loading and preliminary study ...................................................... 25

3.4 Geophysical Study ................................................................................................. 25

3.4.1 Well Correlation............................................................................................. 25

3.4.2 Synthetic generation for wells and Seismic-Well tie ..................................... 26

3.4.4 Generation of TWT structure maps................................................................ 27

3.4.5 Seismic Attribute Analysis............................................................................. 27

3.5 Hazard Studies ....................................................................................................... 29

3.5 Quantitative Analysis ............................................................................................. 31

3.6 FYP 1 Gantt Chart ................................................................................................. 33

3.7 FYP II Gantt Chart ................................................................................................. 34

3.9 Project Milestone ................................................................................................... 35

• Final Year Project I (May-August 2018): .............................................................. 35

• Final Year Project II (September-December 2018): .............................................. 35

4.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 36

4.2 Well Information .................................................................................................... 38

4.3 Well Correlation..................................................................................................... 40

4.4 Seismic Interpretation ............................................................................................ 42

4.4.1 Fault Interpretation......................................................................................... 42

4.4.2 Horizon Interpretation ........................................................................................... 43

4.5 Quantitative Hazard Assessment ........................................................................... 46

4.5.1 Normality Testing .......................................................................................... 48

4.5.2 Spearman Correlation .................................................................................... 49

4.6 Qualitative Hazard Assessment ............................................................................. 51

4.6.1 Geomorphology ............................................................................................. 51

4.6.2 Shallow gas and polygon fault ....................................................................... 53

4.6.3 Presence of Buried Channel ........................................................................... 55

4.6.4 Hazard zoning ................................................................................................ 58

1.1 Background of Study

Offshore geological hazards refer to any geologic features or process, existing or

1.2 Problem Statements

Throughout geohazard assessment, few geologic variables will be used to

1.4 Scope of Study

1.5 Study Area

2.1 Tectonic Setting of South-East Asia

2.1.1 Pre-Tertiary Evolution History

Figure 5: Distribution of land-masses and oceans during Permo-Triassic times. After

The Carboniferous-Permian rifting phase of these continental ended with the

Figure 6: Extrusion tectonics hypothesis model. After Tapponnier et al., 1982.

According to Madon et al. in 2010, exploration and development of petroleum