Petrophysics of Some Carbonates in “X” Field, Central Luconia, Sarawak

Wan Ahmad Danial Wan Ab Rahman

Bachelor of Technology (Hons)
Universiti Teknologi Petronas
Tronoh, Perak Darul Ridzuan
Email: wa.danial_20597@utp.edu.my

Abstract - The petrophysical properties of carbonates in Central
Luconia are significantly controlled by the sedimentation events
during the platform growth and the subsequent diagenesis
processes that have taken place upon the reefs, with relation to the
sea level fluctuation. This project addresses the complexity in
carbonates and aims to interpret the subsurface carbonate of Field
X from seismic and corroborate the reservoir from well log, in
addition to the petrophysical evaluation generated from the input
of available wireline log data from two wells namely Well X1 and
X2. The interpretations from the seismic justify the carbonates of
field X within the wells belong to the successions of Cycle 4 Miocene
Carbonates platform. The reservoirs were delineated within the
carbonate intervals in well-log exhibiting log trend for clean zone
and high resistivity pay. Core results from the reports are used to
calibrate the evaluated porosity and permeability logs from several
methods in this project with core data and associated the logs with
lithofacies zonation within the cored intervals. Five facies
unravelled from both wells data are analysed for their porosity and
permeability distributions and it is found that Chalky Limestone,
Mouldic Limestone and Chalky Mouldic Limestone facies convey
good petrophysical properties for reservoir potential meanwhile
Argillaceous Limestone and Tight Limestone facies exhibit low
reservoir quality. Flow based unit prediction is established to
characterize the uncored intervals of carbonate facies within the
well and the porosity-permeability relationships are assessed to
characterize the units based on the trend and facies interpolated
from the overlying cored intervals. Three out of five units illustrate
high range of porosity and permeability distributions which
correspond to the trend for the interpreted reservoir facies. The
results of this study are expected to enhance the proper prediction
and well-characterized facies distribution of the carbonate
reservoir of Central Luconia.
Keywords – Central Luconia, Petrophysical Evaluation,
Carbonates.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
This project is driven by studying the properties of
rocks in term of their reservoir quality. In an exclusively
petroleum environment; the exploration-production community
in oil and gas, petrophysics strongly emphasises hydraulics,
with the inclusion of “Log analysis” and are very significance in
calculation of fluid volumes (accumulation) to the estimation of
reserves. In accordance to that, this project recognizes one of the
basic components in petroleum system; reservoir rocks and
acknowledged the vital to study the petrophysics of the reservoir
rocks especially during the formation evaluation processes as a
part in reservoir characterization.
Carbonate rocks represent a complex group, which is
difficult to study. The heterogeneity in carbonate rocks is the
principal reason for its improper characterization and this
become more apparent as attempts are made to characterize
petrophysical properties at various scales [1]. [2] The significant
diagenesis processes and complex depositional environments
make pore systems in carbonates far more complicated than in
siliciclastic.
The success of Central Luconia as a predominantly
gas bearing provinces of Sarawak Basin has proven that the
carbonated reservoir of hydrocarbon, contains most of the
Malaysia gas reserves; 60% [3] and commercial amount for
producing natural gas. More than 200 carbonate buildups have
been seismically mapped in Central Luconia, of which some
65 have been tested by the drill [4]. Corals and coralline red
algae are the chief contributors for the growth of these
carbonate platforms in Central Luconia [5]. To date, 56 of the
carbonate buildups are proven to contain commercial
quantities of non-associated gas [6].”
1.2 Problem Statements
Considering the existing studies on porosity
variations, microtextures, microporosity (leading to
microfacies), retentional permeability, capillary pressure, and
yet on the fluids properties in carbonates for reservoir
prediction, some general trends are nevertheless observed and
misleading. Alternatively, this project recognizes the arising
key issues of: (1) the representativeness of log prediction and
seismic image to quantify the interpretation in carbonate; (2)
the quality of carbonate rocks of Field X to contain the
hydrocarbon accumulation within their porous and permeable
bodies; and (3) the reliability of petrophysical data to scale up
the reservoir characterization and discrimination.
1.3 Objectives
In correspond to the arising problem statements, this
project applies a cross-discipline formation evaluation
program to characterize the petrophysics of carbonates in
Central Luconia, with aims: (1) to interpret the subsurface
carbonate based on seismic and corroborate the reservoir
based on well log; (2) to evaluate the petrophysical properties
of the carbonate zones with calibration from core results and
the associated facies; and (3) to assess the reservoirs prediction
with units and interpolate the porosity and permeability trend
uncored intervals.
1.4 Scope Of Study
Fig 1. Location of Field ‘X’ within the circled carbonate
buildups in Central Luconia as illustrated from the image
produced by ArcGis software.
The study encompasses seismic, well-log interpretation of two
wells, core results analysis, petrophysical evaluation of
carbonates, and the reservoir characterization of Field X, which
located within Block SK310, Central Luconia Province of
Sarawak (Fig 1). The exact location is circled by red line in Fig
1. Central Luconia Province is in offshore NW Borneo and is
delineated by two major strike-slip faults, West Baram in the
northeast and Rajang Line in the Southwest [7] and is
distinguished from adjacent tectonic domains based on
relatively shallow burial and structural simplicity [3]. The area
is of the rifted continental block in which 12 km of tertiary
siliciclastic and carbonate sediments are deposited.
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Geological Setting of Central Luconia
Carbonate buildups were deposited in the Central
Luconia during the Miocene to Holocene period, while
according to [8], the carbonate deposition was believed to have
started during the early Middle Miocene on structural highs of
faulted Upper Eocene to Lower Miocene holomarine and neritic.
As tectonic played a role in creating horst and graben structures
which served as basement for the onset of carbonate deposition,
the Central Luconia foreland basin most likely originated as a
result of the collision of the Luconia block with the West Borneo
Basement [9]. The prolific growth of mega carbonate platforms
and the lack of tectonic activity show that the Central Luconia
carbonate growth was governed mainly by eustatic sea level
fluctuation [8].
2.2 Reservoir Facies and Geometry
Fig 2. Offshore Sarawak’s structural sketch showing the cyclic
boundaries of Central Luconia-a sector with numerous isolated
carbonate platforms-in the Luconia province [3].
Cyclic growth pattern with several transgressive and
regressive sequences has been recognized and correlated in
several platforms to the large scale sedimentary cyclicity of
Sarawak [3]. The progradation in several cycles from Borneo
north-northwestward during the Middle Miocene to Pliocene
fluvio-deltaic clastics into the South China Sea had buried the
Luconia platforms. Drowning of the carbonates has been
associated with decreasing water quality and increasing
subsidence in front of the advancing siliciclastic wedges with
pronounced back-stepping of the platforms during final growth
phases [5]. Five types of lithofacies were observed in the
reservoir of Central Luconia during the study [11] which are
Chalky mouldic limestone, Argillaceous Tight Limestone,
Mouldic limestone, Mouldic dolomitic limestone and Chalky
mouldic limestone, where they have a specific texture and
porosity types. Three types of the lithofacies have an excellent
reservoir potential in terms of porosity and permeability.
2.3 Seismic Interpretation and Petrophysical Evaluation
and Data Integration
Petrophysical interpretation of wireline logs is used
in deciphering lithology identification, porosity distribution,
permeability, water saturation, hydrocarbon saturation,
hydrocarbon movability and bulk volume of water [5]. In
central Luconia, the most pronounced seismic reflectors in the
platform were corresponded to the flooding events
(transgressive systems tracts), and occasionally preceded by
lowstands. Platform growth was terminated by gradual
submergence (drowning) indicated by smooth, concentric
seismic reflections forming a convex mound [10]2.4
Geological Data Integration. In reservoir development
projects where knowledge of thickness and area of reservoir is
vital, the description of the reservoir is achieved through the
integration of well logs and three-dimensional seismic data
[11]. However, according to [2], even the robust and
sophisticated geological models which are formed from well
logs and seismic datasets that improve the information for
every year need to be confirmed and validated experimentally
in the laboratory.
METHODOLOHY
The project commenced with preliminary studies of
the field followed by geological input loaded from seismic
data from Field X, well-log data for two wells; X1 and X2 and
core reports retrieved. Seismic, Well-Log, Well Deviation and
Checkshot Data were loaded into PETREL software for
seismic as well as TECHLOG software (Schlumberger
Techlog64 2011.2) for well log Interpretation. Checkshot data
were used to produce a well-tie between well X1 and X2
(measured in depth, TVDSS) with seismic (measured in travel
time,TWT).
3.1 Seismic Interpretation
Fig 3. Base map showing the location of Well X1 and Well
X2 of 8.44 km apart and the arbitrary linwithin the seismic
inlines and xlines.
Fig 4. Seismic section and gamma ray log responses for Well
X1 interpreted for top of carbonate platform horizon to
produce a surface map on the basis of lateral and vertical
variation of the seismic reflectors.
3.2 Well-log interpretation and Reservoir Analysis

Carbonates distribution within the rock sequences

along Well X1 and Well X2 were corroborated from Gamma
Ray (GR) log responses and Shale Volume (Vshale). Once the
top of carbonate had been defined and used as a marker for both
Well X1 and Well X2, the reservoir zones were delineated
within the carbonate facies for both wells.

Fig 6. Generated total porosity logs outputs with core data

points for calibration within the cored interval of Well X1.

Fig 5. Gamma Ray, Caliper, Resistivity Logs (LLD and LLS),

Bulk Density (RHOB) and Neutron Porosity (NPHI) Logs
Data for the entire log depth in triple-combo layout displayed
in log track workspace

3.3 Petrophysical Evaluation

The petrophysical properties for the carbonate intervals

were evaluated by generating logs for shale volume, total
porosity, effective porosity, water saturation, bulk volume
water, and permeability, using the input from the available
wireline log data (Table1).

NO Evaluated Methods Input

Properties
1 Shale Volume Gamma Ray GR Log
(Vshale) Fig 7. Six generated permeability logs outputs with core data
2 Total Porosity • Neutron- • NPHI Log points from Well X1 for calibration within the cored interval
Density • RHOB Log of Well X1.
• Neutron- • Matrix Density
Sonic
• Density
3.4 Electrofacies and Unit Association
3 Effective Porosity Neutron-Density • NPHI Log
• RHOB Log The determination of lithology was determined based
4 Water Saturation Archie • LLD Log on the information on the rock facies associated from the core
• PHIT Log reports. The core data will be calibrated against the wireline
5 Permeability • Wyllie- • PHIT Log logs and the logs will be subsequently zonated for the cored
rose • PHIE Log
•
intervals. The well logs were zonated into the intervals of flow
Coates • SWirr
unit. An integrated approach on associating the flow unit to
Table 1. Evaluated petrophysical parametersand the methods
the geology within the well to cluster the uncored intervals
used to generate the logs.
with no associated facies, based on the petrophysical
properties. The trend in porosity-permeability relationship are
Core descriptions were extracted from the retrieved reports on
established for each flow unit intervals and the patterns of the
the core plugs data. The core results data were analysed to be
log were observed for their similar characteristics or
loaded as electrofacies. The core description would have the
occurrence of data that repeats itself in a recognizable way.
information on the porosity and permeability.
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Interpreted Subsurface carbonates of Field X and their
intervals within the wells.
From the seismic interpretation, the geometry of the
buildups confined the prediction of facies distributions of Cycle
4 carbonates across the field X. Top of carbonate platform from
the Well Log analysis has been picked at 2890.5m for Well X1
and 3244m MD for Well X2, while in Seismic 2805.4m and
3158.8m SSTVD respectively. The carbonate belongs to the
Cycle 4 Pinnacle reefs.
Fig 8. Interpreted horizons for carbonate top in seismic section
and Gamma Ray log response for Well X1 and Well X2.
Fig 9. Top of carbonate carbonate platforms of Field ‘X’ and
surface map generated from seismic horizons.
In well log, different trends in well log curves were
observed at certain depths for both wells, as coming up to the
different formation tops; interpreted as the top of Cycle 4
carbonate zone. The top of carbonate is picked based on the
interpretation of carbonate facies to be having low Gamma Ray
reading as well as low Vshale readings.
Fig 10. Correlated carbonate intervals for both wells
The interpreted carbonate intervals within the wells are
zonated from the top of carbonate until the bottom of the wells,
discriminating the target from the overlying younger Baram
Delta, marine-deltaic sequences, marine shale intervals. The
reservoirs exhibited low gamma ray readings while high
gamma ray reading is indicated as non-reservoir rocks, most
probably the tallus or the shale zones. Within sand interval,
the resistivity readings in the next column (Track 2) are
relatively high resistivity readings showing a kick to the right
to indicate the fluid zones.
4.2 Reservoir Analysis
The presence of clean zone is indicated by the
crossover between RHOB and NPHI logs for both wells and
is emphasized by the porosity indication from neutron porosity
log. The neutron porosity deflects to the right showing lower
porosity. This happens since in gas, the neutron porosity,
which reads the H+ concentration is lower than in liquid,
giving lower porosity. In the log below (Figure 11), the
neutron and density log curve crossover can be seen clearly.
This indicates the butterfly effect where the fluid bearing zone
is. The carbonate reservoir of Field X is found to be the
conventional reservoir and high resistivity pay. The wide
separation of two curves indicated the presence of gas, with
validation from resistivity logs. The resistivity readings are
high where hydrocarbons are present and low where brines are
present.
Figure 11. Intervals of carbonates reservoir using top of
carbonate as surface markers
4.3 Evaluated Petrophysical Properties
Based on the core results data loaded into the log
tracks for Total Porosity and Permeability values, the overall
trend values showed a better match for Porosity logs compared
to permeability log.
Fig 12. Evaluated petrophysical properties which included
Shale volume log in the frst track, followed by the core
calibrated total porosity log, evaluated effective porosity,
water saturation, bulk volume water, and the core calibrated
permeability logs for Well X1 (left) and Well X2 (right).
 Total porosity log calculated using the input from
density log with constant of limestone matrix showed the best
match with the core data points. Meanwhile for the evaluated
permeability, best match of log curve with core data points are
the permeability logs generated using Wyllie-rose method using
the parameter for gas as the fluid zone and Coates method for
clean zone.

4.4 Electrofacies analysis Fig 15. Porosity-Permeability distributions for Chalky

Mouldic Limestone (LCM) facies in Well X1.
The carbonate facies within the well intervals is made
up of limestone rocks consisting of five lithofacies, as what has
been determined for each wells from the core reports; Tight
Limestone (LT), Chalky Limestone (LC), Mouldic Limestone
(LM), Chalky Mouldic Limestone (LCM) and lastly
Argillaceous Limestone (AL). All lithofacies are presence in
both wells except Chalky Limestone which is found only in Well
X1 and Argillaceous Limestone in Well X2 only. Within the
cored intervals, Well X1 is zonated into 30 electrofacies zones
and in X2 into 17 electrofacies zones, of the associated 4 rock
types presence in each wells. From the porosity-permeability Fig 16. Porosity-Permeability distribution for Mouldic
distribution graph plotted for each facies for both wells, it is Limestone (LM) facies in Well X1
found that Chalky Limestone, Mouldic Limestone and Chalky
Mouldic Limestone exhibited reservoir rock quality of
petrophysical properties, having a high range of porosity and
permeability. Conversely, Tight Limestone and Argillaceous
Limestone (well X2) facies disclose low range of porosity and
permeability distribution, conveying low quality of reservoir
rock properties.

Fig 17. Porosity-Permeability distribution for Tight

Limestone (LT) facies in Well X1

Fig 18. Porosity-Permeability distribution for Argillaceous

Limestone (LA) facies in Well X2

4.5 Assessed flow based units and Petrophysical Trend.

10 flow-based units have been predicted from the

Fig 13. Electrofacies zonation within the cored intervals within established cumulative storage capacity and cumulative flow
Well X1 consisting of 30 zones from four associated rock capacity graph. From the intervals, Unit 5 untill unit 10 are
facies. located within the uncored intervals of Well X2.

Fig 14. Porosity-Permeability distributions for Chalky

Limestone (LC) facies in Well X1.

Fig 19. Flow unit curve for Well X2

 Fig 22. Porosity and Permeability distribution trend for Unit
Fig 20. Flow Unit association for Well X2 and the uncored 7.
intervals marked within the red boundary.

From the porosity and permeability relationship graph

plotted for each unit within the uncored intervals of Well X2, it
is found that the reservoir zone unit 5, 7 and 9 indicate high
range of porosity and permeability distributions, suggesting
petrophysical properties for reservoir rock quality within the
units. Based on the associated facies within the cored intervals
of the well (X2), it can be interpreted that unit 5, 7 and 9 are
potentially Mouldic Limestone or Chalky Mouldic Limestone
facies.

Fig 23. Porosity and Permeability distribution trend for Unit

9.

Conversely, low range of porosity and permeability

distributions for unit 6,8 and 10 convey low quality of
reservoir rocks based on the petrophysical properties
evaluated within the unit intervals. Unit 6,8 and 10 can be
assumed consisting of Tight Limestone or Argillaceous
Limestone which coexisted with the overlying cored reservoir
intervals.

Fig 21. Porosity and Permeability distribution trend for Unit 5.

UNIT DEPTH, INTERVAL AVERAGE SHC ZONE AVERAGE POROSITY-

MD (m) (m) TOTAL (fract) (HC/WATER) PERMEABILITY PERMEABILITY
POROSITY (mD) RELATIONSHIP
(%)
5 3321 24 23 0.3 – Gas Bearing 284 Log K =
0.9 454.09POR -
30.848
6 3345 5 2 0 - 0.9 Water bearing 5-10 Log K =
0.085POR - 0.0019
7 3350 40 20 0.4 – Gas Bearing 124 Log K =
0.9 807.19POR - 56.39
8 3390 10 10 0– Water Bearing 5-10 Log K =
0.7 2.4895POR -
0.0532
9 3400 81 17 0– Mixing Zone 98 Log K =
0.6 45.624POR -
3.2109
10 3481 34 9 0– Water Bearing 1-50 Log K = 3.1189x -
0.4 0.1801
Table 2. Petrophysical properties of carbonate zone unit 5 until unit 10 of Well X2.
 CONCLUSION

The reservoir intervals within the studied wells in field X belong to the carbonate successions of Cycle 4. The variations
in the petrophysical trend in within the carbonates are due to different lithofacies of different reservoir quality. Permeability is a
dynamic data which relates to fluid flow. We can infer permeability from various correlations, equations, observations and
derivations, but we could not directly measure permeability from well log. The rock quality within the reservoir observed
excellent for Chalky Limestone, Mouldic Limestone and Chalky Mouldic Limestone intervals with excellent porosity, as well as
good permeability and contain high gas saturation. Flow unit for Well X1 showed more homogeneity compared to the flow unit
in Well X2 which are heterogenous. The results of this study shall to have shown the integration of petrophysical parameter from
wireline-log data, seismic, as well as core results, which are expected to enhance the proper prediction and well-characterized
facies distribution of the carbonate reservoir of Central Luconia hence supporting the reservoir modelling.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The reliable geological interpretation of log analysis results requires a reliable definition of relationship among
petrophysical and reservoir parameters of oil-gas-water bearing rocks. Petrophysical relationship are based on the laboratory
analyses of core samples saturated with the formation fluids. The basic petrophysical parameters needed in evaluating a petroleum
reservoir shall be estimated from three common sources, cores, well-logging and alternatively, pressure test analyses. Above all,
the representativeness of the measurements and the size effects from the scope of this projects shall be critical for extrapolation
of results and characterisation of the reservoirs. Three subsets which classified the various petrophysical properties of rocks
according to their main use in the study of reservoir should always be taken into account the static properties, dynamic properties
and thirdly log and the geophysical analysis, whereas it is necessary to validate the evaluated results from log with core lab data
and well test results.

REFERENCES [6] PETRONAS. (1999). The Petroleum Geology and Resources of

Malaysia (pp. 371-391). Kuala Lumpur: Petroliam Nasional Berhad
[1] Sharma, R., & Prasad, M. (2009). Characterization of (PETRONAS) Mohammad Yamin, bin Ali, Abolins,P., 1999.
heterogeneities in carbonates. SEG Technical Program Expanded Central Luconia Province. In: The Petroleum Geology and Resources
Abstracts, 28, 2149-2154. of Malaysia. PETRONAS, Kuala Lumpur,pp.371-392.

[2] Lubis, L. A., & Harith, Z. Z. T. (2014). Pore type classification on
carbonate reservoir in offshore Sarawak using rock physics model and
rock digital images. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science (Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 012003). IOP Publishing.
[3] Janjuhah, H. T., Salim, A. M. A., & Ghosh, D. P. (2017).
Sedimentology and reservoir geometry of the Miocene Carbonate
deposits in Central Luconia, offshore, Sarawak, Malaysia. J Appl
Sci, 17(4), 153-170.
[7] Chung, E. K. Y., Ting, K. K., & AlJaaidi, O. (2011, January).
Karst modeling of a Miocene carbonate build-up in Central Luconia,
SE Asia: Challenges in seismic characterization and geological
model building. In International Petroleum Technology Conference.
International Petroleum Technology Conference.
[8] Vahrenkamp, V. C. (1998). Miocene carbonates of the Luconia
province, offshore Sarawak: implications for regional geology and
reservoir properties from strontium-isotope stratigraphy.

[4] Rahman, M. H., Pierson, B. J., & Yusoff, W. I. W. (2011,
September). Quantification of microporosity and Its effects on
permeability and sonic velocity in miocene carbonate reservoirs,
offshore Sarawak, Malaysia. In National Postgraduate Conference
(NPC), 2011 (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
[5] Janjuhah, H. T., Salim, A. M. A., Shah, M. M., Ghosh, D., &
Alansari, A. (2017). Quantitative interpretation of carbonate reservoir
rock using wireline logs: a case study from Central Luconia, offshore
Sarawak, Malaysia. Carbonates and evaporites, 32(4), 591-607.
[9] Madon M, Cheng LyK and Wong R. 2013. The structure and
stratigraphy of deepwater Sarawak, Malaysia: Implications for
tectonic evolution. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 76, pp.312-333.
[10] Zampetti, V., Schlager, W., van Konijnenburg, J. H., & Everts,
A. J. (2003). Depositional history and origin of porosity in a Miocene
carbonate platform of Central Luconia, offshore Sarawak.
[11] Saadu, Y. K., & Nwankwo, C. N. (2017). Petrophysical
evaluation and volumetric estimation within Central swamp
depobelt, Niger Delta, using 3-D seismic and well logs. Egyptian
Journal of Petroleum.