IPA17-105-E

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Forty-First Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2017

HANDIL DEEP ZONE GEOMODEL: HOLISTIC APPROACH TO OPTIMIZE WELLS

LOCATION AND MINIMIZE THE RISK FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN A MATURE,
MULTI LAYER AND HIGHLY COMPARTMENT RESERVOIRS

Rachman Phasadaon*
Gany Gunawan*
Hudan W. Alam*
Iswahyuni F. Hayati*
Sinto Yudho*

ABSTRACT comprises over 550 hydrocarbon accumulations

Handil Deep Zone (HDZ) is the backbone of gas
contributor in Handil field, characterized by multi
layered, highly compartmented and low permeability
reservoir. Limited well data, risk of sand occurrence,
depletion, and productivity are the main challenges
for HDZ development. Hence, it is important to
develop a robust geomodeling methods to minimize
these uncertainties.
Sedimentological concept is essential for predicting
sand distribution orientation due to the absence of
reliable seismic data. Dynamic data then used
extensively to validate sand distribution,
hydrocarbon accumulation, and reservoir
compartmentalization.
Furthermore, understanding behavior of depletion in
low-permeability HDZ is crucial. Introducing a
method to estimate pressure distribution as a function
of distance active producer is one of the key elements
in HDZ reservoir pressure prediction.
Burial and compaction may lead to the productivity
issue in HDZ. Perforation result statistic is used
along with the kriging method to create map to
highlight the area based on reservoir flow probability.
Such flow prone map can be used as guidance on
locating the best location for drilling new wells.
Using all these approaches integrated in the latest
geomodel enable us to locate the good pressure, good
productivity and high probability of sand occurrence
area so-called sweet spot for the future wells
location.
INTRODUCTION
Handil field, discovered in 1974, is an oil and gas
field located in internal axis of modern Mahakam
Delta in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. The field
from depth ~200mSS to 3300mSS in structurally
stacked and compartmentalized fluvio-deltaic sands.
The structure of the field is a simple 4 way dip
anticline divided by a major East-West fault. Handil
reservoirs were divided into several zones, namely
Shallow, Main, Lower, and Deep zones. Shallow
zone to Main zone are known as Oil Pool, while
the bottom of Main zone down to Deep zone are
known as Gas Pool.
The Gas Pool are located below marker R16-5 at
~2200mSS down to marker ~R30-4 at ~3080mSS
(Figure 1a). Reservoirs are deposited in deltaic
environment during the Middle Miocene time.
Effective porosity are varying by depth, in general
the Lower zone ranges from 13 to 22 p.u, while in the
Deep zone ranges from 5 to 14 p.u (Figure 1b).
Most wells in Handil Field were drilled in the zone
of normal hydrostatic pressure. However, one well
encountered high overpressure, H-B1. The top of
overpressure in this well is located at depth around
9500 ft (2896mSS) near to marker R30 where there
is an abrupt transition into very high overpressure
zone, close to lithostatic gradient all the way to TD.
GEOMODELING DATA
Seismic Data
Since its discovery in 1974, Handil field was only
covered with 2D seismic data which were combined
from several surveys from 1973 to 1984. Sparse
spacing between 2D seismic lines (~600m), poor
vertical resolution and lack of reflection continuity
on 2D seismic cause poor correlation between
seismic interpretation and well data. In 1998, 3D
survey was acquired over Kerbau area located in the
eastern part of Handil field. It covers approximately
180km2 including the eastern part of Handil anticline.

* TOTAL E&P INDONESIE

A new 3D Handil seismic survey was acquired in
December 2011. The survey covered approximately
91.2 km2 area of Handil field with high density data
sampling (bin size 12.5m x 12.5 m) which aims was
to improve 3D structural interpretation mainly in the
Shallow zone and to get interpretable images of the
reservoir bodies. Seismic data processing was carried
out in 2012 for Time migration and continued in
2013 for Beam PSDM processing.
Well Data
Most of the old Handil wells were targeting the Main
zone interval and fewer wells drilled until penetrated
the Lower and Deep zone. In general, numbers of
wells penetration are becoming less as the interval
getting deeper (Figure 2). 171 wells are used as input
wells in geomodel, including the most recent wells
drilled in 2015.
STATIC MODELING
In general, the geomodeling workflow of Handil
Lower and Deep Zone Geomodel can be divided into
several phase sequentially: structural and
stratigraphic modeling; well log up-scaling;
sedimentological review and facies modeling;
petrophysical modeling, contact and region
definition for initial and current condition, pressure
& flow probability modeling and finally volumetric
calculation integrating static and dynamic data.
Structural and Stratigraphic Modeling
One major E-W direction normal fault and two
seismic horizons (R19 and R28-3) were used as input
during VBM structural modeling of Lower and Deep
zone (Figure 3).
The upper and lower boundary of the Handil Deep
Zone, consecutively marker R16-5 and R30, are
characterized by thick shale interval represent the 3rd
order maximum flooding events in the middle
Miocene. Log pattern indicated a regressive stacking
pattern from R30 up to the marker R21-5, followed
by transgressive pattern up to marker R16-5. Series
of 3rd order regressive-transgressive cycles are
observed between R30-R26, R26-R20 and R20-R16-
5, average thickness of those cycles are between 100-
300m. (Cibaj, I., 2009). Smaller scale sequence is
defined as deltaic cycle (4th or 5th order), with
average thickness ~ 20-30m are used as input well
tops marker during structural modeling (Figure 4).
Facies Modeling
In Handil field, sedimentations are mainly channel
deposits in fluvial to delta plain environments with
some crevasse splays or mouth bars. Channel and
bar/crevasse splay are identified based on the log
pattern, approximate thickness and correlation to
surrounding wells. Fluvial channels are commonly
indicated by a massive and thick (5-30m) sand body
with sharp base at bottom (erosional surface) while
the distributary channels usually have fining upward
at the top, sharp base at bottom and maximum 20m
thick for individual sand body. Bar sands are
typically coarsening upward pattern, with relatively
poor reservoir quality compared to channel with
maximum thickness of 10m for 1 individual bar sand
(Figure 5).
Facies modeling aims to create a realistic
representative of depositional environment. The
model should capture the heterogeneity of lithology
and act as guidance to model petrophysical
properties. Sedimentologist interpreted limit of the
channel fairway based on well log correlation with
analogue to present day Mahakam delta and the most
recent study on the sand geometry. The interpreted
boundaries then are used as basis to create sand body
property, namely channel fairway, bar/crevasse splay
and background shale. Different parameter will be
applied to each Sand Body property during facies
modeling. Figure 6 illustrates the Sand Body
property modeling on layer R21.
The second step of facies modeling then performed
after Sand Body properties have been established for
each marker. Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS)
algorithm was used to distribute the facies log within
each sand body. Variogram range of channel is
1500*500m with azimuth derived from channel
fairway azimuth map, while for bar the range is
1200*1000m with orientation perpendicular to major
direction of channel fairway (Figure 7). Vertical
Proportion Curve (VPC) was used to guide the
algorithm to honor vertical distribution trend of each
facies proportion as seen in the well data.
Petrophysical Modeling
Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) algorithm
was used to perform petrophysical modeling of NTG
and PHIE NET for Handil Lower and Deep zone.
Variogram range and azimuth are similar with the
one in facies modeling.
a. NTG Modeling
Net sand cut off was defined based on PHIE and
VSH. Table 1 show the cut offs definition based on
study conducted in 2009.

Pressure test acquisition during drilling is frequently
done in Handil wells. Cross plot of pressure test
result vs. PHIE coming from 82 wells (644 good
pressure test result) that penetrate the gas pool zone
(R20 R30-5) show that minimum porosity that still
able to flow during pressure test is +5% (only 0.3%
of data (or 2 out of 644) shows good pressure below
5% PhiE) (Figure 8).
NTG log is calculated by using cut-off from PHIE
and VSH log. The calculation resulted in beta shape
distribution of NTG well log. Beta distribution
transformation was applied in data analysis to get the
better match between model histogram and up-scaled
data histogram (Figure 9).
b. Effective Porosity (PHIE NET)
PHIE NET values represent the effective porosity of
the net sand body that has passed the cut offs during
the NTG modeling. The 3D property was distributed
with co-kriging to PHIE model (Figure 10). PHIE log
was used as input for porosity modeling without
applying any cut offs, hence the value has wide
ranges between ~1% to ~30%. Normal distribution
transformation is used to direct the histogram
distribution in 3D grid honoring up-scaled well log
data histogram distribution
c. Water Saturation (Swe)
Water saturation (Swe) from log interpretation has
high uncertainty due to variability of water salinity,
being a mixture of connate water and low salinity
compaction water (Walgenwitz, 2003) and global
increase of salinity vs. depth in Handil (Salze, 1987).
Therefore, Swe is defined as a function of PHIE. The
latest study in Swe function was conducted in 2016.
Since Handil Gas Pool is dominated by gas channel
reservoir then it is considered not necessary to
discriminate Swe function based on fluid type and
facies.
d. Bg at Initial Condition
Initial Bg log was calculated as function of reservoir
pressure. Two formulas are used in property
calculator based on the pressure value. The Bg initial
value derived from calculation has been calibrated
with PVT data base.
If Pressure < 2890 Psi Bgi = 1000 * 7.943 *
(Psi^-0.917) / 1000
If Pressure >= 2890 Psi Bgi = 1000 * 0.218 /
(Psi^0.466) / 1000
Then the initial Bg log is distributed throughout the
3D grid by using Gaussian Random Function
Simulation without any specific variogram
differentiation for facies.
DYNAMIC DATA INTEGRATION
Contact and Region Definition
Basically, fluid contact in Handil Lower and Deep
zone model can be divided into 2 categories. The first
fluid category is defined based on log data; this type
has the highest confidence level. When the fluid
contact was not observed in the log data, then CGIP
data is used as additional parameter when applying
minimum value between GDT +1h and Midpoint
between GDT-WUT as fluid contact.
Since Handil reservoir are mostly associated with
channel facies and within single marker/zone there
might be more than one discrete side bar
accumulation. Region property was created as a
property in facies modeling module to distinguish
any different accumulations which imply on several
fluid contacts within single zone.
Hydrocarbon region/Reservoir Pressure Unit was
defined based on observation on static and dynamic
parameter. Beside well correlation, it is necessary to
integrate hydrocarbon contact and pressure evolution
as basis to distinguish region (Figure 11). In general,
pressure is used more extensively in defining region
while contact evolution is less used because its
evolution in Handil Gas Pool is not significant which
indicates weak to none aquifer support.
Other constraint taken into account is in place
volumetric comparison between IGIP and CGIP
comes from P/Z observation. The iterated region
allows us to highlight the area with high possibility
of remaining potential.
Case Study: Static and Dynamic Iteration to
Define New Region in R21-5
In the previous model R21-5 was considered as
single region (all reservoirs are connected). This
layer located in Handil south compartment and has
been produced by WELL-3 & WELL-2, where
WELL-3 located in the top of structure while WELL-
2 located in the more down-dip position.
WELL-2 died in 2000 due to integrity issue, while
WELL-3 died in 2010 due to water out. Consider this
as single region reservoir (based on old model), it
means no remaining potential left due to water

contact move up to top structure. But based on new
approach where dynamic-static iteration is the key to
redefine new region, and one of those method is
using pressure to define compartmentalization inside
the reservoir, its confirm in reservoir A consist of 2
regions instead of 1 region, region 17 & region 18.
The dynamic input, in this case P/Z method can be
used also to control shape and volume of the new
channel/region, this is very useful in specific case
where static data is limited (Figure 12).
New region definition, may open new possibility for
future development in reservoir-A (region 18), where
the actual contact remain as initial and remaining
potential still economic to be produced with current
technology.
Integration between static and dynamic data in
geomodel allows faster screening and evaluation to
locate sweet spot area of remaining potential not only
in term of net pay but also reservoir pressure and
productivity index. Two dynamic driven maps
therefore are introduced in this new model.
Region is treated as facies once the limit is set by
analyzing the numbers of different initial contacts
found in one marker. The iteration between dynamic
and static is performed to confirm that the limit is set
correctly in term of the volumetric. After the
boundary is created in 2D map and value is given for
each boundary, the region properties are then created
in facies modeling step by using assign value from
surface option (Figure 13).
Reservoir Pressure Model
Pressure Map is introduced to visualize the risk of
highly depleted pressure regime (< 0.4 Deq) in each
region that cannot be produced anymore. Remaining
potential is defined based on current contact depth
and current reservoir pressure >= 0.4 Deq.
The example below describes how to evaluate risk of
depletion in layer 27-5 region 1. WELL-4 is main
producer in this region where its production impacts
on region depletion is found at several locations,
observed by recent drilled wells (WELL-6, WELL-5
and WELL-7) after the well stop producing, no
contact movement is detected because of low water
production which proves typical dry gas behaviour
(Figure 14). The depletion rate can be seen over
distance at observer wells from the source of
depletion, the further distance to depletion the less
depletion occurred exception for WELL-7 where is
situated at isolated mouthbar that has poor
transmissibility. By applying pressure transient
analysis formula (Exponential Integral) into model
the predicted pressure value in the nearby wells as a
function of distance can be calculated (Figure 15).
The calculated pressure then will be distributed
throughout region using kriging algorithm to create
region pressure map (Figure 16).
Productivity Index (PI)
Productivity Index is introduced to give an idea
where the area with high possibility to have good or
flowing perforation result based on previous wells
perforation. The index value used for mapping is 1
for flowing reservoir and zero for non flowing
reservoir. Definition of flowing reservoir is reservoir
that has initial gain after perforation >= 0.5MMscfd,
the cut off 0.5 MMscfd is derived from pre-frac
successful realization, 4 hydraulic fracturing wells
have pre-frac initial rate above the cut off. Index
values are distributed inside the HC accumulation
limit by using make surface tool in petrel with
kriging method, PHIE-NET map use as trend surface
in pre-processing tab. Index values are distributed
inside the HC accumulation limit by using make
surface tool in petrel with kriging method, PHIE-
NET map use as trend surface in pre-processing tab.
Below is the example of Productivity index map
generated in R28. R28 have been perforated by 5
wells which the initial gain as shown in the table 2
below.
Index value is identified as such then distributed
inside the region boundary to create the PI Map
(Figure 17)
RESULTS
The blind test was performed on 6 HDZ wells drilled
from 2012 to 2015: where 5 wells located in North
compartment and only one well in the South
compartment. The blind test is divided into 2
categories:
Static parameter consists of net sand and net pay.
Dynamic parameter consists of pressure and
productivity index.
Static Parameters Blind Test
a. Net Sand Prediction
Total actual net sand thickness is only 0.92% (-3.3m)
less than prediction (351.6m actual vs. 354.9m
model). More variability is observed if we look in
more detail, 75% of net sand prediction > 5m falls

within the + 40% tolerance, while for net sand
prediction < 5m only 38% prediction falls within the
tolerance (Figure 18). The result suggests that in
general the model predict better in thick sand (>5m).
Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the
impact of variogram for net sand prediction. Three
different cases were evaluated (Figure 19):
Case-1: current variogram is multiplied by 0.5
(bar: 600*500 & Channel: 750*250).
Case-2: current variogram (bar: 1200*1000 &
Channel: 1500*500).
Case-3: current variogram is multiplied by 1.5
(bar: 1800*1500 & Channel: 2250*750).
The realization from those different cases shows that
there is no significant impact in term of net sand
prediction, indicating that the model variogram is not
sensitive to net sand predictions. Sedimentology
concept seems to play much bigger role in
controlling the accuracy in predicting net sand
thickness.
b. Net Pay Prediction
Actual net pay was calculated from reservoir defined
as primary target and un-prognosed reservoir. The
definition for un-prognosed reservoir is the reservoir
that in the previous prediction based on 2012 model
was interpreted as Non-gas reservoir or even non-
reservoir but in the actual result it is found as Gas
reservoir. Therefore the new model was updated by
using this latest result, however in the blind test this
data will be taken out.
Total actual net pay thickness is 34% (-39.2m) less
than prediction (110.8m actual vs. 170m model). ~
72% of model prediction falls within the prediction
tolerance + 40%. Model prediction that falls beyond
tolerance are mostly related to reservoir
heterogeneity inside channel fairway which
uncertainties cannot be addressed with current
modeling methodology (Figure 20).
Dynamic Parameters Blind Test
a. Reservoir Pressure Model
There are 21 MDT data (pressure measurement) in
HDZ wells drilled in 2014-2015 that are used as
blind test data, covering both gas and water bearing
reservoir from lower zone and deep zone By using
2014-2015 HDZ wells as blind test data, it means
latest wells that have been used to built the pressure
model in this test is 2013 HDZ wells. Despite
excluding all new data (2014/2015), pressure
model/methodology still predictive to estimate
reservoir pressure, with absolute deviation 0.1 Deq
(Figure 21)
b. Productivity Index (PI)
There are 15 perforation results data that have Gp
realization >1 Bscf that are used as blind test data,
covering all layer from R20-2 - R28-8, with data
distribution as below:
Category-1: 7 perforations coming from reservoir
with limited perforation data, which mean by
excluding 1 perforation data as blind test data makes
no perforation data left can be used to develop PI
map. As a result, PI map will be based on PI function
from closest marker/layer.
Category-2: 8 perforations coming from reservoir
with sufficient perforation data, which mean PI map
can be generated based on perforation result & PI
function in those reservoirs.
The result showing PI value that has been built using
PI map methodology give slightly pessimistic value,
with relative deviation 40%. Poor PI prediction
mostly comes from Category-1 (reservoir with
limited perforation data). Having sufficient
perforation data in each reservoir is the key to built
predictive PI Map (Figure 22).
CONCLUSIONS
New geomodeling methodology in Handil Deep
Zone (HDZ) has enable screening to identify area
that has potential for future development wells in
term of pressure, productivity and probability of sand
occurrences.
The geomodel is quite predictive as it is validated by
blind test result that showing good coherency
between the prediction and actual well result for both
dynamic and static parameters.
REFERENCES
Cibaj, I. et al., 2007, Stratigraphic Interpretation of
Middle Miocene Mahakam Delta, Deposits :
Implication for Reservoir Distribution and Quality,

Proceedings of Indonesia Petroleum Association.
31st Annual Convention, Jakarta.
Kristianto, A., 2009, Petrophysical Synthesis of
Handil Shallow and Deep Zone, Internal Memo.
Wirawan, G., & Hidayat, H. K., 2016, Porosity-
Permeability Relationship and Swe-Phie Function
for Handil Lower-Deep Zone, Internal Memo.
Wiweko, A., 2014, Cartoon of Handil Deposition
Reconstruction Proccess, Internal Report.

 TABLE 1

DETAIL CUT-OFF OF PHIE AND VSH FOR SAND TYPE-A, B AND C

Zone Porosity(v/v) Vshale(v/v)

(TVDSS) A B C A B C
0700 0.2 0.15 0.07 0.6 0.6 0.6
7001200 0.2 0.14 0.07 0.6 0.6 0.6
12001700 0.2 0.14 0.05 0.6 0.6 0.6
17002200 0.18 0.13 0.04 0.25 0.35 0.45
22002700 0.14 0.1 0.05 0.45 0.45 0.45
27006000 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.45 0.45 0.45
=LowerandDeepZone

TABLE 2

INITIAL GAIN DATA FROM FIVE WELLS THAT WAS PERFORATED IN LAYER R28, INDEX
VALUE 1 FOR FLOWING RESERVOIR AND 0 FOR NON-FLOWING RESERVOIR

Well InitialGain Status IndexValue

Well8 0.6 NotTight 1
Well9 0.48 Tight 0
Well10 1.59 NotTight 1
Well11 0.27 Tight 0
Well12 0.1 Tight 0

 Figure 1 - a. Handil Reservoir Zonation; b. PhiE Distribution of Handil Gas Pool Reservoir.

Figure 2 - Well Distribution of Handil Gas Pool.

 Figure 3 - Handil structural framework.

 Figure 4 - Example of Detail Stratigraphic Sequence and Marker In Handil Lower And Deep Zone (after Cibaj, I., 2007).

Figure 5 - Example of Several Facies That Commonly Found in Handil Field (modified from Wiweko A.,
2014).

Figure 6 - Sand Body Modeling Input and Result.

 Figure 7 - Facies Modeling Input, Parameters Setup In Petrel and Result.

Figure 8 - Handil Gas Pool Phie vs. Good Pressure Test Result.

 Figure 9 - NTG Modeling Input, Parameters Setup in Petrel and Result.

Figure 10 - PhiE NET Modeling Input, Parameters Setup and Result.

Figure 11 - Region Definition Example in R21-5, Region Can Be Identified By Looking at the Initial Contact
Variation in Each Marker.

Figure 12 - Dynamic Input by Using P/Z Method is Very Useful to Identify New Region in Marker R21-5
and Validate the Deterministic Channel Geometry in the New Region.

 Figure 13 - Region Properties Modeling Input, Parameters Setup In Petrel and Result.

Figure 14 - Layer R27-5 Perforation Result and Pressure Data after WELL-4 Production.

 Figure 15 - Illustration of Reservoir Pressure Model at Layer R27-5 Region 1.

 Figure 16 - Applying Pressure Cut-Off into the Initial Netpay Map to Define the Remaining Area above Pressure Cut-Off.

 Figure 17 - Productivity Index Mapping Process.

 BlindtestNSActualvsModel 360

30

25 354.85
355
ActualThickness(m)

20
40%
100%
351.58
15
+40%
PrimaryTarget
10
350
UnprognoseTarget
NonReservoir
Model prediction
5 < 5m zone
Model prediction
>= 5m zone
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 345
ModelThickness(m) Actual Model

Figure 18 - Cross Plot Net Sand Thickness Model Vs. Actual.

 Figure 19 - Cross Plot between Net Sand Model Predictions vs. Actual Thickness for Each Case.

Figure 20 - Cross Plot Between Net Pay Predictions Vs. Actual, b. Example of Model Uncertainties Related
to Channel Side Bar Limit.

 BlindTestPressure
HSA1_LayerA
Well-12
1
Well-9
HD4LayerB
0.9
0.8
Well-35
HV4LayerC
0.7
DeqActual

0.6
0.5
0.4
+0.1deq
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1deq
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
completecircle ofprediction
DeqPrediction

*complete circle prediction: DEQ, PI and reserves blind test data

Figure 21 - Cross Plot Between Deq actual (2014/15 HDZ wells) vs. Deq Prediction.

Figure 22 - Cross Plot Between PI actual vs. PI Prediction.