2.

1 DIMENSIONAL CROSS IMAGING

•From the surface map, the depth cross

section was drawn to visualize the contour
line in two dimensional views.
•The horizontal and vertical cross sections -
plotted using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and
point reader based on pixel, ImageJ.
• On the x-axis: width (horizontal and vertical)
while the y-axis: thickness of each zone
TWO METHODS OF DEPTH CONVERSION OF TIME MAPS

I. Manual calculation from the graph

- not give accurate result due to small scale of the maps (1:233), and since the
actual reservoir layers are only approximately 20-50m in thickness, which is
represented in a minor 1mm in the A4 paper can easily lead to stacking of layers

II. Moving to the result of Image_J software

- The results of the plots are shown in Spreadsheet horizontal cross section for
Gelama Merah 1 and ST-1
 SPREADSHEET HORIZONTAL CROSS SECTION FOR
GELAMA MERAH 1 AND ST-1

Horizontal Cross Section GM-1 ST-1 & GM-1

Length
272000.00 273000.00 274000.00 275000.00 276000.00 277000.00 278000.00 279000.00 280000.00 281000.00 282000.00
1200
U3.2
U4.0
1300
U5.0
U6.0
1400
U7.0
U8.0
1500
U9.0
U9.1
Dept

1600
U9.2
U10.0
1700
GM-1
GM-1 ST-1
1800
GOC
WOC
1900

2000
 2.2 STRATIGRAPHY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY

• the oil accumulation : zone U9.0 and U9.1.

• The thin oil layers : above the GOC is at zone U3.2, U5.0 and U9.0 above the GOC level
• 3 different depositional time frame. 1. zone U9.0 until U10.0 was firstly deposited and sedimented.
2.new sedimentation of zone U5.0-U8.0 >uplifted > zones pinched > possible erosion >
uncomformity layer when the new sedimentation of U3.2 and U4.0 occurs. 3.tectonic might have
caused another possible uplift that gives the Gelama Merah the current anticlinal shape it has
now.
• marine hiatal events / surface wave, cross stratification and burrows.
• all sands packages as very fine to fine grained, poor consolidated to unconsolidated sand
• Two lithofacies are interpreted ,cross-bedded sandstones, planar bedded sandstone, laminated
sandstone, massive sandstone, fosiliferous sandstone, claystone and dolomite (from the drilling
report for rock lithologies).
• Reservoirs are stratified, with extensive shale barriers acting as both top and bottom seals.
• The hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs in Gelama Merah area are represented by topset 2D cross
section and also quick-look method from the logs proven by Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet
calculations.
• It is interpreted as a prograding event, shallow marine sand and with continuous shale package.
Oil with thick gas cap was discovered in Unit 4.0, Unit 5.0, Unit 6.0, Unit 7.0, Unit 8.0, Unit 9.0,
Unit 9.1, and Unit 9.2. Gelama Merah-1 discovered a total of 158 m of net gas sand and 30 m of
net oil sand from Unit 4.0 to Unit 9.1. Gelama Merah-1 ST-1 discovered a total of 53 m of net gas
sand and 26 m of net oil sand in Unit 9.0 and Unit 9.2. (These values are shown in the later
section of Petrophysics chapter. Proven Gas Oil Contact (GOC) was established at 1468 m
TVDSS for the sand units.
 2.3 REGIONAL SETTING

• GM is located in the offshore Sabah basin, in the West Labuan-Paisley Syncline:

characterized by a major North-South growth Morris Fault .The regional wrench fault was
interpreted by Rice-Oxely (1991) and Tan and Lamy (1990

• Gelama Merah is deposited in the later part of Middle Miocene sands and has the
depositional environment of prograding delta and coastal complex.
• 4 major prograding sand packages were recognized within the targeted reservoir levels
and they are characterized by interbedded sand shale, coarsening upwards.
• A small erosion occurrence can be clearly seen and it is assumed to be the result of the
movement of Morris Fault followed by landslide near the up-thrown block.
• A thin continuous layer of shaly to silty sand was then filled the eroded area.
• the structure is to be exposed to the northwesterly striking channels, dissecting delta top
thus forming the unconformity.
• This is proven and supported by the wells correlation of Gelama Merah field. The
mentioned unconformity represents a major movement of the Morris Fault and it is also
found that the unconformity pointed out a drastic change in the depositional environment,
from deeper in the underlying interval (coastal) to shallower coastal plain.
 2.4 EXPLORATION OPPURTUNITY

• Past explorations activities in the western and northern Sabah have been traditionally
focused on the inboard areas of the continental shelf. The areas have been explored for
the past 100 years, where first oil seeps were reported from the Kudat Peninsulas. The first
ever offshore well developed in Sabah Basin was the Hankin-1, which was drilled SHELL
Sabah/Pecten in 1958.
• The oil and gas production from Sabah account for approximately 15% and 5% dated in
2005, of the total production in Malaysia, respectively. There are currently 7 producing
fields in the Sabah Basin (Ketam has already ceased production) and, except for Kinabalu,
all the fields were discovered before 1980.

• The Gelama Merah field is specifically located in the sub-block 6S-18 of Block SB 301.
Recent exploration targets are clastic and carbonate reservoirs of Miocene and Pliocene
age. There are currently seven offshore blocks under exploration PSC or have exploration
commitments. Most of these blocks are located in the west Sabah area and are available
under the Revenue over Cost (R/C) PSC terms.
 2.5 THE PETROLEUM SYSTEM

• Maturation and Migration

as of the Miocene-Pliocene deltaic accumulation at a convergent margin. Migration along the
faults is a major method of migration.

• Source Rocks
The hydrocarbons are very similar in composition,originated from source rock which are rich in
terrigenious organic matter

• Reservoir Rocks
consist of intebedded sandstone with non-reservoir formation of thin shales.

• Traps and Seals

anticlinal features, stratigraphic traps unrelated to anticlinal features as the unconformity trapping
mechanism that traps the hydrocarbons in our units of interest.
 2.6 DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT

• The depositional is dominated by the deltaic environment. Based on core data, a less
considerable variation in grain size and sorting was observed within the sand body contained in
the units of interest.

• From the Gelama-2 ST1 core data, zone beyond the unconformity is shale interlaminated scarcely
with sand. Shale in the Gelama Merah field reservoir is hard to fairly hard, well compacted, finely
fissile, micromicaceious, smoothly sloppy.

• Cross bedded layers of sand and conglomerate with shaly sand. The regional tilting of the basin
north west wards and the basin ward migration of the hinge lines that separate unconformities
from there correlative conformities\
 2.7 DIMENSIONAL STATIC MODEL (PETREL 08)

1. General Description :
-implies the 3-D structure of the reservoir zones based surface contoured from surface maps +lithologies
correlated from log readings+ facies based on depositional environment.
-using Schlumberger’s PETREL software. Ten surface maps were digitized and stacked on the depths to
produce a geocellular reservoir model.

2. Model Parameters:
- They are defined for the same value of X-axis value from 273800 to 280000 meter East, and for Y-axis
value from 613000 to 616700 meter North. This approximates to a perimeter of investigation at 6200
meter from west to east and 3700 meter from north to south

Top Structure for Unit 3.2

 CONT’ : DIMENSIONAL STATIC MODEL (PETREL 08)

3. Top Structure Development :

The BMP image file input into PETREL- >coordinates in the 3 dimension are set for X,Y,and Z
axi -> by dotting the lines in the surface maps to make poligon 3D -> transferring the contours
to the desired depth.

4. Creating new wells:

The identical wells for explorations were created by “Input new well” option from the Input
window. The well deviation data were previously compiled from drilling reports and imported
to PETREL for both the sidetrack and vertical well.
 CONT’ : DIMENSIONAL STATIC MODEL (PETREL 08)

5. Stratigraphic Modeling :
The U3.2 to U8.0 is identified from
well GM-1 but not in GM-ST1.
This is also shown in the 2D cross
image from Excel as the zones
are truncated. Therefore the
zones are not correlated to the
neighbor well.

Both wells logs show the existence

of U9.0 to U9.3. For this case, the
Gamma Ray log is used. However,
if we already obtained the depth of
each zones from log interpretation,
any log (even Calipher or
Resistivity) can be used as a
correlation log. This correlation will
appear in all logs.
 CONT’ : DIMENSIONAL STATIC MODEL (PETREL 08)

6.Structural Modeling

List of horizon name, horizon type and input for making zones
CONT’ : DIMENSIONAL STATIC MODEL (PETREL 08)

Cross sectional view of the GM-1 and

GM-ST1 exploration well on the 10 top
surface structures stacked.

Correlating the layers with the facies from

log
 CONT’ : DIMENSIONAL STATIC MODEL (PETREL 08)

7. Properties Modeling:
-final section towards the static model in PETREL. The well logs were scaled up for the
properties of neutron-density porosity, facies, water saturation and effective porosity: to allow
PETREL to virtually categorize the values of each property in every 5mins for the volumetric
estimation in the next section.

-The facies modeling option were then selected.

-The nugget of the variogram is set to be E-W direction based on the depositional
environment which was defined in the earlier section with the angle of azimuth 90˚. The
minor direction is set to 500, and major direction 1000, with the vertical value of 4..
 2.8 HYDROCARBON VOLUMETRIC ASSESSMENT
SIMULATION
Net
Bulk volume volume[*10^3 GIIP [*10^3 STOIIP (in
Case [*10^3 m3] m3] sm3] oil)[*10^3 sm3]

Group6 161475 109845 16404 12215

Zones
• HC intervals : includes oil interval only
U3.2 17640 10806 110 11
• Upper contact : Gas oil contact
U3.2 base 2633 1781 22
• Lower contact : Oil water contact U4.0 1364 919 207 0
• Porostiy : PHIE (effective) and Net to Gross U4.0 base 228 148 33 0

• Recovery for STOIIP : 1.00 ; Bo (FVF): 1.169 [rm3/sm3] U5.0 702 566 148 0

U5.0 base 1265 752 197 0

• Recovery for GIIP : 1.00; Bg = 0.01 cuft/scf , 0.001523476
U6.0 1668 956 44 18
stb/scf
U6.0 base 924 658 30 4
• PHIE = Total Porosity * (1-Vshale)
U7.0 5412 3715 338 22
• STOIIP in sm3: 12215 *10^3 sm3 U7.0base 773 441 40 0

• Conversion Factor from sm3 to bbl, 1sm3 = 6.2934bbl U8.0 4442 3004 4651 0

• STOIIP in bbl : 76.83MMStb U8.0base 847 428 663 0

U9.0 19419 13538 9557 34

• GIIP in scf : 67.76 MMMScf
• U9.0base 4039 2298 0 5412

U9.1 11376 7456 0 6503

U9.1base 6235 4317 0 232

U9.2 50843 36558 0 0

U9.3 25315 16672 0 1

U9.3base 6351 4833 0 0

 2.9 RISK ANALYSIS AND UNCERTAINTIES

I. sand structure-sand is poor consolidated to unconsolidated, with very fined to fine

grained : problem during

II. The varieties of lithofacies, increase the reservoir heterogeneity.

III. Core analysis did not provide sufficient information on the sand distribution
throughout the Gelama Merah area.

IV. As for the 3D static model, without information from the seismic data, it lacks
information to built a complete and accurate fault model.

V. Available logs are only from Gelama Merah field. Therefore, in the well tops and
horizons setting, the top layer U3.2 (facing towards the east) will be slightly thicker
as it is virtually being pulled by the welltops since there are no correlations of wells
available towards the east of well GM-1.