IPA05-G-081

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirtieth Annual Convention & Exhibition, August 2005

3D SOFTWARE APPLICATION TO MATURE FIELDS OF THE INTERNAL AXIS

OF THE MAHAKAM DELTA

Hotma Yusuf *
Maike Willuweit**
Philippe Ruelland*

ABSTRACT testing of various scenarios, for example, when

Handil and Tambora fields are two mature fields
located in the internal axis of the Mahakam delta.
Within these multi-layered fields, the sedimentary
series is composed of deltaic sediments. Handil and
Tambora are essentially an oil field and a gas field
respectively. In both fields, the hydrocarbon column
reaches 2000 to 3000 meters. On Handil, production
started in 1975 and tertiary oil recovery techniques
have been applied in the oil pool. On Tambora, gas
production started in 1989, and water rise is now
observed in the upper reservoirs. The geological
complexity and the production history render the
reservoir behavior difficult to understand. Until now,
the understanding of the fields relied on correlations
and sets of 2D maps. On Handil, the latest wells
drilled show a remaining potential in the oil pool. On
Tambora, the deep reservoirs require a development
with horizontal wells. With the number of wells
planned in the next few years, a thorough
understanding of the reservoirs in 3D as well as
regular and fast updates of the model is necessary.
2D maps are insufficient to satisfy these needs.
A full-field 3D model is seen today as the best means
to answer the Asset’s major objectives. The first step
is to create a 3D “MASTER PROJECT” for each
field into which all existing 2D data, wells and
surface data is placed. The second step is to make all
the existing horizons consistent in 3D. The third step
is to construct workflows in order to render updates
of the model automatic.The advantages of a 3D
model include efficient implementation and screening
of wells, ease of integrated studies, involving geology
and reservoir engineering, and well preparation and
* Total E&P Indonésie
** Roxar Software Solution
planning a horizontal well. The 3D model is therefore
seen as an ideal integration tool
GENERAL CONTEXT
A field is called mature when it reaches its decline
phase. At present, 70% of the world’s production
comes from fields that began to produce over 20
years ago, when the geoscientific data and the data
handling was not as it is today. Consequently, the
quantity, quality and availability of data may vary
considerably and often fall short with regards to the
geoscientist’s expectations.
When studying mature fields, it is essential to
understand reservoir behavior. This is achieved only
if the various geosciences disciplines are combined to
give a consistent interpretation. In any field today, a
3D vision of the field is being increasingly
considered as crucial. This implies working ‘inside’
the 3D cube in an interactive manner. A common tool
is needed for the geoscientists, to share their
understanding of a field, and be able to optimize the
recovery of remaining hydrocarbons. In the case of
Handil and Tambora, there are two major
difficulties. The first is the geological context
(Mora et al., 2001). Both fields comprise a multi-
layered sedimentary series of fluviao-deltaic deposits
Each layer in the model holds different hydrocarbon
accumulations, often with different fluid contacts and
dynamic behavior (Moge and Febvre, 2001). The
second difficulty is the lack of interpretable seismic
data. Only poor 2D seismic lines are available. 3D
seismic data has been acquired, due to numerous coal
beds, which tend to interfere with and eventually
obscure potential amplitude effect expected from gas-
bearing reservoirs. Therefore, the most important

355
data to interpret structure, stratigraphy and reservoirs
are well data.
In Handil, production started 30 years ago and
tertiary oil recovery techniques have been applied in
the oil pool. In Tambora, gas production started 16
years ago, and water rise is now observed in the
upper reservoirs. The geological complexities and the
production history make the reservoir behaviour
difficult to understand and model. The reservoir
geometry and the sand distribution within the
channels is a major geological uncertainty. Also the
initial or current fluid contacts for most hydrocarbon
accumulations are not directly observed. Previously,
the understanding of the fields relied on correlations
and sets of 2D maps. The latest wells drilled show a
remaining potential in the oil pool in Handil, and the
deep reservoirs in Tambora require development with
horizontal wells.
Today, a 2D approach is insufficient to understand
the reservoirs; a full-field 3D model is seen as the
best means to answer the main objectives. The 3D
models helps position and prepare new wells
(conventional or horizontal) easily, quickly,
precisely.
Full-field 3D models answer the geoscientist’s needs
to visualise objects in 3D, build 3D cellular models,
and assist in the conventional and complex well
designs. The 3D projects are used today on a daily
basis both in Handil and Tambora for well
implementation and other specific studies. The 3D
environment also enables quick updates to the model,
as well as easy communication between team
members of different disciplines.
DEPLOYMENT OF THE 3D PROJECT
The major difficulties in initiating and deploying the
3D project originated from handling the large amount
of data and optimizing its integration into one
consistent database. The key factor is to handle the
project as a “living” project, where updates can be
easily made.
The current Handil project contains of more than 380
wells, 197 geological layers, 550 hydrocarbon
accumulations, and surface installations (Figure 1).
The Tambora project is smaller and consists of more
than 50 wells, 140 geological layers, and 500
hydrocarbon accumulations, and surface installations.
Examples of geological layering in Handil and
Tambora are shown in Figure 2. The amount of data
and its complexity require a highly structured and
well managed project. The key processes in the
construction of these 3D full-field projects are
WORKFLOWS and UPDATES.
Structure of the Master Projects
The Master Projects consist of a “core Master
Project” and of “sub-Master Projects” associated with
production zones. This was done in order to avoid
creating an extremely large project, which would
have been inefficient to work with (Table 1).
Data provenance and integration
The first objective of the study was to gather and
transfer all available data into the 3D projects. Well
and surface data was transferred from the subsidiary
well and topography databases. This included all
surface and netsand maps stored within other 2D or
3D software databases and from various existing
studies.
For both Tambora and Handil, the imported data
consisted of:
1. Well data, in the form of trajectories, raw and
interpreted logs, and well markers
2. Surface data, in the form of structure and
netsand maps
3. Faults data, including fault polygons (Handil
only)
4. Cultural data, such as shorelines, pipelines,
surface installations
5. Polygons and other data from previous studies
Both models include a large number of structure and
net sand maps. For example, there are 95 main
markers and 216 secondary markers and top reservoir
surfaces in the Tambora project, and 27 main markers
and 232 secondary markers and top reservoir surfaces
in the Handil project. Structural maps are available
for almost all top main markers and top reservoir
markers, which have been gridded in the process of
horizon mapping and stratigraphical modelling. The
netsand maps are available for most of the top
reservoir markers. Three types of well data are
356
contained in the projects. These include trajectory
data for more than 50 wells plus their sidetracks in
Tambora, and more than 380 wells plus their
sidetracks in Handil, log curve data, and well marker
data. The log curve data is divided into raw log curve
data and interpreted log curve data. No faults have
been identified in the Tambora field. In Handil, four
faults have been identified on the 2D seismic data. Of
these, one main fault divides the field into a northern
and a southern compartment.
The second objective was to incorporate the data in
the Master Project in order to optimize its
accessibility and avoid data redundancy. At this stage
there is a difference in the way the core Master
Project and the sub- Master Projects organize the
data. The core Master Project integrates selected
“interpreted horizons”, which consist of 2D maps and
well markers. This workflow enables efficient
adjustments to be made to wells, faults and other
horizons.
The sub- Master Projects focus on the major
production intervals. The horizon framework of sub-
Master Project relies on the “interpreted horizons”
from the core Master Project. Secondary stratigraphic
surfaces are generated on the basis of the well
markers through a “stratigraphical modelling”
workflow. This choice of building the surfaces, rather
than importing maps, is driven by the will to have the
surfaces consistent in 3D, and with the ability to
update them quickly (Figure 3).
Organization of the data in the Projects
The 3D software divides the project Menu into
several folders: Horizons, Faults (Fault models),
Wells, Zones (3D grids), Trends, Cultural data,
Tables, Intersections, and Clipboard. The
organisation of the Horizon menu allows the horizon
to be associated with an unlimited number of
“containers”, which hold data such as well points,
netsand maps or base reservoir surface. Only the Top
Reservoir and the Main Markers are used as
“horizons”. The bottom reservoirs are not classified
as “horizons” in the project, but are kept within the
top reservoir container as an object. This is done for
two reasons: (i) To keep the project size to a
necessary minimum, and (ii) The method for
representing the reservoirs in the 3D grid does not
require the base of reservoirs to be classified as
horizons.
The fault model on Handil consists of 4 E-W trending
faults and was prepared in the core Master project to
give an overview of the structure. It was decided to
only model the main fault, F1, and two of the minor
faults, F2 and F3. A fault network, based on existing
fault polygons, has been defined. Fault surfaces and
lines were generated, and the complete fault model
was transferred into the sub- Master projects. A
challenge was to place the fault surface correctly in
space as there is little control apart from the well
markers. The fault model is necessary to resolve fluid
communication issues in reservoirs across the
northern and southern compartments in Handil.
The structural framework is composed of both
horizons and Faults to achieve a consistent structural
model in Handil and Tambora. Well correlations
were checked and modified where needed, prior to
3D grids being generated.
Handling grids in the Projects
Grids are built within a framework consisting of the
Top reservoir surfaces (named “horizons”). The most
appropriate layering uses the iso-proportional
method. Once the grid is generated, it is initially
filled and first of all with active cells. The choice that
has been made on both Handil and Tambora projects
is to use a workflow that combines 3D software
“memorized jobs” and external “scripts” tailored
specifically to achieve this.
The workflow treats the bottom reservoir surface as a
“Trend surface” and defines “active” cells between
the top and base of the reservoirs. This is fast and
easy, and allows various scenarios regarding
reservoir thickness and sand body distribution to be
considered. Once the appropriate “reservoir” cells are
activated, it is possible to visualise erosional surfaces,
vertical and lateral connectivity between the reservoir
bodies, and contacts across the faults (Figure 5).
Petrophysical parameters, such as net to gross,
porosity, horizontal and vertical permeability and
saturation, are then modelled.
A large number of cells are required in full-field
models, such as Handil and Tambora.. It is important
to determine the purpose of the grid. For example, is
the grid for geological modelling the main target or
for full dynamic simulation. For both fields, reservoir
maps and petrophysical property maps are necessary
for the “routine” dynamic model. In these cases, the
357
cell number in the 3D software is not an issue. In
cases where dynamic simulation of a reservoir is
envisaged, then a sector (or phenomenological)
cellular model is built, with fine layering.
Updates of the 3D models
One of the purpose of a consistent 3D project is
ability to be easily updated, for example, when a new
well is drilled. New well data provides additional
structural, stratigraphic and reservoir control for the
model. Necessary modifications to the model, such as
those listed below, need to be made include the
following:
1. Surfaces, where the main markers and top
reservoirs are not found at the prognosed depth.
2. Correlations, where the new well brings an extra
information.
3. The orientation and distribution of the
sedimentary bodies and the resulting netsand and
property maps.
4. Sector models, where the new well provides extra
calibration of a particular reservoir.
Due to the complexity of the two fields, updates are
performed automatically where possible. However,
full automatism may not be achieved, since certain
steps will be performed manually by a geologist.
Prior to the 3D model deployment, the netsand maps
were hand drawn and this process is time consuming.
Although this procedure might provide geologically
more realistic maps, it does not allow for regular and
fast updates. Today, the asset team needs to
incorporate an increasing number of wells drilled
each year, and therefore the switch from manual to
semi-automatic mapping is crucial.
The steps involved in making model updates include
the following:
1. Well correlation, which is a manual process.
2. Surface adjustment to the new well. This is
undertaken with the use of jobs in the “Horizon
administration” menu, or from the “workflow
manager” directly, and based on the new well
picks.
3. Netsand map adjustments.
4. Parameter modelling, which is re-run in sector
models.
DAILY MANAGEMENT OF THE MASTER
PROJECTS
Management of a developing field needs synergy
between geosciences disciplines. The Master Projects
are tools that are used by many geoscientists in the
asset team today. Some modules (such as the Wells
module) enables effective communication with the
drilling engineers. Data is exchanged efficiently and
regularly during the well preparation phase or when
performing horizontal drilling.
Procedures have been established in order to make
sure that each user follows the workflows in a correct
manner. Procedures also include advice on when,
how and what to quality check. An administrator is
appointed within the asset to ensure that these
procedures are followed, and to control the number of
“working” projects. A “working” project is a copy of
a sub- Master Project in which a specific study or
task is performed. When a task is complete, the
information created in the “working” projects is
stored in separate directories. The “working” project
can be removed from disk, as the contents of a saved
directories content. The “working” project is then
able to be re-loaded into any other project at any time
when needed.
Examples of specific studies
The 3D model is actively used in the field
development strategy today, and many examples of
synergy between the geosciences disciplines attest to
this. Three examples are chosen to illustrate the
different uses of the 3D models. In the first example,
the 3D consistency of a geological hypothesis,
involving fluid contacts across a major fault, is
tested. The second example focuses on well planning,
and the third example describes sector modelling of a
selected reservoir.
a. Fault behaviour in Handil
In some Handil oil reservoirs, gas is injected. In one
of these reservoirs (R1), gas is injected at the top of
the reservoir in the Northern fault-bound
compartment (Figure 6). The injected volume is such
that down-dip wells should have already been gas
flooded (figure 6, picture 1). A recently drilled well
was expected to calibrate the gas-bearing zone, but
the logs and fluid analyses proved oil and water
358
(Figure 6, picture 2). Inter-reservoir communication
across the fault was suspected, and reservoir R1 was
found to be in contact with reservoir R2 (Figure 6,
pictures 3 and 4). Assuming communication across
the fault and injection of the gas in both
compartments, it is now possible to explain why the
new well did not encountered gas
(Figure 6, picture 5). A tracer study may be
undertaken to monitor fluid flow within the reservoirs
across the fault.
b. Conventional well planning in Handil
A 3D model provides a precise and fast tool for well
planning. The first step in designing a production
well is to find the target region of the reservoir to be
drained. The second step is to define the trajectory of
the well section within the target reservoirs interval.
This well section is also called “target”, whether the
well is vertical or horizontal. The target is defined
directly in 3D by using an existing structural model
in combination with existing wells. Practically,
several cross sections of the Top and bottom
reservoir surfaces, as well as nearby wells, are used
to locate the optimal target position. Such
visualisation of the model helps in making decisions
and the target planning more efficient. Marker and
intersection points are displayed along the trajectory
of the planned wells (Figures 7.1 and 2).
When a planned target is defined and a well head is
assigned, the well trajectory is automatically
calculated. An anti-collision calculation is then
performed to detect potential interference with
neighbour wells. The anti-collision test is performed
visually as a disk displayed along the well path. This
disk has different radii that represent the search
radius of both an outer limit and an inner
respectively. No wells are positioned within the
inner limit due to severe collision risk. In fields such
as Handil, in which more than 380 wells have been
drilled, the potential for well collision is an important
issue (Figures.7.3 and 7.4).
c. Sector model in a specific reservoir (Tambora)
The development of the deep production zone in
Tambora field is optimized with horizontal wells.
The geological complexity of the environment and
the absence of 3D seismic control results in
sandstone bodies are not correctly imaged. There
is therefore considerable uncertainty in sand
distribution and channel orientation.
In order to quantify the geological uncertainty, sector
models of selected reservoirs are performed, in which
stochastic models are run. The layering in the model
is fine and results in a series of equi-probable images
of the reservoir. These in turn serve as a guide to
calculate probabilistical reservoir volumetrics and
give an estimate of the heterogeneity that would be
encountered while drilling (Figure 8). Porosity,
saturation and permeability models are generated in a
further step, prior to dynamic simulation. Sector
models, populated geostatistically, also serve as
guide to geosteering, both in the preparation and
drilling operations phase of horizontal wells. The
models enable the geosteering team to analyse
scenarios and check the theoretical tool responses in
each case (Turdu et al., 2004).
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
The future of the 3D Master Project is two-fold.
The first objective is to improve the Master projects
by the continuous implementation of new methods
and workflows.
The second objective is to quantify and incorporate
the geological uncertainty associated with the
complex geological environment of the Mahakam
delta. This step is crucial, as the search for remaining
and by-passed oil and gas requires better geological
understanding and more refined models.
These two objectives rely on ability of the software to
perform the following:
1. Automatic 3D gridding and modelling, various
levels of up scaling, and different types of
geostatistic simulations.
2. Combination of internal and external commands
in well constructed workflows.
The 3D Geomodeler is used as an integrating tool, for
geoscientists and drilling engineers. The knowledge
of the field is increased due to the 3D vision, and is
easily shared between the various disciplines. These
field cases are examples of what can be achieved
with 3D modelling. There is not one project or one
structure that is applicable to all fields. Each field is
359
unique, and as such necessitates a specifically
adapted workflow.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Total E&P Indonesie and INPEX
for permission to publish this paper. Roxar Software
Solutions and P.T. Geoservices are also thanked for
their contribution in these studies. In Total E&P
Indonesie, great thanks go to Eko Laksono, and in the
Handil-Tambora-IOR Asset team, special thanks go
to Patrick Grivot, Hermawan, Muhamad Azhar,
Agung Wiweko, and Henricus Herwin. In Roxar
Sofware Solutions, special thanks go to Rebecca
Clayton, Lena Alvaang and Emma Preston.
REFERENCES
Mora, S., Gardini, M., Kusumanegara, Y., and
Wiweko, A., 2001. Modern, Ancient Deltaic Deposits
and Petroleum System of Mahakam Area, IPA Field
Trip Guide Book, TotalFinaElf E&P Indonesie
Moge, M., and Febvre, F., 2001. Integrated Study of
a Complex Deltaic Sand Reservoir, April 2001, SPE
paper No. 68659 Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Le Turdu, C., Bandyopadhyay, I., Ruelland, P., and
Grivot, P., 2004. New Approach to Log Simulation in
a Horizontal drain – Tambora Geosteering Project,
balikpapan, Indonesia, October 2004, SPE paper No.
88448, Society of Petroleum Engineers
360
 TABLE 1

OVERVIEW OF THE MASTER PROJECTS AND SUB- MASTER PROJECTS

361
Figure 1 - 3D view of Handil field showing two horizons, 380 wells, surface installations and the coastline.

Figure 2 - The examples of well logs and marker naming in Handil and Tambora fields.

362
 Figure 3 - An example of a “stratigraphical Modelling” Workflow in a sub- Master Project.

Figure 4 - Examples of the various model building steps that lead to the structural model (Handil field)
1. Two reservoir tops (A and B) in 3D, with corresponding projected netsand maps.
2. E-W cross-section showing the multi-layered stratigraphy.
3. The same cross-section as in no.2, sand is displayed in yellow and shale in green.
4. Detail of the previous section showing possible vertical communication between the reservoirs
through erosion.
5. N-S cross-section across the faults showing disconnections between bodies. Sand to sand contact is
observed in places.

363
Figure 5 - Cross-section across the fault, showing active (yellow - reservoir) and inactive cells (green - shale) and
contacts between reservoirs in northern and southern compartment.

Well 1
1 2
Hyp1 for
gas
Well 1 extension

Well 2
Well 2

Well 2
3 5
R2
R1
R2
R1

R1

Fault surface Foot Wall

R2
Foot Wall
R1 Injected
GAS

Hyp2 for gas

4 Hanging Wall R1 / in R2
extension
yellow contact area

Figure 6 - Various hypotheses regarding the behaviour of Handil field’s main fault.

364
 R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6 R1
R2

R3

R4
R5 R6

Well Head

W1

Planned well
W1= proposal 1
W2= proposal 2

W2

Figure 7 - Well preparation and design in the Geomodeler.

Channel sand
bar

Heterogeneity
inside channel
body

Figure 8 - An example of 3D GR stochastic modelling. The colour-code is yellow-orange for reservoir, blue
for shale. The sand bodies are represented implicitly by the GR value.
365