Universitas Garda Erlangga

Yohannes Ardhito Triyogo Varianto

Gadjah
Azeza Ega Maestra
Mada Andre Nouval
Background ................................................................................................ 1
Data Availability ......................................................................................... 2
Geological Review ....................................................................................... 3
Source Rock ................................................................................................ 6
Reservoir Potential ..................................................................................... 10
Seal Rock .................................................................................................... 12
Trapping Mechanism .................................................................................. 13
Lead Identification ..................................................................................... 14
Resource Calculation and Risk Analysis ..................................................... 16
Bidding Strategy ......................................................................................... 18
Reference .................................................................................................... 20
Background
North sea is one of a well known area of oil and gas field for its resources. Sylvania
country, which has several tens of thousands km2 area in North sea believe that technology
nowadays and good exploration technique can be advantaged to find prospect area of oil and gas
in their territory at North sea.
Sylvania government then decided to open a chance for any IOC to explore their 15000
km2 area which divided into two quadrants and 25 smaller blocks of 600 km 2 to find prospect
area and make a commitment with them for field development. From previous exploration, the
area has been surveyed by 21 seismic lines and drilled three wells.

Figure 1. Sylvanian’s North Sea Exploration Area

1
Data Availability
In this exploration study, there is a dataset including 21 2D seismic lines and three wells
data with Geological completion report for each well provided by the government of Sylvania
country, most of these seismic lines have north west – south east direction as shown in figure
below.

Figure 2. Seismic Basemap Line And Well Position

Petrophysical property analysis, the logs and environment data are not complete due to
some missing data like bit size, temperature, resistivity and density of drilling mud, density –
neutron log coverage in some interval etc.
Table 1. Well data availability are summarized
Wireline Log Supporting data
Well
Bit size GR SP Caliper RD RM RS Density DRHO PEF Neutron Sonic Gas Chrom Conventional Core RFT DST
9-1 X  X      X X   X X X X
15-1 X  X      X X   X X X X
19-1 X  X     X X X X  X X X X

Information :

 RD = Deep Resistivity
 RM = Medium Resistivity
 RS = Shallow Resistivity

2
Geological Review
Study location approximately located at the northern North Sea Area, around Horda
platform and Tampen Spur. It conclude from the structural configuration and formation
information. Study location covers several high area and depocenter area, it usually called as
Sogn Graben (Fig. 3) (Halland, E.K., 2011). And the high area called as Horda Platform in the east
and Tampen Spur in the west.

Figure 3. Physiography Of Study Location

Depression area formed by two different rifting phase, each of phase was followed by
thermal subsidence (Mchomvu, 2016). First rifting phase occurred in Permo – Triassic Period
(Badley et al., 1988). This period produced north – south trending graben as the effect of east –
west extension force. In first phase of rifting, deposited syn-rift sediment that consists of non-
marine, arid to semi-arid, aeolian, sabkha, alluvial and lacustrine strata, probably interbedded
with marine strata sediments as the response of thermal subsidence (Ravnas et al., 2000).
Tectonics event continued by Post-Rift Phase at Early to Middle Jurassic. This period was forming
sedimentation of Brent Group sand until the Middle Jurassic (Badley et al., 1988). Second rifting
phase occured at Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous. This event generates the large tilted fault
blocks and compartmentalization of older formation (Brent Group and older), it would be
generating the main trap systems of the Brent Group Sand in Northern North Sea (Færseth,
1996). In this event, deposited Heather and Draupne Formation that thickening toward basins

3
depocentre and some local thinning on the footwall blocks (Giltner, 1987). This rifting phase also
followed by thermal subsidence that occurs alongside of graben at Post-Rift Phase from Late
Cretaceous to Cenozoic. The subsidence more extensive in this phase and resulting the
deposition of thick Early Cretaceous Cromer Knoll Formation and Late Cretaceous Shetland
Group. Sedimentation continued by Paleocene Rogaland Group that consists of deep marine
sediments & submarine fan and Eocene to Early Miocene Rogaland Group that consists of marine
claystone with minor sandstone.
Stratigraphy of study area recorded good enough from 9-1 well, but there is
differentiation between regional stratigraphy and recorded stratigraphy from 9-1 well. Some
formation has different name or not present as the effect of unconformity or non-deposition
phase. Brent Group Sandstone still the interesting reservoir target. This formation developed well
in this study area (Figure 4). The other interesting formation is Rogaland Sandstone (Submarine
Fan sandstone) as a reservoir; Shetland Group calcareous sandstone, calcareous shale, marls,
deep water mudstone (up to 2500m, Goff, 1983) & limestone (as the product of thermal
subsidence) as a reservoir, seal and source rock (?); Kromer Knoll fine grained argillaceous &
marine sediment as a seal rocks; Brent Group Coal as a source rocks (Mchomvu, 2016) and also
Heather and Draupne Formation that not present in the study area are potential source rocks.

4
 Figure 4. Regional Stratigraphy Of Northern North Sea (Halland E.K., 2011) And Stratigraphy
Confirmation From 1_9-1 Well
According to sequence stratigraphy and palaeogeography of Middle Jurassic Brent Group
derived from Fjellanger E., et al. (1996), Deltaic systems occur when the deposition of Brent
Group. It consequences the generation of source rock, reservoir and seal rock in the same phase.
According to 9-1 well, there are several channel, mouth bar and coal facies in the Brent Group. It
will strengthen the reason why this formation interesting to developed. Also the accumulation of
coal and non-marine shale from the delta system maybe rich of organic matter that produce
kerogen type II and III.
According to Basin Modeling study that derived from Mchomvu I.M. (2016), reservoir rock
generated before the generation of source rocks (Figure 5). It consequences the downward
migration in this study area and migrating through fault. It also consequences that the proper
time of migration are very important. Since the second rifting phase generated block faulted that
possible to generating migration pathway from the younger source rocks to older reservoir, this
study area still interesting to developed.

5
 Figure 5. Petroleum Risk Chart of Northern North Sea Area

Source Rocks
Source rock in the study area has been widely discussed from several paper or research
(Mchomvu, 2011; Gautier D.L., 2005; Conford C., 1998 in Glennie, 1998). Based on Conford
(1998), The most significant source rock for gas accumulation in Brent Formation at southern
North Sea is Westphalian Coal and for the northern North Sea the primary gas source rock is
Brent coals and shales. The most significant oil source rock also mentioned in this paper, there
are Kimmeridge Clay that would be a major oil source rock for Shetland Sandstone and Rogaland
Sandstone (Figure 6).
Based on Mchomvu (2016) research, source rock in the northern North Sea was matured
enough to produce hydrocarbons. Increasing the depth will increase temperature, it
consequences the broken down kerogen to form hydrocarbon depending on kerogen type and
temperature. From the model, maximum basin temperature reached 350OC and for the Draupne
Formation, the temperature reached 240 OC and 268 OC. Early oil generation occur at Late
Cretaceous when the sediment temperature was 120 OC and the Vitrinite Reflectance range of
0.55 to 0.70. But for the sediments in the deepest part of half graben experiences higher
temperature and it will consequences to form wet gas and minor dry gas. From Late Cretaceous
when the oil generation has been started, the development of hydrocarbons generation
continues at 55 Ma resulting oil with minor wet gas from Draupne Formation and at 23 Ma, oil,
wet gas and dry gas was generated from Draupne Formation. Information from Draupne
Formation also show high TOC content (6%) and Hydrogen Index (400-600 mg/gTOC) (Mchomvu,
2016) which has very good potential to produce hydrocarbons. Mchomvu (2016) has generated
through time (Late Cretaceous to recent) maturity model of Draupne formation and the older
formation (figure 7a, b, c, d. Blue colour indicates immature stage of source rock, green the oil
window, red the gas window and yellow overmature source rock).

6
 Figure 6. Source Rock Potential Around North Sea Area (Conford, 1998)

The main pathway of migration has mentioned by Mchomvu (2016), it will pass through
the fault, indicated by high amplitude anomalies along the fault but not all fault has this feature.
The possible hydrocarbons migration for study area can be seen at figure 8. Based on petroleum
risk chart on figure 3, the generation/migration of hydrocarbons shows good potential to
accumulate in the potential reservoir.

7
Figure 7.a. Maturity Model At Late Cretaceous

Figure 7.a. Maturity Model At Late Paleocene

8
 Figure 7.c. Maturity Model At Early Miocene

Figure 7.d. Maturity Model At Recent

From the source rock discussion, we conclude that there is no problem for hydrocarbons
source in North Sea area, but we need some additional data to get the actual information in the
study area, such as geochemical data to made some geochemical analysis about source rock.

9
 Figure 8. Possibility Of Hydrocarbons Migration In The Study Area

Reservoir Potential
Based on regional geology and literature review, there are some zones in this area which
can act as reservoir. They are Nordland group, Rogaland group, Shetland group and Brent group.
These zone then analyzed to determine true reservoir candidates for lead and further
development like Rogaland, Shetland and Brent group.
In order to determine reservoir targets and to support volumetric resources estimation,
petrophysical analysis is conduct to determine reservoir properties such as porosity, N/G,
saturation, reservoir and pay zones. There are total three wells used in this study but none of
them penetrate until basement rock and have complete wells data. All of these wells record
shows of Hydrocarbon in some interval even no test were successfully conduct in any zone.
Petrophysical analysis of Rogaland, Shetland and Brent group provide information which
strengthen them as potential reservoir as described below :
 Rogaland group
Rogaland group consist of mudstone and sandstone as lithology with occasionally thin
limestone stringer. This group has gross thickness for about 226.41 – 302.493 feet with
N/G about 16 – 50%, porosity 21 – 28%. Hydrocarbon shows also occurred in this group
interval as weak to good; white to yellow fluorescence but no visible oil stain.

10
 Figure 9. Petrophysical Analysis At Rogaland Group Well 9-1

 Shetland group
Shetland group has calcareous silty mudstone and thin interbedded limestone lithology
with gross thickness is about 11 feet at the reservoir and N/G about 60%, porosity 15 –
22.4%. Background gas in 11407 – 11417 ft interval at well 15-1 increase due to C2, C3
and C4 appearance response.

Figure 10. Petrophysical Analysis Of Shetland Group At Well 15-1

 Brent group
Lithology of this group are clean sandstone occasionally argillaceous and silty mudstone,
also some interbedded coal is found in this group. Gross thickness is about 9 – 443 feet

11
 with N/G 17.5 – 39.5%, and porosity 13 – 23%. Based on geological report at Well 9-1,
Ness member was picked at base of coal bed, so we conclude that high resistivity response
in this interval mainly caused by appearance of interbedded coal, but this group still has
good potential as reservoir in lateral direction

Figure 11. Petrophysical Analysis Of Brent Group At Well 9-1

Table 2. Petrophysical Summary Of Reservoir Candidate

Thickness Thickness Ave. N/G Ave. Phi Ave Sw

No Group
range (feet) range (meter) (%) (%) (%)
1 Rogaland 226.4 – 302.5 69 - 92.2 16 - 50 21 - 27 52.5 - 72.7
2 Shetland 11 3.35 60 15 - 22.4 44 - 70
3 Brent 9 - 443 2.74 - 135 17.5 - 39.5 13 -23 30 - 50

Seal Rock
There are several seal rock candidates in Study Area, such as: interbedded shale-siltstone
and claystone (deltaic facies) of Lower – Middle Brent Formation, claystone and siltstone of
Upper Jurassic Kimmeridge Clay Formation, claystone and siltstone of Lower Cretaceous Cromer
Knoll Formation and interbedded shale-siltstone and claystone of Eocene Oligocene Hordaland
Formation. All seal rock candidates are widely distributed and believed to have adequate thick
for holding HC column.

12
Trapping Mechanism
Based on our seismic interpretation, study area is focused to two parts, which is block 6
& 11 at quadrant one and block 9, 13 & 14 at quadrant two. Block 6 & 11 dominated by fault
bounded structure and block 9, 13 & 14 dominated by anticline structure. Fault bounded
structure forming anticline (figure 12) in the horst structure near fault. Some unconformity trap
could be formed in east part of coverage data, but there is no seal that believed to holding HC
column, causing the lead to be very risky for further exploration. In block 9 & 14 there is Lead RS-
1 that formed by anticline form. The anticline form may be formed as the response of deposition
of Rogaland submarine fan sandstone (Figure 13).
Based on Well 9-1, hydrocarbon was not trapped properly. This condition is due to trap
or seal failure in the area. It causing the hydrocarbon not trapped properly, despite the good seal
rock quality from Kimmeridge Clay Formation, the hydrocarbon has probably migrated and
leaked to other places through the faults (Mchomvu, 2016) or carrier beds.

Figure 12. SW-NE And W-E Key Line Showing Fault-Bounded Anticline Constructing A Closure Of
Rogaland Sandstone, Shetland Sandstone And Brent Sandstone In The Block 11.

13
Figure 13. NW-SE Key Line Showing Anticline Constructing A Closure Of Rogaland Sandstone In
The Block 9 & 14

Lead Identification
Based on the integration of seismic interpretation, petrophysic and literature study about
geochemical analysis, there are at least four most potential leads have been well-identified in
study area. Lead BS-1, SL-1 and RS-2 are located in the block 11. Lead BS-1 (Brent sandstone) is
formed within the Middle Jurassic deltaic sandstone as fault bounded anticline. The other Lead,
SL-1 (Upper Cretaceous Shetland Limestone) and RS-2 (Paleocene Rogaland Submarine Fan
Sandstone) also located in the same location but has different elevation and hydrocarbons
source. The other lead, RS-1 located in block 9&14, this lead located in Paleocene Rogaland
submarine fan sand interval.

14
 Figure 14. Leads In Block 6 & 14 And 9 & 11 Of Study Area And The Reservoir Target

There are more potential lead in Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 2 (figure 15 to 17), but we still
need additional data to make sure the coverage of closure area.

Figure 15. Other Potential Lead But Still Need Additional Data To Understand Closure Area In
Block 13

15
 Figure 16. Other Potential Lead But Still Need Additional Data To Understand Closure Area In
Block 6

Figure 17. Section Of Envelope Attribute Show Bright Spot And Have Closure

Resource Calculation and Risk Analysis

Resource calculation for the highest lead interest has simulated by monte carlo method.
The calculation result is shown in Table 2. The most potential lead is BS-1 which has probability
of geological success (Pg = 15.87%) with amount of GIP P50 of 179 BCF. Interpretation based on

16
seismic Line 9 and 11 show this lead. The resource calculation parameter are provided in Table 1
and Figure 18.
Range of geological success is from 5.56% - 15.87%. It classified as medium to high risk
leads, issue about risk are trap definition and migration pathway concerning on the Rogaland
Sub-Marine Fan Sandstone play. The biggest resource for oil (P50: 455 MMBO) is in SL-1 Lead
with geological success 8.8%.
Table 3. Reservoir Property Of Study Area
HC Assumed HC Bulk Volume NTG* Porosity* (1-Sw)*
Sub-block Code Reservoir Estimation contact
(Oil/Gas) (mTVDSS) (acre.ft) Dec. Dec. Dec.

Max 2,400.00 3,495,766.34 0.600 0.224 0.56

Upper Cretaceous
11 SL-1 Oil Shetland Limestone
Mid 2,325.00 1,349,863.13 0.600 0.18 0.47
Min 2,275.00 513,035.22 0.600 0.15 0.31
Max 3,150.00 6,605,989.53 0.310 0.23 0.70
Middle Jurassic Brent
11 BS-1 Gas Sandstone
Mid 2,975.00 1,659,126.20 0.310 0.14 0.60
Min 2,900.00 641,599.87 0.310 0.13 0.50
Max 1,940.00 522,104.68 0.330 0.28 0.48
Paleocene Rogaland
9&14 RS-1 Oil Sandstone
Mid 1,915.00 95,993.40 0.330 0.25 0.38
Min 1,900.00 15,911.72 0.330 0.21 0.27
Max 1,810.00 402,573.01 0.330 0.28 0.48
Paleocene Rogaland
11 RS-2 Oil Mid 1,790.00 123,483.90 0.330 0.25 0.38
Sandstone
Min 1,780.00 41,697.62 0.330 0.21 0.27

Table 4. Oil And Gas Resources In Study Area

Gas in Place (BCF) Risk

Reservoir
Min P90 P50 Mean P10 Max Pg
Middle Jurassic Brent Sandstone 56.3 84.0 179.0 210.0 374.0 1,436.2 15.87%
56.3 84.0 179.0 210.0 374.0 1,436.2

Oil in Place (MMBO) Risk

Reservoir
Min P90 P50 Mean P10 Max Pg
Upper Cretaceous Shetland Limestone 89.4 260.0 455.0 500.0 801.0 1,643.9 8.80%
Paleocene Rogaland Sandstone 1.9 7.3 19.3 25.6 51.5 144.0 5.56%
Paleocene Rogaland Sandstone 4.9 14.4 27.4 31.1 52.6 111.6 6.36%
96.2 281.7 501.7 556.7 905.1 1,899.4

17
 Figure 18. Lead Identification And Resource Calculation Of Lead BS-1

Bidding Strategy

Fully integration analysis from all aspect are used to judge the next step of exploration.
With Budget $ 100 million we decide how we use it to get the blocks interest. We divide 3 class
based on the most interesting block to interest block :

First
Quadrant 2/ Block 11 is the most interesting area because have big anticline structure to
store hydrocarbon. At this block has 3 potential layers there are Brent Group, Layer Interest
(Shetland Group), and Rogaland Group, so we decide to run 3D seismic and drilling a well. 3D
seismic is purposed to cover fully this block with wide 600 km2 and give more understanding
about subsurface condition, after that we also commit penetrate Brent Formation by drilling a
well.

18
Second
Petrophysic result show prospect interval at Rogaland especially in well 9-1 & 19-1. Depth
map show the structure is located between Quadrant 1/ Block 9 and 14, so we decide to run 2D
seismic at 2 blocks and perforation test at that prospect interval. Additional reason Quadrant 1/
Block 14 is interesting because it has upside potential and bright spot anomaly. Beside 2D
seismic, we also commit to Drill a well at Quadrant 1/ Block 14 to penetrate Rogaland Group
after get additional 2D seismic.
Third
Lead at Quadrant 2/ Block 11 indicates has structure continuity to Quadrant 2/ Block 6.
We decide to run 2D seismic to cover this block so we can get more information about the
continuity of the lead and subsurface condition. We want to coverage with total length 550 km.
Other block at Quadrant 1/ Block 13 give indicate interesting structure too, but have minim
seismic line coverage so we decide to run 2D seismic. Additional reason for Quadrant 1/ Block 13
is interesting because have upside potential and bright spot anomaly. Figure 19 show the block
bidding strategy with all cost that needed.

Figure 19. Block bidding strategy

19
Reference
[1] Badley, M., Price, J., Dahl, C. R. & Agdestein, T., 1988, The structural evolution of the
northern Viking Graben and its bearing upon extensional modes of basin formation, Journal
of the Geological Society, 145, 455-472.
[2] Færseth, R., 1996, Interaction of Permo-Triassic and Jurassic extensional fault-blocks during
the development of the northern North Sea. Journal of the Geological Society, 153, 931.
[3] Fjellanger E., Olsen T.R., & Rubino J.L., 1996, Sequence stratigraphy and palaeogeography
of the Middle Jurassic Brent and Vestland deltaic systems, Northern North Sea. Norsk
Geologisk Tidsskrift 76, 75 - 106
[4] Faleide, J. I., Bjørlykke, K. & Gabrielsen, R. H., 2015, Geology of the Norwegian continental
shelf. In: K. Bjørlykke Petroleum Geoscience. Springer, 467-499.
[5] Giltner, J. P., 1987, Application of extensional models to the northern Viking Graben. Norsk
Geologisk Tidsskrift, 67, 339-352.
[6] Glennie, K.W., 1998, Petroleum Geology of the North Sea, Basic Concept and Recent
Advances. 4th Edition, Blackwell Science.
[7] Halland, E K et al., 2011. CO2 Storage Atlas, Norwegian North Sea
[8] http://www.npd.no/Global/Norsk/3-Publikasjoner/Rapporter/PDF/CO2-ATLAS-lav.pdf
[9] Mchomvu, I.M., 2016, 2d Seismic Interpretation And 2d Basin Modeling Of Hydrocarbon
Generation, Migration And Entrapment In The North Viking Graben, Graduate Student
Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
[10] Ravnås, R., Nøttvedt, A., Steel, R. & Windelstad, J., 2000, Syn-rift sedimentary architectures
in the Northern North Sea. In: Dynamics of the Norwegian Margin (Ed Nøttvedt). Geological
Society Special Publications, Volume 167, pp 133-178.

20