Indonesian Journal on Geoscience Vol. 5 No.

1 April 2018: 65-80

INDONESIAN JOURNAL ON GEOSCIENCE

Geological Agency
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources
Journal homepage: h p://ijog.geologi.esdm.go.id
ISSN 2355-9314, e-ISSN 2355-9306

Lateral Reservoir Drainage in some Indonesia’s Sedimentary Basins

and Its Implication to Hydrodynamic Trapping

Agus Mochamad Ramdhan1, Lambok Maringan Hutasoit1, and Edy Slameto2

1
Department of Geology and Department of Groundwater Engineering,
Institute of Technology Bandung,
Jln. Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132, West Java, Indonesia
2
Center for Geological Survey, Geological Agency, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources
Jln. DiponegoroNo. 57, Bandung 40122, West Java, Indonesia

G
Corresponding author: agusmr@gc.itb.ac.id
Manuscript received: March 31, 2017; revised: October 11, 2017;
approved: December 29, 2017; available online: February 21, 2018

Abstract - Lateral reservoir drainage is a hydrodynamic flow type driven by the difference in overpressure. It can
lead to hydrodynamically tilted hydrocarbon water contact, and open an opportunity of finding oil and gas in places
where previously are not considered as potential traps. In this paper, some examples of the presence of hydrodynamic
traps in Indonesia’s sedimentary basin are discussed. Tilted hydrocarbon water contacts are present in some fields in
O
the Lower Kutai Basin, and our interpretation is that regional lateral reservoir drainage is present in this basin and is
responsible for the tilted contacts. It is also interpreted that lateral reservoir drainage leading to tilted hydrocarbon
water contacts may be present at the Arun Field - North Sumatra Basin, Vorwata Field - Bintuni Basin, and BD
Field - offshore East Java Basin. As most Indonesia’s sedimentary basins are overpressured, the presence of lateral
reservoir drainage driven by overpressure difference in the same stratigraphic unit is very plausible to occur, opening
the opportunity for hydrodynamically tilted hydrocarbon water contact to be present.
Keywords: overpressure, hydrodynamic, lateral reservoir drainage, tilted hydrocarbon water contacts, Lower Kutai
Basin
© IJOG - 2018. All right reserved
IJ
How to cite this article:
Ramdhan, A.M., Hutasoit, L.M., and Slameto, E., 2018. Lateral Reservoir Drainage in some Indonesia’s Sedi-
mentary Basin and Its Implication to Hydrodynamic Trapping. Indonesian Journal on Geoscience, 5 (1), p.65-
80. DOI: 10.17014/ijog.5.1.65-80

Introduction is overpressured mudrock, while in the classical

The term lateral reservoir drainage, coined
by O’Connor and Swarbrick (2008), is used to
describe active hydrodynamic flow in a reservoir
caused by overpressure dissipation. In principle,
this hydrodynamic flow is similar to ‘classical
gravity-driven hydrodynamic flow’ (e.g. Hubbert,
1953). The difference is only in driving mechanism
and its associated source of fluid for the fluid flow.
In the lateral reservoir drainage, the source of fluid
Accredited
IJOG/JGI by: - LIPI,
(Jurnal valid August
Geologi 2016- -Acredited
Indonesia) August 2021
by LIPI No. 547/AU2/P2MI-LIPI/06/2013.
- RISTEKDIKTI, valid May 2016 - May 2021
gravity-driven, the source of fluid is meteoric water
entering the reservoir from higher elevation.
Hydrodynamic trapping leading to tilted
hydrocarbon water contacts is not a new idea in
petroleum exploration. The benchmark paper
discussing this trapping mechanism has been
published in 1953 by Hubbert. Hubbert (1953),
by combining some physics principles with
mathematical treatment, shows that in response
to active groundwater flow within a reservoir,
Indexed
by:21
valid Scopus, since -October
June 2013 21 June30, 2017
2016
65
 Indonesian Journal on Geoscience, Vol. 5 No. 1 April 2018: 65-80

the contact between hydrocarbon and water contact that may previously have been overlooked
should be tilted, to the contrary the most com- in petroleum exploration in some overpressured
monly assumed flat hydrocarbon-water contact basins in Indonesia.
in rest hydrostatic environment (Figure 1). He
gives some solid evidences of the presence of
tilted hydrocarbon-water contacts, mainly from Theoretical Overview
the North American basins, as well as from
some basins world-wide in strengthen his idea Hydraulics of Groundwater Flow
of hydrodynamic trapping. The examples given The fluid will flow in response to the differ-
by Hubbert (1953) are mainly classical gravity- ence in hydraulic potential. The equation of the
driven hydrodynamic flow. fluid flow in porous media is given by the follow-
The lateral reservoir drainage has proven to ing Darcy’s equation:
produce tilted hydrocarbon water contact world-
dh .................................................................... (1)
wide. Dennis et al. (2000) gave a comprehensive v=K
dl
discussion on how active lateral reservoir drain-
age trapped oil in the North Sea area. Grosjean et
al. (2009) also gave an example how this lateral
drainage trapped oil in the South Caspian Sea,
and O’Connor et al. (2008) gave a convincing evi-
dent of the presence of lateral reservoir drainage
in the forms of tilted hydrocarbon water contact
in the North Sea area. Recently, Robertson et
G v
K
h
l
dh
dl
where:
= velocity (LT-1)
= hydraulic conductivity (LT-1)
= hydraulic head (L)
= distance between hydraulic head point (L)

O
al. (2013) discussed comprehensively the lateral
reservoir drainage in the UK Central North Sea
and its associated hydrocarbon accumulation.
In this paper, the lateral reservoir drainage
in some Indonesia’s sedimentary basins is dis-
cussed. The discussion will start by giving brief
introductory and theoretical review of hydro-
dynamic trapping, then followed by description
IJ
of hydrodynamic trapping in some Indonesia’s
sedimentary basins. Several interesting points are
discussed afterwards, followed by conclusions of
this paper. It is demonstrated here the opportu-
nity of the presence of tilted hydrocarbon water
= hydraulic gradient
Hubbert (1940 and 1956) further demonstrates
that the hydraulic head is another form of poten-
tial, so it can be said as hydraulic potential. It is
the sum of two components contributing to the
hydraulic head, namely the elevation head and the
pressure head (Figure 2). The equation describing
this relation is:
h = z + γ ................................................................... (2)
where:
z = elevation head (L)
γ = pressure head (L)

a b
Gas
Gas
ater
Oil Gas - W WC) Oil
ater o n ta c t (G
Oil - W WC) C
t (O
Contac Oil - Water
Water Contact (OWC) Water

Direction of
Higher Higher
Low Overpressure Groundwater Flow Low Overpressure
Overpressure Overpressure

Figure 1. Cartoon of (a) tilted hydrocarbon-water contact (b) the most commonly assumed flat hydrocarbon-water contact
(not to scale).

66
 Lateral Reservoir Drainage in some Indonesia’s Sedimentary Basin
and Its Implication to Hydrodynamic Trapping (A.M. Ramdhan et al.)

h = OP Groundwater level where:

Sea level/datum P = fluid pressure (ML-1T-2)
ρw = density of water (ML-3)
γ Z
g = gravity acceleration (LT-2)
Aquifer/reservoir
The fluid pressure is said to be hydrostatic if
the increase in fluid pressure through depth is only
Figure 2. Graphical representation of hydraulic head (h),
elevation head (z), and pressure head (γ). For conversion, the function of the weight of the fluid. For a fluid
z is negative because it is located below datum, while h is with the density of 1 g/cm3, the increase of fluid
positive because it is above datum.
pressure through depth (or simply said as pressure
gradient) will be 9800 pa/m or conveniently 9.8
Each component competes to give the influ- MPa/km, or 0.433 psi/ft in imperial unit. Any
ence to the hydraulic head. With respect to this pressure gradient which is significantly above that
circumstance, if the elevation head is the most value could be said as overpressure fluid.
contributing factor to the hydraulic head, then it Dennis et al. (2000) further demonstrates that
is said that there is ‘classical gravity-driven hy-
drodynamic flow’. While if it is dominated by the
pressure head, it is said that the ‘lateral reservoir
drainage’ type is hydrodynamic.
In a realistic sedimentary basin, both types of
hydrodynamic flow could be drawn as shown in
Figure 3. The ‘classical gravity-driven’ is com-
G the overpressure is another form of hydraulic
head, and therefore Eq. (1) could be written in
the form of:

v=K
dOP
dl
....................................................... (4)

where OP = the amount of overpressure, i.e.

O
monly characterized by cropping out of reservoir pressures at any given depth subtracted by hy-
in higher elevation, while the ‘lateral reservoir drostatic pressure. It is very clear in Eq. (4) that
drainage’ is commonly characterized by reservoir the fluid flow will be (≠) if there is overpressure
that is encased in highly overpressured mudrock. gradient.
In oil industry, it is more convenient to de-
scribe hydraulic head in terms of pressure, be- Hydrodynamically Tilted Hydrocarbon-water
cause the hydraulic parameters measured during Contact
drilling of an oil and gas well is the pressure. The As demonstrated by Hubbert (1953), the active
IJ
conversion of the units is given in the following hydrodynamic flow will cause tilted hydrocarbon-
equation: water contact, on the contrary to commonly as-
sumed flat hydrocarbon-water contact (Figure 1).
P = ρwgγ ..............................................................(3) The tilting magnitude is given by the equation:

a b
Meteoric Water Influx

Gas
Reservoir Outcrop
Oil GWC
Tilted HC - Water Contacts OWC
Water

Sea Level
: Gas
: Oil
Direction of
: Water Groundwater Flow Higher
Overpressure
Hydrodynamic Flow
Lower
Overpressure

Figure 3. Cartoon of (a) the classical gravity-driven and (b) lateral reservoir drainage types of hydrodynamic (not to scale).

67
 Indonesian Journal on Geoscience, Vol. 5 No. 1 April 2018: 65-80

ρw dh , or in term of overpressure its presence can be observed from the existence

tan α = ρ - ρ
w hc dl
ρw dOP
tan α = ρ - ρ ..................................... (5)
w hc ds
where:
α = tilting magnitude (degree)
ρHC = density of hydrocarbon (ML-3)
It can be seen in Eq. (5) that the greater the den-
sity difference between water and hydrocarbon, the
smaller the tilting magnitude. Therefore, gas-water
contact will give smaller tilting magnitude com-
pared to oil-water contact for a given overpressure
gradient. With respect to the overpressure gradi-
ent, it is obvious in the equation that the greater
the overpressure gradient, the greater the tilting
magnitude. As reviewed by Dahlberg (1995), hy-
drocarbon will be trapped if the structural dip is
greater than the expected tilting magnitude.
The hydrodynamic trap could be observed
from pressure-depth plot as shown in Figure 4.
G This section will be started by discussing
O
The tilted hydrocarbon-water contact will be
indicated by one hydrocarbon line indicating
one hydrocarbon pool, accompanied by several
water lines indicating a difference in overpres-
sure. Specifically for lateral reservoir drainage,
of sand-mudrock pressure discrepancy and its
associated shoulder effect as shown in Figure
5. The discrepancy shows that the reservoir
pressure is less than mudrock pressure and,
therefore permitting the water to flow from
mudrock to sand. Meanwhile, the shoulder
effect (the term introduced by O’Connor and
Swarbrick, 2008) represents sand-mudrock
pressure continuity since the mudrock is not
entirely impermeable.
Lateral Drainage Leading to Hydrody-
namic Trapping In Some Indonesia’s Basins
proven hydrodynamic trap in Indonesia’s sedi-
mentary basins. It is then followed by some fields
with documented tilted hydrocarbon water contact
but with no hydrodynamic analysis, and lastly
with some opportunity of the presence of lateral
reservoir drainage in other areas.
Proven Hydrodynamic Trap in Indonesia
The proven hydrodynamic trap in Indonesia’s
basins is coming from the Lower Kutai Basin

Pressure
IJ
Depth

Vertical stress
(overburden)
1 2 3 4

Gas

C
GW Water

Hydrostatic 3
pressure 2
4
Hydrodynamic flow

Lower Higher
Overpressure Overpressure 1

Figure 4. Cartoon of pressure vs. depth plot for a reservoir exhibiting tilted hydrocarbon water contact. It is characterized
by one hydrocarbon line accompanied by several water lines (not to scale).

68
 Lateral Reservoir Drainage in some Indonesia’s Sedimentary Basin
and Its Implication to Hydrodynamic Trapping (A.M. Ramdhan et al.)

a Well A b Pressure/stress

Depth
Shale pressure
profile

Shoulder
effects
Isolated reservoir
Vertical stress
(overburden)

Laterally drained reservoir

Isolated reservoir
Pressure
discrepancy

: Shale : Sandstone

coast of Kalimantan, covering onshore to deep-

water of the area. The main structural feature is
G Hydrostatis pressure

Figure 5. Cartoon of (a) sand-mudrock pressure discrepancy and (b) its associated shoulder effect as an indication of the
presence of lateral reservoir drainage (not to scale).

(Figure 6). This basin is located on the eastern Samarinda Anticlinorium, with the axis more or
less parallel to the coastline. In the shelfal area
of the basin (the area surrounding the present day
O
Serang Hitam Besar-Merah Besar
N North Ranggas

Semberah Ranggas
Attaka
0 30 km Santan
Gada
West Ranggas
Legend:
IJ
: Oil field Badak
: Gas field Karang Mumus
Binangat
: Oil and gas field
Pelarang Samarinda Nilam
Tunu Gula
: Normal fault Sanga-Sanga
Sambutan
Tambora
: Thrust fault South Pelarang

Sisi-Nubi
Pamaguan

Bekapai
Mutiara Handil Gandang

Gendalo
Peciko
Samboja

Internal Median External

Onshore Shelfal Deep water

Figure 6. Oil and gas fields in the Lower Kutai Basin.

69
 Indonesian Journal on Geoscience, Vol. 5 No. 1 April 2018: 65-80

Mahakam Delta), the anticlinorium is divided
into three trends, namely Internal, Median, and
External trends. In this basin, hydrodynamic trap
has been proven to occur in Peciko, Tunu, and
Nilam Fields.
The most intensive study of hydrodynamic
trap in this basin is in the Peciko Field. This field
is a gas field located in the Median Trend (Figure
6). The field contains around 6 tcf gas (Lambert
et al., 2003), and it is classified as a giant field
(Halboulty, 2003). The gas accumulation in this
field is in the deeper part, which is in overpressure
condition, and located in the flank instead of in the
crest of the structure (Figure 7). The cross-section
illustrating tilted hydrocarbon water contact in
this field is shown in Figure 8.
The pressure-depth plot of gas accumulation
ization since we only have one hydrocarbon line.
The pressure-depth plot of gas accumulation
in a stratigraphic unit in this field is shown in Fig-
ure 9. It can be seen that there is one gas line ac-
companied by several water lines indicating tilted
gas water contact. This plot is very indicative for
tilted gas-water contact as illustrated in Figure 9.
This plot cannot be attributed to compartmental-
ization since we only have one hydrocarbon line.
As can be seen in Figures 7 and 8, the tilting
direction is towards the northern direction of
the field. The overpressure cross section given
in Figure 10 shows the decrease in overpressure
magnitude in the same stratigraphic unit is also
towards the northern direction, in accordance

G
in a stratigraphic unit in this field is shown in Fig-
ure 9. It can be seen that there is one gas line ac-
companied by several water lines indicating tilted
gas water contact. This plot is very indicative for
tilted gas-water contact as illustrated in Figure 9.
with the observed tilted water contact. Therefore,
it is very conclusive to say that gas in this field is
trapped hydrodynamically by overpressure gradi-
ent, or it can be said that the reservoirs in this field
is experiencing active lateral reservoir drainage.
Another field that has been proven to tilt
hydrodynamically in the Lower Kutai Basin is
O
This plot cannot be attributed to compartmental- the Tunu Field. This is the largest gas field in the

0 3 km
IJ
Northern flank: gas

Boundary
of gas accumulation
00
32

31 0
5
00
31

3250

Crestal: water
3200
3150
0

3100
305

: Well containing gas

: Well not containing gas (dry well)

Figure 7. Gas accumulated in the flank of the structure in overpressured section in the Peciko Field.

70
 Lateral Reservoir Drainage in some Indonesia’s Sedimentary Basin
and Its Implication to Hydrodynamic Trapping (A.M. Ramdhan et al.)

Schematic of tilting GWC in the Peciko Field

basin with the initial gas in place is about 16 tcf
S N (Lambert et al., 2003). According to Halboulty
7000 (2003), this field is categorized also as a giant
gas field.
8000 Lambert et al. (2003) analyzed that the gas in
the deeper overpressure part in this field is accu-
Depth (ft)

9000 SU1
mulated at the western flank of the field (Figure
11). The overpressure map in a stratigraphic unit
10000
SU2
in this field is shown in Figure 12. From the over-
11000
pressure map, it can be seen that the overpressure
SU3
magnitude decreases towards the western part
12000
of the field, in accordance with the observed gas
SU4 accumulation, i.e. in the western flank. Therefore,
it can also be concluded that the gas in the deeper
SU5 part in this field, in overpressured section, tilts hy-

Figure 8. A schematic tilted gas-water contact in the Peciko

Field. Red colour indicates gas accumulation and SU is
stratigraphic unit (lateral extend not to scale) (simplified
from Ramdhan and Goulty, 2010).

10000
4500
G drodynamically due to lateral reservoir drainage.
Jauhari et al. (2012) found the presence of
tilted gas water contact in the Nilam Field. As
in the Tunu Field, the hydrodynamic in this field

Pressure (psi)
5000
O
NWP-10, gas leg
IJ
NWP-10, water leg

NWP-A, gas leg

Depth (ft)

10500 NWP-A, water leg

NWP-9, gas leg

NWP-9, water leg

PK-A7, gas leg

PK-A7, water leg

Other wells, gas leg only

Other wells, gas leg only

Common gas line

Water line
11000

Figure 9. Pressure against depth plot in the Peciko Field showing one gas line accompanied by several water lines indicating
hydrodynamically tilted gas-water contact.

71
 Indonesian Journal on Geoscience, Vol. 5 No. 1 April 2018: 65-80

Fluid flow direction in the Peciko Field:

in accordance with gas accumulation N
S N
NWP-15 PEC-1 NWP-10 NWP-2 NWP-1 NWP-5 NWP-16
0

2000

4000
0 20 km

6000
Top of low overpressure : Well

: Overpressure contour
13000
8000
SU1 : Boundary of Tunu Field

10000 SU2

SU3

0 0
12000 SU4

110
SU5
Top of transition zone Fluid flow direction
14000

Figure 10. Overpressure cross section in the Peciko Field

0
0

00
showing overpressure decrease towards the northern part 00

12
15

0
0

00
00
of the field in the same stratigraphic unit, in accordance

13
14

with observed gas accumulation in the northern flank.

2000

3000
Hydrodynamic trap in the Tunu Field, Kutai Basin

G
SU 1
15000
TN-AC-7

TN-W-14
14000
TN-E-12

TN-19-D
TN-G-6
TN-G-31
O 13
00
0

0
1200
Depth (m)

0
SU 2 1100

SU 3

4000
SU 4

Figure 12. Overpressure map in a stratigraphic unit in the

SU 5 Tunu Field showing overpressure decrease towards the west-
ern part of the field, in accordance with observed gas accu-
IJ
0 5 km
mulation in the western flank (see Figure 6 for field location).
SU 6
5000
Gas in the deeper part is accumulated
on the flank of the structure Ramdhan (2002) analyzed hydrocarbon-water
contact in the Semberah Field (see Figure 6 for
Figure 11. Gas accumulated in the flank of the structure field location), and he found that in a stratigraphic
in overpressured section in the Tunu Field. Red lines in-
dicate gas accumulation and black lines indicate boundary horizon in this field, the contact between oil and
of stratigraphic unit (redrawn from Lambert et al., 2003). water was tilted. He further analyzed that the tilt-
ing was due to an active lateral reservoir drainage,
has shifted gas accumulation to the western flank driven by difference in overpressure in the same
of the structure. The gas accumulation in relation stratigraphic unit.
with variations of top of overpressure was ana-
lyzed as shown in Figure 13. It can be seen that Documented Tilted Hydrocarbon Water Con-
top of overpressure is deeper towards the western tact
flank, and it also crosses stratigraphic unit, caus- In several fields in Indonesia’s sedimentary
ing pressure difference in the same stratigraphic basins, the tilted hydrocarbon water contact has
unit. This circumstance leads to active hydrody- also been documented, but thorough hydro-
namic flow, caused by lateral reservoir drainage. dynamic analysis has not been yet performed.

72
 Lateral Reservoir Drainage in some Indonesia’s Sedimentary Basin
and Its Implication to Hydrodynamic Trapping (A.M. Ramdhan et al.)

West Flank East Flank

Flat GWC

~8.3 ppg

~8.3 ppg ~8.3 ppg Hydrostatic

Condition

Tilted GWC ~8.65 ppg

Top of in G series
overpressure Hydrodinamic
Condition
~9 ppg
: Gas accumulation : Water

Semberah in the Lower Kutai Basin (see Figure

6 for field location), Arun in the North Sumatra
Basin (Figure 14), and Tangguh in the Bintuni
G
Figure 13. Variation in top of overpressure in the Nilam Field; Overpressure is deeper toward the western part of the field,
in accordance with observed gas accumulation in the western flank of the field in overpressured section (red lines indicate
gas accumulation; blue lines indicate water) (redrawn and slightly modified from Jauhari et al., 2012).

Among the fields there are Badak, Tambora, and sured section. Therefore, it is hypothesized that
the active hydrodynamic flow is due to lateral
reservoir drainage.
In Tambora Field, tilted oil water contact is
O
Basin - Papua (Figure 15). found at the depth of 9,350 - 10,000 ft., while tilted
The schematic showing tilted hydrocarbon gas water contact at the depth of 12,630 - 13,125
water contact in Badak Field is shown in Figure ft. below surface (Pertamina BPPKA, 1996). The
16 (Cockroft et al., 1987). The reservoir with the tilting direction is to the southeastern and western
tilted hydrocarbon water contact is observed at parts of the field, for oil and gas, respectively.
the depth around 5,350 - 5,500 ft. below surface. The tilting magnitude for the oil water contact is
The tilting direction is towards the north - north- about 20, and for the gas water contact is about
eastern part of the field, with the tilting magnitude
IJ
40. The reservoirs where the tilted are present
for oil water contact is about 20. The reservoir occur in the overpressure section, and they are
where the tilting occurs is located at the overpres- out of reach of meteoric water recharge (Duval
et al., 1992; Paterson et al., 1997).
Ramdhan et al. (2012) analyzed the presence
Index Map
of tilted hydrocarbon water contact in the Arun
Sunda Shelf
Field in relation with lateral reservoir drainage
in the Arun Field, North Sumatra Basin (Figure
No
rth Bas

17). The tilting in this field was first observed by

ala
Su in

Arun
ka
m
atr

St

M
a

rai

ala
t

Ba Budiono (1988). As shown in Figure 17, the tilting

yP

ris
en

an
is toward the southern part of the field, located in
ins

M
ch

ou
ula
Ar

nt
ain
an
ah

a reef limestone complex of Lower and Middle

As

N Miocene. Ramdhan et al. (2012) concluded that the

Central Sumatra
tilting is a hydrodynamic one, opposite the pos-
0 100 km
Basin
sibility of capillary tilting as proposed by Budiono
(1988). Further, the presence of ‘shoulder effect’
Figure 14. Location of the Arun Field, North Sumatra Basin
(simplified from Aziz and Bolt, 1984). as illustrated in Figure 18 leads to the interpreta-

73
 Indonesian Journal on Geoscience, Vol. 5 No. 1 April 2018: 65-80

Pacific Ocean
N
Manokwari

Jayapura
Baliem Valley
Wamena
PAPUA
Banda Sea

Arafura Sea

0 300 km Vorwata Field

Wiriagar Deep Field

N Roabiba Field
Ofaweri Field

LNG Plant

Wos Field

Ubadari Field

G
Figure 15. Location of Tangguh Area, Bintuni Basin, Papua (simplified from Marcou et al., 2004).
0

N
10

70
29
20 km

11/0/31
5322 9

ND
5337

38
O
5360 5400
ND
0/0/63
13
OWC 5415 44
OWC 5430 5343
5326
0/0/26
OWC 5476 ND

5385
7
5368 ND
6
ND 2
Legend: 5360
49 5416
ND
:Oil(Swlrr) :Oiltransition :Water 5363
Trace of ND
OWC 0/31/68 45
55 100
5401
5353 5452
56
0/46/77
0/0/27 0/0/15
IJ
5372
106
5397 0/59/98

0/0/40
50
54
it

00
m

55
Li
nd
Sa

89
5530
0 1000 2000 3000 ft

Legend:
5400 : Structure contour (depth subsea, in feet)
0/31/68 : Net gas / net oil / net sand
ND : Not developed

Figure 16. A schematic showing tilted hydrocarbon water contact in Badak Field (cross section not to scale) (redrawn and
slightly modified from Cockroft, 1987).

tion that an active lateral drainage is present in as proposed by Marcou et al. (2004). Instead, they
this field. The active drainage is caused by Baong proposed that hydrodynamics is the cause of the
mudrock dewatering as indicated in the figure. variable gas water contact, thus hydrodynamically
Ramdhan et al. (2012) challenged the interpre- tilted hydrocarbon water contact. Their argument
tation of the presence of perched water to explain was mainly based on the presence of water at the
variable gas water contact in the Vorwata Field, highest structural point that cannot sufficiently be
Tangguharea, Bintuni Basin, Papua (Figure 19), explained by the perched water concept.

74
 Lateral Reservoir Drainage in some Indonesia’s Sedimentary Basin
and Its Implication to Hydrodynamic Trapping (A.M. Ramdhan et al.)

A-63 A-6 A-20 A-7 A-11

N 1.7 1.6 1.95 2.2 S

9,500'
64FT/MI (0.69') 23FT/MI (0.25')

S
u
Top Arun 10,000' b
s
e
a
Gas
D
Gas with
irreducibl e
e water p
10,500' t
h
TR. Zone
Water
GWC
500' 100% SW
Scale 11,000'

G
Feet

Top Bampo
0 1 2
mile 11,500'

Figure 17. Tilted gas-water contact in the Arun Field (redrawn from Budiono, 1988).
O
Transit time (μs/ft)

0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 150 200

0

1000
8.5 ppg

2000

Shale Pressure
3000
IJ
4000
Shale Iso
Pressure Gradient
Upper
5000
Seurula

14 ppg
Lower
Depth (ft)

6000
Seurula
16 ppg
Top of transition zone
7000 Top of hard overpressure Keutapang

8000
SW Sand
tic
osta

9000 Baong
hydr
mal

10000 Arun
Nor

11000

Pressure reversal/
shoulder effect?
12000

Figure 18. Shoulder effect indicating active lateral drainage in the North Sumatra Basin (redrawn from Aziz and Bolt, 1984).

75
 Indonesian Journal on Geoscience, Vol. 5 No. 1 April 2018: 65-80

Pressure (psi)
Pressure (psi)
3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
6000
Ubadari Vorwata P-D plot
Wiriagar Deep

8000
Depth (ft)

Ofaweri

Depth (ft)
Per
mia
10000 na
qui Roabiba
fer
Vorwata
Jur
ass
ic a
12000 qui
fer
: Common water gradient

: Common gas gradient

14000

Figure 19. Variable gas-water contact in the Vorwata Field, Bintuni Basin (redrawn and slightly modified from Marcou et
al., 2004).

Hutasoit et al. (2013) proposed the opportu- encased in thick overpressured Baong Mudrock
nity of the presence of lateral reservoir drainage
in Mid Baong sandstone in the North Sumatra
Basin. The Mid Baong Sand is turbiditic sand

Age

Quater-
Zone
G (Figure 20). Further, they investigated the pres-
ence of shoulder effect in Baong Mudrock that
is in contact with Mid Baong Sand indicating an

Stratigraphy North Sumatra Basin

Holocene Alluvium
O
nary N23
Pleistocene Terrace

N21 Julu Rayeu

Pliocene Seurula
N17 Keutapang

U
N14

Baong M
IJ
Mid Sand Baong
Miocene
N8 Mid Sand Baong

Belumai Belumai
N4

Bampo

Oligocene
Bruksah
Parapat

Eocene
Tampur DOL and LS

Pre-
Tertiary
Sed, Meta, and IG Basement

W-MTNS Coastal Plain Offshore-E

Figure 20. Mid-Baong Turbiditic Sand encased in the overpressured Baong Mudrock (modified from Pertamina BPPKA, 1996).

76
 Lateral Reservoir Drainage in some Indonesia’s Sedimentary Basin
and Its Implication to Hydrodynamic Trapping (A.M. Ramdhan et al.)
active dewatering, thus active fluid flow, from
Baong Mudrock to Mid-Baong Sand. Since the
Mid-Baong Sand crops out, for example to the
west in the Barisan Mountain area, it is conceiv-
able to hypothesize that lateral reservoir drainage
is present in the Mid Baong Sand, and it may
lead to the presence of hydrodynamic trap in
this sand.
Recently, Surdaudaja (2017) investigated the
presence of reefal limestone-mudrock pressure
difference in BD Field, offshore portion of the
East Java Basin, in Madura Strait. The lime-
stone is located just below highly overpressured
mudrock. He interpreted that the so-called ‘thief
zone’ is responsible for the pressure difference.
It is a sandstone layer attached to the reefal lime-
stone and connected over relatively wide area
(Figure 21). Some fluid from the reefal limestone
dissipates through the sand, and therefore, it
causes active hydrodynamic flow to be occurring
in both reefal limestone and the sandstone. This
circumstance makes hydrodynamic trap due to
G showing the direction of the lateral drainage in the
O
lateral reservoir drainage is plausible to occur in
this basin. Moreover, it is known that the basin
contains highly overpressure mudrock (e.g. Ram-
dhan et al., 2013), which is required to maintain
active lateral reservoir drainage.
IJ
Gas
Thief bed
Oil (sandstone)
Direction of hydrocarcon
migration
Figure 21. Cross section conceptual model of the ‘thief zone’
(not to scale).
Discussion
Lateral reservoir drainage leading to hydro-
dynamic trap of oil and gas has been proven to be
present at Tunu, Peciko, and Nilam Fields in the
Lower Kutai Basin. In this basin, several indica-
tions of hydrodynamic trap in forms of tilted hy-
drocarbon water contact have also been observed.
Based on these circumstances, it is interpreted that
the lateral reservoir drainage is a basin-wide phe-
nomenon in the Lower Kutai Basin. The direction
of the lateral drainage is more to the onshore, or in
sedimentological terms of the deltaic environment,
it is more to the proximal area, where the sand
is abundant compared with the medial or distal
area. Moreover, most of the reservoirs crops out
on the onshore area, providing pressure difference
between overpressure reservoirs at more distal
compared with more proximal area. A schematics
Lower Kutai Basin is given in Figure 22.
Ramdhan and Goulty (2011) discussed the
cause of overpressure in the Lower Kutai Basin.
They came up with the conclusion that the domi-
nant factors causing overpressure in this basin
are clay diagenesis and gas generation, and they
are still active until the present time. Therefore, it
can be inferred that active lateral drainage in the
Lower Kutai Basin is maintained by fluid resulted
from the above processes.
As discussed by Hutasoit and Ramdhan
(2014), the western Indonesia’s Tertiary basins
have a similarity in terms of overpressuring and
their associated basin development. Overpressure
in those basins is mainly located in thick marine
mudrock of sag deposit. One of the most produc-
tive reservoirs in those basins is reefal limestone
located just below highly overpressured mudrock
(e.g. Arun Limestone in the North Sumatra Basin
and Kujung Limestone in the East Java Basin both
onshore and offshore) (see Figure 20). Therefore,
the possibility of the presence of lateral reservoir
drainage in other basins which share the similar-
ity is plausible.
Moreover, turbiditic sandstone located
within the thick marine mudrock deposit is
also quite common in the western Indonesia’s
Tertiary basins, as observed in the North
Sumatra Basin (Mid-Baong Sand). The last
regional tectonic event, i.e. Plio-Pleistocene
uplift, causes the sandstone to be uplifted and
77
 Indonesian Journal on Geoscience, Vol. 5 No. 1 April 2018: 65-80

W E
Mutiara Handil Tunu Nubi Deep water area
Depth (km)
0

1
2 Pliocene - Recent

3
4
Upper Miocene
5
6
Middle Miocene
7
0 10 km Lower Miocene
8

Delta plain: sand and mudrock Marine: marine mudrock Stratigraphic layer Shelf - deep marine boundary

Delta front: sand and mudrock Turbidite: sandstone Fault Direction of water flow
Shelf edge: carbonate

Figure 22. A schematic of lateral drainage (blue arrow) in the Lower Kutai Basin (modified from Total E&P Indonesie, 2003).

exposed. This circumstance is very plausible

for lateral reservoir drainage within the sand-
stone to occur, and it may lead to the presence
of hydrodynamic trap.
The success story in the Lower Kutai Basin
(Peciko and Total) is driven by abundant pressure G Acknowledgements

The authors thank SKK Migas for arranging

O
data. For example, in the Peciko Field, a well
could have around 100 direct pressure measure-
ments obtained from repeat formation test (RFT).
As discussed in section Theoretical Overview, the
main data source for hydrodynamic analysis is
pressure data. Without this data, the suggestion
of the presence of hydrodynamic trap will never
be conclusive.
IJ
Conclusions
From the above discussion, it can be concluded
that hydrodynamic trap caused by lateral reservoir
drainage has been proven to be present in the
Lower Kutai Basin. Based on the abundant indica-
tions of tilted hydrocarbon-water contact in this
basin, it is also concluded that a lateral reservoir
drainage is present in basinal scale in the Lower
Kutai Basin. The tilted hydrocarbon-water contact
is also observable in several basins in Indonesia,
in overpressured section. This type of trap is still
under-explored in Indonesia, and therefore there is
still a big opportunity to find hydrodynamic traps
in Indonesia’s sedimentary basins.
overpressure research in Indonesia’s sedimentary
basins including hydrodynamic trapping. Thanks
are also due to anonymous reviewers who have
sharpened this paper.
References
Aziz, A. and Bolt, L.H, 1984. Occurrence and detec-
tion of abnormal pressures from geological and
drilling data, North Sumatra Basin. Proceedings
of 13th Indonesian Petroleum Association Annual
Convention, p.195-220, Jakarta.
Budiono, 1988. Anomalous gas-water contact study,
Arun Field, North Sumatra. Proceedings of
17th Indonesian Petroleum Association Annual
Convention, Jakarta.
Cockroft, P.J., Edwards, G.A., Phoa, R.S.K., and
Reid, H.W., 1987. Applications of pressure
analysis and hydrodynamics to petroleum
exploration in Indonesia. Proceedings of 16th
Indonesian Petroleum Association Annual
Convention, IPA, Jakarta.
Dahlberg, E. C., 1995. Applied hydrodynamics in
petroleum exploration. 2nd editing Springer -
Verlag New York Inc, New York, 295pp.
Dennis, H., Baillie, J., Holt, T., and Wessel-Berg,
D., 2000. Hydrodynamic activity and tilted

78
 Lateral Reservoir Drainage in some Indonesia’s Sedimentary Basin
and Its Implication to Hydrodynamic Trapping (A.M. Ramdhan et al.)
oil-water contacts in the North Sea. In: Ofstad,
K., Kittilsen, J.E. and Alexander-Marrack, P.
(eds.): Improving the Exploration Process by
Learning from the Past. NPF, Special Publica-
tion 9, p.171-185, Amsterdam. DOI: 10.1016/
S0928-8937(00)80016-8
Duval, B.C., Cassaigneau, C., Choppin de Janvry,
G., Loiret, B., Leo, M., Alibi, and Grosjean,
Y., 1998. Impact of the petroleum system ap-
proach to exploration and appraisal efficiency
in the Mahakam Delta. Proceedings of 26th
Indonesian Petroleum Association Annual
Convention, p.277-290, Jakarta.
Grosjean, Y., Zaugg, P., and Gaulier, J-M., 2009.
Doha - Qatar.
G
Burial hydrodynamics and subtle hydrocarbon
trap evaluation: from the Mahakam Delta to
the South Caspian Sea. International Petro-
leum Technology Congress, Paper 13962,
Halboulty, M.T., 2003. Giant oil and gas fields
of the 1990s: An introduction. In: Halboulty,
M.T. (eds.), Giant Oil and Gas Fields of the de-
O
cade 1990 - 1999, AAPG Memoir 78, p.1-13.
Hubbert, M.K., 1940. The theory of groundwater
motion. The Journal of Geology, 48, p.754-
944. DOI: 10.1086/624930
Hubbert, M.K., 1953. Entrapment of petro-
leum under hydrodynamic conditions.
AAPG Bulletin, 45, p.1954-2026. DOI:
IJ
10.1306%2F5CEADEE4-16BB-11D7-
8645000102C1865D
Hubbert, M.K., 1956. Darcy’s law and the field
equations of the flow of underground fluids.
Transastion of American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy, and Engineering, 207, p.222-239.
DOI: 10.1080/02626665709493062
Hutasoit, L.M., Suseno, W., Siahaan, D., Ramd-
han, A.M., Goulty, N.R., Syaiful, M., Bachtiar,
A., Iskandar, I., Hendarmawan, Sadirsan, W.,
Arifin, M., Bahesti, F., and Endarmoyo, K.,
2013. Overpressure characteristics in Pertami-
na’s area in the North Sumatra Basin. Proceed-
ings of 37th Indonesian Petroleum Association
Annual Convention, IPA13-G-153, Jakarta.
Hutasoit, L.M. and Ramdhan, A.M., 2014. Simi-
larities of overpressuring in some western In-
donesia’s sedimentary basins. Proceedings of
38th Indonesian Petroleum Association Annual
Convention, IPA14-G-356, Jakarta.
Jauhari, U., Permana, R., Wijanarko, A., and
Soenoro, A., 2012. Hydrodynamic trapping,
tilted contacts and new opportunities in ma-
ture onshore Kutei Basin, East Kalimantan,
Indonesia. AAPG Internation Conference and
Exhibition, extended abstract, Singapore.
Lambert, B., Duval, B.C., Grosjean, Y., Umar,
I.M., and Zaugg, P., 2003. The Peciko case his-
tory: impact of an evolving geological model
on the dramatic increase of gas reserves in
the Mahakam Delta. In: Halbouty, M.T. (eds),
Giant Oil and Gas Fields of the Decade 1990-
1999. AAPG Memoir, 78, p.297-320.
Marcou, J.A., Samsu, D., Kasim, A., Meizarwin,
and Davis, N., 2004. Tangguh LNG’s gas
resource: discovery, appraisal and certifica-
tion. Proceedings of Deepwater and Frontier
Exploration in Asia and Australia, Indonesian
Petroleum Association, DFE04-OR-021,
Jakarta.
O’Connor, S.A. and Swarbrick, R.E., 2008. Pres-
sure regression, fluid drainage and a hydrody-
namically controlled fluid contact in the North
Sea, Lower Cretaceous, Britannia Sandstone
Formation. Petroleum Geoscience, 14, p.115-
126. DOI: 10.1144/1354-079308-737
O’Connor, S., Swarbrick, R., and Jones, D.,
2008. Where has all the pressure gone? Evi-
dence from pressure reversals and hydrody-
namic flow. First Break, 26, p.55-61. DOI:
10.3997/1365-2397.2008013
Pertamina BPPKA, 1996. Petroleum Geology
of Indonesia’n Basins: Principle, Methods
and Application, V.1 North Sumatra Basin.
Pertamina BPPKA, Jakarta, 85pp.
Paterson, D.W., Bachtiar, A., Bates, J.A., Moon,
J.A., and Surdam, R.C., 1997. Petroleum sys-
tem of the Kutei Basin, Kalimantan, Indone-
sia. In: Howes, J.V.C. and Noble, R.A. (eds),
Proceedings of the Petroleum Systems of SE
Asia and Australasia Conference, Indonesian
Petroleum Association, p.709-726, Jakarta.
Ramdhan, A.M. 2002. The Relationship between
Hydrodynamics of Groundwater and Hydro-
79
 Indonesian Journal on Geoscience, Vol. 5 No. 1 April 2018: 65-80
carbon Accumulation in Zone I072A, Sem-
berah Field. Master Thesis at the Department
of Geology Institute of Technology Bandung.
Ramdhan, A.M. and Goulty, N.R., 2010. Over-
pressure generating mechanisms in the Peciko
Field, Lower Kutai Basin, Indonesia. Petro-
leum Geoscience, 95, p.1725-1744. DOI:
10.1144/1354-079309-027
Ramdhan, A.M. and Goulty, N.R., 2011. Over-
pressure and mudrock compaction in the
Lower Kutai Basin, Indonesia: a radical reap-
praisal. AAPG Bulletin, 16, p.367-376. DOI:
10.1306/02221110094
Ramdhan, A.M., Hutasoit, L.M., and Bachtiar, A.,
2012. Some Indonesia’s giants: ‘unconven-
tional’ hydrodynamic trap?. Proceedings of
Convention, IPA12-G-004, Jakarta.
G
36th Indonesian Petroleum Association Annual
Ramdhan, A.M., Hakim, F., Hutasoit, L.M., Goul-
ty, N.R., Sadirsan, W., Arifin, M., Bahesti,
O
IJ
80
F., Endarmoyo, K., Firmansyah, R., Zainal,
R.M., Gulo, M.Y., Sihman, Suseno, P.H., and
Purwanto, A.H., 2013. Importance of under-
standing geology in overpressure prediction:
the example of the East Java Basin. Proceed-
ings of 37th Indonesian Petroleum Association
Annual Convention, IPA13-G-152, Jakarta.
Robertson, J., Goulty, N.R., and Swarbrick, R.E.,
2013. Overpressure distributions in Paleogene
reservoirs of the UK Central North Sea and
implications for lateral and vertical fluid flow.
Petroleum Geoscience, 19, p.223-236. DOI:
10.1144/petgeo2012-060
Surdaudaja, R., 2017. Analisis mekanisme ter-
jadinya tekanan-luap dan prediksi tekanan pori
pada Lapangan BD, Cekungan Jawa Timur.
Master Thesis at the Department of Geology
Institute of Technology Bandung.
Total E&P Indonesia, 2003. The Lower Kutai
Synthesis, Unpublished Report.