IPA14-G-055

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirty-Eighth Annual Convention and Exhibition, May 2014
FACIES ANALYSIS, ROCK TYPE, AND PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION IN UPPER INTERVAL OF
BATURAJA FORMATION, KRISNA FIELD, SUNDA BASIN
Chandra Ageng*
Hairunnisa*
Doni Hidayat*
Dwiharso Nugroho**
Nurcahyo Indro Basuki**
ABSTRACT
Krisna Field is located in the western part of the
offshore Southeast Sumatra (SES) Block, in the
Sunda Basin. The field, which is managed by the
Central Business Unit, SES Block, produces oil
from carbonate reservoirs within the Baturaja
Formation, with the main production coming from
the upper interval (UBR).
Production plots and water injection data show that
there are problems associated with reservoir
heterogenity and conectivity. It therefore became
essential to undertake the task of reservoir
charactertization in order to address these problems
and gain an understanding and establish a rationale
for forward direction to achieve maximum recovery
efficiency. It is the objective of this study to identify
lithofacies and facies associations and characterize
the distributions of rock type, porosity and
permeability.
Thin section petrographic analysis of core samples
from Krisna D-04 and Krisna E-02 wells show that
there are five lithofacies: foraminifera shale,
planktonic foraminifera packstone, skeletal
wackestone, skeletal packstone, and benthic
foraminifera packstone. The carbonate reservoir
was previously interpreted as a reef complex.
However, lithofacies and seismic attribute (mean
amplitude) analysis indicate two facies associations
are present, skeletal mound and slope to basin.
Rock type (RT) identification using Pore Geometry
Structure was used as an indicator of reservoir
heterogeneity. This resulted in the identification of
six RT s, each with specific porosity and
permeability trends, unrelated to lithofacies, but
correlated to pore types and sizes.

* CNOOC SES, Ltd

** Institute of Technology Bandung
The six rock types are: RT1 associated with
interparticle-moldic micropores, RT2 associated
with interparticle mesopores, RT3 associated with
interparticle-moldic mesopores, RT4 associated
with interparticle-moldic macropores, RT5
associated with vuggy-moldic macropores, and RT6
associated with vuggy-channeling.
Using a stochastic methodolgy it was possible to
show that rock type distribution in the skeletal
mound facies association controlled porosity and
permeability distribution. The study determined that
rock type, porosity, and permeability distribution
are the main factors controlling heterogenity and
conectivity in the UBR reservoir. The study results
will be used as the main input to a dynamic
simulation for water injection and further
development planning in Krisna Field.
INTRODUCTION
Background
Krisna Field (Figure-1) is a major oil producer in
the Offshore Southeast Sumatra Block operated by
CNOOC SES Ltd. The field is located in the Sunda
Basin and has an areal extent of 28.16 sq. km. The
Upper interval of the Baturaja Formation (Figure-2)
is the main reservoir and is being produced through
the Krisna D and Krisna E platforms.
Krisna Field has been under development since
1980. Based on the last 5 years of production data,
the field has contributed 50% from Krisna Field oil
production and 13% of the total oil production in
the Central Business Unit, SES Block. Currently,
the UBR of Krisna Field is produced by 11 wells
supported by 3 water injector wells, from Krisna D
and E platforms. The average oil production
through the end of 2013 was about 1,700 BOPD
with a cumulative oil production of about 34.5
million barrels oil (Figure-3).

Production history shows that liquid production

from KRID-09 is high (700 BFPD) compared to the
average for other UBR wells in Krisna (300
400
BFPD), even though KRID-07 produced 1,700
BFPD. Average water cut is 40% 70%.but two
wells, KRID-01 and KRID-12, produce with low
water cut (< 20%) while KRID-07 produces with
high water cut (95%) Water injection in Krisna
UBR commenced in 2006 using KRID-04 and
KRID-05 as injector wells, followed by KRIE-09 in
2012 (Figure-3).
Water injection maintained reservoir formation
pressure during the production but after several
years, it was observed that a number of wells were
not responding as expected. In addition, KRIE-09
water injector well experienced a declining trend in
injection rate. Analysis of the problem indicated
that heterogeneity and connectivity in the upper
interval of the Baturaja Formation needed to be
better understood.
To address this problem, an important geological
study of the upper interval of the Baturaja
Formation was initiated, with a focus on facies
analysis and rock typing. Further to this, property
distribution in a 3D reservoir model, was
undertaken to help explain heterogeneity and
conectivity within this reservoir interval. The study
results could then provide a reference base for the
next development phase of Krisna Field.
Regional Setting
Sunda Basin, located between offshore Java and
offshore Sumatra, is a back arc basin to the north of
the Java volcanic arc. It has its origins as a northsouth oriented rift basin that developed during
Eocene-Oligocene in a series of half grabbens
dipping down to the East (Wight, et al., 1986).
The Late Cretaceous Basement comprises intrusive
rocks (granite and granodiorite), extrusive rocks
(basalt, andesite, and trachyte, and metamorphic
rocks (green schist, slate, gneiss), (Wight et
al.,1986).
The oldest sediments belong to the Banuwati
Formation, produced during the early rifting period,
and deposited unconformably on Basement. The
formation is dated as Early Oligocene and
comprises lacustrine shale and conglomeratic
sediments (Wight et al., 1986).
Sedimentation continued with the clastic dominated
Talang Akar Formation. This Late Oligocene
formation was deposited unconformably above the
Banuwati, (Wight, et al., 1986). The Talang Akar

Formation is divided into Zelda Member, a series of

Oligocene fluvial sandstones, followed by the early
Miocene Gita Member, a fluvio-deltaic succession
of sandstones and shale with interbedded coals
(Young et al., 1991).
Post-rift sequences in the Sunda Basin represent a
basin wide transgression. It was during this phase,
that the limestones and shales of the Baturaja
Formation were deposited, unconformably above
the Talang Akar Formation and remnant bald
basement highs. In the Sunda Basin, the Baturaja
Formation is divided into a lower interval (LBR),
predominantly a reefal carbonate facies association,
the Baturaja Shale, and an upper interval. This study
encompasses facies analysis, rock typing, and
property distribution from the upper interval of the
Baturaja Formation (UBR) (Figure-2).
METHOD
Lithofacies
Five lithofacies were identified in the UBR, based
on examination of 13 thin sections from 2 cores
from wells KRID-04 and KRIE-02. Examples of
these petrographic analyses are shown in
Figures 5-7:
1. Foraminifera shale
This lithofacies was interpreted from thin section
petrographic analysis of a sample from KRID-04
well at 4537 MD. It has a predominantly, clay
matrix with abundant planktonic foraminifera
(Figure-5).
2. Planktonic foraminifera packstone
This lithofacies was interpreted from thin section
petrographic analysis of samples from KRID-04
well at depths 4573 , 4586 , and 4603 MD.
They exhibit a grain supported fabric,
predominantly planktonic foraminifera with a
matrix of micrite, plus calcite, quartz, and
plagioclase (Figure-5).
3. Skeletal wackestone
This lithofacies interpretation is based on thin
section petrographic analysis of two samples
from KRID-04 well at 5748 and 5760 MD.
They consist predominantly of micrite matrix
with skeletal (largely echinoid and mollusc)
debris, (~40%), plus minor quartz and
plagioclase (Figure-6).

4. Skeletal packstone
This lithofacies is interpreted on basis of thin
section petrographic analysis of a sample from
KRID-04 well at 4635 MD. The sample has a
grain supported fabric, dominated by echinoid
and mollusc skeletal material (>50%) with,
minor micrite, quartz, and plagioclase (Figure6).
5. Benthic foraminifera packstone
This lithofacies is interpreted on basis of thin
section petrographic analysis of samples from
KRIE-02 well at 5770 , 5786 , and 5793 MD.
These consist predominantly of benthic
foraminifera, quartz, calcite and minor skeletal
fragments (Figure-7).
Facies Association
Seismic sections from north to south, flattened on
the Gumai Formation, show the geometry of the
UBR carbonate to be mound-shaped (Figure-4).
Because of the shape, this had been previously
interpreted and reported as reefal carbonate
(Lemigas, 1985). However, findings from this study,
based on thin section petrographic analysis, and
confirmed by Park (pers. comm. 2014), found no
reefal fragments, corals, red algae, etc., among the
UBR facies associations represented here.
To identify the mound boundary more clearly,
support from seismic data, in terms of seismic
attributes, was needed. Some seismic attribute
processing was run on a 3D seismic data cube using
PSTM seismic class at the UBR (UBR-LBR) level.
This reservoir level was investigated using 10
different attributes. The best results were achieved
by using Mean Amplitude attribute at the UBR level
(Figure-9). Mean amplitude is a post-stack
computation of the arithmethic mean of the
amplitudes of a trace within a specified window.
This can be used to observe changes in amplitude
related to, or provide indications of lateral facies
change, and hence define the boundary between
adjacent facies association geometries. Furthermore,
the trace bias could indicate the presence of bright
spots (DHI).
Figure-9 shows the mound geometry at platforms D
and E at Krisna Field, here indicated by higher
amplitude values (green-yellow) compared with
lower amplitudes values for the slope to basin (bluepurple).
The mean amplitude attribute display
shows high production wells at Krisna Field
platforms D and E correspond to high amplitude
values and the plugged and abandoned wells are
associated with low amplitude values.

Seismic sections and attribute seismic Mean

Amplitude processing, confirmed that carbonate
geometry in the upper interval of the Baturaja
Formation is a mound, with an obvious boundary
between mound and slope to basin. All data
supported the interpretation that UBR limestone in
Krisna Field consisted of two facies associations,
skeletal mound and slope to basin. Thin section
petrographic analysis shows that the dominant
skeletal components in these lithofacies are
echinoid and mollusc. Based on the interpretation of
available core and thin section material, the UBR is
here interpreted as a skeletal mound as defined by
Walker and James, 1992 and illustrated in Figure-8.
Rock Typing
As mentioned before, the focus of this study is to
examine the nature and degree of heterogeneity and
connectivity in the UBR reservoir in Krisna Field.
The problem of heterogeneity is evident from plot
data of core porosity vs permeability, as shown in
Figure-10. The plot shows that there is no specific
relationship between the data sets, with a correlation
R2 of about 0.16.
The application of RT analysis offers a potentially
important means to resolve this problem. Rock
types are here defined as units of rock deposited
under similar conditions and which have been
subjected to similar diagenetic processes resulting
in unique porosity-permeability relationships
(Gunter, et al., 1997). Lucia (1995), and Lonoy
(2006), among others, also addressed the issue of
rock type, building on the earlier work on the
influence of rock fabric on reservoir properties by
Choquette and Pray (1970).
The rock typing methods mentioned above are
generally based on thin section petrographic
analysis of a large number of samples. The UBR
Reservoir in Krisna Field has only a limited number
(13) of thin sections available but has considerable
test data plus core porosity and permeability data
from the KRID-04 and KRIE-02 wells. Rock type
analysis for this study is thus based on special core
analysis or test derived porosity and permeability
data.
To determine rock types in the UBR reservoir, the
Pore Geometry Structure (PGS) method was used.
The PGS method is based on porosity and
permeability data from well testing. The method
generates plots between (k/f)0.5, representing pore

geometry, and C, the pore structure. The output

should yield a straight line (Permadi, 2009). The
position of the straight line segments on the graph
depends on both the degree of tortuosity of the
capillary system and the specific internal surface
area of the capillary tubes which combine to
determine the effective hydraulic quality. The PGS
method has already been successfully applied to a
carbonate reservoir (Permadi, 2009), which is why
it was adopted here and applied to the study of UBR
in Krisna Field.
RT analysis using porosity and permeability data
from KRID-04 and KRIE-02, is converted to the
PGS formula from which is generated a cross plot
between (k/f)0.5 as pore geometry and C as pore
structure. This cross plot shows that the UBR
limestone reservoir has 6 rock types: RT1, RT2,
RT3, RT4, RT5, and RT6. RT1 is identified as
having the lowest pore geometry and pore structure,
with RT6 the highest pore geometry and pore
structure. Correlation for each rock type is good
with an R2 range 0.68 to 0.90 (Figure-11).
Rock Typing Validation
The PGS method identified six rock types in UBR
limestone. To validate rock type, this study used
two methods: first was a curve plot of the JFunction, second was the correlation between
porosity and permeability for each rock type.
The J-Function values came from fluid tests in
Krisna Field. J-Function is a constant calculated
from the value of capillary pressure (Pc) that
considered porosity and permeability, using
Leverett s J-Function formula. Rock with good
reservoir property is represented by high J-Function
and low water saturation (Sw).
In this study, J-Function curves did not match with
theory (Figure-12) but rather show a random
distribution of curves. Specifically, the J-Function
for RT6, the best reservoir type, is located in the
middle, the left curve, RT3 should theoretically be
RT6, and the right curve RT4, should theoretically
be RT1. The problem occurred because core
analysis and J-Function, although tested at the same
depths, were conducted on defferent samples and in
different years (special core analysis by Lemigas,
1981 and J-Function test by Corelab, 1998). The JFunction plots could not therefore be used as
validation of representative rock type quality.The
second validation uses a cross plot of porosity vs
permeability. Based on the cross plots, each rock
type can be separated and linked with a specific
correlation. Though each rock type has a similar
porosity range, there are clear differentiations based

on permeability. From this data it can be established

that RT6, with the highest position in the graph, can
be interpreted to have the best reservoir quality, and
RT1, occupying the lowest position on the graph,
has as the lowest reservoir quality (Figure-13).
Rock Type Association
Grouping of rock types using the Pore Geometry
Structure (PGS) method revealed specific
relationships between porosity and permeability and
an association with different flow unit
characteristics. Different geological characteristics
could then provide an explanation for the separation
into six rock types (RT) based on the PGS method.
However, it was determined in this study that rock
types from PGS did not relate to the lithofacies
established from thin section analysis. For example,
samples from KRID-04 at 4573 MD and KRIE-02
at 5760 MD, were interpreted as RT4 based on
PGS method. However, lithofacies from thin section
petrographic analyses indicate that the sample at
depth 4573 MD is a planktonic foraminifera
packstone, and the sample at depth 5760 MD is a
skeletal wackestone (Figure-14), neither of which
would normally be considered to be of good
reservoir quality.
Due to the lack of correlation between rock types,
as determined by PGS method, and lithofacies, as
derived from thin section analysis, this study then
looked at the correlation of rock types from PGS
method using Lonoy s (2006) limestone
classification, which is focused more on pore size
(Figure-15). A previous study of porosity types had
identified porosity types to be predominantly
intercystalline/interparticle, intraskeletal and
biomoldic, with crystal moldic, vuggy, and channel
porosity found found to be only intermittently and
irregularly developed (Park et al., 1995).
With pore size and pore shape more clearly defined
in this way, it can then be shown that each rock type
defined by the PGS method has an association with
a specific pore size range (Figure-16):
1. RT1: Interparticle-moldic micropore.
RT1 is characterized by the presence of
interparticle and moldic porosity with pore size
< 10. From core test data, the porosity range is
16.6% - 23.7% and permeability is 0.1-0.3 mD.
2. RT2: Interparticle mesopore.
RT2 is characterized by the presence of
interparticle porosity with pore size 20-50.

From core test data; the range of porosity is

14.4% - 26.1% and permeability 0.2
2.3 mD.
3. RT3: Interparticle-moldic mesopore.
RT3 is characterized by the presence of
interparticle and moldic porosity with pore size
20-50. Core test data gives a porosity range of
14.6% - 26.1% and a permeability range of 0.4
5.4 mD.
4. RT4: Interparticle-moldic macropore.
RT4 is characterized by the presence of
interparticle and moldic porosity with pore size
> 100. From core test data, the range of
porosity is 14.1% - 28.2% and permeability 0.6 22
mD.
5. RT5: Vuggy-moldic macropore.
RT5 is characterized by the presence of vuggy
and moldic porosity with pore size > 100. From
core test data, the range of porosity is 13.3% 27%
and permeability 1.7 3.7 mD.
6. RT6: Vuggy-channelling.
RT6 is characterized by the presence of vugs and
channeling. From core test data, the range of
porosity is 14% - 22% and the range of
permeability 7.9 - 107 mD.
Neural Network
Krisna Field has only two wells, KRID-04 and
KRIE-02, with representative core data from the
upper interval of the Baturaja Formation.
Identification of rock types without core data
samples must therefore rely on other sources of
information. To address this problem of limited core
data, a neural network method was employed.
In this instance, the Neural Network method was
used to predict rock type in a well without core
data. Existing electrical log data was used as a
reference to aid rock type prediction in wells
without core data in Krisna Field. For the purposes
of this study, KRID-04 was selected as the primary
reference well since it had the greatest density and
amount of core test data available, from almost all
depths within the UBR reservoir. The data, chiefly
wireline data, included gamma ray, resistivity,
density and porosity logs which had been calibrated
with core data, was then the input for the neural
network analysis. Selection of the electrical log data
to be used as input, was based on trial and error. To
be effective, the neural network requires selected
electrical logs to be represented in all wells.
Figure-17 displays the vertical distribution of rock
types in KRID-04 which was the primary reference

well used for comparison against the rock types

derived by neural network and rock types by PGS
method in KRIE-02. As a result of the good results
achieved in KRIE-02, the neural network method
was then run for other wells without core data in
Krisna platforms D and E.
RESULTS
Distribution of Facies Association
Creating a 3D reservoir model is one way to show
the relationship between heterogeneity and
connectivity and the distribution of reservoir
properties within a formation. Reservoir modeling
of the upper interval of the Baturaja Formation
(UBR) is a prequisite for dynamic simulation and
history matching with production data. In this study,
input included the distribution of facies
associations, and of rock type, as determined from
porosity and permeability. All distributions were run
in a model area 87m x 100m x 50ft with a total
435,000 cells.
Modelling the distribution of the facies associations
in the UBR of Krisna required a combination of
deterministic and stochastic methods. Two facies
environments were considered: skeletal mound and
slope to basin. Interpretation of each facies
association was supported by thin section
petrographic analysis. The boundary between
skeletal mound and slope to basin was obvious in
seismic attribute mean amplitude processing.
The Deterministic method was accomplished by
creating polygons that described the lateral
boundaries between skeletal mound and slope to
basin facies associations. Polygons were used to
provide directional trends and establish boundaries
for the distribution of facies associations from all
wells by a stochastic method. The Stochastic
method used for distribution was the algorithm of
Truncated Gaussian Simulation (TGS). Algorithm
TGS is a method of facies modeling suitable for
reservoir units or facies that comprise layered /
stratified facies packages (Matheron et al., 1987).
The results from the distribution of facies
associations show that there is a clear boundary
between the skeletal mound and slope to basin
facies in the 3D facies association model (Figure18).
The geological model of facies association
provides a reference for the distribution of other
reservoir properties. In this study, the distribution of
rock type, porosity and permeability were input to
the model of skeletal mound facies, but no

distribution was input for the slope to basin facies,

because this facies is not penetrated/present in
either of KRID-04 and KRIE-02 wells.
Distribution of Rock Type
Modelling the distribution of rock types in the upper
interval of the Baturaja limestone reservoir was
controlled by the distribution of facies associations.
Distribution of rock type in the skeletal mound
facies was run using the stochastic algorithm of
Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS). The
algorithm of the SIS modeling technique is pixel
based, purely statistic, permitting directional trend
and representation of facies distribution for many
wells (Setyadi, 2013).
Modelling the distribution of rock type with the SIS
algorithm was run after data analysis and the
creation of variograms for each rock type in the
skeletal mound facies. Results show that for the
UBR sequence in Krisna Field, RT3 is the dominant
rock type distributed throughout the reservoir and
especially in the upper portion (Figure 19). On the
other hand, around the edge of the field, the
distribution is of lower quality reservoir rock types
(RT1 and RT2) which are interpreted as being inside
the transition zone, close to the slope to basin
facies.
Validation for the distribution of rock types comes
from the histogram data that shows equal trends
between the input data and modelling data results.
Cross checks against reference well, KRID-04,
show that rock type distribution derived from
modelling is comparable with rock type results
obtained using the PGS method of analysis.
Distribution of Porosity
A stochastic method, Sequential Gaussian
Simulation (SGS), was used to distribute porosity.
The SGS method is a simulation procedure that uses
Krigging Mean Variance to create data with a
Gaussian probability distribution. SGS begins with
well data then simulated by another random grid
(Munadi, 2005). Modelling the distribution of
porosity using the SGS algorithm was run after data
analysis and the created variogram was controlled
by rock type distribution.
Results from the distribution of porosity in the UBR
reservoir show porosity in the range 15% - 20% is
dominant. A fence diagram (Figure-20) shows that
continuity of porosity is relatively good and that
low porosity existence is relatively rare. Validation
for the distribution of porosity using histogram data
shows similar trends between input data and

modeling data results. Cross checking with the

reference well KRID-04 shows that porosity
distribution derived from modeling is representative
with porosity obtained by analysis using the PGS
method.
Distribution of Permeability
Modelling of permeability distribution depends on
previous distributions, rock type and porosity. RT
analysis provided cross plots of porosity vs
permeability for each rock type. To achieve a linear
distribution, permeability values were converted
into logarithmic numbers for a new cross plot of
porosity vs permeability for each rock type (Figure21).
The equations for each rock type could then be
used to calculate values and distribution of
permeability, based on rock type and porosity.
After the distribution of permeability was
completed, the caculation of the anti-log was run to
obtain logarithmic permeability values. Results
show that the distribution of rock type is in line with
the distribution of porosity and permeability
(Figure-22). Validation of the distribution of
permeability was confirmed by histogram data that
shows similar trends between input data and
modeling data results. Cross checking against the
reference well KRID-04 shows that permeability
distribution derived from modeling is representative
of porosities obtained by the PGS method.
This study demonstrates that the distribution of rock
type, porosity, permeability, heterogeneity and
connectivity in limestones from the upper interval
of the Baturaja Formation can be determined with a
fair degree of confidence. The distribution model
will now be used for dynamic simulation before the
model is finally confirmed and becomes the
reference base reservoir model for the next phase of
development and water injection scenarios.
CONCLUSION
The upper interval of the Baturaja Formation
limestone reservoir in Krisna Field, at platforms D
and E, can be divided into two facies associations:
skeletal mound and slope to basin. This
interpretation is supported by seismic attribute mean
amplitude processing and thin section petrographic
analysis of core samples from KRID-04 and KRIE02
wells. From this, five lithofacies were defined:
foraminifera shale, planktonic foraminifera
packstone, skeletal wackestone, skeletal packstone,

and benthic foraminifera packstone. Understanding

the geometries of facies distribution was determined
from the interpretation of the seismic mean
amplitude attribute.
Rock type identification using Pore Geometry
Structure analysis was used to assess reservoir
heterogeneity and resulted in the identification of
six RT s, each with specific porosity and
permeability trends. These were found to be nonrelated to lithofacies, but correlated to pore types
and sizes. The six rock types are RT1 associated
with interparticle-moldic micropore, RT2 associated
with interparticle mesopore, RT3 associated with
interparticle-moldic mesopore, RT4 associated with
interparticle-moldic macropore, RT5 associated
with vuggy-moldic macropore, and RT6 associated
with vuggy-channeling.
Rock type distribution controls the distribution of
porosity and permeability and these in turn are the
main factors determining heterogeneity and
connectivity within the UBR reservoir. Results from
this study will provide input for dynamic
simulation, and ultimately provide a reference base
for the next phase of field development and for
water injection scenarios in Krisna Field.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the management of
CNOOC SES Ltd (Pak Sun Pengxiao, Pak Mulyo,
and Pak Susandhi), SKKMigas, and MIGAS for
their support of this study and permission to
publish. Thanks to our professors from ITB for their
support and advice during study, to our collegues in
the ITB magister class and in the Explotation Dept.,
CNOOC SES LTd., and to Dr. Park for helpful
suggestions during final editing.
REFERENCES
Binbrek, N., G. E. Burgon, Imron A., K. I. Martin,
A. G. Randall, Robianto S., and Sudarmono.
(1988): Krisna Upper Baturaja field study, Laporan
internal.
Choquette, P. W., and L.C. Pray. (1970): Geologic
nomenclature and classification of porosity in
sedimentary carbonates, AAPG Bulletin, v. 54, no.
2, page 207-250.
Gomaa, E. E. (2009): Reliability and consistency of
core analysis and laboratory PVT data, In-House
Training Course.
Gunter, G. W., J. J. Pich, J. M. Finneran, D. J.
Hartman, and J. D. Miller. (1997): Early
determination of reservoir flow units using an

integrated petrophysical method, SPE, 38679.

Lemigas, (1985): Krisna Upper Baturaja reservoir
study, Laporan internal.
Lonoy, A. (2006): Making sense of carbonate pore
system, AAPG Bulettin v.90, no. 9, page 13811405.
Lucia, F. J. (1995): Rock-fabric/petrophysical
classification of carbonate pore space for reservoir
characterization, AAPG Bulletin, v. 79, no. 9, page
1275-1300.
Matheron, G., H. Beucher, H. de Foucquet, A.,
Galli, D. Guerrliot, and C. Ravenne, (1987):
Conditional simulation of the geometry of fluviodeltaic
reservoirs, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, SPE paper 16753, page
1-9.
Munadi, S. (2005): Pengantar Geostatistik, Program
Pasca Sarjana Fisika UI, page 78.
Park, R. K., Albert Matter, and Paul C. Tonkin.
(1995). Porosity Evaluation in The Batu Raja
Carbonates of The Sunda Basin
Windows of
Opportunity. Proceedings IPA 24th Annual
Convention.
Permadi, P., and A. Susilo. (2009): Permeability
Prediction and Characteristics of Pore Structure and
Geometry as Inferred from Core Data, SPE,
125350.
Setyadi, A. L., (2013): Use Geostatistical modeling
for reservoir characterization, SCU, page 374-434.
Walker, R. G., and N.P. James. (1992): Facies
models, Geological Association of Canada, page
265-375.
Wight, A., Sudarmono, and Imron A. (1986):
Stratigraphic response to structural evolution in a
tensional back-arc setting and its exploratory
significance: Sunda Basin, West Java Sea,
Proceedings IPA 15th Annual Convention, 77 100.
Young, R., W. E. Harmony, Gunawan Juniarto, and
Budiyento Thomas. (1991). Widuri Field, Offshore
Southeast Sumatra: Sandbody Geometries and The
Reservoir Model. Proceedings IPA 24th Annual
Convention.

Figure 1 - Location of Krisna Field platform D & E.

Figure 2 - Stratigraphic column of Sunda Basin (Wight et al.,1986).

1600
1200
800
400
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
2010
11
12
13
2010
11
12
13
Figure 3 - Variance of liquid and water cut production profile in Krisna UBR wel
ls.
Liquid Rate (Cal. Day) (bbl/d)
KRID-01:BR
KRID-03:BR
KRID-06S:BR
KRID-07:BR
KRID-08:BR
KRID-09:BR
KRID-12:BR
KRIE-02:BR
KRIE-04:BR
KRIE-07:BR
KRIE-08:BR
KRIE-09:BR
Water Cut (%)
KRID-01:BR
KRID-03:BR
KRID-06S:BR
KRID-07:BR

KRID-08:BR
KRID-09:BR
KRID-12:BR
KRIE-02:BR
KRIE-04:BR
KRIE-07:BR
KRIE-08:BR
KRIE-09:BR
Figure 4 - Seismic section flattened on Gumai Fm.

Figure 5 - Thin section analysis for lithofacies foraminifera shale (A1), plankt
onic foraminifera packstone
(B1, B2, B3).
Figure 6 -Thin section analysis for lithofacies skeletal wackestone (C1, C2, C3)
, skeletal packstone (D1).

Figure 7 - Thin section analysis for lithofacies bentic foraminifera packstone (

E1-E3).
Figure 8 - The UBR in Krisna Field can be classified as a skeletal mound (Walker
& James, 1992). This is
supported by thin section petrographic analysis of the lithofacies present which
shows these
limestones are dominated by skeletal components, chiefly echinoid and mollusc.

Figure 9 - Mean amplidute correlated with Krisna s wells.

Figure 10 - Cross plot porosity vs permeability without correlation.

Figure 11 - Cross plot PGS method between (k/f)0.5 with C, UBR identified has 6
rock types.
Figure 12 - J-Function curves have no correlation with rock type in UBR.

Figure 13 - Cross plot porosity vs permeability with clear variation of rock typ
es in UBR.
Figure 14 - Rock types resulted from PGS method have no correlation with lithofa
cies.

Figure 15 - Rock type classification based on pore size (Lonoy, 2006).

Figure 16 - Rock types in UBR associated with specific pore size.

Figure 17 -Comparison between rock types vertical distribution resulted by PGS a

nd observation with
rock types resulted by neral network method, from KRID-04 and KRIE-02 well.
Figure 18 - Polygon (A) and distribution model of facies association (B).

Figure 19 - Distribution of rock types in UBR limestone, Krisna D&E.

Figure 20 - Distribution of porosity in UBR limestone, KRisna D&E.

Figure 21 -Formula from each rock type in cross plot porosity vs permeability, t
hat used to determine
permeability from porosity model.
Figure 22 - Distribution of permeability in UBR limestone, Krisna D&E.