ANALYSIS OF 2D ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE INVERSION TO DETERMINE

GAS RESERVOIR ZONE WITH STRATIGRAPHIC TRAP OF BATU RAJA

FORMATION AT 'TERRA' FIELD, SOUTH SUMATERA BASIN

Anugrah M. Puar1, Sigit Sukmono1, Dona S. Ambarsari1, M. N. Alamsyah2, Mawar I. Nursina2

1)
Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering - Institute Technology of Bandung, Jl. Ganesha No. 10
Bandung 40132. E-mail: 91.anugrahmp@gmail.com
2)
PetroChina International Jabung Limited – Kuningan Tower, Jl. HR. Rasuna Said Blok X-7,
Kuningan, South Jakarta 12940.

Abstract

South Sumatera Basin is one of the Indonesia’s main hydrocarbon-producing basins. The 'TERRA'
field is an example of area in South Sumatra that has a hydrocarbon potential. If we analyze total gas
value from mudlog and resistivity from well logging, carbonate reservoir of Batu Raja Formation is
one of the potency. In order to increase production results, drilling needs to be done at an
exactdevelopment area that has a hydrocarbon potential which we know correctlyafter seismic
interpretation. Interpretation will be helped by using cosine of phase that will help to interpret the weak
coherent reflector. Then, based on the sensitivity analysis by plot Accoustic Impedance (AI) with
neutron porosity, AI can separate limestone zones with other lithologies. Therefore, the AI inversion
model based methodis used to identify the reservoir zone more accurately after seismic attributes
analysis. The result of these inversions will be sliced to obtain the AI distribution laterally. Then, the
map of AI will be transformed into neutron porosity distribution map by using linier regression. As the
result, there are two prospect area that have characteristic of low AI value and high neutron porosity.
First, it’s located in the northwestern part of the study area, precisely near well KEN-AMP-1. It's
estimated because this high area is dissoluted. Second location is near well SUL-AMP-1 because there
are fractures due to tectonic processes. Stratigraphic trap is developed in this area since the gas is not
accumulated near faults, not either in the heights.

Keywords: AI inversion, limestone, neutron porosity, stratigraphic trap

I. Introduction ‘TERRA’ field hypothetically from total gas in

Hydrocarbon, especially oil and gas, still plays
an important role as primary energy sources in
daily life. In spite of oil and gas prices
nowadays decrease, it doesn’t occur in oil and
gas demand. There are plenty of field in
Indonesia that could be developed and need to
be re-evaluated because the results are not
satisfactory enough, for example South
Sumatera Basin, specifically ‘TERRA’ field.
South Sumatera basin is the back-arc basin and
one of the country’s main hydrocarbon-
producing basins. We know the potency in
mudlog and wireline logging respond, such as
resistivity. One of the formation that show
potency of hydrocarbon is Batu Raja
Formation. Figure 1, the regional stratigraphic
column, (Ginger & Fielding, 2005) shows that
the oldest formation in this basin is basement
which was formed at pre-tertiary. This basin
has 10 formations : (from oldest to youngest)
basement, Lahat Formation, Lemat Formation,
Talang Akar Formation, Batu Raja Formation,
Gumai Formation, Air Benakat Formation,
Muara Enim Formation, Kasai Formation and

1
Alluvium. All of that formation are deposited
in four different megasequence, started with
pre-rift when basement is formed. Then syn-
rift, or known as extensional tectonic event as
a result of subduction along the West
Sumatran Trench. This megasequence resulted
in the forming of numerous half-graben
structure. Lahat Formation until Talang Akar
formation are deposited during syn-rift
megasequence. Third megasequence is post-
rift that didn’t show any tectonic activity
evidence, but relative sea level increase and
reached its maximum level of transgression
when Gumai Formation is deposited. Last
megasequence is syn-inversion or
transpressional which is occurred until
alluvium is deposited.
Figure 1. Regional stratigraphic column, (Ginger &
Fielding, 2005)
Figure 2. Batu Raja Formation palaeogeography
(Ginger & Fielding, 2005)
2
In the South Sumatera Basin, Talang Akar
Formation is the dominant source rock with
Central Palembang Depression which is
located at north-east part of ‘TERRA’ field as
the kitchen (LAPI ITB, …..). Lemat/Lahat
could also be a source rock. Batu Raja
Formation are the reservoir and the main target
of this study. Marine shales of Gumai
Formation provide the best quality seal.
Study area is shown by black square in figure
2 and its facies is dominated by shelf/platform
carbonate (light blue color) and open marine
shale (gray color). It also shows this area was
far from the mainland. Theoretically the
limestone will be thin and mud supported.
This is validated by analyze the mudlog and
wireline logging, especially with properties of
low gamma ray and high photoelectric
Therefore, conventional seismic interpretation
will have problem in identifying limestone in
this area since it’s thinner than tunning
thickness. To overcome the problem, acoustic
impedance (AI) inversion were used to
identify limestone for this study
II. Methodology
AI inversion is the technique for creating sub-
surface geological model using seismic data as
an input, then do a deconvolution process
between the seismic data and wavelet to
produce AI section as an output. Since seismic
data are missing low frequencies information,
well log data is mainly used to complete
frequency spectrum.
AI section gives more accurate sub-surface
image than conventional seismic because AI is
a layer property, meanwhile seismic
amplitudes are attributes of layer boundaries.
AI analysis technique that used in this study is
model-based. The principle of this technique is
shown in figure 4. Some main steps before
inversion that involved in this study are mis-tie
analysis, well correlation, picking horizon and
sensitivity analysis. All of the processes will
be discussed below :
Mis-tie analysis. Seismic data available in this
study area are 2D post-stack time migration
seismic data from seven different vintage,
namely vintage before 1980, 1980, 1982,
1990, 1991, 2002 and 2006. Different vintage
seismic data causes differences in time shift
and amplitude due to differences in data
acquisition, as well as differences in the
quality of processing of seismic data. Figure 5
shows arbitrary line seismic after mis-tie
analysis.
Well correlation. To validate the morphology
of Batu Raja Formation that we already knew
from palaeogeography (Figure 2) and also aim
to be a interpretations guide. These process is
done by place Top and Base BRF at the layers
which are dominated by limestones after log
GR, PEF, density are analyzed and controlled
by mudlog data.
To find out the morphology of the Batu Raja
Formation when it was first deposited and has
not been exposed to deformation, flattening
was performed on Base BRF markers.
technology. The second reason is that this
vintage is the most widely spread from north
to south if we compare it to vintage 2006
which is only found in the southern part of
study area. The last reason is there are many
well data that located exactly in vintage 2002.
There are 4 wells that control the inversion
results. Figure 7 shows the final results of trial
& error determination of inversion parameters
after getting the best correlation between AI
extracted from the final inversion results with
the original AI from well. In addition, the
thing that also needs to be considered is the
correlation between synthetic trace data from
inversion results with input seismic trace.

Picking horizon. In this study, picking three

horizons is done : basement, top BRF, and top
TAF on all vintage so that geological
conditions can be known more widely and
accurately because the distance between
seismic data is closer if using all vintage.

In seismic sections, basement horizon has a

peak amplitude characteristic, and is exactly
above the reflection free pattern. Picking top
TAF is done based on marker which position Figure 3. Model-based inversion flow chart
has been corrected by the well-seismic tie (Russel, 1998)
process. Picking top BRF is also based on the
marker data available from well and according
to the relatively strong amplitude peak
characteristics. The cosine phase attribute is
used to assist the fault & picking horizon
because it can clarify the continuity of the
layer.

Sensitivity analysis. Density and sonic logs

are used to compute AI. Then, GR and PEF
data to differentiate limestone with other
lithology. Figure 6 shows a typical crossplot
for Batu Raja formation where limestone have Figure 4. Arbitrary line of seismic data after
lower neutron porosity value and higher AI. mis-tie analysis is done
So for this study, AI inversion will show
limestone layer effectively.

Analysis of AI inversion. Vintage 2002 is the

vintage that will be done AI inversion because
it is classified as new seismic data and is
assumed to have been processed with newer

3
 a a
Figure 5.Structure from well correlation
(flatten on SSTVD = 0)
a
Figure 6. Log property Crossplot of BRF(a) in
PI-AMP-2 well and (b) KEN-AMP-
2 well, show that AI of the
limestone is higher than other
lithology
4
b
c
Figure 7. Pre - inversion analysis result
a.PI-AMP-1,b.PI-AMP-2 c.GAM-
AMP-1, d. KEN-AMP-1
III. Analysis and Discussion
In general, the crossplot results between AI
and neutron porosity show that these two
parameters have a linear relationship. The
higher the acoustic impedance value, the
neutron porosity value will be lower, and vice
versa. Thus, a map of the distribution of
neutron porosity values can be made by
transforming the acoustic impedance map with
linear regression between acoustic impedance
and neutron porosity parameters.

Then based on the crossplot results, it is

known that the AI cut-off value is 30,500 ((ft /
s) (g / cc)) in the area around well PI-AMP-1
& 2. Whereas in the area near well KEN-
AMP-1 & 2, the AI cut-off value is 23,500 ((ft
/ s) (g / cc)). In addition, the cut-off values of
GR and PEF in the KEN-AMP and PI-AMP
wells are also different, so that the limestones
in the two regions are interpreted as two
Figure 8 The thickness contour of the
different types of limestones. This is
carbonate from well correlation
evidenced by the contour of the thickness of
results. The location of KEN-
the stone in Figure 8 and the shape of the
AMP (marked by a black circle) is
gamma ray log which is relatively different in
seen in a different zone with the
shape, which is shown by figure 9.
location of the PI-AMP (marked
with a red circle)

Figure 9. Morphology form of BRF when it deposited (flatten on base BRF)

Figure 10. Penampang AI line 10 Figure 11. Penampang AI line 2

5
In Figure 10 there is a high AI value in the
well PI-AMP-2 position and the well PI-AMP-
1 projection, indicated by light blue with a
value of around 30,500 ((ft /s) (g /cc)). The
high AI value is interpreted as a relatively
more tight limestone and there is no indication
of the presence of gas, according to the low
total gas data of both well PI-AMP-1 and PI-
AMP-2.
Whereas in Figure 11 it shows well KEN-
AMP-1 which has a high total gas value (573
units. Well KEN-AMP-1 is located in the low
AI zone, which is shown in yellowish green
with an AI value <12,000 ((ft / s) (g / cc))).
This zone is indicated as a gas zone, marked
by a black circle in Figure above. While the
red layer which is limited by the two results of
picking horizons process, is interpreted as a
limestone with a relatively high AI value
according to the cut-off value obtained from
the crossplot, which is around 23,500 ((ft / s)
(g / cc)). Recommendations for development
wells are chosen based on the existence of a
same low AI value as the location of KEN-
AMP-1.
area, precisely near the KEN-AMP-1 well.
This is estimated due to the dissolution
diagenesis when the rock is exposed to the
surface. This estimate can be strengthened by
Figure 17.
Near the location of the SUL-AMP-1 well,
there are also areas with relatively high
neutron porosity values (marked with a yellow
circle). At this location, relatively high neutron
porosity is estimated due to fracture resulting
from tectonic processes, as evidenced by the
fault shown in Figure 15. Meanwhile, near the
location of PI-AMP-1 & 2 wells, there is no
location that has a comparable neutron
porosity value to the location near SUL-AMP-
1 and KEN-AMP wells.

Slice process of AI average value from the

BRF top horizon to the TAF top horizon is
occurred. Then the result will be interpolated
to get AI distribution map that shown in
Figure 12. When compared with depth
structure maps in Figure 13, well KEN-AMP-1
Figure 12. AI value distribution map
has a low AI value because the total gas height
is on a relatively high contour. Whereas well
SUL-AMP-1 which also has a high total gas
value, is at a low contour. After we analyzed
the seismic cross section in figure 16, it can be
interpreted that the trap type is stratigraphy
because the gas accumulates in the low area,
not at high or neither near the fault. As
additional evidence, the results of the LAPI
ITB research in the form of a petroleum
system table (table 1) provide information that
gas began to migrate and accumulate since 35
million years ago or before the faults
developed.

Figure 14 shows a map of the distribution of

neutron porosity values from linear regression Figure 13. Depth structure map of BRF
AI with neutron porosity. It can be seen that
the regions with a high neutron porosity value
(light blue-dark blue) are generally located in
the high area, which is to the west of research

6
 Figure 14. Neutron porosity distribution map
Figure 16. Conventional seismic section which
goes through well SUL-AMP-1
Tabel 1. Petroleum System Table (LAPI ITB)
7
Figure 15. Illustration of the discontinuous lateral
distribution of BRF due to fault at the
relatively low area near SUL-AMP-1
Figure 17. Conventional seismic section which show
possibility that high neutron porosity at
KEN-AMP-1 location due to the
dissolution diagenesis when the rock is
exposed to the surface
IV. Conclusion and Suggestion
Based on the analysis that has been done, it
can be concluded:
1. log parameters that can effectively
separating limestones with other lithologies
as a reservoir characteristic of Batu Raja
Formation, are acoustic impedances (AI)
and neutron porosity to separate porous
zones from the tight ones.
2. A potential BRF gas reservoir zone is
located at the North-west part of the KEN-
AMP-1 well and near the SUL-AMP-1
well. This indication is preceded by a high
total gas value in both wells, then it is
proven by low AI value and high neutron
porosity at the location near them
Suggestions for further research to get better
results and be able to determine reservoir
zones more validly are:
1. Perform petrophysical analysis to produce
complementary logs such as effective
porosity and water saturation as a
differentiator between hydrocarbon and
water responses.
2. Acquired 3D seismic data in the area
around KEN-AMP-1 and SUL-AMP-1 to
obtain a more valid AI distribution map.
3. Processing with newer technologies to
produce better quality seismic data. So that
the interpretation will be more accurate
4. Acquire velocity of S wave log data (Vs) in
order to be able to do inversions which can
be analyzed further such as simultaneous
inversion or mu-rho, lamda-rho
V. References
Bishop, G.M. 2001. South Sumatra Basin
Province, Indonesia: The
Lahat/Talang Akar-Cenozoic Total
Petroleum System. USGS, Colorado.
Fatmasari, Nanda W. 2018 :Analisis Inversi
Impedansi Akustik Untuk Mendukung
Penentuan Zona Prospek Dan
Daerah Pengembangan Pada
Reservoir Baturaja di Lapangan
”NND” Cekungan Jawa Barat Utara,
Tugas Akhir Program Sarjana,
Institut Teknologi Bandung.
Ginger, D. dan Fielding, K. 2005.The
Petroleum Systems and Future
Potential of the South Sumatra Basin.
Indonesia Petroleum Association
Thirtieth Annual Convention &
Exhibition
Russell, Brian. H., 1998, Introduction to
Seismic Inversion Methods, Society
of Exploration Geophysicist
Saraswati, Sasti. 2016. Pemetaan Persebaran
Reservoar Karbonat Lapangan ‘S’
Menggunakan Metode Seismik
Inversi, Tugas Akhir Program
Sarjana, Institut Teknologi Bandung
Sheriff, R. E., 2001, Encyclopedic dictionary
of exploration geophysics, 4thed :
SEG Geophysical Reference Series
No. 1.
Studi Internal : Structural Geology Study,
Modelling and Fault Seal Analysis of
Bangko Field. 2008. PT. LAPI ITB
Sukmono, S., 1999. Interpretasi Seismik
Refleksi. Teknik Geofisika, Institut
Teknologi Bandung. Bandung.
Sukmono, S., 2000.Seismik Inversi untuk
Karakteristik Reservoir. Teknik
Geofisika, Institut Teknologi
Bandung. Bandung.
Sukmono, S., 2002, Seismic Inversion & AVO
Analysis for Reservoir
Characterization, Bandung:
DepartemenTeknik Geofisika ITB
Sukmono, S., 2007, Application of multi-
attribute analysis in mapping
lithology and porosity in the
Pematang-Sihapas groups of Central
Sumatra Basin, Indonesia.The
Leading Edge p. 126-131