What matters for flow and AUTHORS

recovery in carbonate gas Georg M. D. Warrlich ~ Shell Kuwait

Exploration and Production BV, Safat, Kuwait;
gwarrlich@hotmail.com, g.warrlich@shell.
reservoirs: Insights from the com

mature Central Luconia Georg Warrlich is currently a geoscience lead

at Shell Kuwait. He received his B.A. degree
(honors) in natural sciences from Cambridge
Province, offshore University and a Ph.D. from London University.
Previously, he worked with Shell Malaysia as
Sarawak, Malaysia subsurface development and discipline lead,
Petroleum Development Oman as geologist
and project manager, and Shell’s carbonate
Georg M. D. Warrlich, Erwin W. Adams, Artur Ryba, development team after holding a postdoctoral
Tommy Tam, King King Ting, and Hooi-Koon Tang position at Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Cientı́ficas, Barcelona. He has a passion for
carbonates and is a Shell subject matter expert
for carbonate reservoir geology.
ABSTRACT
Miocene carbonate reservoirs in Central Luconia, offshore Erwin W. Adams ~ Exploration
Department, Petroleum Development Oman,
Sarawak, Malaysia, have been delivering gas for over 30 yr. In this
Muscat, Oman; erwin_adams@yahoo.com,
paper, learnings from that period of production are used to un- Erwin.Adams@shell.com
derstand the key drivers affecting flow during production and
Erwin Adams received his M.Sc. degree (1996)
recovery optimization in existing fields as well as development
and Ph.D. (2001) in geology at the Vrije
decisions for new discoveries. The large data set, generated over more Universiteit Amsterdam and successively
than 40 yr, was analyzed in a consistent manner through a holistic worked for 3 years as a postdoc at the
database, constrained by a stratigraphic framework, to allow reservoir Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Erwin
units to be compared like-for-like (“integrated knowledge base” [IKB] has been working for Shell since 2004. He
concept). Carbonate reservoir heterogeneities impacting flow are started in Shell Research in the Netherlands,
grouped into “horizontal–heterogeneities”—argillaceous flooding moved to Shell Malaysia with roles in
layers and exposure-related karst—and “vertical–heterogeneities”— exploration and development, and currently
is working in the Exploration Department at
large-scale architectural elements, found especially along platform
Petroleum Development Oman. His research
margins. Both types of heterogeneities control water ingress during interest focuses on characterizing and
production and influence the recovery mechanism. Argillaceous understanding the architectural evolution of
flooding layers can act as baffles, holding back water rise during carbonate depositional systems.
production, or can form pressure compartments. Long-lived, fault-
Artur Ryba ~ Sarawak Shell Berhad,
bounded reef margins, carbonate shoals, islands, and karsts can be
Lutong, Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia; Artur.
vertical conduits for aquifer inflow. Platform shape and architecture
Ryba@shell.com
impact column height and hence recovery efficiency. Additional
Artur Ryba is currently a reservoir engineer
drivers impacting recovery were found to be gas-column height,
at Shell Malaysia. He carries his M.Sc. degree
aquifer size and permeability, pressure connection to neighboring
and Ph.D. in petroleum engineering from the
fields, and field development concepts. All drivers identified impact University of Science and Technology (AGH)
decisions throughout the field life, e.g., well count and design, in- in Krakow, Poland. Before joining Shell, he
tervention capabilities, evaluation and mitigation of early-water worked as reservoir engineer with subsurface
consulting companies in Holland and Malaysia.
He is an experienced modeler and a Shell
Copyright ©2019. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
subject matter expert for integrated reservoir
Manuscript received May 9, 2017; provisional acceptance October 10, 2017; revised manuscript received
modeling.
January 22, 2018; final acceptance September 5, 2018.
DOI:10.1306/09051817219

AAPG Bulletin, v. 103, no. 3 (March 2019), pp. 691–721 691

 Tommy Tam ~ Sarawak Shell Berhad,
Lutong, Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia; Tommy.
Tam@shell.com
Tommy Tam has been a production geologist at
Sarawak Shell Berhad since 2008. He received
his B.S. degree from University of Malaya in
applied geology and his master of petroleum
engineering from Curtin University.
King King Ting ~ Sarawak Shell Berhad,
Lutong, Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia; King-King.
Ting@shell.com
King King Ting is currently a sedimentologist
at Shell Malaysia, with hands-on industry
experience researching and developing
carbonate reservoirs as her main specialty. Her
research interests are petrophysical behavior of
carbonate rock and integrated facies model
study. She holds a master’s degree from
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS.
Hooi-Koon Tang ~ Shell Malaysia, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia; Hooi-Koon.Tang@shell.
com
Hooi-Koon Tang is currently a senior reservoir
engineer at Shell Malaysia. She received her
bachelor of engineering (Hons.) Mechanical
from Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (2005). At
Shell Malaysia, she has worked in various asset
teams and has a good working knowledge
of different geological and operating
environments. She is strong in delivering field
development plans and applying different
integrated reservoir modeling approaches.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Shell, PETRONAS,
PETRONAS Carigali, and JX Nippon for
consenting to the publication of this paper.
Technical work contributions from Cat
Burgess, Edwin Chiew, Danielle Palm,
Mas-Nur Rabani, Cindy Chong, Raffik Lazar,
Chim Liang Hua, Anthony O’Connell, Ed Koša,
and many other colleagues are thankfully
acknowledged. Paul Wagner, Yen Li Choong,
and Roald Rijnbeek as well as Jessica
Matthews and two anonymous AAPG
reviewers are thanked for review
and constructive feedback.
692 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
breakthrough, reservoir management, selecting enhanced recovery
methods, and abandonment pressure. The IKB allowed to derive “big
rules” on what matters for flow, which were used to decide on de-
velopment strategies for greenfields in Central Luconia. The pre-
sented outcomes can be extrapolated to comparable carbonate
systems, whereas the IKB approach can be adapted and applied to
other mature basins and reservoir types where equally vast and
historic data sets are awaiting to be used in the current era of
digitalization.
INTRODUCTION
Quantitatively predicting the recoverable volumes and pro-
duction rates of hydrocarbons as well as associated water and
contaminants based on very limited subsurface data are funda-
mental tasks of an integrated subsurface team in the oil and gas
industry. This is most challenging and most important during the
early phase of a field development, when capital-intensive in-
vestment decisions on number and design of wells, facility sizing,
materials, and processing capabilities (e.g., water handling) must
be made. Yet, in the early stage of development, the uncertainties
on the field to be developed are biggest: limited well and no or only
sparse production data are available. An obvious and common
practice in the global exploration and production industry is to
benchmark and use data from mature existing fields to reduce
uncertainties and predict reservoir flow behavior and ultimate
recovery. Choosing appropriate analogs is key in this process
(i.e., finding mature fields that exhibit similarities to the targeted
development). This is often possible within a basin if a set of fields
share a similar geological history (both depositional and burial),
trap and seal configuration, hydrocarbon fill, and development
methodology. However, as no two fields are the same, it is helpful
to delineate the dynamic impact of key features (e.g., reservoir
heterogeneities, aquifer strength, hydrocarbon column height) and
investigate if these apply to the reservoir development in question.
In the geological province of Central Luconia, offshore Sar-
awak, northwest Borneo, Malaysia, with an aerial extent of some
45,000 km2 (17,375 mi2), over 250 isolated carbonate buildups
have aggraded mainly from a middle Miocene substrate. Ap-
proximately 65 tcf of recoverable gas and minor oil volumes have
been discovered to date in these buildups, and the fields have been
delivering gas for over 30 yr (Scherer, 1980; Mahmud and Saleh,
1999; Khazali et al., 2013; Koša et al., 2015 and references
therein). During this period, petroleum engineers have been
collecting large amounts of static and dynamic data by exploring,
appraising, and producing these carbonate platforms (e.g., Epting,
1980, Vahrenkamp et al., 2004, Arsat et al., 2010), resulting in
a world-class data set to identify and investigate key features that
affect flow and recovery and to quantify their impact.
This paper is based on data collected from more
than 30 fields that can be used to maximize recovery
of producing fields, develop new fields more effi-
ciently, and reduce drilling and operations hazards.
Organizing a vast, diverse, sophisticated, and legacy
data set is a challenge in itself. In this study, an
“integrated knowledge base” (IKB) is used that
combines reservoir-specific data (e.g., core, logs, tops,
pressure, production, and three-dimensional [3-D]
seismic data) with regional seismic data and delineates
them using a basin-wide stratigraphic framework
interpretation. The IKB was used to correlate in-
dividual reservoir zones between the producing and
to-be-developed fields to use the most appropriate
analogs (Chiew et al., 2016).
Primary depositional facies variability and stack-
ing architecture, diagenetic overprint, and faults and
fractures are the common controls on reservoir
compartmentalization and high-permeability path-
ways and thus flow behavior in hydrocarbon res-
ervoirs (e.g., Jolley et al., 2010 and papers and
references therein). In the Central Luconia gas fields,
depositional, early diagenetic, and, to some extent,
structural processes were found to be important in
creating reservoir heterogeneities that baffle or ac-
celerate flow during production (Epting, 1980, 1989;
Bracco Gartner et al., 2004; Vahrenkamp et al., 2004;
Zampetti et al., 2004a; Warrlich et al., 2010; Zampetti,
2010). In some fields, late diagenetic overprint has led
to property enhancement in muddy sediments (dis-
solution, leaching) and degradation in grainstones
(cementation) but has been found to be mainly con-
forming with the depositional architecture. Diagenetic
geobodies crosscutting depositional strata, tectonically
induced fracture clusters, or corridors significantly
impacting production are observed in the region, but
not in Central Luconia (Warrlich et al., 2010).
This paper describes these observed-to-be-
important reservoir heterogeneities and used the
more than 30 yr of production data to quantify their
impact. It then further discusses what additional
parameters affect flow and recovery. Gas column
height and aquifer strength and connectivity to
neighboring fields, as well as development decisions
such as number of wells and location of perforations
relative to original gas–water contact (OGWC),
abandonment pressure (amount of compression
that is economically justifiable), and the type of
intervention capabilities that can be applied (subsea
tieback vs. platform, probability of success, and cost
of water shutoff [WSO] campaigns), were found
to all have a significant impact on production and
recovery and need to be considered together with
the reservoir heterogeneities to make comprehen-
sive predictions of recovery.
METHODOLOGY—USE OF AN INTEGRATED
KNOWLEDGE BASE
Throughout Central Luconia, subsurface data from
25 producing gas fields and 11 new discoveries were
assimilated into an IKB: a database of static and dy-
namic data combined with a regional stratigraphic
framework that connects and delineates the over-
burden and producing fields into common reservoir
zones and a shared geologic context (Figure 1A; Chiew
et al., 2016). The advantage of an IKB over a standard
reservoir properties spreadsheet database is that the
field data are interrogated and compared within a
shared geologic and correlative framework: Trends and
relationships can be analyzed within genetically related
units, and rules for interpolation of properties between
fields are based on stratigraphic principles. Here the
IKB was used to gain insights on what matters for flow
and recovery and to enable identification of com-
monalities between fields and select appropriate ana-
logs for field development and management.
Database of Static and Dynamic Data
Data types captured include static data and dynamic
data from both recent discoveries and mature fields,
some with over 30 yr of production history. A standard
suite of static subsurface data was assimilated (Tables
1, 2), including regional (two-dimensional) and field-
specific (3-D) seismic data, well-based log and core
data, and biostratigraphic information based on nan-
nofossils. The external geometries and sizes of fields,
internal reservoir architecture, potential horizontal
compartmentalization through flooding and exposure
surfaces, facies and reservoir-quality variability, po-
sitions of faults, fluid-fill controls, and pressure re-
gimes as well as potential communication between
fields were interpreted from these data.
Dynamic data included data on drilling losses and
mud weight to assess karst-prone reservoirs, whereas
WARRLICH ET AL. 693
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of the integrated knowledge base. (A) An analog database is combined with the regional stratigraphic
framework, allowing reservoir units to be compared like-for-like. (B) Organization and setup of the three databases, underpinned by an
interactive search engine. Pet. = petroleum.

production data (rates, pressure, temperature, and
water-cut development) gave insights into dynamic
reservoir properties and the impact of reservoir
heterogeneities on flow (Table 1). Surveillance data
like four-dimensional (4-D) seismic data, water-contact
rise and inflow logging, and dynamic modeling
were integrated to understand water movement in
the reservoir during production, impact of the res-
ervoir heterogeneities on well positioning and offtake
rates, and how to delineate these parameters. Pressure
monitoring and linking it to field offtake gave insights
into pressure connection between fields and the effect
of facies on the strength of this connectivity. Here,
reservoir pressure development P/Z (where P is the
average reservoir pressure and Z the gas compress-
ibility factor) versus cumulative gas production (GP)
analysis was carried out. Changes in P/Z are plotted
against GP, and the shape of the plot provides insights
into the sources of reservoir energy (e.g., a straight line
represents pure depletion drive). To compare reser-
voirs of various size and at different depths in a single
plot, the P/Z and GP were both normalized by di-
vision with Pi/Zi and GIIP, respectively (Pi/Zi is P/Z
at initial, predepletion reservoir conditions and GIIP is
gas initially in place). Hence, P/Z/Pi/Zi = 1 at initial
predepletion conditions and GP/GIIP = 1 at recovery
factor of 100% (theoretical maximum if all GIIP
could be produced). This normalization does not
affect the shape of P/Z plots while enabling com-
parative analysis between fields with different GIIP
and at different initial pressure. Compositional vari-
ations in gas across the basin and monitoring of gas

694 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
Table 1. Static and Dynamic Data Assimilated in the Integrated Knowledge Base and How They Were Used to Assess What Matters for
Flow and Recovery During Production
Data Type
Static data
Regional 2-D and field-specific 3-D seismic
Well logs: gamma ray, porosity, saturation, resistivity, etc.
Core: photos, descriptions; plug porosities, permeabilities,
densities
Biostratigraphic markers (based on nannofossils)
Dynamic data
Drilling data: pressures, losses, kicks, bit drop, mud weights
Initial pressure data and gradients
Production data: perforation depths, gas and water rates,
pressure, temperature, water cut development
Surveillance data: 4-D seismic, water contact rise, inflow logs
Gas composition, contaminants, and changes during
production
Abbreviations: 2-D = two-dimensional; 3-D = three-dimensional; 4-D = four-dimensional.
composition changes and contaminants (CO2, H2S,
N2, Hg) during production were used to investigate
the contribution of different reservoir zones to
production and predict the amount of contamination
and potential impact on the facilities’ material rating
requirements.
Regional Stratigraphic Framework
Construction
Sequence stratigraphic principles were used as the
basis for a common reservoir correlation between
fields and the surrounding overburden strata. A ge-
netically consistent framework was set up to delineate
the reservoir intervals, based on seismic-horizon
mapping of flooding surfaces and sequence bound-
aries as well as biostratigraphic, log, core, pressure,
and production inflow logging data. This allowed in-
terpolating reservoir properties between fields within
Use of Data (Examples)
Correlation of sequence stratigraphic intervals in overburden
and into the platforms
Mapping of key reservoir architectural elements (backsteps,
progradation, etc.), faults, and seismic facies
Reservoir correlation and property evaluation and prediction
Dating of seismic horizons, time correlation between fields and
reservoir zones
Assess karst presence and behavior
Gas-column height evaluation, pressure connection between
reservoirs
Insights on dynamic reservoir properties and the impact of
reservoir heterogeneities on flow, pressure connection
between fields, and the effect of facies on the strength of this
connectivity
Water movement in reservoir during production, impact of the
reservoir heterogeneities on well positioning and offtake rates,
recovery drive mechanism
Contribution of different reservoir zones to production and to
predict the amount of contamination and its potential impact
on the facilities material rating requirements
Central Luconia with more confidence, and linking
comparable heterogeneities in a geological time
framework.
Integrated Knowledge Base Organization
and Use
The combined data sets were quality checked, ro-
bustly organized, and easy to access. The data were
organized in three main containers (Figure 1B). One
common reference project was set up in commer-
cially available subsurface modeling and visualization
software over the course of 1 yr, and it is being
kept up to date regularly, in a coordinated manner.
This reference project contains the available regional
and field-specific static and dynamic data for all fields
detailed in Tables 1 and 2. The framework inter-
pretation was also carried out in this project. This
setup allowed zooming in and out and handling the
WARRLICH ET AL. 695
Table 2. Illustrative Subset of the Field Parameters Assimilated for the Integrated Knowledge Base, with the Example of Fields 1, 2, and 3
Discussed in This Paper

Field Parameters in IKB

(Subset) Field 1 Field 2 Field 3
Discovery year/production 1992/2004 (Rabani et al., 1969/1987 (Kosters et al., 2008; Alessio 1973/1983 (Chiew et al.,
since 2014) et al., 2005) 2016)
Water depth 425 ft (130 m) (Rabani et al., 280 ft (85 m) (Kosters et al., 2008) 300 ft (90 m) (Chiew et al.,
2014) 2016)
Number of production wells 8 (Arsat et al., 2010) 13 (Kosters et al., 2008) 14 (Chiew et al., 2016)
Reservoir area at GWC 44 km2 (17 mi2) (Arsat et al., 90 km2 (35 mi2) (Kosters et al., 2008) 22 km2 (8 mi2) (Chiew et al.,
2010) 2016)
Hydrocarbon thickness 317 ft (97 m) (Arsat et al., 850 ft (260 m) (Alessio et al., 2005) 1060 ft (330 m) (Chiew et al.,
2010) 2016)
Average porosity, p.u. 29 (Arsat et al., 2010) 30 (Kosters et al., 2008) 26 (Chiew et al., 2016)
Likely control for contact Major backstep Backstep/fault Thief sands/fault
position
Major flooding
Layers recorded in fields Zones 8, 6, 4.8 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 3, 4, 5
Layer thickness ranges 8–120 ft (2.5–36 m) 10–50 ft (3–15 m) 5–20 ft (1.5–6 m)
Max. pressure difference ~100 psi ~200 psi N/A
Porosity range, p.u. 3–18 2–15 2–15 (3)
Major exposure
Intervals recorded in fields Zones 9, 5.9 2, 6 2
Cemented zone thickness 10–15 ft (3–4.5 m) 5–15 ft (1.5–4.5 m) 10–40 ft (3–12 m)
range
Cemented zone porosity 6–18 5–15 2–10
range, p.u.
Drive mechanism Water drive Mixed (Figure 6H) Depletion

Only a subset of the data captured for each field is displayed. Many other data types have been captured for each field, as listed in Table 1. The data stored range from log- and
core-derived porosity to reservoir temperature and from gas and water rates to gas composition and contaminants.
Abbreviations: GWC = gas–water contact; IKB = integrated knowledge base; Max. = maximum; N/A = not applicable.

ranges in scale from core to regional seismic data, and
enabled correlation of regional seismic sequence
packages into fields and reservoir zones and to low-
porosity intervals on logs and cores (figures 8–10 in
Chiew et al., 2016).
In addition, a spreadsheet database with field-
specific data (e.g., number of wells) and field-average
data were set up and formatted to allow investiga-
tion using a commercially available interactive search
engine. The search engine was given simultaneous
access to the live production databases, enabling users
to crossplot, trend spot, and gain insights on what
average field parameters impact production. This
setup improved ease of accessibility, user-friendliness,
powerful filtering, delineation, and grouping of data
(ranging from, e.g., stratigraphic position and depositional
setting to recovery mechanism). Compiling the IKB
was a time- and resource-intensive exercise that took
a subsurface team 2 yr of part-time commitment.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND CARBONATE
PLATFORM DEVELOPMENT
The geological province of Central Luconia is well
known, as it comprises hundreds of Miocene car-
bonate buildups that have been studied for many
years (e.g., Epting, 1980, 1989; Yamin Ali and
Abolins, 1999; Masaferro et al., 2004; Vahrenkamp
et al., 2004; Zampetti et al., 2004a, b; Arsat et al.,
2010; Warrlich et al., 2010; Ting et al., 2011; Koša,
2015; Koša et al., 2015). Central Luconia is bounded
to the east and west by rapidly subsiding basins and
deltas (Figure 2, Baram delta and West Luconia delta;

696 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
Figure 2. Geographical and geological location of the Central Luconia geological province and surrounding provinces (modified from
Koša et al., 2015 and used with permission of AAPG).
Hutchison, 2004). To the south, the Balingian prov-
ince consists of similar delta-derived siliciclastic sedi-
ments that have been inverted in the Pliocene (e.g.,
Wilson et al., 2013).
In the Oligocene, a regionally extensive shelf
system formed in Sarawak and continues to develop
to present day (Adams et al., 2012). Ho (1978),
Doust (1981), and Hageman (1987) subdivided the
sediments of the Sarawak shelf into eight transgressive
to regressive cycles (Figure 3). The Sarawak shelf is
dominated by siliciclastic sediments that are erosional
products derived from the mountains in northern
Borneo (Hutchison, 2004). Carbonate deposition
has been recorded throughout the evolution of the
Sarawak shelf but is most noteworthy during times
when delta-derived sediment input was limited
(Adams et al., 2012). In the early Miocene (ca. 20 Ma;
at the onset of cycle II), the siliciclastic shelf system
retreated to the southwest, and as a result, widespread
shelf-margin carbonate deposition occurred in the
distal shelf area in the east of Central Luconia and in
north Luconia (Figure 3; Adams et al., 2013). The
middle to late Miocene is the only period when
carbonate growth encompassed the entire Central
Luconia shelf. This period of widespread carbonate
deposition has been associated with a major regional
unconformity, the so-called mid-Miocene unconfor-
mity (MMU; Van Vliet and Krebs, 2009), which is
recognized along the entire northwest Borneo shelf.
During this time, a large number of north–northeast-
trending normal-to-transtensional faults were formed.
This major extensional event ended in early late
Miocene (ca. 10 Ma). The highs of these fault blocks
provided shallow enough bathymetries for the initiation
of more than 250 carbonate banks and buildups that
started growing and flourished during the subsequent
flooding (Figure 3, base of cycle IV; Epting, 1980; Doust,
1981; Koša, 2015). The widespread initiation and suc-
cessful development of carbonate buildups indicates
that in addition to the carbonate growth–promoting
factors of local highs (provided by the fault highs) and
accommodation (caused by the flooding), diversion of
WARRLICH ET AL. 697
698
What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
Figure 3. Regional seismic cross section through Central Luconia (see Figures 2 and 4 for location) illustrating the extensive shelf system and carbonate buildups that developed since the
Oligocene in Sarawak (modified from Koša et al., 2015). Shown are well data with interpreted lithology, depositional cycles I to VIII (Epting, 1980), sequence stratigraphic horizons, and
environments of deposition. See text for discussion. MMU = mid-Miocene unconformity; TWT = two-way time.
Figure 4. Top carbonate map of Central Luconia (modified from Koša et al., 2015 and used with permission of AAPG). See text for
discussion of link between the regional structural highs, fault patterns, and amount of siliciclastic input on the size, shape, thickness, and
architecture of the carbonate platforms.
siliciclastic sediments into the subsiding basins to the east
and west away from Central Luconia likely occurred at
the same time (Hutchison, 2004).
Most carbonate platforms show aggradational
geometries during their early development phase
(Epting, 1980). The top of cycle IV is defined as
a significant flooding event (Koša, 2015), during which
some platforms drowned or developed backsteps
and/or argillaceous flooding intervals (e.g., Figure 3;
figures 6, 7, 10 in Koša et al., 2015). During cycle V,
significant backstepping and platform drowning has
been recorded (Figure 3; Zampetti et al., 2004a, b;
Koša et al., 2015). Larger platforms that survived
this flooding event aggraded and developed signif-
icant thicknesses. Examples are mainly located on
the central high (Figure 4). Minor progradation and
sediment shedding (“build-out phase” of Epting,
1989; figures 6A, B; 8H in Koša et al., 2015) have
been recorded during the initial part of this overall
aggradational period, that is also reflected by deltaic
progradation in the surrounding clastics (Koša et al.,
2015). In the upper part of cycle V, a switch to
rim formation, backstepping, and final drowning is
observed (figure 8H in Koša et al., 2015). Although
the buildups drown at different times, a lot of the
larger platforms are terminated at the base of the
Pliocene, where deposition of thick shales indicates
yet another major regional flooding event (Figure 3,
base of cycle VI). Few platforms, all located in north
Luconia, with the greatest distance from the sediment
source, continued to grow as small pinnacles during
cycle VI (e.g., figure 13 in Koša et al., 2015), with
even fewer surviving to present day (Figure 4, North
Luconia Shoals). In cycles VI to VIII, siliciclastic
deposition continued in Central Luconia and a major
regional unconformity developed in the late Pliocene
to early Pleistocene, with the southern part of the
Sarawak shelf being inverted and uplifted while the
northern part of the Sarawak shelf rapidly subsided
(Koša, 2015).
WARRLICH ET AL. 699
RESULTS: DESCRIPTION OF KEY RESERVOIR
ARCHITECTURES AND HETEROGENEITIES
THAT MATTER FOR FLOW AND THEIR
DYNAMIC IMPACT, WITH EXAMPLES
Reservoir heterogeneities were classified based on
their overall geometries. They have been grouped
into (1) platform-scale variations in shape and over-
all architecture, (2) horizontal heterogeneities (i.e.,
parallel to stratigraphy), and (3) vertical heteroge-
neities (i.e., large-scale architectural elements that
cross-cut stratigraphy) related to carbonate deposi-
tion, such as reef and slope facies, and associated
faulting that often fringe carbonate platforms. Three
producing gas fields in Central Luconia are used along
with references to other fields and published papers
to document the observations below and to illustrate
the interpretations (Figures 5–7; Tables 2–4).
Platform Shapes and Stratigraphic Architecture
A regional “top carbonate” map is shown in Figure 4.
In between the buildups, the map follows the MMU
(Figure 3, base cycle IV), when most carbonate
buildups started to grow. The envelope of the buildups
traces the lithostratigraphic boundary between silici-
clastic strata and the carbonate buildup tops and flanks.
In other words, it cuts through geological time along
the lithological boundary from clastic to carbonate at
the buildup edges to capture the volumes and shapes of
the carbonate platforms (Koša et al., 2015). As most
carbonates on the shelf started growing at the same
time interval (MMU), the map provides insights on the
factors influencing their development and reveals
a number of key features about their architectures and
properties.
On a large scale, three north–northeast-south–
southwest-trending structural highs are recognized
in Central Luconia, which are separated by the west
trough and the east trough (Figure 4). Flat-topped
platforms with a larger areal extend are commonly
found on the highs, whereas smaller, pinnacle-shaped
buildups are observed in the troughs. On a smaller
scale, and especially visible in the east trough, the
plan-view platform shape orientations are aligned
with the major fault direction, showing a link of the
carbonate platform nucleation loci and fault highs.
The carbonate buildups started as elongated thin
platforms and evolved into pinnacles by backstepping
700 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
and retrogradation in response to ever-increasing
accommodation space (Adams and Hasler, 2010).
This indicates that accommodation variations within
the basin, or bathymetrical highs and lows, were
controlling platform growth in the early stages of
cycles IV and V. On the regional highs, the platforms
either nucleated on larger, shallow-water areas or
coalesced from a number of smaller platforms (Koša
et al., 2015). The platforms here developed signifi-
cant thickness and steep flanks (Figure 4, closely
spaced contour lines of large platforms on the central
high). Slope sediments of these aggrading and pro-
grading phases are interpreted as high-stand shedding
on the regional highs with lower subsidence (e.g.,
Figure 3; figures 8, 10 in Koša et al., 2015). Only later
in their development, toward the top of cycle V for
the central high platforms, do the large platforms
show a shift from aggradation and sediment shedding
on their edges to backstepping geometries with no
export of sediment (Figures 5A, B; 6). The buildups in
the south are in general thinner than their northern
counterparts on the central high or in the mega-
platform (see contour spacing around the buildups in
Figure 4) and ceased production earlier (e.g., figure 17
in Koša et al., 2015). The southern buildups further
show more interfingering of carbonate sediments
and the surrounding siliciclastic strata, resulting in
a dominance of “Christmas tree” or “open-wing”
structures (Vahrenkamp, 1998; Koša et al., 2015).
Buildups with no or little interfingering or “closed
wings” are found toward the shelf edges in the north.
The difference in architecture and earlier demise of
the southern buildups are commonly interpreted as
having been caused by the amount of clastic sediment
input during carbonate growth and hence are linked
to the distance from siliciclastic sediment sources
(Figure 3; Koša et al., 2015).
In summary, accommodation variation con-
trolled by tectonic setting (trough versus high) and
distance to siliciclastic sediment source location both
exerted a strong control on carbonate platform size,
thickness development, shape, and architecture. The
resultant depositional geometries and platform ar-
chitectures, as well as the amount and type of clastic
sediment input during carbonate buildup develop-
ment have a profound impact on the sealing capacity,
hydrocarbon distribution, drive mechanism and recovery
factor of the gas fields. The following trends are
observed: gas-water contacts (GWCs) are often
 Figure 5. Seismic expression and dynamic response of the flooding layers, cemented-exposure, and karst intervals in example field 1. (A) Depth-converted reflectivity seismic cross
section (90° phase shift), with porosity logs and top-of-carbonate interpretation. (B) Horizontal heterogeneities interpreted on seismic image. Flooding layers (blue) are associated with

WARRLICH ET AL.
platform backsteps (blue arrows). (C) Instantaneous phase (IP) and frequency (IF) blending of zones 9 and 10 with line of section for (A) and (B). Dendritic karst features are visible,
concentrated in the west (blue) and the south of the field (red). They are also visible in the cross section; larger ones are highlighted with red arrows in (B). (D) Pressure response across
the low-porosity layers after several years of production; Gamma ray (GR), porosity (Por) and gas saturation (SHc) logs are shown. (E) Gas–water contact (GWC) rise data during
production for wells a, b, and c (blue lines), showing the changes in pace of GWC rise from the original GWC (OGWC) level across the low-porosity exposure zone 5.9. (F) Example of GWC

701
rise delay at a flooding layer in example field 2. Cum. = cumulative.
Figure 6. Seismic expression and dynamic response to production in example field 2. Seismic reflectivity cross sections raw (A, D) and
interpreted with major flooding and exposure horizons (B, E)—for lines of section, see (C). (F, G) Linking of the seismic reflection to
porosities encountered in the wells and floodings and exposures interpreted from core. (F) Also shown are pressure data from a well drilled
approximately 30 yr after production started: A pressure differential of approximately 200 psi (1.4 MPa) is visible and shows how the
flooding layer 2 acts as a pressure barrier when more gas is taken off above than below it (initially, the field had one common pressure
gradient; logs: gamma ray [GR]—0 to 80 API, porosity [Por], gas saturation [SHc]). (H) Average reservoir pressure/gas compressibility factor
(P/Z) against cumulative gas produced (GP) shows that the recovery drive mechanism is a combination of depletion in the upper part of the
reservoir and recharge from aquifer influx into the lower part of reservoir. OGWC = original gas–water contact; TWT = two-way time.

702 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
observed at the onset of backstepping geometries
(Figures 5, 6). This results in the regional highs
(megaplatform, central high) in either aerially ex-
tensive gas fields with large, aquifer-filled platforms
below late-stage pinnacles preceding the final drown-
ing (Figures 4, 6B; Kosters et al., 2008), or large low-
relief platforms with thin columns (Figure 5B; Ting
et al., 2011). In contrast, platforms that grew during
similar cycles in the regional troughs developed into
pinnacles with a thicker backstepping interval due to
increased subsidence, and thus tend to have longer
columns (see Koša et al., 2015). However, siliciclastic
sediments interfingering with prograding and aggrading
slope sediments can act as thief sands reducing column
heights, especially in parts of the basin closer to sedi-
ment input sources.
Horizontal Heterogeneities—Baffles and
High-Permeability Intervals
Horizontal baffles and high-permeability intervals
have a particularly strong impact on pressure be-
havior and GWC rise during production and hence on
recovery in Central Luconia (Warrlich et al., 2014,
2016). Within the carbonate platforms, low-porosity
intervals varying in thickness from a few feet to more
than 100 ft (30 m) are frequently observed on log data
(Table 2). Cores reveal that these are composed of
either (1) fine-grained, slightly argillaceous, carbonate
wackestones or (2) shallow water, cemented reefal
limestones (Figure 8A, B; Warrlich et al., 2013). They
are interpreted to be created by flooding events and
subaerial exposures, respectively.
Flooding Layers
The low-porosity, argillaceous wackestone intervals
commonly show horsetail features and in some places
platy corals in core (Figures 7H, J; 8A). In thin sec-
tion, foraminifera and coralline algae are recognized
(Figure 8A). On seismic argillaceous wackestones,
intervals often correlate to backstepping geometries
where the platform shrinks in size (e.g., Figure 5B,
zone 8, field 1; Figure 6B, E, horizons 3 and 4, field 2).
The backsteps can be correlated to flooding layers
that are recorded in contemporaneous deltas (Koša,
2015). This evidence suggests that the argillaceous,
low-porosity layers were caused by flooding events
when the relative sea level rose faster than the growth
potential of the platform. This would lead to deeper
water and lower energy on the platform top and hence
deposition of the finer-grained sediments. During
subsequent sea-level falls, the reefal carbonate de-
position re-established itself only on the shallowest
part of the platform, leading to the characteristic
backstepping geometries.
Exposure Intervals
The second type of low-porosity zones are composed
of corals and other shallow-water fauna, cemented
with calcite spar and in places large calcite crystals in
vugs (Figure 8B; Table 2). Rhizoliths, small-scale
fractures, and breccia are found in these intervals,
explaining the high permeabilities observed in these
intervals (field 1, Figure 5E). These zones are not as
laterally continuous as the flooding layers (zone 5.9 in
field 1, Figure 5A, B). They are interpreted to have
formed during subaerial exposure of a carbonate
platform during relative sea-level falls.
Along exposure surfaces, in addition to cemen-
tation, soil development, leaching, and karstification
can also occur; therefore, increased heterogeneity of
porosity and especially permeability can be expected
(Saller et al., 1994; Rameil et al., 2011). In various
buildups in Central Luconia, both porosity reduction
and porosity increase have been observed in exposure
intervals (Figure 5B, C, zone 5.9 versus zone 9; Figure
8B, C, core and thin section photos). Characteristic
dendritic drainage patterns, often aligned with faults,
have been identified on 3-D seismic data in some
Luconia platforms (field 1, zone 9, Figure 5A–C;
Vahrenkamp et al., 2004). They correspond to in-
tervals where drilling losses are repeatedly encoun-
tered (Figure 6B) and are commonly interpreted
as major karst intervals (Vahrenkamp et al., 2004;
Kosters et al., 2008; Chung et al., 2011). These major
karst intervals are often associated with increased
porosities on log scale down to several hundreds of
feet below the top of the karst (Figure 5A, B, D, field
1, zone 9; Figures 6G, 8C, field 2, below exposure
interval 2) and separation between sonic and density-
derived porosities (Figure 8C).
Stratigraphic Correlation
Flooding layers and exposure intervals have been
mapped on well and seismic data through all producing
fields and are shown for the example fields 1, 2, and
3 in Figures 5–7, respectively. Field 1 follows the
WARRLICH ET AL. 703
Figure 7. Impact of horizontal (flooding and exposure-cemented intervals) and vertical heterogeneities (slope, reef, and clinoform facies)
on gas–water contact (GWC) rise patterns in a mature field—example field 3. (A–D) Shown are the same seismic reflectivity cross section in
two-way time (TWT); (B) and (D) are flattened on an overburden horizon—for line of section, see (G). (A, B) Shown are the data only, and

704 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
zonation described by Rabani et al., 2014, and for
fields 2 and 3, a common numbering scheme from
1 to 7 is introduced here (Table 2). The correlation
between the fields is based on biostratigraphic data
and seismic mapping between the carbonate plat-
forms and to the contemporaneous deltas, enabling
a common zonation scheme in the fields. Within the
fields, seismic horizons were tied to the wells and
matched to the porosity-log character. They were
verified as flooding and exposure intervals by tying the
log and seismic-based interpretations to the core fa-
cies and drilling-losses depths. In field 3, additional
minor flooding and exposure intervals were corre-
lated between core and porosity-log patterns that
are less clear on seismic images (Figure 7E, stippled
lines, flooding layer 1.5; Figure 7J, ~20 ft [~6 m] of
argillaceous limestone).
Flooding layer 1 is expressed as a prominent
seismic reflector in fields 2 and 3 and can be correlated
to a low-porosity wackestone interval in field 3
(Figures 6B; 7D, E). Exposure interval 2 is charac-
terized by increased porosity on core and log
(Figure 8C), and significant drilling losses were en-
countered 20 to 250 ft (6 to 76 m) below in several
wells in both fields (Figures 6B, 7E). It is directly
overlain by a low-porosity, argillaceous wackestone
layer (Figures 6F, G; 7E, log and core evidence in
fields 2 and 3) that is associated with the most sig-
nificant backstep in field 2 (up to 45,000 ft [13,700
m] shift inward of the platform margin, Figure 6B)
and interpreted as flooding layer 3. In field 2, a further
15,000 ft (4600 m) backstep can be linked to
a flooding layer (4) in core, which is overlain by
a smaller (~100 ft [~30 m]) backstep (5) (Figure 6A, B).
Backstep (5) is in turn overlain by prograding cli-
noforms, capped by a subhorizontal surface associated
with increased porosity, which is interpreted as
exposure interval 6 (Figure 6C, D). The shallowest
backstepping geometries (7) are interpreted as the
youngest carbonate facies prior to drowning. In
field 3, syndepositional tilting is interpreted (de-
tails below) and the buildup drowned at flooding
event 5.
Dynamic Behavior and Impact of the Flooding Layers
The flooding layers have low permeabilities and can
act as baffles for pressure and water encroachment
during production. However, capacity to create internal
seals with pressure steps prior to production has not
been observed in Central Luconia: All fields show one
common gas gradient vertically and laterally through
the whole buildup prior to production (Figure 5D;
figure 7a in Rabani et al., 2014; figure 4 in Warrlich
et al., 2014). However, initial gas composition
may vary vertically across significant flooding layers
in fields with overall low porosities. In one of the
deepest producing fields in the basin with corre-
sponding low porosities (~12% on average), the initial
contaminate concentrations above a 40-ft (12-m)-
thick flooding layer are approximately eight times
lower than below this interval for H2S and five times
lower for CO2.
During production, flooding layers impact the
dynamic behavior in a number of fields in the basin
by (1) acting as pressure baffles that cause pressure
differentials and by (2) reducing the pace of water
encroachment (Tables 3, 4). Where gas offtake during
production is not balanced between the zones above
and below a flooding layer (through more offtake
from wells above a certain flooding layer than below
it), pressure data indicate that some flooding layers act
as baffles and pressure jumps across those layers and

Figure 7. Continued. (C) and (D) are interpreted with the same major flooding and exposure horizons 1 to 5 as in field 2. (C, D) Also
shown are gamma ray (GR; left, 0 to 80 API) and porosity logs (Por; right) of the discovery and appraisal wells (W1 and W2) and (C) the
interpreted slope, reef, and clinoform facies—shaded in purple where they extend above the original GWC (OGWC). (E) Por of the
development wells displayed with discovery and appraisal wells W1 and W2 (cored)—for line of section, see (G). The production wells
labeled have GWC rise monitoring data (blue lines—see (F) for details). Depths where drilling losses occurred, interpretations of flooding,
cemented-exposure, and exposure-leached intervals made on the cores of W1 and W2 are also shown. (F) The GWC rise against time of the
monitored wells. The depths of the flooding layers 1 and 1.5 in each well are shown by the position of the labels 1 and 1.5, respectively,
color-coded by the corresponding well name. (G) Top reservoir structure with areas where the slope and margin facies extend above the
OGWC shaded in purple. (H) Photograph of the approximately 40-yr-old W1 core showing the 10-ft (3 m)-thick flooding layer underlying
the well-sorted carbonate sands of the clinoform; (I) and (J) are close-ups of the clinoform carbonate sand and the facies in flooding layer
1.5, respectively. Scale on photo shows centimeters and inches.

WARRLICH ET AL. 705

Table 3. Summary of the Impacts of the Reservoir Heterogeneities and Other Factors Impacting Production and Recovery for Fields 1,
2, and 3

Impact of Heterogeneities on Field Development and Production

Horizontal Heterogeneities Vertical Heterogeneities

Depositional Facies Patterns Faults, Postdepositional
Field Flooding Layers Exposure Intervals, Karsts and Geobodies Deformation
Field 1 Uneven gas offtake leads to Increase in pace of GWC rise Reef rims, back-reef aprons, Faults are conduits for water
pressure jump in zones 4.8, 6, through the low-porosity EI shoals, and islands are rise through zone 4.8 (Rabani
and 8 (Figure 5D, E); zone 4.8 zone 5.9 (Figure 5E) conduits for water rise et al., 2014)
delays water rise, GWC through zone 4.8 (Rabani
follows contour of zone 4.8 et al., 2014)
for more than 8 yr in most
parts of the field
Field 2 Uneven gas offtake leads Drilling hazard: mud losses in Reef rims and faults are Fault possibly controls position
to pressure jump at FL 3 some wells along EI 2 potential conduits for fast of OGWC
(Figure 6F, H) water rise
Field 3 FL 1 and 1.5 delay water rise up Drilling hazard: mud losses in Permeability contrasts of platform slope and margin facies
to 2 yr (Figure 7E, F); some wells along EI 2, 3.5 versus platform interior facies combined with postdepositional
potential pressure jump at tilting lead to complex GWC rise pattern (Chiew et al., 2016)
FLs as drilling hazard
(Warrlich et al., 2014)

Abbreviations: EI = exposure interval; FL = flooding layer; GWC = gas–water contact; OGWC = original gas–water contact.

pressure differentials of up to 1500 psi (10.3 MPa)
have been observed (figure 4 in Warrlich et al., 2014).
Similar pounds per square inch differences (few
hundred pounds per square inch) are observed in
fields 1 and 2 (Figures 5D, 6F) and in “the Luconia
field” of Warrlich et al. (2010).
In field 1, production took place for several years
from above zone 4.8 only, resulting in approximately
100 psi (~0.7 MPa) pressure differential across the
flooding layer zone 4.8 in the gas leg and in smaller
pressure jumps across the flooding layers zone 6 and
zone 8 in the water leg (Figure 5; Tables 3, 4). In field
2, higher gas offtake from the pinnacle above flooding
layer 3 than below it has resulted in an approximately
200 psi (~1.4 MPa) pressure differential across
flooding layer 3 (Figure 6F; Tables 3, 4). This dif-
ferential has grown gradually over time (Figure 6H).
In field 3, however, almost all producing wells pen-
etrate all the flooding layers in the gas leg (Figure 7E),
and hence offtake between the flooding layers is
balanced, and no pressure differential has developed.
The second major impact that flooding layers
have during production is related to water rise from
the OGWC. As the reservoir pressure is reduced
during production, fields connected to a sizable and
sufficiently permeable aquifer show water influx in
response to the decreasing pressure (water drive). As
a consequence, the GWC rises in the reservoir. The
GWC rise data recorded by cased-hole saturation logs
run in producing and observation wells at regular time
intervals show that the water rise is often delayed by
flooding layers of only 20-ft (6-m) thickness by up to
a few years—despite constant offtake (Figures 5F; 7E,
F; Chiew et al., 2016; Tam et al., 2016). In particular,
in field 3, delays in GWC rise of up to approximately
2 yr are observed in the wells in the center of the
platform at different depths. The hold-up depths can
be linked to layers 1 and 1.5 (Figure 7E (gray bars),
F; Table 2), which are confirmed as flooding
layers by correlation to the cored wells W1 and W2
(Figure 7E). The example from field 3 also shows
that the baffling potential of the flooding layers
decreases toward the platform margin (W12, W6
for flooding layer 1.5, Figure 7E, F), indicating the
additional impact of vertical heterogeneities like
higher-permeability facies on the contact rise devel-
opment (detailed discussion in the Vertical Hetero-
geneities section).

706 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
Table 4. Other Factors Impacting Production and Recovery

Development
Field Column Height Aquifer Type Production Strategy

Field Short gas column requires Large, shared, permeable Platform Offtake constrained to upper
1 inclined wells to maximize aquifer leads to pressure zones (4 and 5) to avoid water
standoff from OGWC equalization with neighboring ingress (Rabani et al., 2014);
fields; limited efficiency of water shut off (WSO)
compression and recovery implemented; limited
compression
Field Variable column height across the field (Figure 6) combined with FL Platform and limited gas Balanced gas offtake from all
2 3 acting as pressure baffle leads to requirement for different export compression zones above FL 3; below level 3
production strategies for individual wells production constrained to limit
water ingress; compression
Field Limited aquifer, sufficient column height, and depletion drive Platform and gas export Balanced gas offtake from all
3 mechanism render this field for compression to reduce compression zones; WSO plugs set in FLs
backpressure and increase recovery (Chiew et al., 2016);
compression to reduce
abandonment pressure
Abbreviation: FL = flooding layer; OGWC = original gas–water contact.

Dynamic Behavior and Impact of the Exposure Intervals
The baffling potential of the exposure-related low-
porosity intervals is smaller and more localized. As
the geometry of the water rise during production is
governed by permeability contrasts, cemented in-
tervals can slow down GWC rise and result in uneven
contacts in fields with high porosities and absence of
major flooding layers (e.g., Tam et al., 2016).
Association of the cemented intervals with ex-
posure karsts and small fractures (created by brittle
deformation of the cemented strata during burial) can
result in significantly increased permeabilities along
exposure intervals, even if they show low porosities
on logs due to cementation. For example, an increase
in pace of GWC rise through the low-porosity ex-
posure zone 5.9 is observed in some wells in field 1.
Zone 5.9 shows cemented, shallow-water sediments
and rhizolith structures on core and is interpreted as
an exposure surface (Rabani et al., 2014). Figure 5E
shows that in wells b and c, the speed of the contact
rise increases across the cemented zone; in well a,
however, the pace is unaltered across zone 5.9. The cu-
mulative gas produced during the same period is also
displayed in Figure 5E to show that the offtake was
relatively even and changes in offtake are not the cause
of the different speeds in GWC rise. The observed var-
iation in rise rate between the wells may be explained
by less exposure and resulting cementation in well a, in
line with the trend toward deeper water facies de-
scribed in Rabani et al. (2014), or it is simply indicative
of the variation in cementation, minor fracturing and/or
karst development across the exposure interval.
Severe to total mud losses during drilling opera-
tions are observed preferentially along exposure karst
horizons (Figures 6B, 7E) in some wells. This dem-
onstrates the high level of permeability heterogeneity
in the exposure zones compared with the flooding
layers. Pervasive karsts may act as vertical conduits
(Figure 5B, red arrows) and form potential drilling
hazards (risk of mud losses). In the scenario in which
a karst horizon is overlain by an extensive flooding
layer associated with a major backstep, pressure dif-
ferentials are observed (Figure 5B, E, field 1, zones 9
and 8; Arsat et al., 2010; Rabani et al., 2014; Figure 6B,
F, H, field 2, exposure interval 2 and flooding layer 3).
Differentiating Low-Porosity Layers
Given the similar appearance of flooding layers and
cemented intervals associated with exposure as
low-porosity intervals on logs, but their different dy-
namic behavior during production, it is important
to establish the nature of the low-porosity layers
during reservoir characterization and model them
accordingly.

WARRLICH ET AL. 707

708
What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
Figure 8. Representative gamma ray (GR), porosity logs, core and thin section photographs of argillaceous wackestones, low-porosity flooding zones (A), low-porosity cemented
intervals and karst intervals with enhanced porosity, interpreted as formed by subaerial exposure (B and C, respectively). Uranium (Ur) GR measured on core in red. Depths of photos on
the logs are approximate; black and white bars on scales on core photographs are 1 cm (.39 in.) each. (C) Major karst interval (inside red rectangle): Overall, the porosity is increased up to
300 ft (91 m) below the top of the karst interval, with a separation between sonic- and density-derived porosity (where density-derived porosity exceeds the sonic-derived porosity,
separation is shaded blue). Core and thin sections (right) show extensive leaching. However, thinner cemented intervals also exist (see porosity log and upper right–most core photo).
Drilling losses occurred in many wells penetrating this interval with approximate depths indicated by red flashes. In this field (example field 2) the karst interval is directly overlain by the
argillaceous flooding layer 3. Note that the GR signal decreases over the argillaceous interval and that highest GR is observed within the karst zone.
 Gamma-ray logs are not very indicative to dif-
ferentiate flooding layers from cemented zones
in Central Luconia. Despite the flooding layers
clearly showing some argillaceous material in core
(Figure 8A), they do not typically display a high
gamma-ray signature. Spectral gamma ray measured on
cores indicates that the signal and character in these
buildups is dominated by the uranium contribution
(Figure 8A, B), explaining why the argillaceous flooding
layers do not stand out with a high gamma-ray signature,
as typically expected.
The Central Luconia–wide stratigraphic frame-
work was applied to distinguish flooding layers from
exposure-related cemented intervals. Depositional
geometries within the buildups can be used to dif-
ferentiate low-porosity intervals. Significant flooding
layers are associated with backsteps (Figures 5A, B;
6A–E); horizontal surfaces truncating the tops
of progradational packages (Figure 6B, E, top-lap
geometries—field 2, horizons 2 and 6) are indica-
tive of exposure intervals. Next, the framework ties
sequence boundaries and flooding surfaces observed
in shelf sediments into the carbonate platforms. The
stratigraphic framework itself is constrained by bio-
stratigraphic data and log and core data. It is the in-
tegration of the various data sets that allows the nature
of the low-porosity layers to be assessed and extrapo-
lated to platforms with less data (Chiew et al., 2016).
Vertical Heterogeneities
In addition to low-porosity layers and exposure sur-
faces, lateral changes across the carbonate platforms
can also lead to heterogeneities that impact flow in
reservoirs during production and hence recovery ef-
ficiency. These are grouped here as vertical hetero-
geneities. Large-scale architectural elements related
to carbonate deposition such as reef and slope facies
and associated faulting as well as depositional-facies
variations were found to have a profound impact in
the Central Luconia gas fields (Tables 3, 4). Diage-
netic geobodies, tectonically induced fracture
clusters and corridors, and large fractures play a
major role in controlling flow patterns during pro-
duction in many carbonate fields globally (Richard
et al., 2005; Warrlich et al., 2009) but have not yet
been observed to be important in the Central Luconia
gas fields and are not discussed here.
In present-day depositional facies of most car-
bonate platforms worldwide, larger grain sizes are
found in high-energy settings such as reef margins,
shoals, and islands, with fine-grained material being
accumulated in more sheltered settings such as the
back reef and lagoon settings (Figure 9A–D; Chalabi
et al., 2012; Harris et al., 2015; Rankey, 2016). Many
reservoirs in Central Luconia record similar facies
patterns (Epting, 1989; Menier et al., 2014), and they
can be imaged using sculpting techniques on 3-D
seismic data (Figure 9E; Teoh and Warrlich, 2017)
and mapped in detail (e.g., figure 12 in Rabani et al.,
2014). In field 1, 4-D seismic data are available and
have been calibrated by cased-hole saturation logs in
selected wells, independently measuring the GWC
rise. This data set was used to quantify the effects of
these vertical heterogeneities during production. Reef
rims, back-reef aprons, shoals, and islands, as well as
faults, were found to act as conduits for the water to
rise (Rabani et al., 2014). After 8 yr of gas production,
the water had risen by approximately 100 ft (~30 m)
on average and flooding zone 4.8 had held back
the rise in the interior of field 1 (Figure 10B, “top
sweep”). However, along the edges of the field in
areas where the 3-D seismic data had been in-
terpreted to exhibit reef margins or shallow water,
high-energy, and thus coarser and more permeable
shoals and islands, the water had broken through
flooding zone 4.8 (Figures 9E, F; 10B). A particularly
high water rise was observed on the eastern margin of
the field, at a faulted, long-lived reef margin (Figures
5A, 10B; figure 15 in Rabani et al., 2014). This is an
example of how distinctly different depositional
permeabilities of facies belts (determined by grain and
pore size differences) are preserved in the subsurface
and act as conduits for water, with possible additional
contribution from open faults, which commonly de-
velop along high-rising reef margins.
Field 3 is another example how distribution and
position of permeable facies impacts recovery and
GWC rise pattern. It illustrates the importance of
understanding how the paleo-transport directions
of sediments in a carbonate platform and postdepo-
sitional processes affect reservoir heterogeneities, to
predict sweep and recovery in a gas field. In field 3, an
uneven GWC rise across the field is observed after
20+ yr of production from contact logging in the wells
(Figure 7E). As discussed above, the flooding layers
1 and 1.5 delay the GWC rise for up to 2 yr in the
WARRLICH ET AL. 709
Figure 9. Vertical heterogeneities: present-day depositional environments forming distinct facies belts that result in vertical hetero-
geneities with an impact on flow in producing carbonate fields in Luconia. (A–D) Satellite images of (A) the Montabuan Reef in the Tun
Sakaran Marine Park, east coast of Sabah, Borneo, showing typical reef margins, back-reef aprons, and deeper lagoon areas (B), as well as
islands of accumulated carbonate sands (C). (D) Sibuan platform and island, with an almost completely filled-in, shallow lagoon–see

710 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
center of the platform, but the permeability contrasts
of margin and platform interior facies result in
a complex GWC rise pattern across the field. The
GWC rise interpreted from the monitoring wells
(blue underlay in Figure 7E) shows the highest
level of water rise in the southwest and in the wells
closer to the margin (W12 and W6) where the reefs and
proximal slope sediments form a higher-permeability
connection between water and gas leg than in the
northeast and the center (Figure 7C, G). This is in-
terpreted to be the result of a combination of syn- and
postdepositional processes acting on the platform.
To restore the platform close to the geometry it
had after drowning, the field was flattened on an
overburden horizon (Figure 7B, D). This indicates
that the buildup has undergone significant tilting to
the northeast after drowning. Further, a thickening of
the platform-top sediments to the southwest can be
observed between flooding layers 3 and 5. As mainly
cemented shallow-water sediments are found in
this interval in the cored well W2 (Figure 7E), syn-
depositional tilting to the southwest during this in-
terval has been interpreted. Southwest-sloping
clinoforms between flooding horizons 4 and 5 overlie
thicker slope deposits at the southwest margin of
the platform, compared with the northeast (Figure
7A–D). This suggests a dominant sediment trans-
port direction on the platform to the southwest. The
clinoforms are penetrated in W1 and expressed as
80-ft (24 m)-thick, high-porosity intervals of well-
sorted carbonate sands without major depositional
features on core (Figure 7H, I). In the northeast of the
platform, the thinner deposits between flooding ho-
rizons 4 and 5 are cored in well W2 and show stacked
intervals of cemented, coarse-grained material and
corals, interpreted as repeated exposures at the hinge
of the tilting platform. Here, limited accommodation
and repeated erosion produced the sediments that
form the clinoforms and the slope deposits in the
southwest.
Through the postdepositional tilt to the present-
day position, the reefal and inclined, proximal slope
deposits in the southwest extend much higher into
the gas leg than the thinner ones in the northeast
(Figure 7C, G). They form a higher-permeability
connection between water and gas leg in the south-
west compared with the northeast of the field. In
the northeast, the OGWC is mainly in the layered
and less-permeable platform-interior sediments and
flooding layers that act as baffles to water movement.
The combination of postdepositional tilt of the field
to the northeast, position of the OGWC, and the
varying thickness of the reef and proximal slope sedi-
ments around the platform created a geometry where
the high-permeability sediments straddle the OGWC
more in the southwest than in the northeast. This re-
sults in a more efficient conduit for the water in the
southwest than in the northeast. A history match of the
observed GWC rise shape could only be achieved once
the higher-permeability margin facies and slope ge-
ometries as well as the baffling flooding layers were
represented in the dynamic model (Chiew et al., 2016).
DISCUSSION I: OTHER KEY FACTORS THAT
IMPACT RECOVERY
Production rates of gas and water as well as ultimate
recovery efficiency are the core outcomes of almost
every modeling and forecasting exercise. In addition
to the reservoir heterogeneities described above,
a number of other factors were found to have pro-
found influence on production rates in the Central
Luconia gas fields (Tables 3, 4).
Aquifer Size, Strength, and Connectivity to
Other Fields
For the GWC rise to be significant, a sizable and per-
meable aquifer connected to the gas leg is required. As

Figure 9. Continued. Menier et al., 2014 for details. (E) Instantaneous frequency (IF) versus instantaneous phase (IP) sculpting of zone 4
of field 1 (Figure 5). Reef and shoal margins, back-reef aprons, deep lagoon, and a potential island can be observed, similar to the modern
analogs. (F) Top of the GWC (“top sweep”) in zone 4 above the flooding layer zone 4.8 (Figure 5) after 8 yr of production, interpreted from
four-dimensional (4-D) seismic data: The flooding layer zone 4.8 acts overall as a baffle, but the water penetrated the baffle zone 4.8 along
the western reef and shoal margin (where the original column is thinnest), and also at the location of the island and along the faulted
platform margin in the east, despite the gas column being thickest here (see Figure 10—modified from Rabani et al., 2014). OGWC = original
gas–water contact.

WARRLICH ET AL. 711

Figure 10. Vertical heterogeneities: four-dimensional (4-D) seismic data response showing the impact of vertical heterogeneities on
gas–water contact (GWC) movement. (A) Seismic quadrature reflection (-90° phase-shifted reflectivity) section (line of section—see Figure
9) and zonations interpreted from three-dimensional (3-D) seismic, integrating core and well-log data. (B) Same section as (A) showing the
difference between the reflection seismic prior to and 8 yr after start of production. The “top sweep” interpreted (purple stippled)
corresponds in most areas to the flooding layer zone 4.8, holding back the water. However, water has broken through the baffle in the reef
margin and shoals in the west, the “island” in the center, and the faulted platform margin in the east, showing the impact of these

712 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
discussed, vertical and horizontal reservoir heteroge-
neities control the speed and sweep pattern of the water
rise. In many of the larger flat-topped platforms in
Central Luconia, the gas fill is present only in the top-
most part (i.e., in the backstepped strata of the
buildups) (fields 1 and 2, Vahrenkamp et al., 2004;
Ting et al., 2011). In this situation, the water-filled,
large volume in the lower part of the platform acts as an
aquifer, and presence or absence of flooding and ex-
posure layers around the OGWC will determine how
effective the aquifer will be during gas production and
how fast the GWC will rise in response to aquifer
expansion caused by pressure drop in the reservoir
(Figures 5, 7, 10).
Multiple fields can also be connected laterally
through an aquifer by onlapping thief zones or, more
commonly, via a shared underlying carbonate plat-
form, preceding the gas-bearing buildup develop-
ment. In this case, the overpressure over hydrostatic
in the water legs of multiple fields is expected to
be identical in preproduction conditions. The con-
nection can be highly permeable if the fields represent
separate buildups atop a larger carbonate platform
(Vahrenkamp et al., 2004; Ting et al., 2011, Menier
et al., 2014; Warrlich et al., 2014). A highly per-
meable connection can result in full pressure com-
munication between fields via this shared aquifer,
leading to predepletion of fields that come on stream
later. The degree of depletion of a given field due to
production from offset field(s) also serves as an in-
dication of aquifer volume and permeability (Arsat
et al., 2010; Rabani et al., 2014; Warrlich et al., 2014).
Carbonate platforms that are connected via less-
permeable slope sediments or thin, low-porosity
banks are found to show a delayed pressure equal-
ization as the low-permeability areas serve as chokes.
For example, two Central Luconia carbonate buildup
fields (A and B) with a depositional low (saddle)
between them were discovered at the same time and
found to be fully pressure-connected in the water leg
(same overpressure over hydrostatic in the water leg).
Buildup B started to produce 20 yr after production
of buildup A had commenced. When production of
buildup B began, the field was found to be pressure-
depleted via the saddle. Its reservoir pressure, how-
ever, was approximately 800 psi (~5.5 MPa) higher
than A, exemplifying the lateral choke effect of the
low-permeability saddle.
In both cases, a laterally connected aquifer may
impact recovery (water drive vs. depletion drive) and
influence development decisions, for example, on
location of wells and use of compression. Compres-
sion to reduce the backpressure is more effective in
depletion drive–dominated settings where GWC rise
does not result in water breakthrough and the res-
ervoir pressure reduces faster compared with cases
with aquifer drive. Where aquifer support is present,
the decline in field production is slower and hence
the requirement for lower backpressure to maintain
production is less likely to be required in the early
phase of production (unless it is decided early in field
life that compression is required, e.g., to “outrun the
aquifer”). Both reduction in reservoir pressure and in-
crease in water production after water breakthrough
gradually impair the ability to lift the gas in the
wells. It is important, however, to understand and
correctly forecast the most likely reasons for pro-
duction impairment to identify the optimum mit-
igation strategy.
Column Height, Development Method, and
Production Strategy
Figure 11 shows cartoons of two end-member gas
fields, the left one resulting in very poor recovery
and the right one yielding a high recovery factor.
A positive correlation between recovery efficiency
and gas-column height can be expected because gas
wells typically cannot produce much beyond the
point when the rising GWC reaches the base of the
well perforations. The corresponding cross-plot in
Figure 12 shows this correlation; however, it also
shows a significant scatter. The recovery factor
depends on several drivers, and a wide data spread

Figure 10. Continued. heterogeneities on flow during production. (C) Conceptual sketch summarizing the shape of the contact rise and
link to the vertical and horizontal heterogeneities with satellite pictures of their modern analogs of the facies heterogeneities that matter for
flow. (D) History match between the top sweep from the 4-D seismic and the saturation simulated after 8 yr of production by a 3-D dynamic
model. A match was only achieved by representing the heterogeneities shown in (C) adequately in the dynamic model (modified from
Rabani et al., 2014 and used with permission of the Society of Petroleum Engineers); OGWC = original GWC.

WARRLICH ET AL. 713

Figure 11. Cartoon of end-member gas fields, showing reservoir heterogeneities, column height, and aquifer size that result in very poor
recovery (left) and a high recovery factor (right). OGWC = original gas–water contact.
is expected when plotting it against any single
parameter. Figure 12 also illustrates that the drive
mechanism is important for recovery efficiency,
where depletion drives typically yield higher re-
coveries than mixed drive mechanisms, followed
by water drives. Water-drive fields with short
columns tend to deliver the lowest recovery fac-
tors, unless they contain sufficient gas volume.
Here lies the link to the development method,
operations philosophy, and economic feasibility:
For the fields dominated by a water drive, WSO
would be conducted to extend the life of the
producers that suffered water breakthrough, if
economically justifiable. This depends on the size
of the field and the development method: Small
fields and subsea tiebacks often do not offer the
opportunity to conduct WSO at an affordable cost.
Hence, fields developed with subsea tiebacks (as
opposed to platforms) are on average expected to
suffer from lower recovery factors (Romero Mata,
2010; Osmundsen, 2013). In Central Luconia,
only two out of the eight subsea tieback devel-
opments yield high recovery factors. This is at-
tributed to depletion or mixed drive mechanism
and development with use of horizontal wells in
the crestal parts of the reservoirs. Finally, for de-
pletion drives, bigger fields yield higher recovery
factors, because the size of the in-place volumes
often determines if a compressor is economically
affordable and lower abandonment pressures result
in higher recoveries.
714 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
DISCUSSION II: APPLICATION TO NEWLY
DISCOVERED FIELDS AND ASSET
MANAGEMENT
The learnings and understanding derived from the
above-described work were then used to accelerate the
development of new discoveries in Central Luconia
and reduce cycle times in subsurface modeling. The
IKB approach reduced subsurface uncertainty ranges
and facilitated appropriate analog selection. The
insights gained from identification of “what matters
for flow” in the Central Luconia carbonate gas fields
allowed to focus the dynamic models of individual
fields on the preidentified key drivers that are most
important to reproduce the observed production be-
haviors of these reservoirs (e.g., reservoir hetero-
geneities, aquifer sizes, column height). Thus, the
turnaround time and effort spent on the definition
of inputs for individual models is reduced, resulting
in shorter modeling time.
Figure 13 illustrates a workflow used following
a discovery of a carbonate gas field in Central Luconia.
The data typically available enable the determination
of a number of key drivers that matter for flow and
recovery: column height (via logs and downhole
pressure measurements), locations of low-porosity
karst layers and faults (from logs, drilling, and seis-
mic data, Figure 13A). Using the IKB approach on
newly discovered fields allows correlation of the
newly acquired information (seismic, logs, biostrati-
graphic, and drilling data) via the regional stratigraphic
Figure 12. Crossplot of recovery factor versus hydrocarbon column height, showing that recovery efficiency increases generally with
column height. The scatter observed is expected because the recovery factor is not only a function of the reservoir, hydrocarbon fluid, and
aquifer parameters but also depends heavily on the development chosen; see main text for details. GIIP = gas-initially-in-place.

framework to producing fields with core and pro-
duction data (Figure 13B, C). Using the well-defined
properties of the such correlated, data-rich analog
fields, seismic geometries, and drilling information
from the discovered field, the nature of the low-
porosity layers (flooding or exposure) and expected
dynamic behavior of the prospect field can be
predicted with higher confidence (Figure 13D).
Consequently, a probability of the nature of the
low-porosity layer to be a baffle or a high-permeability
conduit can be assigned. Mapping of connected aquifer
from (1) seismic data and (2) similar overpressure
above hydrostatic gradient in the aquifer of sur-
rounding (and possibly amalgamated) platforms
allows assessing the range of expected aquifer sizes.
Figure 13E shows the aquifer of field 3 to illustrate the
concept of mapping the aquifer on seismic data. The
aquifer is limited by the extent of the carbonate facies
to the MMU and lateral facies changes to the sur-
rounding shales. The potential lateral extent of a re-
gional, pressure-connected aquifer (e.g., amalgamated
platforms) can be estimated by assessing how many of
the already-drilled surrounding platforms show the
same overpressure over hydrostatic in the water leg as
the newly discovered field.
Production forecasting simulation runs were then
conducted using simplified subsurface models to bet-
ter understand the sensitivities of recovery factor
and water production to the heterogeneities discussed
in this paper. The heterogeneities were reproduced
in the static and dynamic models (Ooi et al., 2016)
and their impact on the production forecast was
calibrated with the production data from mature
fields with similar heterogeneities. To do this effi-
ciently, four field types were considered (I to IV—
Figure 14A). In addition to the simple depletion case
(case I), cases II to IV have different heterogeneities
that drive aquifer behavior and impact flow and re-
covery. The field types were assessed against two
development types (low and high standoff of the
bottom well perforation to the OGWC). On top of
the standoff distances, the field types were charac-
terized by their water cut and normalized P/Z
development during production against their re-
covery factors, and type curves derived for cases I
to IV (Figure 14B, C). The plots on the left in
Figure 14B, C show how the type curves of cases I to
IV are derived from production data of analog fields
with similar heterogeneities, aquifer dimensions, and
well standoff to OGWC. Field type I has no active

WARRLICH ET AL. 715

716
What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
Figure 13. Workflow example of how the integrated knowledge base and “understanding of what matters for flow” are used to reduce uncertainties in a new discovery. (A) Data
commonly available at discovery: porosity log (white), column height, overpressure, and number and position of low porosity intervals (gray). However, the nature of low-porosity
intervals (flooding or exposure) is uncertain in absence of core. (B, C) Correlating the new discovery (green rectangle on left) to a producing field (brown rectangle in center) via seismic
data, biostratigraphy, drilling losses, cores, logs, and production data allows a most-likely determination of the nature of the low-porosity intervals. This results in a discovered field with
much-reduced uncertainties (D). Presence of karst intervals or enhanced reservoir properties can also be inferred from this correlation (e.g., orange-shaded interval in (D), inferred from
gas-inflow log and core data in producing field—brown rectangle). (E) Aquifer size estimation for the discovered buildup from seismic and pressure data of surrounding buildups. GR =
gamma ray; OGWC = original gas–water contact; Por = porosity; SHc = gas saturation; TWT = two-way time.
Figure 14. End-member recovery behaviors of newly discovered fields. (A) Cartoon cross sections of the four types of fields (I to IV);
developments with vertical wells (black—short stand off to the water leg) and horizontal wells (pink—high standoff to water leg) are
considered. (B, C) Type curves for water–gas ratio (WGR) development and normalized average reservoir pressure/gas compressibility
factor (P/Z) against recovery factor. In the normalized P/Z plots, P/Z is normalized by dividing it with initial reservoir pressure/gas
compressibility factor at initial, predepletion conditions (Pi/Zi), and the gas produced (GP) is normalized by division with the gas-initially-in-
place (GIIP), so that all fields can be plotted together to ease comparison. (B) End of field life is reached quickly if water breakthrough
occurs. MMSCF = million standard cubic feet; OGWC = original gas–water contact; STB = stock tank barrel.

aquifer resulting in depletion drive, with no water
cut development (Figure 14B) and a linear pressure
decrease with production (Figure 14C). Types II to
IV have an active aquifer resulting in a reduced
pressure decline with production (Figure 14C).
Type II has a flooding layer delaying the water rise.
Type III has no low-porosity layers, whereas type IV
has a karst interval with higher permeabilities; this
increase in permeability above the OGWC leads to
more aquifer influx during production, resulting in
less pressure reduction and water breakthrough at
lower recovery factors. The importance of a high
standoff distance of the well to the OGWC (facil-
itated by a long gas column) on the recovery factor
can be seen by comparing the high with low standoff
sets of curves.
The setup described enables the reservoir engi-
neers to generate forecast distributions as well as
a proxy surface that (1) captures the key drivers that
matter for flow, calibrated by analog fields with de-
cades of production history, and (2) assigns likelihood
of the presence and nature of the heterogeneities
based on the confidence of the correlated strati-
graphic framework and field internal data (e.g.,
presence of a flooding layer close to the OGWC).
With this methodology, the production history of
the basin can be leveraged efficiently and the forecast
uncertainties for greenfields are greatly reduced.

WARRLICH ET AL. 717

 The insights gained from this analysis were also
applied to manage the existing fields more efficiently
by organizing and streamlining the asset team to work
on the fields with common reservoir characteristics
and hence production behaviors and issues (depletion
drive fields requiring compression and water drive
fields being more prone to water shutoffs and pro-
duced water disposal solutions). Models built for
producing fields that had the heterogeneities that
matter for flow incorporated resulted in better history
matches with production data and more accurate
production forecasts (e.g., Rabani et al., 2014).
CONCLUSIONS
• An IKB was constructed to assimilate data gener-
ated over more than 40 yr, from 36 gas fields in
the Central Luconia Province, offshore Sarawak,
Malaysia. The IKB is a subsurface database com-
bined with a regional stratigraphic framework
that connects and delineates producing fields into
common reservoir zones and shared geologic con-
text, so that rules for interpolation of properties
between fields can be carried out based on strati-
graphic principles. Building an IKB is time and re-
source intensive, but the result is a powerful tool
in managing a producing gas asset and maturing new
discoveries at an increased pace.
• The IKB was used to identify and quantify key
drivers that matter for flow during production
and recovery rates. These were found to be vertical
and horizontal reservoir heterogeneities, column
height, and aquifer size and strength. In addition,
the development method and production strategy
play important roles, with abandonment pres-
sure and intervention capabilities having significant
impact.
• Reservoir heterogeneities with large impact on
production and recovery are low-porosity, argilla-
ceous flooding layers, tight-cemented exposure
zones, and permeability-enhancing exposure prod-
ucts such as karsts (i.e., horizontal heterogeneities).
Flooding layers can act as effective baffles, holding
back water rise during production, or can even form
horizontal pressure compartments, which can form
potential drilling hazards and must be considered in
pore-pressure predictions for mature fields in Central
Luconia (e.g., Warrlich et al., 2014). Depending
718 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
on their position with regard to OGWC, column
height, and recovery drive mechanism, pene-
trating flooding layers with development wells to
access gas volumes or using them to delay GWC
rise should be considered. Water shut-off plugs
in production wells should be placed in flooding
layers to be more efficient and exploit the natural
baffles to delay water rise (Chiew et al., 2016).
Cemented exposure layers and karsts can ac-
celerate water ingress during production and also
need to be considered drilling hazards (mud losses).
• High-permeability depositional facies (coarse slope
sediments, reef rim and back-reef apron sediments,
or carbonate shoals/islands) as well as associated
faults (i.e., vertical heterogeneities) have been
observed to act as vertical conduits for water in-
gress, resulting in uneven sweep and potentially
bypassed gas and therefore need to be considered in
field developments and represented in reservoir
models appropriately.
• With these vertical and horizontal heterogeneities
represented in dynamic models, better history
matches and more realistic production forecasts
were achieved. This implies that even for a primary
depletion gas field, a reservoir description capturing
these heterogeneities is required to predict the
water ingress, especially in short gas column res-
ervoirs. Understanding the impact that heteroge-
neities have on flow and recovery allowed to
capture only the critical ones in the models and
hence simplify the models, resulting in faster run
times and reduced modeling cycle times.
• Fast-to-run subsurface models that are focused on
the key drivers that matter for flow and calibrated
by analog fields were applied to accelerate the
development of new discoveries. The regional
stratigraphic framework in the basin delineating
a well-organized field database (IKB) allowed to
assign analogs efficiently and predict the likelihood
of the presence and nature of relevant heteroge-
neities (e.g., presence of a flooding layer close to
the OGWC). With this IKB methodology, the
production history of the basin can be leveraged
efficiently and the forecast uncertainties for
greenfields were greatly reduced.
• The impact of key drivers that matter for flow on
recovery and sweep patterns is crucial for both
greenfield development and brownfield manage-
ment. For greenfield development, the enhanced
 understanding of the key drivers is used to optimize
well design and field management plans to mitigate
the risk of early-water breakthrough. For brown-
field management, it aids in planning field man-
agement activities, finding infill opportunities, and
selecting enhanced recovery methods to maximize
recovery.
• The methodology presented in this paper on how
to assimilate and analyze large, multisource and
multitype, legacy data sets of producing fields with
similar subsurface characteristics (IKB concept)
should be applicable to other mature basins and
reservoir types where equally vast and historic data
sets are awaiting to be used in the current era
typified by the global digital revolution that is re-
defining the way we operate.
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, E. W., R. E. Besems, and S. J. Gough, 2012, “Pre-
MMU” carbonates and the influence of age and tectonic
regimes on their growth styles, Sarawak, Malaysia (abs.):
Petroleum Geoscience Conference and Exhibition, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, April 23–24, 2013, 2 p.
Adams, E. W., and C.-A. Hasler, 2010, The intrinsic effect of
shape on the retrogradation motif and timing of drowning
of carbonate patch reef systems (Lower Frasnian, Bugle
Gap, Canning Basin, Western Australia): Sedimentology,
v. 57, no. 4, p. 956–984, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3091
.2009.01127.x.
Adams, E. W., P. F. M. Janssen, S. Ghani, S. J. Gough, and
P. Winefield, 2013, The Lower Miocene Great Barrier
Reef of Sarawak, Malaysia: The exploration potential of
Cycle II and III carbonates (abs.): Petroleum Geoscience
Conference and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
March 18–19, 2013, 3 p.
Alessio, L. D., L. M. Bourdon, and S. Coca 2005, Experi-
mental design as a framework for multiple realisation
history matching: F6 further development studies: So-
ciety of Petroleum Engineers Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, April 5–7,
2005, SPE-93164, 15 p., doi:10.2118/93164-MS.
Arsat, A. H., R. Masoudi, N. B. Darman, L. W. Long, and
M. Othman, 2010, Subsurface integration leading to im-
proved history matching: Case study using a Malaysian
heterogeneous carbonate gas field: International Oil and
Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China June 8–10,
2010, SPE-132060, 14 p., doi:10.2118/132060-MS.
Bracco Gartner, G. L., W. Schlager, and E. W. Adams, 2004,
Seismic expression of the boundaries of a Miocene car-
bonate platform, Sarawak, Malaysia, in G. P. Eberli,
J. L. Masaferro, and J. F. Sarg, eds., Seismic imaging of
carbonate reservoirs and systems: AAPG Memoir 81,
p. 351–365.
Chalabi, A., B. Pierson, and J. A. Talib, 2012, Remote sensing
analysis of recent carbonate platforms, east of Sabah:
Potential analogues for Miocene carbonate platforms of
the South China Sea: Indonesian Journal on Geoscience,
v. 7, p. 123–135.
Chiew, E., G. M. D. Warrlich, A. Binda, and E. W. Adams,
2016, Data integration and reservoir characterization to
understand water movement during production in
a mature gas field, Luconia Province, Malaysia: Offshore
Technology Conference Asia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
March 22–25, 2016, OTC-26535-MS, 22 p., doi:10.4043
/26535-MS.
Chung, E., O. Al-Jaaidi, and K. K. Ting, 2011, Karst modeling
of a Miocene carbonate build-up in Central Luconia, SE
Asia: Challenges in seismic characterization and geo-
logical model building: International Petroleum Tech-
nology Conference (IPTC), Bangkok, Thailand, November
15–17, 2011, IPTC Paper 14539, 6 p., doi:10.2523
/14539-MS.
Doust, H., 1981, Geology and exploration history of offshore
central Sarawak, in M. T. Halbouty, ed., Energy resources
of the Pacific Region: AAPG Studies in Geology 12,
p. 117–132.
Epting, M., 1980, Sedimentology of Miocene carbonate
buildups, Central Luconia, offshore Sarawak: Bulletin of
the Geological Society of Malaysia, v. 12, p. 17–30.
Epting, M., 1989, The Miocene carbonate buildups of central
Luconia, offshore Sarawak, in A. W. Bally, ed., Atlas of
seismic stratigraphy: AAPG Studies in Geology 27,
p. 168–173.
Hageman, H., 1987, Paleobathymetrical changes in NW
Sarawak during Oligocene to Pliocene: Bulletin of the
Geological Society of Malaysia, v. 21, p. 91–102.
Harris, P. M., S. J. Purkis, J. Ellis, P. K. Stewart, and
J. J. G. Reijmer, 2015, Mapping bathymetry and de-
positional facies on Great Bahama Bank: Sedimentology,
v. 62, no. 2, p. 566–589, doi:10.1111/sed.12159.
Ho, K. F., 1978, Stratigraphic framework for oil exploration in
Sarawak: Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia,
v. 10, p. 1–13.
Hutchison, C. S., 2004, Marginal basin evolution: The
southern South China Sea: Marine and Petroleum
Geology, v. 21, no. 9, p. 1129–1148, doi:10.1016
/j.marpetgeo.2004.07.002.
Jolley, S. J., Q. J. Fisher, and R. B. Ainsworth, 2010, Reservoir
compartmentalization: An introduction, in S. J. Jolley,
Q. J. Fisher, R. B. Ainsworth, P. J. Vrolijk, and S. Delisle,
eds., Reservoir compartmentalization: Geological Soci-
ety, London, Special Publications 2010, v. 347, p. 1–8,
doi:10.1144/SP347.
Khazali, N. F. M., S. Osman, and C. S. Abdullah, 2013, The
awakened giants: Petroleum Geoscience Conference
and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 18–19,
2013, 4 p.
Koša, E., 2015, Sea-level changes, shoreline journeys, and the
seismic stratigraphy of Central Luconia, Miocene–Present,
offshore Sarawak, NW Borneo: Marine and Petro-
leum Geology, v. 59, p. 35–55, doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo
.2014.07.005.
WARRLICH ET AL. 719
Koša, E., G. M. D. Warrlich, and G. Loftus, 2015, Wings,
mushrooms, and Christmas trees: The carbonate seismic
geomorphology of Central Luconia, Miocene–Present,
offshore Sarawak, northwest Borneo: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 99, no. 11, p. 2043–2075, doi:10.1306/06181514201.
Kosters, M., P. F. Hague, R. A. Hoffmann, and B. L. Hughes,
2008, Integrated modelling of karstification of a Central
Luconia field, Sarawak: International Petroleum Tech-
nology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December
3–5, 2008, IPTC-12327-MS, 9 p., doi:10.2523/12327-MS.
Mahmud, O. A. B., and S. B. Saleh, 1999, Petroleum re-
sources, Sarawak, in L. K. Meng, ed., The petroleum
geology and resources of Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS), p. 456–472.
Masaferro, J. L., R. Bourne, and J. C. Jauffred, 2004, Three-
dimensional seismic volume visualization of carbonate
reservoirs and structures, in G. P. Eberli, J. L. Masaferro,
and J. F. Sarg, eds., Seismic imaging of carbonate reser-
voirs and systems: AAPG Memoir 81, p. 11–41.
Menier, D., B. Pierson, A. Chalabi, K. K. Ting, and
M. Pubellier, 2014, Morphological indicators of struc-
tural control, relative sea-level fluctuations and platform
drowning on present-day and Miocene carbonate plat-
forms: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 58, p. 776–788,
doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2014.01.016.
Ooi, S., M. Cheers, H. K. Tang, G. Warrlich, and D. Soo,
2016, Reservoir modeling workflow of central Luconia
carbonate buildup (abs.): Third European Association of
Geoscientists and Engineers Integrated Reservoir Mod-
elling Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December
5–7, 2016, 5 p., doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201602411.
Osmundsen, P., 2013, Choice of development concept-
platform or subsea solution: Oil and Gas Facilities,
v. 2, no. 5, p. 64–70, doi:10.2118/163144-PA.
Rabani, M. N. A., E. Adams, A. Ryba, J. Harwijanto,
G. Warrlich, H. F. Lee, D. Shields et al. 2014, An in-
tegrated approach to understand the remaining potential
and ultimate hydrocarbon recovery of a giant carbon-
ate gas field, offshore Sarawak, Malaysia: Offshore
Technology Conference Asia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
March 25–28, 2014, OTC-24994-MS, 13 p., doi:10.4043
/24994-MS.
Rameil, N., A. Immenhauser, A. É. Csoma, and G. Warrlich,
2011, Surfaces with a long history: The Aptian top
Shu’aiba Formation unconformity, Sultanate of Oman:
Sedimentology, v. 59, no. 1, p. 212–248, doi:10.1111
/j.1365-3091.2011.01279.x.
Rankey, E. C., 2016, On facies belts and facies mosaics:
Holocene isolated platforms, South China Sea: Sedimen-
tology, v. 63, no. 7, p. 2190–2216, doi:10.1111/sed.12302.
Richard, P. D., K. Rawnsley, P. Swaby, and C. Richard, 2005,
Integrated fracture characterisation and modeling in
PDO carbonate fields using novel modeling software and
sandbox models: International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Doha, Qatar, November 21–23, 2005,
IPTC-10428-MS, 12 p., doi:10.2523/IPTC-10428-MS.
Romero Mata, O., 2010, Model for economic analysis of oil
and gas deepwater production concepts: Comparisons of
life cycle cost of subsea production systems vs. floating
720 What Matters for Flow and Recovery in Carbonate Gas Reservoirs
structures with dry wellheads, M.Sc. thesis, University of
Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway, 247 p.
Saller, A. H., D. A. Budd, and P. M. Harris, 1994, Un-
conformities and porosity development in carbonate
strata: Ideas from a Hedberg conference: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 78, no. 8, p. 857–872.
Scherer, F. C., 1980, Exploration in east Malaysia over the past
decade, in M. T. Halbouty, ed., Giant oil and gas fields of
the decade: 1968–1978: AAPG Memoir 30, p. 423–440.
Tam, T., C. K. S. Chong, and G. Warrlich, 2016, Reservoir
heterogeneities impact gas water contact movement of
a mature carbonate field in Central Luconia: Offshore
Technology Conference Asia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
March 22–25, 2016, OTC-26582-MS, 12 p., doi:10.4043
/26582-MS.
Teoh, P., and G. Warrlich, 2017, Comparing and contrasting
controls on sediment patterns in contemporary isolated
carbonate platforms as analogs for ancient examples –
Case studies from South East Asia (abs.): AAPG An-
nual Convention and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April
2–5, 2017, accessed September 29, 2018, http://www
.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2017/90291ace
/abstracts/2610483.html.
Ting, K. K., B. J. Pierson, O. Al-Jaaidi, and P. F. Hague, 2011,
Effects of syn-depositional tectonics on platform geom-
etry and reservoir characters in Miocene carbonate
platforms of Central Luconia, Sarawak: International
Petroleum Technology Conference, Bangkok, Thailand,
November 15–17, 2011, IPTC-14247-MS, 6 p., doi:
10.2523/IPTC-14247-MS.
Vahrenkamp, V. C., 1998, Miocene carbonates of the Luconia
province, offshore Sarawak: Implications for regional
geology and reservoir properties from strontium-isotope
stratigraphy: Bulletin of the Geological Society of
Malaysia, v. 42, p. 1–13.
Vahrenkamp, V. C., F. David, P. Duijndam, M. Newall, and
P. Crevello, 2004, Growth architecture, faulting, and
karstification of a middle Miocene carbonate platform,
Luconia Province, offshore Sarawak, Malaysia, in
G. P. Eberli, J. L. Masaferro, and J. F. Sarg, eds., Seismic
imaging of carbonate reservoirs and systems: AAPG
Memoir 81, 329–350.
Van Vliet, A., and W. N. Krebs, 2009, The Middle Miocene
unconformity (MMU) in North Luconia, deepwater
Sarawak: How unconformable is the unconformity?:
Warta Geologi, v. 35, p. 131–133.
Warrlich, G. M. D., E. W. Adams, T. Tam, E. Kosa, K. K. Ting,
and A. Kayes 2013, The value of regional correlation and
analogues in managing a mature asset: Examples from
the Central Luconia gas fields, Sarawak, Malaysia (abs.):
Petroleum Geoscience Conference and Exhibition, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, March 18–19, 2013, 5 p.
Warrlich, G. M. D., D. Palm, H. J. van Alebeek, D. Volchkov,
S. C. Hong, E. W. Adams, A. Ryba et al. 2014, Scenario-
based pore pressure prediction to reduce drilling risks,
examples from the Sarawak Asset, North West Borneo,
Malaysia: International Petroleum Technology Confer-
ence, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 10–12, 2014,
IPTC-17952-MS, 13 p., doi:10.2523/IPTC-17952-MS.
Warrlich, G. M. D., P. D. Richard, T. E. Johnson, L. B. M. Wassing,
J. D. Gittins, A. Al-Lamki, D. M. Alexander, and
M. Al-Riyami, 2009, From data acquisition to simulator:
Fracture modeling a carbonate heavy-oil reservoir
(Lower Shu’aiba, Sultanate of Oman): Society of
Petroleum Engineers Middle East Oil and Gas Show and
Conference, Manama, Bahrain, March 15–18, 2009,
SPE-120428, 9 p., doi:10.2118/120428-MS.
Warrlich, G. M., A. Ryba, E. Adams, T. Tam, E. C. Chiew,
M. Angelatos, D. K. Soo, and C. Lojikim, 2016, Quan-
tifying carbonate heterogeneities that impact flow in
reservoirs: Lessons learned from the Central Luconia gas
fields, Malaysia: International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, November 14–16, 2016,
IPTC-18942-MS, 5 p., doi:10.2523/IPTC-18942-MS
Warrlich, G. M. D., C. Taberner, W. Asyee, B. Stephenson,
M. Esteban, M. Boya-Ferrero, and J. H. van Konijnenburg,
2010, The impact of postdepositional processes on
reservoir properties: Two case studies of Tertiary car-
bonate buildup gas fields in Southeast Asia (Malampaya
and E11), in W. A. Morgan, A. D. George, P. M. Harris,
J. A. Kupecz, and J. F. Sarg, eds., Cenozoic carbonate
systems of Australasia: Tulsa, Oklahoma, SEPM Special
Publication 95, p. 99–127, doi:10.2110/sepmsp.095.99
Wilson, M. E. J., E. E. W. Chang, S. Dorobek, and P. Lunt,
2013, Onshore to offshore trends in carbonate sequence
development, diagenesis and reservoir quality across
a land-attached shelf in SE Asia: Marine and Petroleum
Geology, v. 45, p. 349–376, doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo
.2013.03.011.
Yamin Ali, M., and P. Abolins, 1999, Central Luconia
Province, in L. K. Meng, ed., The petroleum geology and
resources of Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Petro-
liam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS), p. 369–392.
Zampetti, V., 2010, Controlling factors of a Miocene car-
bonate platform: Implications for platform architecture
and off-platform reservoirs (Luconia Province, Malaysia),
in W. A. Morgan, A. D. George, P. M. Harris, J. A. Kupecz,
and J. F. Sarg, eds., Cenozoic carbonate systems of
Australasia: Tulsa, Oklahoma, SEPM Special Publication
95, p. 129–145, doi:10.2110/sepmsp.095.129
Zampetti, V., W. Schlager, J. H. van Konijnenburg, and
A.-J. Everts, 2004a, Architecture and growth history of
a Miocene carbonate platform from 3D seismic reflection
data; Luconia province, offshore Sarawak, Malaysia:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 21, no. 5, p. 517–534,
doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2004.01.006.
Zampetti, V., W. Schlager, J. H. van Konijnenburg, and
A.-J. Everts, 2004b, 3-D seismic characterisation of sub-
marine landslides on a Miocene carbonate platform
(Luconia Province, Malaysia): Journal of Sedimentary Re-
search, v. 74, no. 6, p. 817–830, doi:10.1306/040604740817.
WARRLICH ET AL. 721