Geol. Soc. Malaysia, Bulletin 25, December 1989; pp.

119 - 161

Sedimentology and reservoir geology of the Betty field,

Baram Delta Province, offshore Sarawak.,
NW Borneo

H.D. JoHNsoN\ T. Kuun 1 AND A DUNDANG2

1 Sarawak Shell Berhad,
Lutong, 98009 MIRI,
Sarawak, Malaysia.
2 PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.,
(Baram Delta Operations)
P.O. Box 1452,
Lutong, 98008 MIRI,
Sarawak, Malaysia.

Abstract : The Betty field is a moderate-sized oil field situated in the Baram Delta
Province, offshore Sarawak. The field displays many of the characteristics that are typical
of this Tertiary deltaic province, notably: (1) the structure is a result of the interaction of
delta-related growth faulting and later Pliocene compressional folding, (2) the reservoirs
comprise Miocene shallow marine sandstones and shales, which accumulated during
repeated phases of small-scale progadation and retrogradation within a major regressive
clastic wedge (comprising the wave-dominated palaeo-Baram Delta), and (3) the hydro-
carbons occur in numerous vertically-stacked sands separated by sealing shales and
trapped by a combination of fault seal and dip closure. This paper discusses these aspects
of the Betty field in more detail, particularly the nature and origin of the reservoirs, and
relates this geological framework to the field's development and production performance.
Structurally the field is relatively simple, consisting of a NE-SW trending anticline
which is bounded to the south by a major E-W trending growth fault (Betty Growth Fault).
The anticline is a result of rollover associated with growth faulting combined with
Pliocene compressional folding along the NE-SW trending Baronia-Betty-Bokor anticli-
nal trend.
The Betty reservoirs occur within a ca. 2450 ft (747 m) thick sequence (between 7200-
9650 ft I 2195- 2941 m sub-sea) of Late Miocene, Upper Cycle V clastic sediments, which
accumulated in a wave-/storm-dominated, inner neritic to nearshore/coastal environ-
ment within the palaeo-Baram Delta complex.
The sand bodies are mainly characterized by numerous, composite and/ or amplified
coarsening upward/progradational sequences (ca. 160 ft I 49 m thick) overlain by gener-
ally thinner, fining upwardlretrogradationalsequences (ca. 20- 50 ft I 6- 15 m thick). The
sand bodies are vertically heterogeneous but display high lateral continuity with ex-
cellent field-wide correlation, which is consistent with the inferred high wave-energy de-
positional setting. Vertical heterogeneity is reflected in variations in the thickness and
frequency of shale layers, and in the distribution of four distinctive reservoir facies of
varying rock quality: (1) poorly stratified sandstone (porosity ca. 23%; permeability ca.
1200 mD), (2) bioturbated sandstone (22%; 500 mD), (3) laminated sandstone (19%; 90
mD), and (4) bioturbated heterolithic sandstone (17%; 50 mD).

Presented at GSM Petroleum Geology Seminar 1986

120 H. D. JoHNsoN, T. Kuuo & A. DuNDANG

The individual Betty reservoirs are interpreted as representing the repeated build-
out and gradual retreat of wave-/storm-dominated sand bodies (shoreface and/or shore-
face-connected bars). They probably accumulated in a coastal to inner-shelf environment,
which was marginal to the axial part of the palaeo-Baram Delta. Complete coastal
progradation never occurred in this area in Upper Cycle V times with the environment
remaining essentially sub-littoral.
Three main types of vertical facies sequence types are recognized with distinctive
gamma ray log profiles. These sequence probably reflect fluctuations in sediment supply
and repeated base level changes (mainly subsidence-related), in which the latter was
probably significantly influenced by movements along the nearby Betty Growth Fault.
The preservation of both progradational and retrogradational deposits, including the de-
velopment of thick amplified sequences, is indicative of the high subsidence and sedimen-
tation rates within the Baram Delta Province.
Hydrocarbons are trapped within at least twenty-one stacked sand bodies separated
by sealing shales. The bulk of the hydrocarbons are encountered in a single structural
block where trapping is a result of anticlinal dip closure and updip seal against the Betty
Growth Fault. Only minor hydrocarbons are present in subsidiary fault blocks behind the
Betty Growth Fault. Within the Betty structure oil-bearing reservoirs decrease in
thickness and frequency with depth, while both associated primary gas caps and
unassociated gas reservoirs increase in depth (down to 9500 ft I 2895 m sub-sea). This
reflects the thermal maturity profile of oil and gas migration in this area; later expulsion
and migration of gas has led to the preferential displacement of oil by gas in the
structurally deep reservoirs.
Finally, the field's geological model is discussed in relation to production perform-
ance and to reservoir management.

INTRODUCTION
The Betty field is situated 40 km offshore Sarawak (Fig. 1) and lies in the
south western part of the Baram Delta Province (Fig. 2). The nature and origin
of this oil field is typical of many others in this area. The aim of the paper is to
outline the main geological characteristics and to demonstrate their impact on
the field's development.
More specifically the paper discusses the following topics:
geological setting of the Betty field in relation to the Baram Delta Province,
sedimentological controls on vertical and lateral reservoir quality distribu-
tion,
relationship between the sedimentology of the reservoirs and the reservoir
geological framework of the field (subdivision, correlation, etc.), and
structural and stratigraphic framework in relation to aspects ofhydrocarbon
accumulation, reservoir performance and field development.
0 1!10 iiOOKM
....._1111:::::::::=:::::1

BETTY FIELD

SOUTH CHINA SEA

IJ
.
..

Figure 1 : Location map of the Betty field.

 ~" ~?
~·/ ~<r;0
\":>::_··~a / / ~~~ v~ /.. ~
\

\ 'J)Z.,
./
J>
"" " _/ NORTH ;.:
\ .,<!" / -.
LUCONIA

,_.. ./. • ···.. / ...._.. '• ~ .---1'

.·
•·. ._ ·.......
\ ,} ] '\ .• I ..~... ~ x:. _.··
[
....... I."'- . ... ..
\'%. \( ····..... \ ./ ; /
SABAH
'>..-{.._ ..0 d< ~; { ]( RIDGES

rl \ -;1: r\
\ '· ll\ j · \·. ,....;'<_,
·" /••R•o.i /f,Jlf
\
"<.......,, \
[ ~1'- ~I [.........,._.~ _,~/
\ .... .., -'l'\111 ~ ~~~~=~L
WEST LUCONIA

DELTA 0 \:;'$,r..;,-~~"
"'' / }{ DELTA

0
"i_/
F
~ r \~'--''-.1'-'"--~ ~ ~~~~~
o
'\.\ \
u ,/......,::
J c;
(./
o oo
~~
~~ ._.,'-.., '-"""" ~ -P
1" \.t "
A
.a\. \ \{ \-+ ' "'-' r o

NATUNA ~ \ ~ ~r '~"" LU~~NIA

ARCH A \l\~.~~ "\'~
~\ ~' ~
<g,~ ""'~~""'"HALF
o G>IJ\ TATAU WEST
•, \ "\""'> GRABENS

\ ~) \ "-...~ "-....., ""-.., ""'-,"

,k 'i- 1 i ~,.........,-....., ~
() \ j \ sA::wAK -...r..IVV\.fVv...""'

~""'- t \. -r-
-,_
o toO Km
""""' RAJAIVG GROUP
~~-,.....: .
KUC-
~
"~~-t
~
~~
...........
'\["•~ ~'!---,.
.,._
..

______ /--- -.
~+-../
...
..
"
I
.. --.._.

SUNDA '--, ~~
.............. ·....._v-... l.J
SHIELD ...
\...... •-......./ / --

Figure 2 : Geological provinces offshore NW Borneo.

 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BETTY FIELD 123

GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The Baram Delta Province is located in the northern part of Sarawak and
extends north-eastward through Brunei and into the southern part of Sabah
(Fig. 2; Scherer, 1980; James, 1984). The province is bounded to the SW by a
relatively stable platform characterized by carbonate build-ups (the Central
Luconia Province. Fig. 2). A major orogenic belt is situated to theSE, which
comprises folded and uplifted Late Eocene deposits. The latter provided the
hinterland and source area for the palaeo-baram Delta system. The NE boun-
dary of the province is marked by the wrench fault zones of Central Sabah (Bol
and van Hoorn, 1980).
Stratigraphic framework
The Barron Delta stratigraphy comprises a thick (ca. 20- 30,000 ft I 6046 -
9144 m)'accumulation of Middle Miocene to Recent clastic sediments, mainly
comprising coastal to coastal fluviomarine sands and shales, which were depos-
ited in a wave-influenced deltaic environment.
In general the stratigraphic succession comprises a major regressive, sand-
rich deltaic wedge, which built-out in a north- westward direction (Ho Kiam Fui,
1978). Regression was intermittently interrupted by periods of relatively rapid
transgression which resulted in the deposition of laterally extensive marine
shales (fig. 4). These shales form the bases of several smaller-scale regressive-
transgressive clastic wedges or sedimentary "cycles". There are eight such cycles
within the Baram Delta Province (Fig. 4), with the regressive sands within each
cycle grading north-westward into neritic, mainly shaly sediments. The Betty
field reservoirs are located within the third major regressive interval (ca. 7200
- 9650 ft I 2195 - 2941 m sub-sea) and belong to the Upper Cycle V (Figs. 4 and
5).
Structural framework
Since the Middle Miocene, the Baram Delta Province has been a rapidly
subsiding area, particularly relative to the more stable Central Luconia Prov-
ince. The boundary between these two areas is marked by the major NW-SE
trending West Baram hinge-line which is a possible transform fault (James,
1984). A series offractures, which are probably also related to basement faulting,
are believed to have developed into counter-regional growth faults as sediment
loading resulted from the north westward progradation of the Baram Delta. The
major growth faults display a curvilinear trend across the basin (Fig. 2). In
offshore Sarawak the growth faults are mainly SW-NE oriented in the south,
becoming progressively more E-W trending in the north (Fig.3).
In addition to growth fault tectonics, superimposed late Miocene to Pliocene
regional compressional deformation also took place. This deformation increases
in intensity towards the SE and resulted in the formation of a series of NE-SW
tren~g anticlines. These anticlines obliquely intersect the earlier growth
faults and it is at these intersection points that the major hydrocarbon accumu-
lations are located (Fig. 3).
 124 H. D. JoHNSON, T. Kuuo & A. DUNDANG

SHELF

(ffiD GAS FIELD

• OIL FIELD

@ BASIN
Ill • .. ANTICLINAL AXIS
4 I SYNCLINAL AXIS

Figure 3 : Structural framework of the Baram Detta Province in offshore Sarawak

EPOCHS POLLEN CYCLES ZARINA- 1 BERYL-4 W.LUTilf'«3 MIR1
BARONIA BETTY• SARAH BAKAU
TIME ZONES
(IO'VRS) LYDIA- I BERVL-3 BER'tl...-1 F. BARAM BOKOO HASNAH-1 TUKAU SIWA-4

QUATER- Pv2 .581

NARY -=:

= L OC AT ION MA P
sc • ~t • z.ooo.ooo

UPPER PASIR-2 ENGKABA/IG-1

PASIR-3 PASIR-1

UPPER
MIOCENE

MIODLE Sa . 300
MIOCENE

Figure 4 : Stra tigraphic framework of the Baram Delta Province (from Ho Kiam Fui, 1978).
NNW SSE

c BERYL BARONIA BETTY BAKAU TUKAU SIWA MIRI

4000'

sooo'

12,000'

16,000'

LEGEND 0 5 IOKM

CYCLE

m
:'ill - MARINE SHALES
MAINLY COASTAL-
Y. UPPER
SHALLOW MARINE
SAND- BEARING
Y. MIDDLE INTERVALS

Y. LOWER
nz:

Figure 5 : Geological cross-section through the Baram Delta Province.

 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BETIY FIELD 127

Hydrocarbon occurrence
The hydrocarbon accumulations in the Baram Delta, including the Betty
field, are generally found on the downthrown side of the growth faults (Fig. 6).
This is related to a combination of(1) rollover structures and fault seals, and (2)
southerly-directed hydrocarbon migration routes from the more deeply buried
downdip kitchen areas. The Betty field accumulation is located at the intersec-
tion of the Baronia-Betty-Bokor anticline and the Betty Growth Fault.

FACIES AND RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS

The facies and reservoir characteristics of the Betty reservoirs have been
determined from the ca. 1150 ft (350 m) of continuous core from the centrally-
located well BE-5 (Fig. 7).
The reservoirs comprise four main facies types: (1) Sandstone facies (S; Fig.
8), (2) Sandstone-dominated heterolithic facies (Hs, sand content ca. greater
than 50%; Fig. 9), (3) mudstone-dominated heterolithic facies (Hm, sand content
ca.less than 50%; Fig. 10), and (4) Mudstone facies (M; Fig. 10). These main rock
types have been further subdivided into a total of ten subfacies based on
variations in texture, sedimentary structures, bioturation, and porosity/per-
meability. Their main characteristics are summarized below.
Sandstone facies (S)
The sandstone facies comprises the majority of the cored interval (ca. 41 %;
Fig. 11) and is the dominant reservoir rock type. It includes three separate
subfacies, which are summarized below (fig. 8).
Poorly stratified sandstone (Sps) consists mainly of fine to medium grained,
well sorted, friable sandstone, which is either structureless or faintly stratified
(Fig. 8). Reservoir quality is very good: porosity ca. 23%, permeability ca. 1200
mD (Fig. 12).
These sandstone are interpreted as the product of high-energy, wave-
reworking in a shallow marine (nearshore), wave-dominated environment.
Bioturbated sandstone (Sb) consists of fine grained, well sorted sandstone
with abundant vertical and horizontal burrows. The finer grain size accounts for
the slightly reduced reservoir quality compares to the Sps facies: porosity ca.
22%, permeability ca. 4 75 mD (Fig. 12).
These sandstones accumulated in a moderate energy, nearshore environ-
ment in which the rate of bioturbation exceeded the rate of deposition.
Low-angle/parallel laminated to hummocky cross-stratified sandstone
(Slx) comprises fine grained, moderately-sorted sandstone which is character-
ized by well-developed lamination (Fig. 9). The latter range from parallel to low-
angle (less than 10°) and are believed to include hummocky cross-stratification.
NNW SSE
..-----

BARONIA TREND LAILA~BARAI TBEIID BETTY TREND

Approx. Line of Shale -Out and Foresetting. 0 2 KM

Figure 6 : Seismic section along the Baronia-Betty trend.

 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BETTY FIELD 129

UPPER MIOCENE AGE

UPPER CYCLE I STRATIGRAPHY
FLUVIOMARINE
:z: ,...
-

,...
::::j
""a::z:
==
=,...
::::!:!=
,... C')
rnc:;
,...
>

PERMEABILITY
c;
8 MILLIDARCIES
§
Figure 7: Type log of the Upper Miocene, Upper Cycle V interval in the
Betty field (well BE-5)
130 H. D. JoHNSON, T. Kuun & A. D UNDANG

SAND FACIES TYPES

S•\ I{AWM\ SH EL L Ur;JU IA I)

BETTY- 5
C 13 T 251 C 15 T 289 C4T6l C4T64
765 1.3- 7653. 10" 7653. 10 -7856.8"

OS

Figure 8 : Core photographs illustrating the characteristics of the main sand facies type
 SEDIM ENTOLOGY AND RESERVO IR GEOLOGY OF TH E B ETTY FIELD 13 1

SANDS AND ASSOCIATED HETEROLITHIC FACIES TYPES

~AAAWAK ~U:U IJI:UHAD

BETTY - 5
C 12 T 224 C Sl T UIO C 15 T 288 C 2 T 16
8099.8- 81 0 2.8 " 7512 1.0 - 711 23.51" 8<'78.7 - 828 1.7" t.s211 -1s2e.r
0

0'

o;

...

Figure 9 : Core photographs illustrating the characteristics of the sand and sand-dominated
heterolithic facies types
132 H. D . JoHNSON, T. K uuo & A . D uNDANG

MUD AND ASSOCIATED HETEROLITHIC FACIES

~A I IA\Vi\K .,II(LllU:.Hi ll\0

BETTY- 5

Firure 10 : Core photographs illustrating the ch aracteristics of the mud and

mud·dominatod hoterolithic facies typos
 FACIES DISTRIBUTION HISTOGRAMS FROM BE- 5 CORES
SANDSTONE FACIES

( S)
SANDSTONE DOMINATED

HETEROLITHIC FACIES(Hs)
I MUDSTONE DOMNATED HETERa...ITHICI

FACIES (Hm)
MUDSTONE FACIES

(M)

41.22% 29.o% I t6.78% 12.98%

300- 2.53%

250-

17.4%'!!!! !!1!11!
200-
.....
1&1
1&1
II..

z
- tSO-
fl)
fl)
1&1
z 10.3%
9.6%
lS
i:
..... tOO- 8.3%

::::::::::::: ~=~=~=~=~=~=~l=~=~=~=~=~=~==l~fffffl
.•.•.•.•.•.•.• .•.•.•.•.•.•. •.•.•.•.•.•.•. :·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:- 5. 9 Ofo

so-
,::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3 .7°/o
'·.·.········~· ···•·····•··• ·•·•·•·•·•·•·•
•············ ··········•·• ••··••·••·•··• :-:·:·:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: ·.·.·:·:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:- :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-
.
:
1.4.,.

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L---~~~~----~~~====~
SPs SB SLx ShB Shemc HLB HLa HB MB MBSiLx
FACIES TYPE
Figure 11 : Proportion of the main facies and sub-facies types in the BE-5 cores.
 PERMEABILITY (mD)
9
i5 6 0 8 §
0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I I

i5

"'0 e1
0
~
(I)
=i
-<

~ ~·

8J---------------------~------~----------~

Figure 12 : Porosity-permeability characteristics of the main facies types based on the BE-5 cores.
 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BETTY FIELD 135

The fine grain size and abundant lamination result in relatively moderate
reservoir quality: porosity ca. 19%, permeability ca. 90 mD (Fig.12).
These sandstones are interpreted as high-energy storm-deposits,. which
were deposited rapidly, probably below fair-weather wave-base, in a nearshore
to inner neritic environment.
Sandstone-dominated heterolithic facies (Sh)
The sandstone-dominatedhetero:iithic facies consists of sandstones with sig-
nificant proportions of either interstitial (dispersed) or interbedded clays (sand
content ca. 50- 90%). This reser\roir rock type comprises ca. 29% of the cored
interval (Fig. 11) and is divided into two subfacies.
Bioturbated heterolithic.sandstone (Shb) is a common rock type (25% of
cored interval) consisting offme grained, slightly argillaceous sandstone which
has been completely homogenized b y extensive bioturbation (fig. 9). Biogenic
mottling is the dominant macroscopic texture with frequent clay-lined burrows.
The high proportion of dispersed clay is the main cause of the relatively low
reservoir quality: porosity ca. 17%,permeability ca. 52 mD (Fig. 12).
This rock type was deposited in a low-energy inner neritic environment in
which,. the rate of bioturbation exceeded the rate of deposition.
Interbedded sandstone and shale (Shemc) is adistinctive but subordinate
rock type (ca. 4% of cored interval). It comprises individual sandstone beds (0.4
.... 3 ft I 12 em - 1 m thick) which display the following features: (i) erosive base,
(ii) clay clasts, (iii) low-angle to ripple lamination, and (iv) bioturbated or sharp
tops. These 'beds occur in single and amalgamated units and may be overlain by
cm~thick mudstone layers. Reservoir quality is highly variable, but generally
moderate: porosity ca. 1?%, permeability 139 mD (Fig. 12).
This type of deposit is interpreted as an alternation of storm-generated sand-
stone beds interbedded with post-storm and fair weather mudstones (Johnson
and Baldwin, 1986). ·
Mudstone-dominated heterolithic facies (Hm)
The mudstone-dominated heterolithic facies comprises various mudstone li-
thologies (ranging from laminated t9 bioturbated) with up to 50% sandstone
intercalations (Fig. 10). There separate subfacies have been identified (biotur-
bated, lenticular and laminated), which together constitute ca. 17% of the total
ctired interval in BE-5 (Fig. 11). These lithologies form the intra-reservoirs shale
layers (as seen on GR logs) which occur within the main reservoir intervals. This
facies is generally non-reservoir but minor porosity/permeability occurs in some
of the sandier intervals.
Microfauna indicates deposition in a fluviomarine coastal to inner neritic
environment.
136 H. D. JoHNSON, T. Kuuo & A. DuNDANG

Mudstone facies (M)

The mudstone facies (Fig. 10) comprises ca. 13% of the total cores interval
(Fig. 11) and is the dominant rock type of the inter-reservoir shale units (Fig. 4).
This facies forms the main sealing shale-layers within the Betty field.
Microfauna is often sparse but indicates deposition in a fluviomarine coastal
to inner neritic environment.
DEPOSITIONAL MODEL
In general the Upper Cycle V reservoirs in the Betty field can be interpreted
as having accumulated in a sand-rich coastal to fluviomarine environment. This
sand-dominated sequence shales-out basinwards in the Beryl area (ca. 10- 30.
km NW), while coastal plain equivalents may be present along the Tukau-West
Lutongtrend (ca. 30 km to SE; Fig. 5). The main reservoir sands ofthe Betty field,
therefore, accumulated within a board, sand-rich, shallow marine zone which
was several 10's km, possibly up to 70 km, wide.
Sand body development in the Betty field, and other parts of the Delta
Province, was strongly influenced by the following factors: (1) high sedimenta-
tion rates, (2) high subsidence rates (enhanced adjacent to growth faults), (3)
frequent base-level fluctuations (in which rates of eustatic sea-level changes
were subordinate to basin subsidence rates, Hageman, 1987), and (4) a high
wave-energy regime.
The basic element of the Betty field reservoirs are coarsening upward sand
bodies, which formed in a shallow marine environment mainly in response to
wave-/storm-dominated processes (Elliot, 1986; Johnson and Baldwin, 1986).
Individual sand bodies display the following features: (1) sharp basal contact
with the underlying mudstones, (2) abrupt initial coarsening-upward trend, (3)
predominance ofstorm-generated sandstone beds withhigh-energywave-formed
sedimentary structures in the lower part of the coarsening upward sequences
and only minor bioturbation, (4) increased grain-size, sortiD.g and degree of
bioturbation together with a corresponding decrease in stratification and clay
content, and (5) coarse, poorly stratified sands at the top, occasionally with ·shell
lags.
Features notably absent from these sand bodies include the following: (1) no
evidence of tidal activity (lack of clay drapes and current-formed structures), (2)
lack of emergence (no coals or rootlet horizons), and (3) absence of structures
characteristic of beach foreshore/upper shoreface environments.
The absence of these features seems to preclude the origin of these coarsen-
ing upward sand bodies as (1) axial/proximal delta frontlwave-dominated mouth
bars, (2) tidal sand bars, and (3) offshore to beach/foreshore sequence (cf. Elliot,
1986 a and b).
 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BETTY FIELD 137

The remaining possible interpretations for these sand bodies include the fol-
lowing: (1) marginal delta-front sands, (2) stacked inner-shelf to lower/middle
shoreface sequences, and (3) shoreface-connected shelf sand bars. It has not been
possible to distinguish between these possibilities.
Deposition occurred on a broad, shallow wave-/storm-influenced shelfwhich
was actively fed by fluvially-emplaced sands within the palaeo-Baram Delta
complex (eg. predominance of fluvio-marine inner neritic microfauna). The
delta/shoreline configuration has not been established in detail for Upper Cycle
V times but a NE-SW oriented shoreline lying close to the SE is inferred. Given
the processes operating in the present-day Baram Delta (James, 1984) and the
facies characteristics described herein, a linear to broadly, lobate shoreline is
envisaged (cf. Weise, 1980). The shelfhydrodynamic regime, abundant supply of
sand and repeated base level fluctuations are consistent with the development
of a laterally extensive inner-shelfto coastal sand sheet (deposited in up to ca.
50 m water depth, James, 1984). As in the present-day Baram Delta this would
have included a wave-dominated delta front, shoreface (interdeltaic) and trans-
gressive shelf sand deposits (Fig. 13).
This provides a framework for discussing the nature and origin of the
individual reservoir bodies in the Betty field in more detail.
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE BETTY RESERVOmS
A striking feature ofthe Betty reservoirs, indeed the Baram Delta in general,
is the broad, hierarchical range ofvertical facies sequences. It is these sequences
which provide the best means of understanding both the depositional processes/
environment and the reservoir geology of these Upper Cycle V reservoirs. To do
this the cored interval is summarized in terms of three distinctive vertical
progradational-retrogradational facies sequences (Fig. 14): (1) amplified se-
quences, (2) stacked (composite) sequences, and (3) single sequences.
Facies sequence 1
This comprises a single interval of amplified progradational sandstones
overlain by retrogradational sandstone/mudstone deposits (Fig. 15).
Theamplifiedprogradationalsandstonesoccur as single, coarsening upward
sand body complexes (ca. 160ft I 49 m thick) which display the following vertical
facies profile: M-Hm-Slx-Shb/Sb-Sps. Grain size, sorting, porosity and per-
meability all gradually increase upwards. The latter occasionally shows a step-
wise increase but Darcy-range sands are virtually restricted to the well-devel-
oped Sps facies unit at the top (Fig. 15). Intra-reservoir heterogeneity is
relatively minor. Stratification is most commonly preserved only in the lower
parts of these sand bodies, whereas bioturbation is a dominant feature of the
upper parts. The tops of these sand bodies are marked by evidence of high-
energy, wave-reworking (Sps facies) which may represent periods of in-situ
winnowing (e.g. occasional erosion surfaces, shell lags and coarse sand layers are
present).
138 H. D. JoHNSON, T. Kuuo & A. DuNDANG

COARSEST GRAIN
DIAMETER (C)

BRUNEI

SARAWAK

0 20KM

MEDIAN GRAIN
DIAMETER (D50)

LEGEND

A: WAVE-DOMINATE MOUTH BAR

B: BEACH-SHORE FACE
C: WAVE-/STORM-REWORKED, TRANSGRESSIVE
SANDY SHEET
D: TIDAL EMBAYMENT

Figure 13 : Depositional environments associated with the modern Baram Delta

(modified after James, 1984)
 FACIES SEQUENCE TYPES

FT
0

en
~
INNER NERITIC ~
100 SANDSTONES
z
Q
lei
PROGRADATIONAL
0
COASTAL/ ~
SHOREFACE ~
SANDSTONES en
LLI
~
u:

TRANSGRESSIVE
300 SINGLE SHELF MUDSTONES
PROGRADATIONAL-
RETROGRADATIONAL
SEQUENCE (eg. M3 UNIT) AMPLIFIED
PROGRADATIONAL-
STACKED (COMPOSITE) RETROGRADATIONAL
PROGRADATIONAL - SEQUENCE (eg. L3 UNITS)
RETROGRADATIONAL
SEQUENCE (eg. L7 UNIT)

Figure 14 : Facies sequences from the Upper Cycle V reservoirs, illustrating their
gamma ray log profiles and inferred lateral relationships.
a:
LITHOLOGY
GAMMA RAY AND PERMEABILITY
FACIES INTERPRETATION
STRUCTURES ImOl
1000

L3.0 SINGLE (AMPLIFIED l

PROGRADATIONAL

++-r-.H SHOREFACE/DELTA FRONT

SEQUENCE

DOMINANT STRUCTURES MAIN FACIES SEQUENCES

( =) POORLY STRATIFIED 1. POORLY STRATIFIED SANDSTONE \j COARSENING UPWARD SEQUENCE

~ HUMMOCK Y
2 . BIOTURBATED SANDSTONE /J. FINING UPWARD SEQUENCE
~ STRATIFICATION
BIOTURBATED HETEROUTHIC
3. SANDSTONE
4}> BIOTURBATION

4 . LAMINATED SANDSTONE
LITHOLOGY
[;:::::: [ SANDS 5 . SHA LE S

[~ /I SHALES

Figure 15 : Sedimentological and reservoir characteristics of facies sequence 1

(single amplifi ed progradational I retrogradational sequence).
 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BETTY FIELD 141

Retrogradational sandstone/mudstone deposits from extremely hetero-

geneous intervals characterized by rapid alternations of sandstone beds (2 - 10
ft I 0.6 - 3 m thick) and mudstone layers (Fig. 15). Sand content is lower than in
the progradational sequences and there is an overall upward decrease in
reservoir quality. In detail these intervals may include both small-scale coarsen-
ing and fining upward sequences, which are separated by laterally extensive
shales (correlatable fieldwide).
Facies sequence 2
This comprises several smaller-scale, stacked progradational sandstones
overlain by retrogradational sandstone/mudstone deposits (Fig. 16).
The stacked (composite) progradational sandstones are characterized by
several (ca. 2 -4 ) coarsening upward sand bodies (20- 50ft I 6- 15m thick) which
display pronounced step-wise upward increases in porosity and permeability.
The reservoir quality of successive sequences increases upward, mainly in the
form of thin developments of Darcy-range Sps sands at the top of the higher se-
quences (Fig. 16). The thin (ca. 5-10ft/ 1.5- 3m thick) intra-reservoir shales
are laterally extensive and subdivide the reservoir intervals into various subunits.
This type of highly stratified, heterogeneous reservoir contrasts strikingly with
the equivalent, but more homogeneous progradational sand body in facies
sequence 1 (cf. Figs. 15 and 16).
The retrogradational sandstone/mudstone deposits display similar reser-
voir properties to those in facies sequence 1 but are generally thinner (mainly 20
- 40 ft I 6 - 12 m thick).
Facial sequence 3
This comprises several single and relatively thin (ca. 30-60 ft I 9- 18m
thick), lower quality reservoir units which display symmetrical coarsening/
fining upward sequences (Fig. 17). The reservoirs are heterogeneous and can dis-
play significant lateral variations in thickness.
Interpretation
It is inferred that these three facies sequences are genetically-related based
on (1) similar recurring facies types, (2) relative proportion of high- and low-
energy facies, and (3) sequences preserve similar genetic processes. (ie. progra-
dational/retrogradational elements). The sequences are, therefore, interpreted
in terms of a lateral change from a relatively high-energy/shallow water/
proximal setting to a low-energy/deeper water/distal setting. Each sequence
preserves a phase of progradation (Fig. 18) and one of retrogradation (Fig. 19).
This lateral facies/depositional relationship can only be inferred because the
rate of such changes within the Baram Delta takes place probably over several
10's km; within the Betty field itself (less than 1.5 km wide) there are negligible
lateral facies changes within any particular sand body (Fig. 20).
a::
c LITHOlOGY
PERMEABILITY
~;; GAMMA RAY AND INTERPRETATION
STRUCTURES ImOl
14
1000

l6.5

STACKED (COMPOSITE)
PROGRADATIONAL

SHOREFACE/DELTA FRONT
l7.0
SEQUENCE
B

TRANSGRESSIVE SHELF MUDSTONES

DOMINANT STRUCTURES MAIN FACIES SEQUENCES

1. PCXJRLY STRATIFIED SANDSTOIIE COARSENING UPWARD SEQUENCE

(=) PCXJRLY STRATIFIED

2 . BIOTURBATED SANDSTONE FINING UPWARD SEQUENCE

HUMMOCKY
STRATIFICATION

+ BIOTURBATION
3. BIOTURBATED HETERO...ITHlC
SANDSTONE

4. LAMINATED SAHlSTONE
LITHOLOGY
5.SHALES
[2J SA NDS

16'1· ) SHALES

Figure 16 : Sedimentological and reservoir characteristics of facies sequence 2

(stacked I composite progradational I retrogradational sequence).
a::
=
=-t- DE PTH
LITHOLOGY
PERMEABILITY
=-
LLI :z:
GAMMA RAY AND INTERPRETATION
c;:):::;)
14 63
F E ET
STRUClURES lmDI
LLI
a:: 1,000

TRANSGRESSIVE SHELF
SEAL 8 100
MUDSTONE S
SING LE PROGRADATI ON AL I
3.0 RETR OGRA DATI ONAL
S AND BOD Y

8200 TRANSGR ESSIVE SHELF

SEAL
I
M5 .0
SEAL

DOMINANT STRUCTURES MAIN FACIES SEQUENCE

1. POORLY STRATIFIED SANDSTONE COARSENING UPWAR D SEQUENCE

HUMMOCKY
STRATIFICATION
2 . BIOTURBATED SANDSTONE /j, FINING UPWARD SEQUENCE
4)=> BIOTURBATED

c--'- LENTICULAR
4. LAMINATED SANDSTC't<E

LITHOLOGY
5. SHALE S
I:::::::J SANDS

CJ SHALES

Figure 17 : Sedimentological and reservoir characteristics of facies sequence 3

(single progradational I retrogradationa l sequence).
 PROGRADATION

MEAN FAIR WEATHER WAVE BASE

SINGLE
(DISTAL)
COMPOSITE

Figure 18 : Idealized vertical facies sequences through the regressive phase of a variably subsiding and
prograding wave-dominated shoreface.
 n
TRANSGRESSION
RELATIVE
SEA-LEVEL
RISE

RETROGRADATIONAL SANDS-

PROGRADATIONAL SANDS-
SHELF MUDS---~~~~~~~

Figure 19 : Idealized vertical facies sequences through the transgressive phase

of a retrograding shoreface system.
 3 km

100

200

LITHOLOGY PERMEABILITY 300

R RETROGRADATIONAL VARIABLE SAND- SHALE 10-1000 mD

SEQUENCE ALTERNATIONS (PARTIAL SEALS)

HIGH-ENERGY SHALLOW
100-5000 mD
p PROGRADATIONAL MARINE SANDS
SEQUENCE
LOW ENERGY SHALLOW
10-100 mD
MARINE SANDS

SHELF MUDSTONES SEALS

( NB . BASED ON THE L3 RESER'>'OIR, BETTY FIELD, BARAM DELTA PROVINCE)

Figure 20 : Gamma ray log profiles through the coastal I shallow marine reservoirs of the Betty field (L3.0 reservoir), illustrating the
large lateral continuity of the individual units and subunits.
 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BETIY FIELD 147

Some of the sedimentological implications of these sequences are summa-

rized below:
Facies sequence 1 comprises a relatively high-energy shallow marine sand
body. The thick, amplified nature of this sequence reflects a rate of deposition
that was somewhat greater than the rate of sub~idence. Frequent wave-
reworking, resulting from the relatively shallow water depths, probably pre-
vented accumulation of mud layers within the progradational part of the sand
body.
Facies sequence 2 comprises a more heterogeneous progradational interval.
This probably reflects a more irregular history of subsidence and/or sediment
supply rates combined with a lower energy environment which enabled accumu-
lation of extensive mud layers.
Facies sequence 3 comprises strongly bioturbated, argillaceous sandstones
reflecting a low-energy environment in which sedimentation rates were rela-
tively low.
RESERVOm GEOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Reservoir subdivision and correlation
The prospective reservoir sequence in the Betty :field occurs between ca. 7200
-9650 ft/2194- 2941 m sub-sea and comprises up to twenty-one separate hydro-
carbon-bearing reservoirs (Fig. 21). The two most striking features of this
reservoir sequence are (1) vertical heterogeneity, and (2) lateral homogeneity
(high continuity; Figs. 20 and 21).
The vertical heterogeneity and widespread lateral extent of both sealing
shales and individual facies types has resulted in a hierarchical reservoir
subdivision comprising units, sub-units and layers. These are directly corre-
latable with the sedimentological characteristics describe earlier. Well log
correlation demonstrates extremely high continuity, even of very thin sand/
shale layers (Fig. 20). Furthermore, many of the thin shale layers form either
baftles or seals. Thus the rock property/permeability profile established from the
BE-5 cores can be reasonably extrapolated throughout the whole field with
negligible lateral variations in reservoir quality apparent.
Thickness variations
Within the main downthrown fault block there is an overall thinning of ca.
10% in total thickness of the Betty reservoir sequence when traced towards the
NE. This appears to reflect a reduction in subsidence away from the Betty
Growth Fault.
Individual reservoirs also display the same trend. In addition, both gross and
net sand thickness patterns often display lobate geometries, with occasional
thinning to the E and W parallel to the growth fault.
Sl IE
BE-8 BE-18 BE-5 BE-13 BE-17SDTR BE-15

0 "!""'

Figure 21 : Gamma ray log correlation panel through the main Betty field reservoirs.
 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BETTY FIELD 149

Structure and hydrocarbon distribution

The Betty field is a gently-dipping (ca. 8°), dome-shaped, rollover anticline
(Fig. 22) situated at the intersection of the Baronia-Betty-Bokor anticlinal trend
and the north hading Betty Growth Fault (Fig. 3).
The growth fault forms the main updip seal for hydrocarbon trapping and it
also controlled sediment accumulation, with a significantlythicker succession of
sediment on the downthrown side ofthe fault (average growth index 2.70). The
closely associated Betty Boundary Fault (Fig. 22) appears to be a secondary split
on the upthrown side of the main growth fault. In this latter area correlation
shows similar sediment thicknesses on either side of the Betty Boundary Fault,
thereby demonstrating that it is not a growth fault (Fig. 23).
The main hydrocarbon accumulation is situated on the downthrown side of
the Betty Growth Fault (Fig. 24). The accumulation comprise a series of stacked
reservoirs each separated by sealing shales. There is a stepwise increase in
reservoir pressure with depth (Fig. 25). This is also accompanied by an increase
in gas cap size, an increase in the frequency of gas-bearing reservoirs and a
corresponding decrease in oil-bearing reservoirs with depth.
Only minor hydrocarbons are found on the upthrown side ofthe growth fault
(Block 2), confirming the effectiveness of this fault as a seal (Fig. 24). The overall
hydrocarbon distribution suggests a southerly-directed primary migration path
along the Baronia-Betty-Bokor anticlinal trend. Leakages into Block 2 may have
occurred at the branch-off points of the Betty Growth Fault and the Betty
Boundary Fault (Fig. 22).
FIELD APPRAISAL AND DEVELOPMENT
Betty field history
The Betty field is one of nine commercial oil fields currently under develop-
ment in the Sarawak part of the Baram Delta Province (Fig. 3). The field was
discovered in 1967/68 by the near crestal well BE-l. This was followed up by
three largely unsuccessful exploratory appraisal wells (BE-2 in 1968, BE-3 in
1973 and BE-4 in 1975) drilled on and around the Betty West satellite structure,
some 12 km west of the BE-l accumulation.
The Betty field is of moderate size (total recoverable reserves ca. 105
MMSTB) and is being developed from a single, 24-slot, centrally-located drilling
platform (BEDP-A), which was installed in 1978 (Fig. 22). Initial drilling
comprised a vertical appraisal/development well (BE-5), which extensively cored
the main reservoir interval, and was followed by eight additional development
wells. a second round of development drilling took place in 1984/85 (one
appraisal well/four development wells) and a third round followed in 1987/88
(ten development well/three workovers).
.. -
LEGEND

~-
~
[ililill] GAS

. OIL

owe OIL WATER CONTACT

GOC GAS OIL CONTACT
A~ LINE OF CORRELATION
(Ref. Fig. 15)

0 I~

0 3o0o FT.

Figure 22: Structure map of the top L3.0 reservoir.

 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BETIY FIELD 151

BETTY OOWNTHROWN BLOCK BOKOR BLOCK

BE-~ BE-14 BE-ll B0-2

.......J
~
cl
~

....X
:I
0
a::
"'
........>- >
a::
cl
LtJ 0
CD z
::J
0
CD

>
J:LtJ
CD 0 3000 FT

Figure 23 : Well log correlation from the Betty downthrown block, across the Betty Growth
Fault and Betty Boundary Fault, and into the Bokor block (to 8)
 N BEDP- A s
BE-5
BLOCK I

LEGEND
!IT] GAS

TO. 967'iss D OIL

IZ2:I
POSSIBLE OIL
~ HYDROCARBON

---z____ ~::::.-~~--~
86 "SHALE-OUT" LINE
---=-- ~WATER

e PRODUCING RESERVOIRS
.e:::...-- - - -=- ------
UNDERCOMPACTED PRO-DELTA SHALES
0 625 ~FT.

Figure 24 : N-S structural cross-section through the Betty field illustrating hydrocarbon distribution.
 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BE1TY FIELD 153

3500 4000 uoo 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 BODO
PRESSURE ( PSIA )

p 1.0
92

94

95

96
\
97
\
98

99

10000

Figure 25 : Initial reservoir pressures versus depth through

the main Betty reservoirs
154 H. D. JoHNSON, T. Kuuo & A. DuNDANG

The discovery, appraisal and initial development of the filed was undertaken
by Sarawak Shell Berhad up to august 1988. Subsequently, it is now being
developed by a joint venture (Baram Delta Operations) between PETRONAS
Carigali (Operator) and Sarawak Shell Berhad.
Reservoir performance
The main development activity has been directed towards the shallower oil-
bearing reservoirs and, as discussed earlier, has been conducted in a phased
manner. The three main development campaigns and associated production
data enable observations to be made on the relationship between the geological
model and :r:eservoir performance.
Production began at the end of 1978 and the reservoirs can be classified in
terms of their main drive mechanisms as follows: (1) strong water drive
reservoirs (L3.0 and L7 .0), (2) weak/moderate water drive reservoirs (L6.0, L6.5
and M7.0), and (3) weak water drive reservoirs (M3.0, M5.0 and Nl.O). In the
latter two cases solution gas and gas cap expansion provide additional reservoir
energy.
The results of infill wells demonstrate that prediction of gas/oil and oil/water
contacts is difficult due to the composite nature of the reservoirs. Most signifi-
cant is the variable vertical distribution of high and low quality reservoirs and
the field-wide lateral extent of many of the impermeable shale layers. This has
a direct impact on reservoir performance. Water production, for example, is
particularly sensitive to rock quality (permeability), drainage point location,
withdrawal rate and differential production, including localized water fingering
along high permeability zones. This situation is apparent in the L3.0 reservoir
(Fig. 26) where there is preferential upward movement of the oil/water contact
within, and local increased water production from, the higher quality reservoir
units (A, B, C, and D). In contrast, there is negligible contact movement within
the lower quality E unit, which is relatively undrained (Fig. 26). In the case of
units A, B, and C preferential water flooding must be within a few thin, high
permeability layers. More uniform water encroachment within the relatively
homogeneous unit D is anticipated.
Lateral variations in water front encroachment is also apparent (Fig. 27). In
the L3.0 reservoir, for example, water production started in wells BE-8 and -12
in 1981/1982 but not in wells BE-9 and -13 which are located on the eastern flank
of the field and were completed within the same unit and at similar structural
levels. It was only later in 1983/84 that water production began to show up in BE-
9 and -13. This delay in water production on the eastern flank is due mainly to
the fewer drainage points compared to the west flank.
Completion strategy
The detailed reservoir subdivision based on the sedimentology and reservoir
geological framework has resulted in a more optimal selection of completion
intervals during the second phase of development drilling.
 LEGEND

D OIL DEPTH
2A6

I
[llijJ GAS
FT. SS.
7300
16
I
I 1
~- SHALE 1750
~

I
WATER
PERFORATION
I

7500

I ;z('---lf OV.C LEVEL FOR UNIT !j

E IN 1985 REMAIN AS :::>
ORIGIONAL. LI

NOTE .
OWC I : Contact level in 1981
owe 2 : COntact level in
1983/64.
OWC 3 : Contact level in 1964
//
/
/

-~=~ CONCEPTUAL X-SECTION (L3·0 RESERVOIR)

Figure 26 : Fluid distribution in the L3.0 reservoir.

 LEGEND

b~g~H GAS

D OIL
"7'777 WATER
Q WELL LOCATION

1\11,672,000'

INITIAL OWC LEVEL

Figure 27 a: Water front movements in the L3.0 reservoir.

 LEGEND

H ~'~~ I GAS

D OIL
WATER
Q WELL LOCATION

N 1,672,000'

0 IKM
o~--~===-----3o~o~FT.
OIL WATER CONTACT LEVEL (0WC1), 198111982

Figure 27 b: Water front movements in the L3.0 reservoir.

 ~

~
mwwm GAs

~OIL
~
7'77'77 WATER
Q WELL LOCATION

owe 2

N 1,672.000

y I
I~M
0 3000 FT.
OIL-WATER CONTACT LEVEL (OWC 2),198311984

Figure 27 c: Water front movements in the L3.0 reservoir.

 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BETTY FIELD 159

In well 2A6 (Fig. 26), for example, all the reservoir sub-units of L3.0 are
completed, including sub-unit A in the gas cap. In this way preferential water
flooding of individual units is minimised and enables gas cap blowdown which
will maximise oil recovery.
Based on the foregoing it is apparent that a correct appreciation of the
detailed reservoir subdivision, permeability distribution and vertical connectiv-
ity is vital to ensure an optimum drainage/completion philosophy and to guide
reservoir management. The latter is particularly important as the field's matur-
ity increases, accompanied by higher water-cut and gas/oil ratio. The Betty
reservoir model is, therefore, being used to guide the field's development (Fig.
28).
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Betty field reservoirs (late Miocene/Upper Cycle V) comprise a stacked
succession of shallow marine sandstones and shales whose detailed sedimentol-
ogical/reservoir geological characteristics were determined from ca. 1150 ft I 350
m of continuous core from the appraisal/development well BE-5. Early acquisi-
tion of these data helped subsequent detailed reservoir studies.
2. Facies analysis of the cores indicates that this succession comprises four main
facies types (sandstone, sandstone- and mudstone-dominated heterolithic, and
mudstone facies). Sedimentological and palaeontological data support deposi-
tion in a wave-/storm-influenced, inner neritic to coastal environment. As a
result, this sand-rich succession is characterized by marked lateral continuity of
all facies types, with even thin (eg. less than 10 ft I 3 m thick) sand and shale
layers often extending field-wide.
3. Vertical facies successions are characterized by repeated progradational/
retrogradational units of which three main types are apparent:
- Facies sequence 1 includes a single amplified sequence in which the prograda-
tional unit contains well-developed high-energy sandstones.
-Facies sequence 2 is characterized by a composite progradational unit with
intercalated shale layers.
-Facies sequence 3 is a single symmetrical unit with relatively low-energy facies.
These sequences have distinctive gamma ray log shapes, predictable reservoir
quality (permeability) profiles and appear to partly reflect a depositional
continuum form high- to low-energy.
4. Individual facies sequences occur field-wide with negligible lateral variations
in reservoir quality and log response. This framework provides the basis for
detailed reservoir subdivision into a hierarchy of several units, sub-units and
layers.
5. Hydrocarbons are contained in numerous stacked reservoirs (up to twenty
one) within a simple, dome-shaped anticlinal structure, in which updip trapping
is provided by the Betty Growth Fault. The structure occurs at the intersection
of the Betty Growth Fault and the Baronia-Betty-Bokor trend.
 I SEDIMENTOLOGY I ROCK STUDIES I
I FACIES ANALYSIS

I RESERVOIR PROPERTIES GENETIC UNITS. DEPOSITIONAL MODEL

l LOG RESPONSE

:RESERVOIR GEOLOGY I STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK STUDIES ~

--1 RESERVOIR SUBDIVISION

---1 CORRELATION (GENETIC UNITS)

I-
I
I
THICKNESS AND SAND r--
-I RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY r-
QUALITY TREND STUDIES

~ STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK ~
_____.,
RESERVOIR AND
STRUCTURAL GEOL.
MODELS -
I APPLICATION OF GEOLOGICAL MODELS
I
.1. ,j, ,j, ,j,

HYDROCARBON DISTR. MONITORING WELL PREDICTING FUTURE - INFILL WELL

8 PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE -LOCATIONS
-FOP UPDATE
VOLUMETRICS - PRESSURE - E.G. WATERFLOOD - E.G. UNSWEPT
- WATER CUT MOVEMENTS ZONES
- GAS CUT
I
~
I
:i

Figure 28 : Framework and application of reservoir geological studies in the Betty field.
 SEDIMENTOLOGY AND RESERVOIR GEOLOGY OF THE BETIY FIELD 161

6. The following trends are apparent with increasing depth:

-increase in gas cap size
- increase in frequency of gas-bearing reservoirs
-decrease in oil-bearing reservoirs
- step-wise increase in original reservoir pressures
7. Reservoir performance indicates that the continuity and quality of individual
units/sub-units plays an important role. In reservoirs with strong water drive,
for example, water-cut trends can be matched with high permeability layers,
which enables changes in oil/water contacts to be better monitored. Infill wells
and completion patterns can also be guided by reference to the detailed reservoir
geological model in order to ensure optimum drainage/oil recovery.
8. The sedimentological framework described in this paper may be applicable to
other Baram Delta Province oil fields with similar reservoirs.
ACKNOW1EDGEMENTS
The geology of the Betty field has benefitted from the work of several
generations ofShellgeologists and geophysicists who are gratefully acknowledged.
We would particularly like to thank the sedimentological studies of M. van
Panhuys and J.A. Archer, which have been incorporated into this paper.
Permission to publish this paper was kindly granted by Shell Internationale
Petroleum Maatschaapij B.V., The Hague; PETRONAS, Kuala Lumpur; and
PETRONAS Carigali, Kuala Lumpur.
REFERENCES
ELLIOT, T. 1986a. Deltas. In: H. G. Reading (Ed.) Sedimentary Environments and Facies, 2nd Ed.,
(pp 113 - 154)
ELLIOT, T. 1986b. Siliclastic Shorelines. In: H.G. Reading (Ed.) Sedimentary Environments and
Facies, 2nd Ed., (pp 115 - 188)
HAGEMAN, H. 1987. Palaeobathymatrical changes in NW Sarawak during Oligocene to Pliocene.
Goel. Soc. Malaysia Bull., 21, pp 91- 102
Ho KIAM Fur, 1987. Stratigraphic framework for oil exploration in Sarawak. Geol. Soc. Malaysia
Bull., 10, pp 1- 13
JAMES, D.M.D. 1984. The Geology and Hydrocarbon Resources of Negara Brunei Darussalam.
Muzium Brunei, pp 169
JoHNSON, H. D. and BALDWIN, C. T. 1986. Shallow Siliciclastic Seas. In: H. G. Reading (Ed.) Sedimen-
tary Environments and Facies, 2nd Ed., (pp 229- 282)
ScHERER, F.C. 1980. Exploration in East Malaysia over the last decade. In: M.t. Halbouty (Ed.)
Giant oil and gas fields of the decade 1968-78. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Mem., 30, pp 423-440
WEISE, B.R, 1980. Wave-dominated delta systems of the Upper Cretaceous San Miguel Formation,
Maverick Basin, south Texas. Report of Investigations, 107, 33 pp. Bureau of Economic
Geology, University of Texas, Austin.
Manuscript received 1st November 1989.